Based Camp - September 11, 2023Simone's First Thoughts on Jordan Peterson's The 12 Rules for Life
Episode Stats
Words per minute
185.88802
Harmful content
Misogyny
11
sentences flagged
Toxicity
23
sentences flagged
Hate speech
13
sentences flagged
Summary
In this episode, we talk about Jordan Peterson's self-help philosophy and how it intersects with our own ideas and philosophies. We discuss the differences between our ideas and Peterson's, and how they differ from each other.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
I think that's kind of what it is with Jordan Peterson that, okay, the tendency isn't exactly
00:00:04.040
to be like this paternalistic disciplined ideal, this ordered ideal.
00:00:07.620
But I think many readers would love a vision in which masculine equals order, in which
00:00:13.700
masculine is this like calm, paternalistic, ordered force that makes everything okay.
00:00:20.220
I mean, again, it brings me back to the daddy concept.
00:00:24.700
It's created almost a feminine lens through which masculinity can be translated.
1.00
00:00:29.420
I wouldn't say, no, I wouldn't say it's feminine and I wouldn't, and he would find this an
0.99
00:00:33.620
affront because he really hates infantilism, but I think it's an infantilized version of
00:00:40.080
So Malcolm, you gave me a little bit of a homework assignment this week, didn't you?
00:00:44.700
Well, so we were going to do a video on some of Jordan Peterson's ideas and, and sort of
00:00:50.780
where our ideas contrast was his and where our ideas align with his.
00:00:56.620
We have to, yeah, I have to at least read one of his books before we do that.
00:01:05.920
And then we'll have a conversation every day about it.
00:01:07.960
And recently she started reading her or our first Jordan Peterson book to actually, you
00:01:22.800
His, his big, hers, his first big for public consumption book.
00:01:32.180
So what we're going to talk about is your first thoughts on reading it.
00:01:41.200
Or really what seems to differentiate what more specifically, what seems to differentiate
00:01:46.420
us from Jordan Peterson in his philosophy, because there's a lot that I think we hold
00:01:53.840
And then there's a lot that we really, really don't.
00:01:58.060
Like I, I read a lot of what he says and I'm like, yeah, no, absolutely.
00:02:01.540
And then he'll say something else and it'd be like, oh, oh my gosh.
00:02:06.680
And it's, it's unusual, I think, to come across an author, especially in the
00:02:10.620
someone discussing psychology, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, et cetera, self-help
00:02:21.680
And sometimes don't usually it's, we're 100% on board.
00:02:25.640
Or we, we, this is, I can't even listen to this without having an aneurysm, even though
00:02:32.320
So let's talk about, I mean, so the first thing that I think really, when you were talking
00:02:36.060
to me, you're like this, because this is another area that we've been digging into
00:02:39.740
recently, it seems really influenced by Jungian psychology.
00:02:45.700
I think really what he's done is he's, he's dressed up Jungian psychology to make it much
00:02:50.900
more palatable to a modern, broadly millennial, a little bit Gen Z audience by adding a ton
00:02:59.200
of evolutionary biology and neuroscience and like discussion of social science studies and
00:03:06.980
So he'll mention, for example, go ahead, Malcolm.
00:03:10.100
I was going to say, you were saying yesterday when you told me about this, but not to the
00:03:14.860
The core of his point is typically Jungian psychology.
00:03:17.960
And then he'll add a bunch of anecdotes that might not be directly connected to it that
00:03:21.880
are like about evolutionary psychology or something.
00:03:26.360
I mean, I think it's, it's hard, it's hard for me to articulate really well, but my understanding
00:03:31.340
of a big thesis that Jordan Peterson holds is, and this is so close to what we, you specifically
00:03:38.540
have argued in the pragmatist guide to religion, but differently.
00:03:41.420
So in the pragmatist guide to religion, you point out that humans have evolved in concert
00:03:48.140
with culture and religion, that we, our biology is designed to work with culture and religion.
00:03:53.960
And when you strip that away, things fall apart, but then you proceed in, in all of our books
00:03:58.600
to make very logical arguments and appeals to people about relationships, about sexuality,
00:04:05.320
about life philosophy, about all sorts of things, right?
