Resolving the Science Religion Problem
Episode Stats
Length
3 hours and 32 minutes
Words per Minute
158.13637
Summary
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson has created a new series that could be a lifeline for those battling depression and anxiety. We know how isolating and overwhelming these conditions can be, and we wanted to take a moment to reach out to those listening who may be struggling. With decades of experience helping patients, Dr. Peterson offers a unique understanding of why you might be feeling this way. In his new series, he provides a roadmap towards healing, showing that while the journey isn t easy, it s absolutely possible to find your way forward. If you re suffering, please know you are not alone. There s hope, and there s a path to feeling better. Go to Daily Wire Plus now and start watching Dr. B.P. Peterson on Depression and Anxiety. Let this be the first step towards the brighter future you deserve. Episode 38: 12 Rules for Life: Resolving the Science-Religion Problem (feat. Dr. Jordan Peterson) A lecture delivered in San Jose, CA on January 22, 2019, recorded in San Francisco, CA, by Dr. P.B. Peterson. This episode is a continuation of a lecture he delivered to a large audience in Zurich, Switzerland a week ago. on a topic he was trying to cover in a TEDx talk. TEDx Talk titled 12 Rules For Life: A Guide to My Life . in November 2018. In this episode, he talks about how religion and science are in conflict, and how to resolve the science-religion problem. If you're listening to this podcast before December 17th, 2019 is the perfect time to solve the problem you ve been struggling with. The science and religion problem? What's a problem you re struggling with? or a problem that you re trying to solve? How do you know you re not getting it? ? Why religion and religion are a conflict? What do you need to do to resolve it, and what you can do to solve it, or are you trying to figure out how to get it out of your head? And how do you have a better chance of getting it out? Why do you want to know what you re going to get a better grip on the science and a religion problem or religion are related to a better life and how you can get a grip on your first rule for life? I ll tell me what you should do it, right now?
Transcript
00:00:00.960
Hey everyone, real quick before you skip, I want to talk to you about something serious and important.
00:00:06.480
Dr. Jordan Peterson has created a new series that could be a lifeline for those battling depression and anxiety.
00:00:12.740
We know how isolating and overwhelming these conditions can be, and we wanted to take a moment to reach out to those listening who may be struggling.
00:00:20.100
With decades of experience helping patients, Dr. Peterson offers a unique understanding of why you might be feeling this way in his new series.
00:00:27.420
He provides a roadmap towards healing, showing that while the journey isn't easy, it's absolutely possible to find your way forward.
00:00:35.360
If you're suffering, please know you are not alone. There's hope, and there's a path to feeling better.
00:00:41.800
Go to Daily Wire Plus now and start watching Dr. Jordan B. Peterson on depression and anxiety.
00:00:47.460
Let this be the first step towards the brighter future you deserve.
00:00:57.420
Welcome to Season 2, Episode 38 of the Jordan B. Peterson Podcast.
00:01:04.880
I'm Mikayla Peterson, Dad's daughter and collaborator.
00:01:08.200
Girl who only eats meat and does extended fasting.
00:01:11.980
Believe it or not, my brother is basically completely normal.
00:01:16.860
Or he takes after my mom's side. I haven't figured out which.
00:01:19.640
Today's episode is a 12 Rules for Life lecture, recorded in San Jose on January 22, 2019.
00:01:27.220
I've named it Resolving the Science-Religion Problem.
00:01:31.180
Last week, I walked on the beach for the first time with no pain in almost 12 years.
00:01:36.320
I had my ankle replacement re-replaced last January, and that is kind of a hellish surgery.
00:01:41.800
I was awake during it too because I opted out of general anesthesia.
00:01:44.920
About a quarter of the way into the surgery, I regretted that, but hey, I survived.
00:01:50.400
Anyway, the surgeon fixed the problem, the problem being a crooked ankle replacement,
00:01:58.300
So after about a half a mile walking in the sand, I literally cried with appreciation.
00:02:04.600
I had overlaid my experience of beaches with sadness and hatred and frustration, and that's gone now.
00:02:10.840
It's a hell of a lot easier when you're not in pain.
00:02:16.160
Just wanted to share that with everybody because it was really overwhelming, and it made my day.
00:02:23.540
Dad is launching his very first e-course on December 17, 2019.
00:02:32.080
A lot of people have been asking us for a more structured and condensed resource
00:02:35.400
where they can learn about personality without needing to spend 30-plus hours watching videos,
00:02:42.800
So earlier this year, we recorded a new video series that will be packaged as an online course
00:02:48.100
with eight videos, supplementary materials, including lecture notes, additional reading
00:02:52.820
materials and resources, transcripts, a free license to the Understand Myself personality
00:03:00.960
All designed to give you an in-depth look and understanding of your personality.
00:03:05.000
Personality is my favorite topic in psychology.
00:03:07.100
It's worth checking out if you've been intending to learn about personality and want to do
00:03:13.980
Dad's released a lot of information about personality on YouTube for free, but this is
00:03:17.880
a more concise, structured way of learning and features some information on personality
00:03:24.000
Go to JordanBPeterson.com slash personality to check it out.
00:03:28.280
If you're listening to this podcast before December 17th, 2019, we're currently offering
00:03:33.760
a pre-sale for a 15% discount on the course at $120.
00:03:38.580
If you're interested, this is a great opportunity to get it at a lower price or buy it for someone
00:03:46.440
I sat in on all the lectures, even though I had food poisoning at the time.
00:03:50.660
Imagine getting food poisoning when you only eat one thing.
00:03:53.700
Not ideal, but I still sat through the lectures.
00:03:57.640
Check it out at JordanBPeterson.com slash personality.
00:04:12.180
A Jordan B. Peterson 12 Rules for Life Lecture.
00:04:16.440
It's been a while since I talked to a large audience.
00:04:19.580
I talked to an audience in Zurich a week ago, but that was in a completely different time
00:04:25.520
So, and I was just trying to recapitulate in my imagination what it is that I was trying
00:04:35.440
to do with 12 Rules for Life and with my first book, Maps of Meaning.
00:04:41.140
And so I was laying that out, and I think I'll walk through that again.
00:04:55.480
So, the first issue is, I think, that these are issues that everybody knows.
00:05:03.500
But all these issues that I'm going to lay out are related.
00:05:08.000
So, the first issue that everybody knows is that there's a conflict between religion
00:05:14.360
And so, that's a conflict that's torn at the heart of our culture for about 500 years.
00:05:28.700
Especially as scientific progress has become more self-evident.
00:05:34.680
And there's been a lot of really good things about that, obviously.
00:05:39.240
Science has driven a technological revolution, and it's radically improved our standard of
00:05:47.720
And it's very difficult not to think of that as a good thing.
00:05:51.920
And one of the things that's really remarkable about that is that it's accelerating, by all appearances.
00:06:03.200
And that it's happening everywhere in the world.
00:06:06.040
And so, there's been an unbelievably rapid economic transformation throughout the world,
00:06:14.240
So, you know, the bulk of the population in the world now is middle class.
00:06:20.300
And starvation is virtually a thing of the past, although not entirely.
00:06:25.580
And even extreme privation, from a material perspective, is declining very rapidly.
00:06:31.360
The UN defines extreme privation as existence on less than $1.90 a day in today's dollars.
00:06:39.980
And that's declined 50% since the year 2000, which is absolutely phenomenal.
00:06:47.560
And the UN projects that it will be eradicated completely by the year 2030.
00:06:54.840
And just to put things in perspective, in the West, before 1895, the typical person lived
00:07:02.860
So that's less than the current UN standard for extreme privation.
00:07:08.660
And so, the technological revolution that's been driven, in large part, by the dawn of
00:07:16.400
scientific thinking has radically altered the West and its standard of living.
00:07:22.760
But now is doing the same thing everywhere else in the world.
00:07:30.400
The child mortality rate in Africa is now the same as it was in Europe in 1952.
00:07:42.440
But the conflict between the scientific viewpoint and the religious viewpoint still exists.
00:07:49.180
Carl Jung, who's a favorite thinker of mine, a psychoanalytic thinker who lived, who wrote and thought
00:08:06.600
So, I guess for the first six-tenths of the 20th century.
00:08:09.760
He believed that what had happened about 500 years ago was that as science developed out
00:08:16.920
of alchemy, which was like the dream, the alchemy was the dream out of which science emerged.
00:08:23.320
Alchemy was the dream that you could discover a material substance, which was the philosopher's
00:08:28.720
stone that would confer upon everyone health, wealth, and longevity.
00:08:34.380
And, of course, there is no philosopher's stone, but the dream was correct, because the dream
00:08:43.320
was that if we studied the material world with enough care, that we could discover something
00:08:50.500
that would produce wealth and health and longevity.
00:08:55.480
And so, sometimes things that occur in actuality have to be dreamed before they occur.
00:09:05.300
Alchemy had an ethical aspect and a practical aspect, let's say.
00:09:10.340
And the practical aspect exploded up into the scientific revolution and gave us this incredible
00:09:17.540
But it was Jung's belief that the ethical element remained undeveloped, and that that was dangerous.
00:09:25.480
And that we were now in a situation, and have been for quite a while, where our technological
00:09:34.160
And part of that's manifested in an uncertainty about ethics in general, about how to behave,
00:09:41.600
about whether there is even an answer to the question how to behave, about whether or not
00:09:49.240
there is such a thing as an ethic that isn't morally relative or arbitrary in some sense.
00:09:57.000
And I think you see that manifested, that critique manifested most particularly in the postmodern
00:10:02.840
doctrine, which claims with some justification that there's a very large number of ways of
00:10:08.420
looking at the world, and that none of those ways, there's no straightforward way to determine
00:10:15.180
which one of that multitude of manners that you can view the world is correct.
00:10:32.900
And you have a philosophical problem that David Hume pointed out, which is that it isn't
00:10:38.520
obvious how you can derive an ought from an is.
00:10:49.760
And you could think of the scientific method as an attempt to describe what is, and the
00:10:57.320
ethical endeavor as an attempt to describe what ought to be.
00:11:02.180
And according to Hume, there was a gap between the two, and it wasn't a straightforward thing
00:11:10.460
So there's a parallel problem, the is-ought problem, the science-religion problem.
00:11:17.820
And so I was very interested in that, in that, in those parallel sets of problems.
00:11:25.620
And that's what I've been trying to address, and that's what I wrote about in 12 Rules for
00:11:31.560
Anyway, I started to hypothesize a long while back that, in a similar manner, that there
00:11:47.420
You could look at the world as a place of objects, a place of material objects, or you
00:11:55.900
And that that's the same idea, reflected in a different way.
00:12:01.600
The world as a place of objects, that's the is-world, that's the world science describes.
00:12:06.480
And the world as a place to act, that's the ought-world.
