Joe Rogan Experience #1006 - Jordan Peterson & Bret Weinstein

PowerfulJRE

AI-assisted summary of Joe Rogan Experience #1006 - Jordan Peterson & Bret Weinstein — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2017-09-01

Key ideas

Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein argue that dismissing totalitarian leaders like Adolf Hitler as mere 'madmen' obscures the latent, evolved human psychological mechanisms—including out-group disgust sensitivity and resource-competition programs—that enable mass atrocities. (0:00)
Postmodern neo-Marxism is critiqued as an irreconcilable intellectual contradiction that denies biological reality and universal metanarratives while simultaneously relying on a Marxist metanarrative of class and power dynamics. (87:34)
Weinstein introduces the concept of beliefs that are 'literally false, metaphorically true'—heuristics and mythic narratives that are factually untrue yet confer distinct evolutionary survival advantages when acted upon. (60:01)
Peterson explains that wealth and productivity skew into extreme unequal Pareto distributions across all creative systems, making radical egalitarian attempts to enforce equal outcomes economically destructive and historically fatal. (91:53)
Both scholars urge the adoption of individual personal responsibility and open discourse as the necessary cultural defense against escalating tribal feedback loops between the radical left and the alt-right. (25:20)

Detailed notes

## Background This episode was published on September 1, 2017, on YouTube by the PowerfulJRE channel as episode #1006 of the Joe Rogan Experience. The page description introduces clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson from the University of Toronto alongside biology professor Bret Weinstein from Evergreen State College, both of whom were embroiled in national campus controversies regarding free expression, evolutionary thinking, and institutional politics.

## TL;DR Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein join Joe Rogan to dissect the cultural, evolutionary, and psychological mechanisms driving modern political polarization and institutional collapse. Drawing from evolutionary biology, the discussion examines how human tribalism, disgust sensitivity, and out-group competition fuel totalitarian regimes and contemporary speech controversies. Peterson and Weinstein analyze the philosophical divide between empirical science and postmodern neo-Marxism, exploring how Pareto distributions naturally govern creative output and resource concentration across systems. Together, they advocate for the heroic individual, free speech, and nuanced public dialogue as the necessary safeguards against ideological radicalism on both the far left and the far right.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation carries an urgent, highly cerebral, and intellectually intense tone, reflecting the immediate fallout from the campus upheavals Peterson and Weinstein were actively enduring in 2017. Rogan acts as an inquisitive, grounded interlocutor, steering academic abstractions into relatable cultural touchstones while letting his guests build elaborate theoretical frameworks around biology, mythology, and political theory. The dialogue alternates between solemn warnings about historical atrocities and lighter moments of dry, bemused humor regarding internet satire, giving listeners the feeling of an unvarnished, deep-dive academic summit wrestling with societal instability in real time.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=0s) Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein argue that dismissing totalitarian leaders like Adolf Hitler as mere 'madmen' obscures the latent, evolved human psychological mechanisms—including out-group disgust sensitivity and resource-competition programs—that enable mass atrocities. - [01:27:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5254s) Postmodern neo-Marxism is critiqued as an irreconcilable intellectual contradiction that denies biological reality and universal metanarratives while simultaneously relying on a Marxist metanarrative of class and power dynamics. - [01:00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3601s) Weinstein introduces the concept of beliefs that are 'literally false, metaphorically true'—heuristics and mythic narratives that are factually untrue yet confer distinct evolutionary survival advantages when acted upon. - [01:31:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5513s) Peterson explains that wealth and productivity skew into extreme unequal Pareto distributions across all creative systems, making radical egalitarian attempts to enforce equal outcomes economically destructive and historically fatal. - [25:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1520s) Both scholars urge the adoption of individual personal responsibility and open discourse as the necessary cultural defense against escalating tribal feedback loops between the radical left and the alt-right.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=0s) Genocidal totalitarianism stems from latent, evolved human behavioral programs rather than isolated anomalies of individual madness. - [01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=111s) Postmodern philosophy in university humanities rejects competence and objective reality, reducing all human interactions strictly to arbitrary power games. - [16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=971s) Political conservatism and authoritarian tendencies correlate strongly with orderliness and disgust sensitivity rather than fear, functioning as an extended behavioral immune system against out-group contamination. - [39:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2345s) Biological differences in human temperament, including higher average agreeableness and lower risk-taking in women, are supported by empirical psychology rather than being purely arbitrary social constructs. - [52:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3151s) Societal innovation and discovery originate from a 'minority of one' on the fringe, requiring robust protections for free speech to reintegrate discoveries back into cultural consensus. - [01:00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3601s) Religious and mythic narratives function as evolved behavioral guides containing metaphorical truths that promote long-term survival, regardless of their scientific literalism. - [01:20:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4841s) Scientific facts alone cannot generate ethics or prescribe human action; inherited wisdom and values are required to select optimal paths from an infinite landscape of data. - [01:31:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5513s) Capital accumulation and creative output naturally follow Pareto distributions across all production domains, refuting the Marxist claim that inequality is an exclusive defect of capitalism. - [02:08:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7681s) General cognitive ability (IQ) and conscientiousness represent the primary psychological determinants of economic performance in modern meritocratic systems. - [01:48:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6490s) Universal Basic Income misdiagnoses human fulfillment by providing cash without addressing the biological and psychological necessity for purpose, utility, and responsibility. - [01:55:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6953s) Free-market dynamics optimize logistical efficiency but cannot establish moral values, creating perverse incentives when applied inappropriately to universities, churches, and journalism. - [02:27:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8867s) A 'black truth' occurs when an accurate factual claim is deliberately weaponized out of proper context to wound, mislead, or provide moral cover to extremist factions. - [02:42:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9728s) Branding decentralized internet satire and memes as hate symbols erodes the middle ground of nuanced public discourse, polarizing observers into rigid binary extremes.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=0s) Origins of the Conversation and Analyzing Hitler

