Based Camp - September 11, 2023Simone's First Thoughts on Jordan Peterson's The 12 Rules for Life
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
185.88802
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.
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
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.
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.
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
00:07:28.200
And so they, instead of saying, I am a Freudian psychologist, they'll say I'm a Jungian psychologist.
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
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
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.
00:15:56.260
Well, humans are wretched, you know, like we're flawed, we're messed up.
00:15:59.040
He keeps saying that, you know, you are, you know, like a pathetic person and you can barely
00:16:03.720
And he admits like he definitely is on the humans are wretched camp, but then he'll like, I think
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.
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
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
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
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
00:24:39.600
our family structures, it is, is you, the woman are holding the shield.
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.
00:25:45.000
Like biologically women are, are like bell curve wise, right?
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.
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
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
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.
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,
00:27:04.300
what Martha Stewart is slash was to homemaking.
00:27:08.620
So Martha Stewart never presented a realistic picture of homemaking.
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.
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
00:29:51.380
But anyway, I really love that you have engaged with his work.
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