00:04:08.580
Like it is all, and you know, the people who, who like our books also like that we are robotic
00:04:18.640
Sorry, Simone, you know, the new word is hautistic.
00:04:26.400
So then the criticisms that we commonly get are, oh, you're missing the soul.
00:04:34.360
Like there's, there's this much more like touchy feely thing.
00:04:37.160
And every time we get these criticisms, I, I think I literally lack the element or processing
00:04:43.140
or software that is required to understand what they're talking about.
00:04:45.680
Now, Jordan Peterson starts with the same argument.
00:04:48.760
He essentially says that, you know, humans have evolved with stories and religion.
00:04:55.880
It is the software on which our hardware is meant to work.
00:05:01.400
It is that, you know, science, the scientific method and rationality, these were only introduced
00:05:09.820
Which I think is a sort of dubious claim because I mean, I think that there's a lot of logic and
00:05:15.420
But whatever, we're going to throw that aside for a second, but my, my, my very strong impression
00:05:19.980
and what I'm surprised no one's really discussing is he's basically saying, no, no, no.
00:05:29.660
Humans must understand or fix themselves, fix their psychology, make decisions through
00:05:35.260
interactions with religion, through interactions with narratives.
00:05:40.480
And this reminds me a lot of a podcast that Spencer Greenberg did with some kind of psychologist
00:05:45.120
and where Spencer, you can tell he's a very rational person like us.
00:05:49.620
I think he's much more like on the autist end of the spectrum.
0.97
00:05:52.120
And he, he keeps asking this person that he's interviewing, well, but is this evidence-based?
00:05:58.720
Is this psychological intervention evidence-based?
00:06:00.980
You know, what, what is it robustly proven to work?
00:06:03.740
And the, the guy he was interviewing kept saying things like, you know, it doesn't really matter
00:06:10.640
Like it could be like the stupidest, like Freudian, you know, nonsense.
1.00
00:06:17.040
It could be like anything that's not replicable scientifically, but if it works for a person,
00:06:27.740
And I think that this, there's this really interesting, like Jordan Peterson is helping
00:06:31.240
me to understand this like parallel universe of people who really do only see the world
00:06:39.420
in these like emotions and stories and narratives and like religious stories.
00:06:46.040
Like Jordan Peterson, for example, frequently throughout the book so far will refer to biblical
00:06:56.200
And I, I think it's this presumption that humans need those to, to reason.
00:07:03.580
So, so my, my secondhand read on, on hearing some of the analysis of this.
00:07:09.340
And so first let's talk about when I see something is Jungian psychology.
00:07:13.160
Cause I actually think when somebody says Jungian psychology, they're actually using a euphemism.
00:07:18.440
Jungian psychology is just Freudian psychology, but everyone knows Freud was like had some wacky
0.98
00:07:25.700
ideas and was a bit of a dumb ass at times.
0.91
00:07:28.200
And so they, instead of saying, I am a Freudian psychologist, they'll say I'm a Jungian psychologist.
0.99
00:07:33.860
Well, and I think that's broadly because like most people have heard Freud's theories and
00:07:37.800
they've also heard Freud's theories like roundly.
00:07:43.120
But then no one, not that many people have been taught about Jung.
00:07:47.880
Well, and Jung didn't say as much, obviously stupid stuff, but they both, both of their
0.80
00:07:53.280
psychological frameworks are broadly about narratives, but in a different way.
00:07:59.560
So our psychological framework, you've heard from our episodes, we very much believe in
00:08:04.100
a narrative driven psychological framework, right?
00:08:06.860
But we see the narratives as really instrumental tools to dominance over your mind.
00:08:14.860
Yeah, well, yeah, so the problem, it's, it's like you agree with Jordan Peterson, but at
00:08:18.920
the same time, rather than you still assume that the human is rational, you're like, instead
00:08:22.840
of using a narrative to like dumb it down for the human.
00:08:25.400
I assume that humans can hijack these systems that they have.
00:08:28.980
I still think at the end of the day, everything in our brains is mechanical and broadly understandable,
00:08:34.620
but the way, the tool you use for engaging them can be intentionally constructed narratives.
00:08:41.460
However, a, to a Jungian psychologist, the way that they actually structure their logic
00:08:48.520
when thinking about the human mind is in terms of narrative.