00:12:09.300
And then I realized, too, and this was partly from studying the psychoanalysts, but also from
00:12:16.020
Literature first, and the psychoanalysts second, was that the world as a place to act is laid
00:12:24.480
out in stories, and that maybe the world is like a stage that's set for a drama, you
00:12:33.680
You walk in like you walked in tonight, you look at the stage, and there's nothing, there's
00:12:41.240
There's just the objects on the stage, the speakers and the chair, and the stage is set.
00:12:48.720
And you could know everything about the stage setting from a scientific perspective, and you
00:12:52.860
still would have no idea what drama was about to take place.
00:12:58.020
Yet the purpose of the stage and the purpose of the play is the drama and the stage setting,
00:13:04.600
the objects are in some sense almost peripheral to that.
00:13:07.700
And you know that, too, because you've seen plays and movies, and you know how many different
00:13:11.620
ways you can set a stage for the drama to occur.
00:13:16.780
The question is, well, what constitutes the drama?
00:13:25.380
And because the point of the stage is the play and not the setting.
00:13:36.320
And I started to understand that the drama had a structure, and that the structure, just
00:13:44.840
like the material world has a structure, just like there's a periodic table of the elements,
00:13:49.180
there's a periodic table, in some sense, there's a periodic table of dramatic personae.
00:13:55.520
And if you understand them, you can start to understand how to act in the world.
00:14:01.980
And there is actually a way to act in the world that's not arbitrary.
00:14:05.820
When I was writing Maps of Meaning, which was my first book, I was trying to address a question
00:14:11.180
that was a postmodern question, although I didn't know it at the time.
00:14:18.540
I was obsessed by the fact that the world had divided itself into two armed camps, the
00:14:27.020
armed camp that constituted essentially the Soviet Union, but you could say the entire
00:14:34.600
And that each of those two blocs had arranged their societies according to different axiomatic
00:14:40.920
presumptions, and were at odds with one another.
00:14:43.660
And it wasn't obvious, the world wouldn't have divided itself into those two armed camps,
00:14:49.940
if it was obvious which of those two sets of axiomatic presuppositions were more valid,
00:14:58.680
Or maybe the problem was even deeper than that, which was those were just two arbitrary sets
00:15:04.820
of axiomatic presuppositions out of a very large number of potential sets, and they just
00:15:10.480
happened to be the ones that emerged, and they were at odds with one another.
00:15:13.660
And so I started to study the understructure of the two belief systems to see if one of
00:15:19.800
them had more validity than the other, if I could figure that out, if there was something
00:15:27.660
And what I discovered, I think, was that the belief system that characterized the societies
00:15:35.380
of the West, the underlying belief system, wasn't arbitrary.
00:15:41.000
And I think the fact that the Soviet Union fell apart so precipitously in 1989 is actually
00:15:47.200
evidence of the unplayability of the Soviet game.
00:15:51.040
That's a good way of, that's a really good way of thinking about it.
00:15:53.620
There's some games you can play, and there's some games you can't play.
00:16:01.660
And that's actually one of the pieces of evidence that suggests that one system is preferable
00:16:06.960
to another, that you can iterate it across time, and that that's actually not a degenerating
00:16:15.340
And, you know, if you have a relationship with someone, it's an iterated game, right?
00:16:20.960
If you have a permanent relationship with someone, a marriage, a friendship, a relationship between
00:16:26.740
siblings, relationship between you and your children, you want to be able to interact
00:16:31.120
with them in a matter that doesn't get worse across time.
00:16:33.880
Maybe at least it stays flat, but it would be better if it even got better.
00:16:40.160
And your successful relationships are at least ones that maintain the status quo, but the
00:16:48.520
And so there are ways that you can act, interact iteratively with people in a manner that sustains
00:17:05.080
And so some games aren't playable, and some games are.
00:17:11.000
And the game that the communists played was a degenerating game.
00:17:14.980
And that meant that there was something wrong with it.
00:17:17.000
And that meant that at least that way of looking at the world wasn't as good as any other
00:17:22.960
Which is interesting, because at least it suggests that there's one way of looking at the world
00:17:29.200
And that's a bothersome fact in some sense if you're a moral relativist.
00:17:34.300
Because as soon as there's any evidence that one game isn't as good as another, you've got
00:17:38.320
some evidence that some games are better than others.
00:17:41.640
And so then you have some evidence that there's a rank order, let's say, of games.
00:17:48.000
When Solzhenitsyn wrote about the Nazi Holocaust, he talked about the Nuremberg Trials.
00:17:57.240
And he believed that the Nuremberg Trials were among the most important events of the 20th century.
00:18:06.720
And the reason he believed that was because the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials, you
00:18:15.560
have to think about whether or not you believe this, because there's a cost to believing it
00:18:21.040
So there's no scot-free way out of this conundrum.
00:18:24.700
The conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials was that there were some things that you could not
00:18:30.640
do if you were human without being subject to moral sanction, regardless of your cultural
00:18:39.100
Those were what have come to be known as crimes against humanity.
00:18:42.320
So the Nuremberg Trials made it axiomatic that some things were wrong independently of
00:18:52.920
the moral structure within which you were raised.
00:18:58.240
Or another way of thinking about it was that no matter what moral structure it was within
00:19:04.560
you were, it was that you were raised within, there was something common across all of them
00:19:10.920
that would make the sorts of things that the Nazis did wrong by any reasonable standard.
00:19:18.300
Now you don't have to believe that, but if you don't believe that, then that puts you
00:19:23.040
in an awkward position with regards to the Holocaust, say.
00:19:31.820
It's like you either admit that there's something wrong, or you admit that there wasn't anything
00:19:37.640
wrong with the Holocaust, and that it was just an arbitrary cultural decision, one of many
00:19:43.940
such arbitrary cultural decisions, and of no more distinction than any other.
00:19:51.580
And that seems like a, well, it seems like a conclusion that in the main we're not willing
00:19:58.620
to draw, so maybe there is a difference between wrong and right, and that's worth thinking
00:20:08.080
about, and then if, and maybe that difference is real, whatever real might mean.
00:20:15.900
Now, let's think about the problem of how to act.
00:20:21.220
Think about it biologically, because that's what I tried to do when I was writing Maps of
00:20:25.520
Meaning, and in Twelve Rules for Life, there's also a biological approach.
00:20:31.400
I mean, I drew on a lot of religious stories when I wrote both those books, but, which is
00:20:37.800
a strange thing to do if you're also trying to think biologically, because those two things
00:20:47.480
You know, the more strict scientific types, Sam Harris being a good example, aren't comfortable
00:20:58.840
And so the attempt to use a physical standpoint derived from physics and a standpoint derived
00:21:06.380
from biology, say, social science for that matter, and to ally that with religious presuppositions
00:21:20.840
Jean Piaget was probably the greatest child developmental psychologist of the 20th century.
00:21:29.580
He had a messianic crisis when he was a young man, and was tormented by the contradiction
00:21:36.640
between science and religion, and decided that he was going to devote his entire life to
00:21:42.800
And I actually think he managed it to a large degree.
00:21:45.760
You know, it's not generally how Piaget is discussed.
00:21:49.040
When we discuss great people, we generally don't discuss them in their full peculiarity.
00:21:56.540
You know, you remember a while back, Elon Musk was sort of savaged for smoking, you know,
00:22:07.140
And I thought it was so comical, because Elon Musk is a very strange person.
00:22:10.780
Now, obviously, you have to be a strange person to build an electric car, and then shoot
00:22:30.720
But the joint probability of doing both is way below zero.
00:22:34.760
So, so I thought it was comical that people went after Musk, because I thought, yes, well,
00:22:41.540
we like our insane geniuses, predictable and normal.
00:22:47.140
Anyways, Piaget did do a very good job of reconciling religion with science, although people don't
00:22:57.080
really know that, because that isn't how they read Piaget.
00:22:59.760
And I think that's partly because they're afraid of the...
00:23:03.540
If you read someone who's really a genius, the depth of their genius will frighten you.
00:23:09.240
And so you'll only read down into their work till you hit what you can't abide, and then
00:23:16.720
And that's the case with Freud, and it's the case with Jung, for sure, because if you read
00:23:21.780
Jung and you have any sense, you're terrified instantly.
00:23:24.400
And, and, and then it's also the case with Piaget.
00:23:29.800
And so, I'll weave in what it was that he discovered.
00:23:34.700
Okay, so, we're going to think about this biologically.
00:23:38.040
So let's say, well, one of the problems you have is what the world is made out of.
00:23:42.480
Now, one of the things that's kind of interesting about human beings is that we really didn't
00:23:45.980
care about that very much for a very long period of time.
00:23:49.980
I mean, we didn't invent science until about 500 years ago.
00:23:54.180
Now, you can argue about that, and you could say that the precursors for the scientific viewpoint
00:24:00.760
And then we could say, okay, well, that was 2,500 years ago, or 3,000 years ago.
00:24:06.120
If you're thinking biologically, the difference between 500 years and 3,000 years is, that's
00:24:12.340
Because human beings, in their current form, are 150,000 years old.
00:24:19.260
There's been creatures basically identical to us genetically for 150,000 years.
00:24:24.820
And we diverged from chimpanzees 7 million years ago.
00:24:28.700
And so, you know, and so we were vaguely human for 7 million years.
00:24:32.800
And so, in the span of, let's say, 2 million years, just to, you know, give the later proto-humans
00:24:39.800
their advantage, the difference between 500 years and 3,000 years is completely trivial.
00:24:46.320
The point is, is that we didn't invent anything approximating science, and we weren't concerned
00:24:51.060
about the structure of the material world in any objective sense until, like, yesterday.
00:24:56.780
And really, and we managed, we managed to survive without it.
00:25:02.080
And then, of course, there's the 3.5 billion years of biological evolution that preceded even
00:25:09.940
the emergence of human beings that existed in the absolute absence of anything approximating
00:25:15.640
a scientific perspective, which indicates that, well, A, that that perspective appears
00:25:21.840
to not be strictly necessary from the purpose, from the perspective of survival, and, and B,
00:25:30.440
that, well, that something else, something else was occurring to provide us with the knowledge
00:25:39.260
And so, when I read Nietzsche decades ago, he talked about how philosophy emerged.
00:25:54.080
And it was Nietzsche's idea that what the typical philosopher, perhaps even including him, but perhaps
00:26:04.980
not him, produced was an unconscious recapitulation of their own knowledge, that they felt that what
00:26:12.940
they were doing was coming up with a rationalistic account of the structure of behavior, let's
00:26:17.860
say, but really what they were doing was noticing how they acted, and then describing that and
00:26:33.960
We might think about that, because one of the things we do know is that however it was
00:26:39.000
that creatures, animals, us, figured out how to act, over the millions of years that they
00:26:45.880
figured out how to act, it was bottom up and top, not top down.
00:26:50.920
The simpler the animal, the less capable it is of thinking.
00:26:55.060
And so, if you go back far enough, and you don't have to go back that far, you get creatures
00:27:01.100
Like, there's lots of complex, multi-celled organisms that don't have much of a nervous
00:27:10.700
And so, whatever they're doing isn't a consequence of thinking.