00:08:52.020
So Jungian and Freudian psychology is, is it the, the core difference between it in our
00:09:00.740
Is our system says, yes, narratives are important to restructuring the mind.
00:09:06.220
But when you are engaged with the logical thought and trying to figure out how the world should
00:09:11.340
work, you can ignore narratives, have these logical, these brief moments of actual logical
00:09:17.800
thought, and then use that logical thought to build the narrative tools to begin hacking
00:09:24.740
Whereas for Freud, when he's trying to investigate the mind, when he's trying to determine how the
00:09:31.500
world actually works, and this is the chemistry for Jungian psychology, they work, they lean
00:09:35.840
really heavily into narratives, into analogies and into stories in a different way of structuring
00:09:47.360
So a good example I can give of this is somebody is asking me, like, how do you structure your
00:09:53.020
And I think this is actually a really interesting question because there's a few ways that a
00:09:58.160
So I think the way that the average, like, progressive, woke, urban, monocultural person
00:10:02.900
structure to their mind is they try to make their mind a democracy of all the various impulses
00:10:08.580
and voices in their mind, you know, whether that's their experiences from childhood, their impulses to,
00:10:16.240
I want to go have sex, their, all of the various parts of their mind, they all get a vote, and you are
00:10:21.920
mentally healthy when you have satisfied utilitarianly the maximum number of these
0.98
00:10:32.740
We structure our brain as a complete dictatorship.
00:10:39.960
It owns all other parts of the brain and is whipping them and telling them, you do this, you do this.
00:10:51.520
And if you can't get out of something without another narrative, then fine, I'll make one for
00:10:58.460
Then I will make you the worst food possible, and you're forced to eat this food.
00:11:03.180
I mean, we try to, you know, create good narratives for ourselves.
00:11:05.520
But at the end of the day, our brains are structured as a dictatorship.
00:11:08.780
In Jungian psychology, Freudian psychology, and Jordan Peterson mindsets, like the way that
00:11:15.340
he's approaching things, the brain is also structured as a dictatorship, but the person
00:11:21.060
in charge is the internal storyteller and not exactly the internal cold logic person.
00:11:29.540
So we have a lot in common in that we understand the importance of the storyteller, but the storyteller
00:11:35.860
is more like, for us in like a communist government, the head of PR that's still working under
00:11:41.720
the dictator and still is only putting out PR pieces that the dictator tells them to.
00:11:46.260
Whereas in Jungian psychology, the storyteller is sort of in a co-partnership with the dictator
00:11:53.800
Now, I'm not sure because in one part of the book I've read so far, Jordan Peterson encourages
00:12:01.220
the reader to have a conversation with oneself, like to admit one's weakness, but then be
00:12:08.040
a kinder, like a lot of his book is sort of written with, here's how to become a paternalistic
00:12:13.560
dominant, like father figure in everything, like to your children, to your friends, but
00:12:20.780
And so he describes this scenario in which you notice that you are dragging your feet on
00:12:26.620
washing the dishes so you like internally promise yourself like, oh, well, what if I took you
00:12:33.180
And then he like warns the reader to, well, you'd really better take yourself out for the
00:12:37.680
And then you'll discover that this pays dividends over time because you've learned how to incentivize
00:12:44.260
So I don't know what that is, but I'm just saying that's not necessarily-
00:12:50.060
He is negotiating with the various parts of his brain through like-
00:12:57.920
Like in the same way that I talked about, you know, to a progressive, you want this pure
00:13:04.420
And with us, you want a pure dictatorship while also understanding, I mean, you look at us,
00:13:10.280
Like one of the core aspects of our philosophy is all humans are wretched and fallen and that
00:13:16.840
you should not be surprised that you sin, but you should never glorify the sin.
00:13:21.460
You should never say my sin is actually a virtue.
00:13:23.940
He would say the same way, but the way that he relates to these different voices in his
00:13:29.880
brain is much more appeasing instead of as a dictator who's like, I guess if I don't give
00:13:34.920
this population what they want, there's probably going to be a revolt.
00:13:44.400
The, uh, it's a different way of managing the fractured self.