00:27:13.180
It's a consequence, the fact that they know what they're doing is a consequence of something
00:27:18.620
And even more sophisticated animals, mammals, let's say, act and don't think.
00:27:32.340
And so, I was reading some of the ethologists about the same time.
00:27:35.700
Ethologists are scientists who study animal behavior.
00:27:41.840
They don't put the animals in a controlled environment and do experiments on them.
00:27:49.360
So, you can imagine, Jane Goodall was an ethologist, for example, and she studied chimpanzees.
00:27:54.360
This guy named Conrad Lorenz in Scandinavia, he studied geese and other animals, dogs as well.
00:28:02.040
And so, these are people who just, and Diane Fosse, I think it was Fosse that, now, was she
00:28:13.380
And, you know, Goodall, when she was watching chimpanzees, what she'd do is, well, she'd look
00:28:18.620
for regularities, but she also found herself telling stories.
00:28:22.140
You know, so you read Goodall's accounts of chimpanzees, you get stories about what the
00:28:27.860
And you can see the personalities of the chimpanzees emerging in her accounts.
00:28:34.240
And that's kind of interesting, because what it suggests is that if you're looking for how
00:28:39.060
a set of creatures, how a set of creatures interact, you tend to look at them as if their
00:28:49.240
personalities acting something out, acting out patterns.
00:28:55.640
If you watch wolf pack for a while, you're going to see patterns, regular patterns of
00:29:01.080
behavior that characterize the interactions between the wolf pack.
00:29:05.560
Because otherwise, the wolves couldn't predict one another.
00:29:07.660
If there was no regularity, there'd be no predictability.
00:29:11.980
And so, what happens is the wolves settle into predictable patterns of behavior.
00:29:16.400
The chimpanzees settle into predictable patterns of behavior.
00:29:19.080
And then you can tell stories about those predictable patterns of behavior.
00:29:26.980
You might say, well, it's as if the chimpanzees are acting out this rule.
00:29:30.560
So here's a rule that you might act out if you were a wolf.
00:29:34.080
So let's say you're a male wolf, and there's another male wolf around, and you decide that
00:29:40.120
you're going to have a dominance dispute, right?
00:29:43.320
And so you puff up your fur, and you look rough and tough, and you bare your teeth, and
00:29:52.620
And maybe you even fight to some degree, but not too much, because you don't want to damage
00:29:58.760
Because the person, the wolf that you're fighting with, you might need tomorrow to bring
00:30:06.500
So that's an interesting thing to consider, because it constitutes a limit on the kind
00:30:12.380
of aggression that's allowable in the pursuit of dominance.
00:30:17.760
Anyways, two wolves go at it, and usually what happens is one wolf decides it's not worth
00:30:23.020
the risk, and he rolls over and presents his throat to the victor.
00:30:28.420
And that basically means something like, well, I'm useless and weak, and you can tear out
00:30:34.700
like a prey animal, and you can tear out my throat if you so choose.
00:30:40.540
And the dominant wolf acts out something like, well, I know you're useless and weak, but I
00:30:47.760
might need you to haul down a moose tomorrow, so despite the fact that you're not good for
00:30:52.260
anything, you might as well get up, and we'll get on with it.
00:30:55.200
Now, obviously, the wolves aren't thinking that, but that's how they act.
00:31:00.200
And so if you're watching, and you can think, and you describe how they act, that might be
00:31:09.340
I used what would be approximately the description of a rule.
00:31:14.840
The rule would be, if you're a wolf pack, don't kill each other, because you need the whole
00:31:28.520
And I told a little story, and then I derived a rule from it.
00:31:39.460
So, each of us pursues our own motivated behaviors, but then we aggregate together in groups.
00:31:47.220
And the fact that we aggregate together in groups puts certain restrictions on how it
00:31:53.900
is that we manifest our motivated behavior, partly because we depend on each other, like
00:32:00.920
And so what that means is that there's an ethic that emerges out of the interactions between
00:32:05.940
those motivations, and that ethic manifests itself in a certain kind of pattern behavior.
00:32:10.880
Now, that's about as far as it goes for wolves, because they don't sit around at the campfire
00:32:15.800
at night and talk about how it is that wolves interact with one another.
00:32:21.780
But human beings do that, see, because we've got this next level of cognitive ability, imaginative
00:32:32.400
It's not like we've got motivation like other animals, and then we've got the patterns of
00:32:38.480
behavior that emerge as a consequence of the interaction of those motivated behaviors.
00:32:44.360
We then have the ability to watch ourselves like we would watch a wolf pack, right?
00:32:49.940
Because an anthropologist, an ethologist can go out in the wild and watch a wolf pack or
00:32:55.380
watch a chimpanzee troop and take notes, say, look, this is what's, here are the patterns.
00:33:01.780
And when I write down the patterns, then I'm telling a story, and out of the story, I can
00:33:12.360
And then the human being can say, well, it's as if wolves follow these rules, which they
00:33:17.140
don't, because they're wolves, and they don't follow rules.
00:33:22.120
And the patterns emerged as a consequence of something approximating an evolutionary competition.
00:33:28.820
Now, it's interesting, it's very interesting to think this through.
00:33:33.180
So, Franz de Waal, who's another ethologist, who studies chimpanzees, he's written a bunch
00:33:41.340
You might be interested in them if you're interested in this sort of thing.
00:33:44.160
He's been interested in the emergence of morality among chimpanzees.
00:33:49.800
And so, one of the things de Waal has found was that, and this is partly why the post-modernists
00:33:59.500
who insist that the fundamental motivator for the structure of hierarchies is power, are
00:34:11.180
Okay, it's seriously important, because one of the claims that's tearing our culture apart
00:34:20.000
is that our hierarchical structure, which would be our entire culture, is an oppressive patriarchy,
00:34:29.080
and that the people who occupy the positions, especially the higher positions, let's say, in
00:34:35.600
the hierarchy, got there because they exercise power.
00:34:40.340
That's a fundamental claim of Foucault, for example, who's an absolutely reprehensible
00:34:48.620
But one of them, one of them is his narrow-minded insistence that power is the only justification
00:34:58.520
Now, I think that's patently absurd in the case of human beings, but I won't go there to
00:35:06.500
begin with, because I might as well make the case that it's patently absurd in the case
00:35:17.160
De Waal has shown, well, you got the example of the wolf already, it's like, you just can't
00:35:22.200
be savaging up your pack mates, because all you do is demolish the structure within which
00:35:30.440
you live, and that's true for wolves, you know, it's true for chimpanzees.
00:35:38.480
So De Waal has shown in sequence of observations, and chimps are a good test case, because we're
00:35:50.020
Now, well, they're our closest biological relatives, right?
00:35:53.400
So it's only a seven million year gap between us and the common ancestors.
00:35:57.100
So if you're going to look at any animal, and derive conclusions about the basal motivations
00:36:04.620
of human beings, well then, it would be chimps that you would look at.
00:36:07.840
You might look at bonobos too, although the differences between bonobos and chimps has been
00:36:14.580
But in any case, you can get to the top if you're the roughest, toughest, meanest, most
00:36:24.740
But your rule is unstable, and there's a reason for that.
00:36:30.520
And the reason is, is that chimpanzees, the males, females as well, but the fundamental hierarchy
00:36:39.120
Chimpanzees are competitive, but they're also cooperative.
00:36:43.540
They spend a lot of time grooming each other, and they actually have long-term friendships.
00:36:49.060
And it turns out that two chimpanzees that are three-quarters as tough as the toughest
00:36:57.240
chimpanzee make a pretty vicious set of opponents if you get a little bit too tyrannical.
00:37:04.020
And the problem with pure power for the chimpanzees is that if you're a chimp that climbs to
00:37:09.880
the top as a consequence of nothing but psychopathic dominance, you have no allies and no friends
00:37:15.860
because you don't engage in any cooperative behavior, you'll have an off day and your two
00:37:20.700
lieutenants, each of whom is three-quarters as strong as you, will band together and tear
00:37:36.140
And I see no reason to assume that exactly the same thing isn't the case with human beings.
00:37:42.480
If it doesn't work for chimpanzees and it doesn't work for wolves, why in the world would it work
00:37:49.080
Especially when you think that our hierarchies are way more complicated than the hierarchies
00:37:56.820
And that we do all sorts of things with our hierarchies that animals don't do.
00:38:02.360
I mean, most of you have jobs, and most of those jobs are...
00:38:09.080
While you're performing most of those jobs, you're not doing things that any animal would
00:38:15.440
have done, would do now, or that any human being would have done 300 years ago.
00:38:22.380
Some of you might farm, but even if you're doing that, you're not doing it in a way that
00:38:28.480
Whatever your job is, and it's likely to be very abstract, you're pursuing some goal that
00:38:35.160
is fairly distant from a fundamental biological motivation.
00:38:40.760
And you're actually creating something of at least sufficient value so that other people
00:38:47.980
And the idea that you're going to move up in your hierarchy of production by exercising
00:39:02.100
You know, and I think about plumbers, for example.
00:39:07.180
I've used this joke before, but I like it, so I'm going to use it again.
00:39:10.420
And it's like, you know, if the postmodernists were right, this is how you'd hire a plumber.
00:39:16.560
First of all, the plumbers would have all banded together, although they'd be fighting
00:39:19.640
within themselves because, of course, there's nothing but power.
00:39:24.300
And they'd go from door to door, and they'd basically knock on your door and tell you that
00:39:29.100
if you didn't hire them, there was going to be hell to pay.
00:39:33.800
And then you'd pick the roughest, toughest plumber who's best at exercising power to
00:39:41.500
not fix your pipes, because why would he be interested in fixing your pipes?
00:39:46.880
He'd just be interested in pretending to fix your pipes and taking your money, which is
00:39:56.840
I mean, if you hire virtually anyone in your day-to-day life, you suss out their reputation
00:40:03.400
for their ability to provide the service that they promised to provide, which is predicated
00:40:09.220
on their skill, their technical skill, their skill as workmen and craftsmen.
00:40:15.660
It also is predicated on their ability to generally work in some reasonably interactive way with their
00:40:21.900
employees, because otherwise they don't stay in business for that long.
00:40:25.120
And also to treat their customers with a modicum of reciprocal respect, or their reputation
00:40:36.540
And so, this patriarchal structure that we hypothetically all occupy, that's fundamentally
00:40:43.900
predicated on oppression and power, breaks apart into something approximating cooperative
00:40:52.120
competence when you look at any of its sub-components.
00:40:56.600
You know, you don't have power-hungry massage therapists, you know?
00:41:03.600
Well, I don't understand how the entire structure can be a power-dominated oppressive patriarchy
00:41:15.620
And I'm not saying at all that, within large hierarchies, there isn't room for relatively
00:41:21.720
psychopathic people to now and then manage a certain amount of success.