00:13:53.040
Um, would you say that that's accurate or like, I guess, yeah, I think what's different
00:13:58.700
about the way that Jordan Peterson presents it is he, he, he like does it in stories and
00:14:13.780
If you, if you look at him talking and everything like that, he's much more sympathetic towards
00:14:20.580
You can tell he's, he's, he's a person who's deeply affected by sympathy.
00:14:24.180
You know, like the, him crying what a woman called men incels.
00:14:27.160
And he's like, how could you just dehumanize this huge portion of the human population?
00:14:31.520
And then, you know, somebody's like incels around us.
00:14:34.080
And I'm like, well, they're not breeding, so they don't terribly matter.
00:14:36.680
I mean, I realized they might make up a voting block for us, but long-term they're being
00:14:41.700
removed from the gene pool and they probably should be.
00:14:46.280
It's a sociopathic, ruthless mindset versus this, this kind mindset that, that, that genuinely
00:14:55.820
So I'd love it if you could talk about the things that he has said, where you are like,
00:15:06.300
A lot of it has to do with insisting, like drawing connections that I don't think are there.
00:15:13.160
He has a chapter on why it's really important to take care of yourself and how humans are
00:15:19.880
For example, at taking medication, even if, for example, they get a kidney transplant and
00:15:23.940
having the medication to stop your kidney from getting rejected is so important.
00:15:27.840
People are even not that conscientious on that front.
00:15:30.240
And yet it appears, according to him, that the rates of successful drug administration
00:15:34.840
to pets is incredibly high, much higher than it is for humans who really, really, really
00:15:41.040
So that is evidence that humans know how to administer medications and yet they don't take
00:15:45.620
And then he goes into this whole, like, basically humans don't do it because original sin.
00:15:53.140
And, you know, in some ways his take is so similar to ours.
0.93
00:15:56.260
Well, humans are wretched, you know, like we're flawed, we're messed up.
1.00
00:15:59.040
He keeps saying that, you know, you are, you know, like a pathetic person and you can barely
1.00
00:16:03.720
And he admits like he definitely is on the humans are wretched camp, but then he'll like, I think
0.94
00:16:09.420
because of his whole thesis around humans have to understand everything through stories
00:16:13.420
and religion is super strong, he'll argue things like, oh, well, we hate ourselves because
00:16:21.220
And he'll go into like the whole story of the Guardian.
00:16:25.980
And it's just, this isn't helping me and I don't see how this is effective and I don't
00:16:33.060
And he, and then some other part that I just read this morning, he, he, he pointed out how,
00:16:41.320
you know, an atheist might say, well, but I'm not religious.
00:16:53.980
I mean, like I read crime and punishment and sure it's, it's, it's not really a story
00:16:59.780
It's a story about stupidity and poverty and, and like gross people with yellow teeth.
1.00
00:17:06.820
So a lot of, a lot of it is, I guess what, what's rubbing me the wrong way is I feel like
00:17:11.160
there's a certain amount of intellectual gatekeeping taking place.
00:17:15.440
And maybe what works a lot about Jungian psychology and all this narrative-based arguing, and maybe
00:17:20.080
this happens a lot within religious communities is people to sort of start using these stories
00:17:24.680
and these analogies and like our mind is trained to get like lulled into a sort of sense of
00:17:30.180
calmness and you're kind of following the story and yeah, yeah, yeah.
00:17:33.380
And you sort of like lose yourself in it and everything sort of becomes yes, Andy.
00:17:38.740
And then you just assume that, oh yeah, it's right.
00:17:41.720
You sort of stop thinking critically because you're following the story.
00:17:46.280
But I think that's a way to trick people into thinking that you're right without arguing
00:17:56.340
It's, it's, it's the, the flute player to the, to the snake, right?
00:18:01.080
Like Jungian psychology can soothe parts of your, your mind, you know, it can, but it's
00:18:08.240
very similar to mystical thinking in a religious context.
00:18:11.960
And people should know how antagonistic we are to mysticism and mystical thinking.
00:18:16.380
I mean, I think it just intrinsically comes off in like the way that we engage things.
00:18:20.200
Jungianism can almost be thought of as the secular version of mystical thinking.
00:18:29.200
And it reminds me, you know, when you talk about him in religion, something you said to
00:18:34.060
me on a walk one day, when you were comparing me to Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate in our
00:18:40.520
engagement with religious ideals, where you're like, Malcolm, you've got God.