00:41:26.540
You know, you know that as a hierarchical structure grows in size, that pure power politic players
00:41:36.520
But all that happens to large organizations, when they get completely dominated by people
00:41:41.820
who are using power and politics as a means to climb to the top, is that they precipitously
00:41:47.900
Because you end up with no one who can actually perform the function that the structure is
00:41:52.900
supposed to perform, and a whole plethora of people who are good at doing nothing but
00:42:02.840
The typical Fortune 500 company lasts 30 years.
00:42:07.560
And the reason for that often is that it's functional for a while, and then it gets corrupted
00:42:12.860
by internal politics, or it gets blind, or it can't keep up, or whatever it is, and that's
00:42:19.080
It falls apart, and, you know, breaks into its constituent elements, and they reformulate.
00:42:24.360
Maybe there's some new companies that come out of it, but it's not a permanent structure
00:42:30.320
And so, I don't think there's any reason whatsoever to assume, well, we can think this through.
00:42:37.140
Are our hierarchical structures based on power, or are they based on competence?
00:42:43.820
And look, the answer is, well, they're a bit based on power, you know?
00:42:51.160
Hierarchical structures can, and do, become corrupt in some ways.
00:42:57.160
And we have to keep an eye on that all the time.
00:42:59.620
But my sense is that, by and large, things work.
00:43:07.520
You know, I mean, here we are, we're sitting in this hall, and there's 3,000 of us, and
00:43:13.480
you all got here, because your cars worked, and the highways work, sort of.
00:43:20.220
I mean, I was in a traffic jam for like an hour and a half getting here.
00:43:26.740
But, you know, that's what happens when you drive somewhere at 5 o'clock.
00:43:32.320
So they worked, and the lights are on, and they seem to work, and that's no trivial thing.
00:43:37.840
And it looks like the big TV screen is working.
00:43:40.640
And you're all sitting here peacefully, not engaging in an overt power struggle, as far
00:43:48.180
as I can tell, even though, even though there's a hierarchical arrangement of seats, right?
00:43:56.680
And you're all, and you accept the fact that, you know, some of you paid a premium for sitting
00:44:02.220
closer, and that that seems to be a reasonable way of distributing somewhat scarce resources.
00:44:07.700
And, you know, everyone in here is behaving peacefully, and, like, all this seems to work
00:44:13.860
And so, since this all works, it's very difficult for me to understand how it's not predicated,
00:44:22.240
And then, of course, there's the other evidence, which is, well, you know, a lot of you are older
00:44:27.980
than the average person would have been when he or she died throughout the history of the
00:44:34.820
And so that seems to be working out pretty good for you.
00:44:37.700
And you're, none of you are skinny, and quite the contrary.
00:44:45.660
So there are more obese people in the world now than there are starving people, by quite
00:44:51.840
And I think that that's worth quite the celebration, even though it's perhaps not exactly optimized.
00:44:57.380
But it's definitely better than the alternative.
00:44:59.980
And, you know, by and large, we're moderately healthy.
00:45:04.520
And most women don't die in childbirth like they used to.
00:45:09.260
And most children don't die within a year of being born like they used to, not very long ago.
00:45:23.880
Not so bad, given what a bloody catastrophe life is, and how difficult it is to get things
00:45:30.200
to work, and how fragile people are, and how short-lived we are intrinsically, and how vulnerable
00:45:50.240
This is the thing that, I would say, enrages me about, let's call them universities.
00:45:58.680
It's the intellectual and moral laziness of the resentful victimization power post-modern
00:46:20.020
Because, look, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the history of humanity is
00:46:28.440
And, you know, to lay that only at the feet of human beings, I think, is a mistake.
00:46:36.240
Because life in the natural world is a bloody nightmare.
00:46:43.740
You know, like, you can blame it on people to some degree.
00:46:46.240
We take a bad thing, or we take a deadly thing, or a dangerous thing, and we can make it worse.
00:46:53.900
But it's not like the problem is simple to begin with.
00:46:56.700
Because it's clearly the case that at every moment, the planet is trying to kill you.
00:47:11.640
And it's reasonable enough for us to group together, and to try to stop that.
00:47:17.840
And while we're doing that, we cause some trouble.
00:47:21.640
You know, we pollute things, and we break things, and we don't play as good an iterating game as we might.
00:47:27.200
But, you know, for creatures that only last eight decades, and have a lot of trouble during all eight of those, we don't do that badly.
00:47:39.360
And we've got our reasons for being as perverse and useless as we are.
00:47:43.520
And all of that shouldn't be laid at our feet, even though we need to take responsibility for it.
00:47:49.940
And so, one of the things that I find extremely disturbing about the emergent hypothesis that our culture is nothing but an oppressive patriarchy,
00:48:06.080
And worse, if you adopt that stance, well, it bestows a certain amount of benefit on you.
00:48:15.100
I mean, first of all, if you posit that there's nothing in your culture except what's corrupt,
00:48:21.420
then that immediately elevates you above all of it as that sort of critic, right?
00:48:25.700
It's like, well, I'm taking the high ground, and I'm looking at the entire history of humanity, and calling it unacceptable.
00:48:35.760
It's like, well, that's fine, I suppose, except it isn't necessarily obvious that you could do any better, and you probably haven't.
00:48:43.280
You know, and maybe you could try, although then you might say, well, just try all that trying does is make it worse.
00:48:49.040
And participating in that terror, doing anything of any utility, is just playing the power game and making it worse.
00:48:56.800
It's like, yeah, well, you know, pardon me for being a bit skeptical about your motivation.
00:49:02.060
I don't think that moral virtue is that easily come by.
00:49:05.600
And I think that there are difficult problems to solve, and that you could contend with the world and try to solve them,
00:49:11.360
instead of complaining about the fact that they haven't been solved properly.
00:49:14.580
And that if you did manage to solve a problem or two, which you might, then maybe you'd have the right to stand up as a more global critic.
00:49:26.380
You should get your house in order before you criticize the world.
00:49:34.100
But it's, so the moral virtue thing, that's annoying, because I don't think that moral virtue should be unearned.
00:49:40.720
You know, this is kind of why I'm an admirer of the doctrine of original sin.
00:49:45.840
You know, I think you're stuck with some concept of original sin, no matter how you think.
00:49:51.100
I mean, I see that in the atheistic environmentalist types, and I know all environmentalist types aren't atheistic,
00:49:56.520
and I know that all environmentalist types aren't reprehensible either.
00:49:59.700
But there's a nice selection of atheist environmental types who are reprehensible.
00:50:03.900
And they're, yeah, yeah, yeah, they're usually the ones that say that the world would be better off if there were fewer people on it.
00:50:11.380
Which is not a sentiment that I find particularly attractive.
00:50:15.720
And it's also one, if, when I meet someone who utters that, I always think two things.
00:50:29.540
And the second one is, just exactly who it is, who is it that you're planning on getting rid of,
00:50:36.720
and how exactly would you go about doing that if you had the opportunity?
00:50:42.100
So, I don't find that, I don't find that particularly admirable.
00:50:49.000
And I don't think that there's any sympathy in it.
00:50:51.840
You know, because I think that we should have some sympathy for ourselves.
00:50:55.740
So, that's rule two, is you should treat yourself like you're someone responsible for helping.
00:51:01.260
Or rule three, which is you should make friends with people who want the best for you.
00:51:05.820
It's like, corrupt and useless as you are, you do have a hard lot.
00:51:12.760
You know, and so there's some reason for sympathy.
00:51:16.180
And to say that human beings are nothing but despoilers of the planet,
00:51:19.900
is to miss half the story, which is as fast as we're trying to kill Mother Nature,
00:51:30.200
So, that doesn't mean that we should be foolish about it.
00:51:34.620
You know, and a certain balance has to be attained.
00:51:37.640
But it's nice to look at both sides of the equation before you lay out too much judgment.
00:51:43.280
You know, back in the late 1800s, Thomas Huxley, who was eldest Huxley's great-grandfather
00:51:50.300
and also a great defender of Darwin, was commissioned by the British Parliament
00:51:55.160
to do a study on oceanic resources, because there was some concern at that point
00:52:03.660
And his conclusion was, the oceans were so bountiful and plentiful
00:52:08.300
and human beings so comparatively small in number and powerless
00:52:13.880
that there wasn't a hope in hell that we would ever be able to put a dent
00:52:22.360
That was only at the beginning of the 20th century.
00:52:26.160
You know, we didn't get to the point where we could harvest on an industrial scale
00:52:35.720
And so it's only been 50 years, say, maybe a bit more, 60 years, maybe since 1960,
00:52:41.220
that we woke up to the fact that some of our actions had now become powerful enough
00:52:52.420
I don't think we've done such a bad job of waking up since then
00:52:55.560
and starting to understand that, you know, maybe we have a larger-scale moral obligation
00:53:01.120
than we realized before that's proportionate to our technological power.
00:53:05.180
That's another place where a little bit of sympathy might be in order.
00:53:08.760
You know, and I mean, L.A. is a lot cleaner than it used to be in terms of its air quality
00:53:14.320
And, you know, we've made a lot of progress, I would say, in a relatively short time
00:53:18.340
trying to clean up the mess that we made when we were trying not to die painfully young.
00:53:23.460
You know, so, all right, well, back to this ethic.
00:53:28.720
So, I'll tell you another study that I really like that's really cool.
00:53:33.880
So, this is a study that was done by a guy named Yak Panksep and he did it with rats.
00:53:39.820
And now and then, I love reading animal experimental work.
00:53:43.800
If you want to study psychology, that's what you should read.
00:53:47.400
You should just read animal experimental work because those people,
00:53:50.140
it's not all good, but some of it's really good.
00:53:52.940
And some of the people who've done it, they were real scientists.
00:53:58.240
Got another guy's name, Jeffrey Gray, who wrote a book called The Neuropsychology of Anxiety,
00:54:07.100
Anyways, Panksep has done a really good job of laying out the fundamental motivational systems
00:54:15.180
The American Psychological Association just came out with its guidelines for the treatment of men and boys.
00:54:20.340
It's actually, it's like, it's not, they're not guidelines.
00:54:25.480
And they're certainly not for the improvement of the health of men and boys.
00:54:28.560
It's an absolutely reprehensible ideological screed on how psychologists have to think politically
00:54:35.320
so they won't be punished by those who accredit them.
00:54:39.960
But one of the claims they made, they made two claims that are beyond comprehension to me.
00:54:46.800
The first one was that aggression is socialized.
00:54:54.580
And the second claim is that boys are socialized into aggression by men.
00:55:04.700
So Panksep outlined a bunch of biological circuits.
00:55:07.640
So human beings, like mammals, but also like even more, what, archaic animals, speaking evolutionarily,
00:55:18.560
have a variety of fundamental biological circuits.
00:55:23.000
Some of them are obvious and some of them are somewhat surprising.
00:55:34.820
You have a biological system that mediates anxiety.
00:55:41.440
You have one for something called incentive reward.
00:55:45.520
And that's what moves you towards valued goals.
00:55:48.180
That's basically associated with positive emotion.
00:55:50.860
You have one that satisfies you when you consume.
00:56:14.400
That's not all of them, but that's a good start.
00:56:21.040
If you do facial expression coding analysis of infants.
00:56:27.940
And then that's around nine months often or even earlier than that.
00:56:32.040
So a person comes into the baby's room and the baby starts to cry because that person isn't the mother.
00:56:46.860
And if you do facial expression coding, it's like the baby is actually, the baby is cursing internally.
00:56:53.220
And you already know this because you know that, like, a two-year-old isn't much older than a baby.
00:57:02.840
And it's not because they're sad, as you can tell perfectly well, if you just watch a two-year-old have a temper tantrum.
00:57:09.020
It's clear that they're completely possessed by rage.
00:57:15.680
That rage circuit is active even before the fear circuit is active.
00:57:20.880
And one of the things that's the case is that some children are much more aggressive than others.
00:57:32.380
And if you take two-year-olds and you group them together, you find if you take one-year-olds, two-year-olds, three-year-olds, four-year-olds, all the way up to 16, and you group them together, they don't know each other.
00:57:45.740
The two-year-olds are by far the most aggressive bunch.
00:57:54.400
And so, 16-year-olds don't do that when you put them together.
00:57:58.080
And look, you're all here, and you're not 16, you're like 30, and you're not doing any of that.
00:58:03.280
And so, two-year-olds, man, they're aggressive little monsters.
00:58:06.680
And it's okay because they're small and soft, and what the hell can they do, you know?
00:58:11.320
So, it's not like, you know, it's not blood warfare among two-year-olds.
00:58:17.980
But it's just because they don't have the sophistication and the weapons.
00:58:29.020
So, about 5% of two-year-old boys are hyper-aggressive.
00:58:33.560
But what's cool is that almost all of them are socialized into civilized behavior by the time they're four.
00:58:41.860
And you can define civilized behavior actually quite nicely using a Piagetian definition is that other children will play with them.
00:58:52.100
Okay, don't let your children do anything that makes you dislike them.
00:58:57.140
Your job as a parent is to socialize your children so that by the age of three, other children will play with them.
00:59:02.760
Because that means they've learned how to engage in reciprocal social interactions.
00:59:08.500
So, if your child is acceptable as a playmate by the age of three, age of four is the limit, by the way.
00:59:16.240
And if, otherwise, they get alienated and isolated and they don't make friends and then they never recover from that.
00:59:24.660
So, most kids are socialized, even the hyper-aggressive ones are socialized into acceptable playmates by the age of four.
00:59:41.020
It's the evidence among mammals is the use of rough and tumble play, for example, among males and their offspring in order to socialize and civilize them.
00:59:50.220
But the evidence among human beings is that, where do you get aggressive teenagers?
00:59:58.080
What sort of families produce aggressive teenagers?
01:00:05.760
Right, so let's think about that with regards to what the APA said.
01:00:10.240
Because what they said was the opposite of the truth.
01:00:16.000
It was, they took the truth and then they claimed the opposite.
01:00:28.280
Number two, if men were responsible for the creation of aggression among boys,
01:00:34.320
then fatherless families would produce boys that were more peaceful.
01:00:42.600
All right, so you have the behavioral pattern that characterizes civilized behavior among wolves or civilized behavior among chimpanzees or civilized behavior among rats.
01:01:05.740
So, rats like to engage in rough and tumble play.
01:01:12.800
And we know they like it because they'll work to do it.
01:01:15.800
So, if they know, if they know that, if a rat has been somewhere and he got to play,
01:01:21.120
and then you put him back there and you make him press a bar to open the door so he can go into where he played,
01:01:26.960
And so, that's how you infer motivation among rats.
01:01:35.100
Which is why you'll pay for tickets to a basketball game.
01:01:48.520
It's almost unbelievable that you will do that.
01:01:57.920
What are you watching a bunch of pituitary cases go, you know, bang a ball so that they can throw it through a hoop?
01:02:03.520
And, like, you'll pay outrageous sums of money to do that.
01:02:09.020
It's like, you're not even throwing the damn ball.
01:02:26.500
That you'll work to make money to buy tickets to watch people play.
01:02:36.820
And you think about how much of our entertainment is associated with exactly that.
01:02:41.060
Think, well, are we just doing something random?
01:02:43.180
Or is there something important going on there?
01:02:46.600
You know, in some sense, it's easy to be cynical about it.
01:02:49.580
But it's foolish because it's crucially important.
01:02:52.460
The fact that we're so wired up to admire fair play that we'll pay for it.
01:02:58.980
We'll pay for the right just to watch it vicariously.
01:03:02.540
That's a testament to the degree to which we're civilized and social.
01:03:07.360
Because a game is something that's civilized and social.
01:03:11.860
Piaget believed that most socialization occurred as a consequence of integrating these underlying motivational systems into iterable games.
01:03:21.900
And that's what you're doing with your kids, right?
01:03:23.440
When you socialize your kids, when you teach them how to take turns, when you teach them how to play a game,
01:03:30.300
then what you're doing is that you're socializing them into iterated, reciprocal interactions with other people.
01:03:39.120
And that's the fundamental aspect of ethic, of the ethic.
01:03:43.240
That's how an ethic emerges from the bottom up.
01:03:51.060
The Freudian hypothesis was basically that human beings learn to inhibit their aggression.
01:03:59.200
You integrate the aggression into a higher order game.
01:04:01.980
And you know this because you want an athlete, a good athlete, is someone who's got that aggression.
01:04:08.700
In fact, if you see an athlete manifest random aggression, you're not happy about that, right?
01:04:14.300
Maybe you admire them because they're really competitive.
01:04:23.140
And, you know, they're cooperating with their teammates.
01:04:27.400
They're also facilitating the development of their teammates.
01:04:33.140
So they're cooperating even with their adversaries.
01:04:42.700
And, you know, the things that we do, what we do in our lives, outside of the game, is very game-like.
01:04:49.660
We engage in a cooperative and competitive ethic.
01:04:56.360
And that's the bottom-up emergence of an ethic.
01:05:00.060
And it's also the solution to the postmodern conundrum, as far as I'm concerned, or part of the solution.
01:05:05.840
Because the postmodernists claim that there's an infinite way of looking at the world.
01:05:13.280
And that no way of looking at the world is better than any other way, which is wrong.
01:05:17.800
The first part's right, because the world's very complicated.
01:05:21.820
There aren't that many ways of playing a game properly.
01:05:24.920
And you can tell that, too, because even if you watch kids play, if you go out and you watch your kids play,
01:05:29.720
you can tell which kids are good sports and which ones aren't.
01:05:35.840
And so, you can tell when it doesn't matter what the game is.
01:05:39.360
And if you're a good sport, it's the same across games.
01:05:42.760
Which is really another indication of the emergence of a transcendent ethic.
01:05:48.960
The concept good sportsman is independent of the game.
01:05:59.440
It's the dawning of the behaviors that you want from someone who's sophisticated and reciprocal in their day-to-day life.
01:06:26.820
And rat A, who's the bigger rat, the more powerful rat, pins rat B.
01:06:30.320
And then the post-modern social scientists observing derive their conclusion.
01:06:44.380
And so, so then you have a smart scientist and he thinks, wait a second.
01:06:53.740
And so, what happens if you get the rats to wrestle more than once?
01:06:58.940
Unless, see, and this is the difference between a psychopath and someone who's not psychopathic.
01:07:04.320
So, the thing about being a psychopath is that it's all for you and none for someone else.
01:07:12.620
You know, depending on the naivety of your target.
01:07:15.880
And if you're a psychopath, you have to move from place to place.
01:07:20.120
Because people catch on to your lack of ability to play fair.
01:07:41.940
In fact, there are evolutionary psychologists who believe that we have a module for tracking reputation.
01:07:49.640
And that you don't have to activate that very often before people will remember forever that you did.
01:08:03.700
And then you let them come back and play another day.
01:08:09.120
And so, then the little rat goes out in the play field.
01:08:12.080
And the little rat has to ask the big rat to play.
01:08:34.640
It's like, I'm looking at you, signaling intent.
01:08:39.600
And the idea is, why don't you come and do this with me?
01:08:45.940
And you kind of whack it on the side of the head.
01:08:55.380
If it had owners that, I could say that weren't psychologists.
01:08:59.400
Because the worst dog I ever met was the dog that a psychologist owned.
01:09:05.100
It was just, it was just, it would just bite you.
01:09:20.060
So anyways, the little rat has to ask the big rat to play.
01:09:25.200
So he gets to sit there and, like, look cynical.
01:09:39.660
And because he's 10% bigger, he could pin the little rat.
01:09:46.800
And the big rat doesn't let the little rat win 30% of the time.
01:10:00.640
There's an emergent ethic of fair play in wrestling rats.
01:10:12.160
It's not like they're the world's most ethical animal.
01:10:23.980
What was I doing in Maps of Meaning and in 12 Rules for Life?
01:10:32.540
Each of those motivations has to pursue its own goal.
01:10:37.440
But then those motivations have to get integrated.
01:10:41.360
You kind of got that more or less under control by the time you're about two.
01:10:45.900
You start to become something approximating the integration of your motivations.
01:10:57.700
You have to integrate that integrated structure with everyone else doing the same thing.
01:11:08.500
And there's a reciprocity that goes along with it.
01:11:13.500
So here's a game that behavioral economists have been playing with people.
01:11:21.560
And you say to person A, look, I'm going to give you $100.
01:11:24.060
And you have to share it with the person next to you.
01:11:30.780
And if they take it, you get the $100 and you split it with them.
01:11:39.840
How much are you going to offer the person next to you?
01:11:42.420
Now, a classical economist would say, well, you offer them a buck.
01:11:48.460
Well, because you're trying to maximize your own self-interest.
01:11:54.040
You're going to maximize your own self-interest.
01:12:08.740
And the person next to you says, well, they think things they won't say.
01:12:19.240
But what happens is if you do this experiment, is that isn't what people do.
01:12:25.760
Cross-culturally, it's somewhere between 40 and 60%.
01:12:35.560
And you might think, well, that's because you don't need the money.
01:12:48.380
The poor people are more likely to tell you to go to hell.
01:12:51.660
Because along with having no money, they'd like not to have no pride.
01:13:01.880
And so you can at least still tell someone to go to hell when they deserve it.
01:13:07.700
And so even in the simple behavioral economist games, you get emergent evidence for automatic reciprocity.
01:13:14.660
Well, and why would you offer 50% to the stranger?
01:13:18.800
And the answer is, well, because it's a good rule of thumb.
01:13:21.880
You know, if you want people to play with you across time, if you want to engage in as many games as possible,
01:13:28.480
and you want to participate in the ethic properly,
01:13:30.960
then what you're aiming at is something approximating reciprocity.
01:13:34.180
The rules that I outlined, you know, in 12 Rules for Life,
01:13:44.700
So this is how it works, is that we have these motivational systems,
01:13:48.380
and we get them together, maybe around the age of two.