00:18:45.560
Like you, by that, what you mean is I 100% both believe in a God and I'm like really,
00:18:56.440
And it changes like sort of, I guess you could say the passion was which I pursue life and
00:19:05.060
And you're like, Jordan Peterson is someone who sees the value in getting God, but that
00:19:10.200
doesn't have God and, and it sees no path for him to get it.
00:19:14.760
And, and because of that, you feel a deep sadness from everything he's doing.
00:19:21.800
There is a lot of, there's definitely a preachery feel from his book and there, there is a different
00:19:32.780
I think maybe you're just differentiating like, what did you mean when you said this
00:19:37.300
on the walk or have you changed your mind when I, what, when I said what, that I just
00:19:42.840
didn't feel like you didn't feel that this was your, your analysis on the walk was he
00:19:48.800
was somebody who understood the value of having it, but wasn't able to get himself to really
00:19:54.600
And so he was preaching it without like really engaging himself.
00:19:58.420
And then you contrast it with Andrew Tate, which is somebody who both understood the
00:20:02.540
value in it and was trying as hard as he could to believe it, but really didn't fully like
00:20:11.060
And, and so you could see a bit more passion behind what he was doing, but there was an
00:20:17.700
I think the difference between faith and Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate is more, I don't think
00:20:24.080
that they necessarily have differing levels of faith.
00:20:28.080
So I think Jordan Peterson is someone who extremely logically chose to have faith.
00:20:36.460
I don't get the impression that he's felt faith really strongly.
00:20:42.980
He doesn't act like someone who's been like moved by Jesus or anything.
00:20:46.400
And he sounds like someone who has studied very deeply the Bible and sort of decided for
00:20:52.200
himself that, that Western Christianity, broadly speaking is sort of the correct way and the
00:21:00.540
Whereas my impression is that with religion, Andrew Tate takes a much more charismatic and
00:21:07.300
intuitive and like gut sense impression with religion.
00:21:12.060
Like he's less like getting into the weeds with the literature and more, here's what resonates
00:21:20.640
But I don't think that they necessarily have varying levels of faith.
00:21:23.800
I mean, I think to say like being moved in a very like spiritual or emotional way doesn't
00:21:29.240
necessarily mean that you're more faithful than someone who just engages in a less, like
00:21:33.140
a slightly more dispassionate, but still intellectually very passionate way with a religion.
00:21:39.780
And I do, I do agree that it's the, it's the, the charismatic aspects that are appealing
00:21:44.220
to Andrew Tate, the, the self narrative modifying aspects as well.
00:21:50.740
I do think that he is very ordered in his thought maybe or more ordered.
00:21:56.700
He's just uses a different hierarchy for how he orders his thought than we use.
00:22:02.800
Now, something else you had mentioned to me was the way he regarded women in the book.
00:22:08.400
A really recurrent theme in the book so far, at least.
00:22:11.080
And it's, I'm, I'm only assuming it's going to be repeated ad nauseum for the rest of the
00:22:19.200
Specifically this, which is the concept of order and chaos.
00:22:22.960
And it's, it's even kind of a little bit, it'll take you away as a reader because he'll
00:22:27.800
refer to in every chapter, even including the like forward or introduction, the difference
00:22:33.380
between order and chaos with order being symbolized by the feminine and chaos being masculine.
00:22:39.540
I mixed that up because to me, they're so interchangeable with, with chaos being represented by the
00:22:44.740
feminine and, and order being represented by the masculine.
00:22:47.940
And chaos is the child who's sick in the night.
00:22:50.220
And order is that the day that is structured and productive and like all these sorts of things.
00:22:54.360
Like he'll give, he'll give the example and he'll talk about like the Taoist, yin and yang.
00:22:58.520
And then he'll talk about various examples of order and chaos.
00:23:04.480
And I'm getting this throughout the book that there's this very, it's, it definitely comes
00:23:10.180
And I don't say this in any sort of feminist sense, but like he just wants, he's, he's definitely
00:23:14.720
creating this ideal of a, a dominant masculine daddy figure.
00:23:19.960
Like the, all like the jokes about him being like the internet's daddy are so spot on because
00:23:24.360
that's sort of, he's like the stern father patriarch.