01:13:51.880
And then we integrate them with the motivational systems of others.
01:13:57.540
And the games get more and more sophisticated, more multiplicitous.
01:14:00.420
But there's a game ethic that emerges out of that.
01:14:05.940
And the game ethic is something like, well, we're all equally valuable players,
01:14:12.240
And you've got to bring your best skills to the table,
01:14:14.500
but you have to play fair, and you have to play reciprocally.
01:14:19.460
And then you get an archetype that emerges out of that,
01:14:28.780
And that's the thing that people are driven to imitate and admire.
01:14:35.800
I mean, look at, you think, why do we pay professional athletes
01:14:42.780
Well, it's possible it's because they're modeling something of crucial importance
01:14:49.240
You know, like a basketball game, a professional basketball game is a very complex drama.
01:14:56.400
And the drama is skill, but also the ethic of fair play.
01:15:02.880
And we're all observing that because we bloody well need to understand it.
01:15:08.340
So you get the emergent ethic, and that's the pattern of behavior.
01:15:15.880
That's what we're doing when we play these abstract games.
01:15:18.360
It's also what we do when we tell stories, and we make movies, and we present plays.
01:15:23.500
And we do everything that's dramatic, is that we take a look at that behavioral pattern
01:15:28.400
that's emerged, that works, and then we try to represent it,
01:15:32.780
It's like, well, what are you like if you're the hero of a story?
01:15:43.180
You know, you're the person who fixes the game.
01:15:45.540
And we abstract out those patterns, and then we try to imitate them.
01:15:50.200
And all of that drives our, that's what drives our knowledge of the ethic of behavior.
01:15:57.900
We elaborate that up into drama, and we elaborate it into ritual,
01:16:01.680
and we elaborate it into religious representations.
01:16:04.880
We have stories that emerge of people who play properly, and people who play improperly.
01:16:14.380
You say, well, what's it like to play properly?
01:16:16.580
If you were doing it perfectly, what would you be like?
01:16:19.140
Well, you'd be a target for emulation and imitation, rather than a target for rejection.
01:16:24.020
You get the archetype of the hero and the adversary come out of that.
01:16:27.260
It's a completely different way of constructing a knowledge system.
01:16:30.080
And I think that what I've been trying to do in Maps of Meaning,
01:16:34.000
and trying to do in Twelve Rules for Life, is to lay that out.
01:16:36.560
Say, look, there is a system of knowledge that underlies the ethic that we need to adopt
01:17:00.080
It also has to do with rule eight, which is, tell the truth, or at least don't lie.
01:17:06.060
Well, it's not so easy to tell the truth, but you can tell when you're lying,
01:17:10.520
And then maybe you approximate the truth across time by doing that.
01:17:16.780
You need to do, you need to take care of yourself.
01:17:21.300
But then you think, well, what does that mean exactly?
01:17:26.360
And the reason for that is, what self do you mean?
01:17:31.380
There's you now, and you tomorrow, and you next week.
01:17:34.240
You next month, and you next year, and you in a decade.
01:17:39.900
And you're a creature, unlike other creatures, in that you're aware of your own duration.
01:17:44.980
And so if you're going to treat yourself properly, you're already playing a game.
01:17:48.220
It's a game you play with yourself across time.
01:17:53.160
Because otherwise, the you that is to come is going to suffer for it.
01:17:58.320
And so there's no individual you outside of the community.
01:18:02.760
Because just because of the way you are, you're already a community.
01:18:08.200
But when you tell your child to play fair and be a good sport, you know, you're doing that
01:18:13.600
partly because then they're better for their teammates.
01:18:15.960
But you're doing it mostly because then they're better for themselves across time, right?
01:18:26.780
But then, you know, you, the self, well, what is that?
01:18:29.420
You think, what, are you more important than your family?
01:18:33.400
You know, if you take the typical parent, you say, well, look, I'm going to shoot you
01:18:39.340
Well, the typical parent is going to say, well, take me.
01:18:42.640
Well, you think, well, which is you then exactly?
01:18:45.240
Is it, you know, if what's you is what's most dear to you, what you identify with more,
01:18:50.920
well, then you identify more with your kids and a tremendous amount with your parents and
01:18:59.180
You've got the community of yourself across time, but then you've got your family and then
01:19:05.620
And then, well, there's that, but then your family's nested inside a community and you've
01:19:10.580
You've got the community now, all those other people and the community across time.
01:19:16.600
It's like, do what's good for you in a way that's good for the future you, in a
01:19:20.880
way that's good for your family and your future family, in a way that's good for the
01:19:26.900
All of that, that unbelievably complex sequence of nested games, that's what you have to play
01:19:34.120
And you admire people who do play it properly and you can see it even though you might
01:19:43.060
And I would say it's a matter of balancing out things properly.
01:19:46.940
And then to close, I would say this is something to think about too.
01:19:52.500
You know, you can get meaningfully engaged in things.
01:19:55.180
You might get meaningfully engaged in a basketball game, for example.
01:20:05.240
Maybe you follow the team across an entire championship because you don't give a damn
01:20:14.220
And you don't give a damn about one game successfully won.
01:20:17.040
You want the sequence of games to be won successfully so the championship manifests itself.
01:20:25.420
You might track all the statistics because you care who wins the game that's iterated across
01:20:33.560
Even though you can't articulate it, you don't really understand it.
01:20:36.460
It still grips you like it should because that is what should grip you.
01:20:42.200
Say, it grips you and it's engaging and it's meaningful.
01:20:52.220
Well, let's say you manage to take care of yourself and your family and your community
01:20:57.020
Let's say that you imagine you're successful as a consequence of that.
01:21:04.580
Well, what's that going to do to you biologically?
01:21:07.500
It's like, well, isn't that going to make you an attractive partner?
01:21:10.720
Isn't that going to make you an attractive mate?
01:21:13.640
And isn't the case that if you're an attractive mate because you act out that partner that
01:21:17.840
you're more likely to succeed from an evolutionary perspective?
01:21:26.260
And so, what that implies across time is that not only does that ethic exist,
01:21:31.820
and not only do we recognize it, but that the degree to which you're able to manifest
01:21:37.080
that self in your life is associated directly with your long-term success on a biological,
01:21:47.640
speaking on the biological time frame, speaking in the biological time frame.
01:21:55.900
Imagine that you have instincts that guide you towards that pattern.
01:22:13.380
You're not playing the game properly with yourself.
01:22:18.580
And the positive end is, well, if you've got the pattern right, then it's deeply and meaningfully engaging.
01:22:27.480
You know, one of the problems that modern people have is that we think that the sense of meaning is an illusion.
01:22:32.840
Because we think it's arbitrary or constructed.
01:22:38.660
That that sense of deep, meaningful engagement isn't rational at all.
01:22:44.440
And it signifies that you're where you should be doing what you should be doing.
01:22:50.560
You know, with a bit of a whack from time to time from your conscience.
01:22:54.760
It says, well, walk the straight and narrow path, right?
01:23:01.200
And get everything balanced harmoniously around you.
01:23:03.740
Because that's where you should be and that's what you should be doing.
01:23:23.120
And it's because you've allied yourself properly with all that multitudinous pattern.
01:23:28.420
And it's a symbolic manner of, what would you say, acting out, being positioned properly in the midst of all that complexity.
01:23:40.200
Well, so that's a much better story than a moral relativist story or a nihilist story, a hopeless story.
01:23:48.800
It's like you have a sense of, you have an instinct for meaning, guided by conscience, that puts you in the proper orientation to yourself extended across time.
01:24:06.240
And if you attend to that, then you act out things properly.
01:24:10.240
And then, not only do you feel better psychologically.
01:24:17.840
Gives your life some purpose and some higher meaning and protects you from anxiety and pain.
01:24:24.520
Because if you do that, you're also actually useful.
01:24:35.540
And you're doing that in a manner that actually strengthens the community.
01:24:40.420
You're taking on your role as a sovereign and responsible citizen.
01:24:56.760
I think it's long past time that we stopped regarding any of that as arbitrary.
01:25:16.740
At least you've got something worthwhile to do in the face of what you're terrified of.
01:25:31.760
I say, well, there's something to our civilized society that's integral and valuable.
01:25:46.420
And that's why I was working on Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life.
01:25:53.500
Going online without ExpressVPN is like not paying attention to the safety demonstration on a flight.
01:26:11.340
But what if one day that weird yellow mask drops down from overhead and you have no idea what to do?
01:26:16.740
In our hyper-connected world, your digital privacy isn't just a luxury.
01:26:22.200
Every time you connect to an unsecured network in a cafe, hotel, or airport, you're essentially broadcasting your personal information to anyone with a technical know-how to intercept it.
01:26:31.480
And let's be clear, it doesn't take a genius hacker to do this.
01:26:34.360
With some off-the-shelf hardware, even a tech-savvy teenager could potentially access your passwords, bank logins, and credit card details.
01:26:45.740
Well, on the dark web, your personal information could fetch up to $1,000.
01:26:50.140
That's right, there's a whole underground economy built on stolen identities.
01:26:56.160
It's like a digital fortress, creating an encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet.
01:27:00.420
Their encryption is so robust that it would take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to crack it.
01:27:10.660
With just one click, you're protected across all your devices.
01:27:15.860
That's why I use ExpressVPN whenever I'm traveling or working from a coffee shop.
01:27:20.000
It gives me peace of mind knowing that my research, communications, and personal data are shielded from prying eyes.
01:27:25.720
Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com slash jordan.
01:27:30.720
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash jordan, and you can get an extra three months free.
01:27:42.740
Starting a business can be tough, but thanks to Shopify, running your online storefront is easier than ever.
01:27:48.800
Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business.
01:27:52.880
From the launch your online shop stage, all the way to the did we just hit a million orders stage, Shopify is here to help you grow.
01:27:59.680
Our marketing team uses Shopify every day to sell our merchandise, and we love how easy it is to add more items, ship products, and track conversions.
01:28:08.160
With Shopify, customize your online store to your style with flexible templates and powerful tools, alongside an endless list of integrations and third-party apps like on-demand printing, accounting, and chatbots.
01:28:19.220
Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers with the internet's best converting checkout, up to 36% better compared to other leading e-commerce platforms.
01:28:28.020
No matter how big you want to grow, Shopify gives you everything you need to take control and take your business to the next level.
01:28:33.820
Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash jbp, all lowercase.
01:28:40.340
Go to shopify.com slash jbp now to grow your business, no matter what stage you're in.
01:28:48.140
These are the most comfortable chairs we've had.
01:29:08.180
All right, we've got a ton of questions because this is a tech town and they actually know how to use that.
01:29:22.760
Now that you've destroyed Patreon, will the two of you save the internet?
01:29:34.120
I don't know even if we'll save Patreon, you know, because this is part of the not taking the moral high ground too easily.
01:29:45.000
You know, Dave and I, and Harris as well, Dave talked to Sam in particular, but Dave and I talked about what had happened after Patreon banned Carl Benjamin, Sargon of a cat, and we thought, well, that's just not acceptable.
01:30:00.260
And so we decided to stop using the platform, and I'd been working on a program that had some parallel functions to Patreon that we were producing for a slightly different reason.
01:30:15.880
And we started talking about the possibility that it could be repurposed as a Patreon alternative, which is something that we're working diligently on, and which will happen.
01:30:26.800
But I would never claim that the solution to the problem is going to be straightforward.
01:30:38.800
I think Dave and I will start using the platform in about a month and a half, something like that.
01:30:46.940
Maybe Patreon's time has come and gone already, because there's already ways of supporting individual contributors.
01:30:52.080
Maybe it's not possible to aggregate a tremendous number of creative people together in a single platform without attracting undue negative attention and the immediate probability of this kind of sensorial action.
01:31:09.880
You know, it looks like YouTube and Facebook are wrestling now, and Twitter as well, wrestling now with the conundrum that they've been presented with, which is, well, there's a billion opinions, and some of them are rough.
01:31:30.480
And the answer might be, like, in the frontier heyday of YouTube, when it wasn't run by a giant and increasingly rigid corporation, then anything went.
01:31:42.740
But as soon as it's corporatized and systematized, then that can no longer work.
01:31:49.220
I mean, you think, you really think the internet could have ever started if it would have been regulated to begin with?
01:32:01.820
It's that that's what happened, is that the internet exploded over its first, say, 10 years of development, of public development, because it was just abs...
01:32:10.160
It was like, what was the percentage of porn on the internet for the first 10 years?
01:32:16.520
I didn't know that there was porn on the internet.
01:32:24.840
See, everyone learns something at a Jordan Peterson event.
01:32:31.260
So, I don't know if it's a solvable problem, but we're going to try...
01:32:35.920
I think at least we're going to try to build a platform where, if you're on it, we're not going to kick you off arbitrarily.
01:32:44.700
See, let me just say one more thing about that.
01:32:53.080
So, I went and talked to one of the guys who runs one of these big social communication systems, you know, social networks.
01:33:03.800
And they'd faced a lot of pressure because ISIS was using the platform to recruit.
01:33:10.800
Okay, so you've got to ask yourself, if you're a free speech absolutist, you're going to let...
01:33:18.260
If you're in a war, are you going to let the enemies of your state recruit with your platform?
01:33:22.060
And if the answer is no, which seems like a reasonable answer, well, then you've already opened the door, right?
01:33:32.000
Say, there are things that should, could be censored.
01:33:37.100
Then the question is, as soon as you open that door, like, it's Pandora's box.
01:33:42.160
It's like, okay, well, what about what's right next to that?
01:33:45.900
Maybe that would be, like, certain forms of communication about radical religious fundamentalism.
01:33:54.380
And then there's something right next door to that.
01:33:56.580
It's like, those lines are really hard to draw.
01:33:59.240
So, it isn't obvious to me how large-scale social networks are going to solve this problem.
01:34:04.280
And we're wrestling with that, trying to come up with a solution that's reasonable.
01:34:09.720
So far, it's something like, you'll be able to stay on the platform unless you break an American law.
01:34:21.680
And I don't even know if that's a good enough guideline, but, well, it might have to be.
01:34:27.480
And as for fixing the net, well, that's a no-go, that is.
01:34:36.780
So, we offer whatever content we can manage, and people seem to enjoy it.
01:34:41.660
And that's working pretty well, but that's about all we can manage.
01:34:57.520
The APA recently defined traditional masculinity as toxic, conflating virtuous and harmful aspects.
01:35:05.320
How can we reverse this dangerous ideological progression?
01:35:08.440
Oh, the purpose was to conflate the virtuous and the harmful.
01:35:13.940
That's the purpose of the document, is to blur the distinction between the two.
01:35:17.120
And I think the real reason, I'm writing an article about this right now.
01:35:21.400
I think the actual reason was to damage the virtuous.
01:35:25.500
Because that's the best way of doing it, right?
01:35:27.360
If you want to damage the virtuous, what you do is you conflate it with the harmful.
01:35:31.280
It doesn't hurt the harmful any to have it conflated with the virtuous.
01:35:35.640
So, let's say your real motivation is like a seriously deep resentment and spite.
01:35:42.060
And that the best way to manifest that is to take the virtuous and conflate it with the pathological.
01:35:50.520
And maybe that's because you can't bloody manage it on your own.
01:35:56.900
Welcome to Season 2, Episode 38 of the Jordan B. Peterson Podcast.
01:36:06.380
I'm Mikayla Peterson, dad's daughter and collaborator.
01:36:10.640
Girl who only eats meat and does extended fasting.
01:36:14.440
Believe it or not, my brother is basically completely normal.
01:36:22.940
Today's episode is a 12 Rules for Life lecture, recorded in San Jose on January 22, 2019.
01:36:29.660
I've named it Resolving the Science-Religion Problem.
01:36:32.880
Last week, I walked on the beach for the first time with no pain in almost 12 years.
01:36:38.800
I had my ankle replacement re-replaced last January.
01:36:44.280
I was awake during it too because I opted out of general anesthesia.
01:36:48.040
About a quarter of the way into the surgery, I regretted that.
01:36:54.940
The problem being a crooked ankle replacement installed 10 years prior.
01:37:00.260
So after about a half a mile walking in the sand, I literally cried with appreciation.
01:37:07.100
I had overlaid my experience of beaches with sadness and hatred and frustration.
01:37:13.260
It's a hell of a lot easier when you're not in pain.
01:37:18.620
Just wanted to share that with everybody because it was really overwhelming.
01:37:25.620
Dad is launching his very first e-course on December 17th, 2019.
01:37:34.540
A lot of people have been asking us for a more structured and condensed resource where they can learn about personality without needing to spend 30 plus hours watching videos, reading resources, etc.
01:37:45.260
So earlier this year, we recorded a new video series that will be packaged as an online course with eight videos, supplementary materials, including lecture notes, additional reading materials and resources, transcripts, a free license to the Understand Myself Personality Assessment, and an exclusive discussion group.
01:38:02.880
All designed to give you an in-depth look and understanding of your personality.
01:38:07.440
Personality is my favorite topic in psychology.
01:38:10.120
It's worth checking out if you've been intending to learn about personality and want to do it in a concise and structured format.
01:38:16.400
Dad's released a lot of information about personality on YouTube for free, but this is a more concise, structured way of learning and features some information on personality differences between genders.
01:38:26.480
Go to jordanbpeterson.com slash personality to check it out.
01:38:30.740
If you're listening to this podcast before December 17th, 2019, we're currently offering a pre-sale for a 15% discount on the course at $120.
01:38:40.980
If you're interested, this is a great opportunity to get it at a lower price or buy it for someone for Christmas even.
01:38:49.080
I sat in on all the lectures, even though I had food poisoning at the time.
01:38:53.120
Imagine getting food poisoning when you only eat one thing.
01:38:56.160
Not ideal, but I still sat through the lectures.
01:38:59.720
Check it out at jordanbpeterson.com slash personality.
01:39:15.000
A Jordan B. Peterson 12 Rules for Life lecture.
01:39:18.880
It's been a while since I talked to a large audience.
01:39:22.020
I talked to an audience in Zurich a week ago, but that was in a completely different time zone.
01:39:27.080
So, and I was just trying to recapitulate in my imagination what it is that I was trying to do with 12 Rules for Life and with my first book, Maps of Meaning.
01:39:43.580
And so I was laying that out, and I think I'll walk through that again.
01:39:57.920
So, the first issue is, I think, that these are issues that everybody knows.
01:40:05.940
But all these issues that I'm going to lay out are related.
01:40:10.460
So, the first issue that everybody knows is that there's a conflict between religion and science.
01:40:16.820
And so, that's a conflict that's torn at the heart of our culture for about 500 years.
01:40:31.140
Especially as scientific progress has become more self-evident.
01:40:37.140
And there's been a lot of really good things about that, obviously.
01:40:44.060
And it's radically improved our standard of living, our material well-being.
01:40:50.160
And it's very difficult not to think of that as a good thing.
01:40:54.500
And one of the things that's really remarkable about that is that it's accelerating by all appearances.
01:41:05.680
And that it's happening everywhere in the world.
01:41:08.500
And so, there's been an unbelievably rapid economic transformation throughout the world.
01:41:17.540
So, you know, the bulk of the population in the world now is middle class.
01:41:22.760
And starvation is virtually a thing of the past.
01:41:27.460
Although, and even extreme privation from a material perspective is declining very rapidly.
01:41:34.100
The UN defines extreme privation as existence on less than $1.90 a day in today's dollars.
01:41:50.000
And the UN projects that it will be eradicated completely by the year 2030.
01:41:57.460
And just to put things in perspective, in the West, before 1895, the typical person lived on a dollar a day.
01:42:05.340
So that's less than the current UN standard for extreme privation.
01:42:11.120
And so, the technological revolution that's been driven in large part by the dawn of scientific thinking has radically altered the West and its standard of living.
01:42:25.320
But now is doing the same thing everywhere else in the world.
01:42:32.000
The child mortality rate in Africa is now the same as it was in Europe in 1952.
01:42:43.040
But the conflict between the scientific viewpoint and the religious viewpoint still exists.
01:42:53.640
Carl Jung, who's a favorite thinker of mine, a psychoanalytic thinker who lived, who wrote and thought through most of the 20th century.
01:43:08.620
So, I guess for the first six-tenths of the 20th century.
01:43:12.540
He believed that what had happened about 500 years ago was that as science developed out of alchemy,
01:43:20.780
which was like the dream, the alchemy was the dream out of which science emerged.
01:43:25.620
First, alchemy was the dream that you could discover a material substance, which was the philosopher's stone that would confer upon everyone health, wealth, and longevity.
01:43:38.100
And, of course, there is no philosopher's stone, but the dream was correct.
01:43:42.720
Because the dream was that if we studied the material world with enough care that we could discover something that would produce wealth and health and longevity.
01:43:59.160
And so, sometimes things that occur in actuality have to be dreamed before they occur.
01:44:06.500
However, alchemy had an ethical aspect and a practical aspect, let's say.
01:44:12.820
And the practical aspect exploded up into the scientific revolution and gave us this incredible technological power.
01:44:20.020
But it was Jung's belief that the ethical element remained undeveloped and that that was dangerous.
01:44:28.480
And that we were now in a situation, and have been for quite a while, where our technological power outstrips our ethical knowledge.
01:44:36.500
And part of that's manifested in an uncertainty about ethics in general, about how to behave.
01:44:43.660
About whether there is even an answer to the question how to behave.
01:44:50.740
About whether or not there is such a thing as an ethic that isn't morally relative or arbitrary in some sense.
01:44:59.460
And I think you see that manifested, that critique manifested most particularly in the post-modern doctrine.