00:23:26.940
And he's trying to teach the reader how to be a patriarch to themselves and a patriarch
00:23:31.980
But then this, this concept, and it does annoy me of, well, chaos is feminine and order is
0.59
00:23:38.960
masculine because it's very easy to switch that in the other direction.
00:23:42.200
You know, well, chaos is, is men and violence and war and order is like oppressive female
1.00
00:23:51.400
It's funny that you say that because the moment you said that, if I was going to assign a gender
00:23:55.120
to chaos versus order, males would be chaos and females order, but in, in, in, in, in
00:24:00.820
potentially even a negative way, like you say, the order of bureaucracy is intrinsically
00:24:06.760
I mean, think like Mars versus Athena, you know, I just, well, and this is the way that
00:24:10.780
we've also structured gender within our relationship.
00:24:13.000
You know, you, I'm the order and you are the chaos.
00:24:16.540
That's why I mentioned shield hero and shovel night.
00:24:19.200
If we, if we go to the games, I actually prefer plague night and Mona.
00:24:22.140
I think that's my, my OTP in that game, but the idea of a wife and we'll eventually get
1.00
00:24:29.160
Cause I actually really liked the idea of husbands and wives taking on roles and you
00:24:35.540
I don't know if it's an intrinsically feminine or masculine one, but I think that the way that
0.96
00:24:39.600
our family structures, it is, is you, the woman are holding the shield.
1.00
00:24:43.740
You make sure that we have financial stability, that our, our kids are basically handled, that
00:24:49.040
our stuff is basically handled, that our taxes are basically handled, everything like that.
00:24:52.420
And whenever we're doing like a risky thrust at the enemy, whenever we are potentially moving
00:24:58.940
ahead, whether it's press outreach or a new company before it like becomes a stable source
00:25:03.920
of income or a like new investment strategy, that's where all that stuff goes to me.
00:25:08.440
And so our relationship is based on, you are the backbone.
00:25:12.140
You are the stability that, that takes all of life's hits for us.
00:25:17.580
And I am the person who's in charge of moving us forwards and, and reaching out and, and,
00:25:24.900
And so I often see us in the relationship is you are the shield bearer and I am the, the
00:25:31.820
sword wielder or the shovel wielder, the, the, the spear wielder, depending on how we want
00:25:40.880
Well, beyond that, biologically men and women, like to me, I think are the opposite.
1.00
00:25:45.000
Like biologically women are, are like bell curve wise, right?
1.00
00:25:47.780
Like they're more likely to be closer to the center of the bell curve.
00:25:51.540
Like they're, they're far more likely to be mediocre.
00:25:53.980
They have to be more conservative in their mating strategy.
1.00
00:25:57.000
Whereas like men are more likely to be all over the place on the bell curve.
00:26:01.560
Only a few historically have gotten to reproduce.
00:26:05.260
You have to be chaotic, you have to be innovative, you have to be different and aggressive and
00:26:11.520
And women historically, even in a traditional history context, they are the managers of the
1.00
00:26:18.840
You know, the, the, the man is the one who is out fighting the wars and taking the risks.
00:26:25.460
And even if I look at a traditional masculine and feminine role, if people went into our house,
00:26:30.300
they went into your room, it would be perfectly clean and pristine.
00:26:32.700
If they went into my room, it would be a complete mess and they wouldn't be surprised of this.
00:26:37.900
You know, this is typical masculine and feminine sort of mindsets into how they order their
0.99
00:26:43.560
If you went into a house and one room was a complete mess in one room was totally pristine,
00:26:47.640
you'd probably assume the pristine room was the woman's and the mess room was the man's.
0.95
00:26:51.560
But I think what we're getting with Jordan Peterson and what's again, interesting about
00:26:55.380
his work and the figure he has presented in culture is that he's, he is to masculinity,
0.59
00:27:04.300
what Martha Stewart is slash was to homemaking.
1.00
00:27:08.620
So Martha Stewart never presented a realistic picture of homemaking.
0.68
00:27:13.100
You know, it was never like how to get things done fast and kind of make, get the house clean
00:27:16.660
for the kids and make a dinner without them realizing it only took you 15 minutes.