01:45:06.140
Which claims, with some justification, that there's a very large number of ways of looking at the world.
01:45:12.460
And that none of those ways, there's no straightforward way to determine which one of that multitude of manners that you can view the world is correct.
01:45:35.340
And you have a philosophical problem that David Hume pointed out, which is that it isn't obvious how you can derive an ought from an is.
01:45:52.200
And you could think of the scientific method as an attempt to describe what is.
01:45:59.560
And the ethical endeavor as an attempt to describe what ought to be.
01:46:04.200
And according to Hume, there was a gap between the two.
01:46:08.160
And it wasn't a straightforward thing to bridge.
01:46:17.000
So I was very interested in that, in those parallel sets of problems.
01:46:30.100
And that's what I wrote about in 12 Rules for Life and in Maps of Meaning.
01:46:34.020
I started to hypothesize a long while back that, in a similar manner, that there were two ways of looking at the world.
01:46:49.880
You could look at the world as a place of objects, a place of material objects.
01:46:55.980
Or you could look at the world as a place to act.
01:46:59.580
And that that's the same idea reflected in a different way.
01:47:11.760
And then I realized, too, and this was partly from studying the psychoanalysts, but also from studying literature.
01:47:18.440
Literature first and the psychoanalysts second was that the world as a place to act is laid out in stories.
01:47:27.920
And then maybe the world is like a stage that's set for a drama, you know.
01:47:38.100
You look at the stage and there's nothing, there's no characters on it to begin with.
01:47:46.620
The speakers and the chair and the stage is set.
01:47:50.520
And you could know everything about the stage setting from a scientific perspective and you still would have no idea what drama was about to take place.
01:47:58.260
Yet the purpose of the stage and the purpose of the play is the drama and the stage setting.
01:48:07.080
The objects are in some sense almost peripheral to that.
01:48:10.160
And you know that, too, because you've seen plays and movies and you know how many different ways you can set a stage for the drama to occur.
01:48:18.600
And the question is, well, what constitutes the drama?
01:48:27.740
And because the point of the stage is the play and not the setting.
01:48:38.960
And I started to understand that the drama had a structure.
01:48:43.440
And that the structure, just like the material world has a structure, just like there's a periodic table of the elements, there's a periodic table in some sense.
01:48:58.360
And if you understand them, you can start to understand how to act in the world.
01:49:04.200
And there is actually a way to act in the world that's not arbitrary.
01:49:07.620
When I was writing Maps of Meaning, which was my first book, I was trying to address a question that was a postmodern question, although I didn't know it at the time.
01:49:21.220
I was obsessed by the fact that the world had divided itself into two armed camps.
01:49:29.280
The armed camp that constituted essentially the Soviet Union, but you could say the entire communist bloc, and then the West.
01:49:36.100
And that each of those two blocks had arranged their societies according to different axiomatic presumptions, and were at odds with one another.
01:49:46.660
And it wasn't obvious, the world wouldn't have divided itself into those two armed camps, if it was obvious which of those two sets of axiomatic presuppositions were more valid, let's say.
01:50:00.740
Or maybe the problem was even deeper than that, which was those were just two arbitrary sets of axiomatic presuppositions out of a very large number of potential sets.
01:50:12.120
And they just happened to be the ones that emerged, and they were at odds with one another.
01:50:16.020
And so I started to study the understructure of the two belief systems, to see if one of them had more validity than the other, if I could figure that out.
01:50:26.800
If there was something underneath at least one of them.
01:50:30.180
And what I discovered, I think, was that the belief system that characterized the societies of the West, the underlying belief system, wasn't arbitrary.
01:50:43.420
And I think the fact that the Soviet Union fell apart so precipitously in 1989 is actually evidence of the unplayability of the Soviet game.
01:50:53.500
That's a good way of, that's a really good way of thinking about it.
01:50:56.080
There's some games you can play, and there's some games you can't play.
01:50:59.260
If you iterate some games, they degenerate, and if you iterate others, they improve.
01:51:03.700
And that's actually one of the pieces of evidence that suggests that one system is preferable to another, that you can iterate it across time.
01:51:12.580
And that that's actually not a degenerating game, but an improving game.
01:51:17.780
And, you know, if you have a relationship with someone, it's an iterated game, right?
01:51:23.920
If you have a permanent relationship with someone, a marriage, a friendship, a relationship between siblings, relationship between you and your children,
01:51:31.560
and you want to be able to interact with them in a manner that doesn't get worse across time.
01:51:36.340
Maybe at least it stays flat, but it would be better if it even got better.
01:51:42.480
And your successful relationships are at least ones that maintain the status quo, but the great ones improve across time.
01:51:50.980
And so there are ways that you can act, interact, iteratively with people in a manner that sustains that iteration and fortifies it.
01:52:07.540
And so some games aren't playable, and some games are.
01:52:13.480
And the game that the communists played was a degenerating game.
01:52:17.520
And that meant that there was something wrong with it.
01:52:19.440
And that meant that at least that way of looking at the world wasn't as good as any other way.
01:52:25.420
Which is interesting, because at least it suggests that there's one way of looking at the world that isn't as good as another way.
01:52:31.660
And that's a bothersome fact, in some sense, if you're a moral relativist.
01:52:36.740
Because as soon as there's any evidence that one game isn't as good as another, you've got some evidence that some games are better than others.
01:52:44.080
And so then you have some evidence that there's a rank order, let's say, of games.
01:52:50.460
When Solzhenitsyn wrote about the Nazi Holocaust, he talked about the Nuremberg Trials.
01:52:59.020
And he believed that the Nuremberg Trials were among the most important events of the 20th century.
01:53:09.180
And the reason he believed that was because the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials...
01:53:17.020
You have to think about whether or not you believe this, because there's a cost to believing it, and there's a cost to not believing it.
01:53:23.540
So there's no scot-free way out of this conundrum.
01:53:27.260
The conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials was that there were some things that you could not do if you were human, without being subject to moral sanction.
01:53:41.560
Those were what have come to be known as crimes against humanity.
01:53:44.780
So the Nuremberg Trials made it axiomatic that some things were wrong, independently of the moral structure within which you were raised.
01:54:00.680
Or, another way of thinking about it was that no matter what moral structure it was that you were raised within,
01:54:10.620
and there was something common across all of them that would make the sorts of things that the Nazis did wrong by any reasonable standard.
01:54:22.780
But if you don't believe that, then that puts you in an awkward position with regards to the Holocaust, say.
01:54:34.260
It's like, you either admit that there's something wrong, or you admit that there wasn't anything wrong with the Holocaust,
01:54:41.280
and that it was just an arbitrary cultural decision.
01:54:45.440
One of many such arbitrary cultural decisions, and of no more distinction than any other.
01:54:52.680
And that seems like a conclusion that, in the main, we're not willing to draw.
01:55:03.840
So, maybe there is a difference between wrong and right.
01:55:17.040
Now, let's think about the problem of how to act.
01:55:23.740
I think about it biologically, because that's what I tried to do when I was writing Maps of Meaning.
01:55:28.340
And in Twelve Rules for Life, there's also a biological approach.
01:55:33.840
I mean, I drew on a lot of religious stories when I wrote both those books,
01:55:37.920
which is a strange thing to do if you're also trying to think biologically,
01:55:42.980
because those two things don't necessarily exist harmoniously.
01:55:56.520
aren't comfortable with religious presuppositions.
01:55:58.980
And so, the attempt to use a physical standpoint derived from physics and a standpoint derived from biology,
01:56:11.940
and to ally that with religious presuppositions is an awkward marriage.
01:56:24.060
Jean Piaget was probably the greatest child developmental psychologist of the 20th century.
01:56:32.000
He had a messianic crisis when he was a young man,
01:56:36.000
and was tormented by the contradiction between science and religion,
01:56:40.580
and decided that he was going to devote his entire life to rectifying that.
01:56:45.260
And I actually think he managed it to a large degree.
01:56:48.860
You know, it's not generally how Piaget is discussed.
01:56:53.580
we generally don't discuss them in their full peculiarity.
01:57:04.460
you know, one one-thousandth of a joint on Joe Rogan.
01:57:13.680
Obviously, you have to be a strange person to build an electric car,
01:57:18.240
and then shoot it on your own rocket out into space.
01:57:33.180
but the joint probability of doing both is way below zero.
01:57:38.520
so I thought it was comical that people went after Musk,
01:58:02.320
And I think that's partly because they're afraid of,
01:58:05.320
that if you read someone who's really a genius,
01:58:45.220
one of the things that's kind of interesting about human beings,
01:58:47.720
is that we really didn't care about that very much,
01:58:53.080
we didn't invent science until about 500 years ago.
01:59:10.000
the difference between 500 years and 3,000 years is,
01:59:32.540
and so we were vaguely human for 7 million years.
01:59:44.360
the difference between 500 years and 3,000 years is completely trivial.
01:59:49.800
is that we didn't invent anything approximating science,
01:59:52.660
and we weren't concerned about the structure of the material world,
02:00:14.280
that existed in the absolute absence of anything,
02:00:36.920
to provide us with the knowledge that we needed,
02:14:46.060
why would he be interested in fixing your pipes?
02:48:10.080
and so even in the simple behavioral economist games,
02:48:17.880
well and why would you offer 50% to the stranger,
02:48:27.720
if you want to engage in as many games as possible,
02:48:31.080
and you want to participate in the ethic properly,
02:49:14.600
and you got to bring your best skills to the table,
02:49:30.800
and that's the thing that people are driven to imitate,
02:49:46.880
it's because they're modeling something of crucial importance,
02:50:18.340
that's what we're doing when we play these abstract games,
02:50:27.640
is that we take a look at that behavioral pattern,
02:50:35.880
what are you like if you're the hero of a story,
02:50:55.160
that's what drives our knowledge of the ethic of behavior,
02:51:04.160
and we elaborate it into religious representations,
02:51:08.020
you have stories that emerge of people who play properly,
02:52:47.280
and so if you're going to treat yourself properly,
02:53:16.480
because then they're better for their teammates,
03:00:19.180
at least you've got something worthwhile to do,
03:01:06.020
these are the most comfortable chairs we've had,
03:11:49.880
that dinner that I'm sure many of you saw the picture of,
03:11:51.660
where it was Sam and Joe and Shapiro and all of us,
03:11:54.660
and watching you and Rogan sit across from each other,
03:11:57.600
each one of you eating like a 50 ounce tomahawk,
03:12:13.360
how can you break out of the SJW mood of expected values,
03:12:49.540
and then you have to act it out at all the small,
03:13:18.220
if you think you can let any of that dogma into your company,
03:13:26.520
And if you think that what happened to the universities,
03:13:46.260
And if you think you'll curry favor with the public,
03:14:16.840
you have to make sure that you don't do it at all.
03:19:22.180
they were written by journalists who were paid,
03:19:31.040
it's a side effect of technological revolution.
03:31:36.700
Hallow is launching an exceptional new series called,