00:27:20.380
You know, it was always like, I'm going to have my chickens lay these eggs and then I'm
00:27:28.120
And then, you know, she would do something totally insane, but it was, we watched it.
00:27:33.780
I was kind of obsessed with Martha Stewart living because of the ideal it represented.
00:27:37.780
And I wanted a world in which I had a household like that.
00:27:40.940
And I had the chickens and I, and I did the stuff perfectly in my house was spotless and
00:27:45.700
And I think that's kind of what it is with Jordan Peterson that, okay, the tendency isn't
00:27:50.160
exactly to be like this paternalistic disciplined ideal, this ordered ideal, but I think many
00:27:55.620
readers would love a vision in which masculine equals order in which masculine is this like
00:28:01.480
calm, paternalistic ordered force that makes everything.
00:28:11.240
It's creating a, almost a feminine lens through which masculinity can be translated.
0.99
00:28:15.980
I wouldn't say, no, I wouldn't say it's, it's feminine.
00:28:18.600
And I wouldn't, and he would find this an affront because he really hates infantilism, but I think
00:28:23.060
it's an infantilized version of masculinity where, where again, like all of the jokes about
00:28:28.440
him being a daddy figure are so spot on because what he's really appealing to is a bunch of
00:28:34.600
breeders who just want like every, they just want daddy to fix it.
00:28:38.860
They just want daddy to give me a hug and tell me it's all going to be okay and fix everything.
00:28:43.980
And I wake up the next morning and it's, it's all fine and I'm protected and I'm safe, except
00:28:49.660
The daddy's within you and you can be the daddy for everyone.
00:28:54.100
And I think that's, what's going on is, is that he's catering to a really infantilized
00:29:01.560
Sorry, that's one of my favorite character lines that I really model our relationship
00:29:06.740
And we'll probably do a different one after that.
00:29:09.000
If our relationship is similar to any, any character pairing in media, it's, it's definitely
00:29:13.780
the Simone and Kamina pairing where, where I see my role as being Kamina and your role
00:29:19.740
as being Simone, which is actually a male male pairing in the show.
00:29:24.340
They are like brothers to each other, but I actually think that that's probably a better
00:29:27.460
way of structuring a married relationship than the modern way that society does it.
00:29:31.920
But yeah, believe in the me that believes in you, but you are the diligent worker.
00:29:35.200
You are the sense of stability and, and I just provide the external inspiration, but it
00:29:42.700
means nothing without your rock and, and, and without your shield protecting all of the
0.98
00:29:51.380
But anyway, I really love that you have engaged with his work.
0.98
00:29:56.300
We're going to do more episodes on it for sure, because I find it really fascinating.
00:30:00.660
And I want to be clear that in this episode, what we're focusing on where we are different
00:30:04.860
from him in ideology, that's just because that's what we have the most to talk about
00:30:09.340
There's less to talk about if we're like, oh, this is all the areas we agree with him.
00:30:12.300
So obviously we agree with him on a lot of things and, and yeah, we're, we're not like
00:30:17.860
antagonistic towards his work or anything like that.
00:30:21.160
We just have more to talk about in the areas we differ.
00:30:24.900
I think we have a lot more in common than otherwise.
00:30:30.080
I'm glad you gave me, I'm glad you gave me this homework.
00:30:37.220
Well, because we, we have friends who keep, and we have friends, people on the internet
00:30:42.540
who constantly refer to Jordan Peterson's work, to his philosophy.
00:30:47.840
And I don't think we can engage with their arguments and with their interpretations of
00:30:54.120
it, which I'm finding now a lot of people's interpretations of what his advice is are like
00:31:03.200
They're, they're getting the totally wrong message from it.
00:31:05.160
But yeah, we, we can't really have meaningful debates with people about his philosophy
00:31:16.900
And I'm so glad you do this for me that I have the type of idea where I'm like, okay,
00:31:19.640
I'm interested in this topic, read it, summarize it.
00:31:26.180
You've probably watched many more hours of Jordan Peterson speaking than I have read
00:31:31.920
Jordan Peterson, you know, talking through his book.
00:31:34.700
So I'm the one who went through all the Andrew Tate content before we did like a series
00:31:42.100
He's, he's smarter than people give him credit for, but I'm more pessimistic on other people