Joe Rogan opens the podcast with Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein, joking about Peterson looking especially sharp in a suit while making everyone else look sloppy. Peterson explains with a laugh that he only packed a limited selection of clothes. When Rogan asks whose idea it was to arrange the sit-down, Weinstein explains that he reached out after seeing a clip of Peterson discussing Adolf Hitler, in which Peterson argued that Hitler was actually far worse than his standard reputation suggests.

Weinstein connects Peterson’s insight to his own undergraduate work with renowned evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, whom Weinstein considers one of the preeminent evolutionary minds of the twentieth century. Working under Trivers, Weinstein had conducted an evolutionary analysis of the Holocaust to investigate the prevailing cultural narrative that Hitler was simply insane. Weinstein felt that reducing genocidal leaders to mere madness bypasses the deeper, more terrifying mechanics of what actually transpired, making Peterson's video clip the perfect catalyst for a broader discussion.

> “I think there's something actually dangerous that we dismiss somebody like Hitler as crazy before we understand actually what they're up to so when I saw your your video clip I thought it would be worth having a discussion so that we could figure out what perspective makes sense.” — Bret Weinstein

[01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=111s) The Crisis at Evergreen State College and the Dogma of Power

Before delving into evolutionary history, Rogan shifts focus to Weinstein’s unfolding crisis at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. Weinstein clarifies that while a lawsuit had not yet been formally filed, he had engaged in an initial sit-down negotiation with the college administration the previous day in an attempt to avert legal action. However, Weinstein shares a grim assessment of the administration's stance, noting that the college appears to have learned nothing and is instead doubling down on the very premises that sparked the chaos.

Rogan details the public spectacles on campus, pointing to students roaming with baseball bats and a notorious confrontation where students commanded the college president not to use hand gestures while speaking because it constituted a microaggression. When the president complied, the students cheered and laughed at their newfound leverage. Peterson frames these campus antics not as youthful aberrations, but as the direct logical consequence of postmodern ideology taught in the humanities. Under this worldview, objective reality is discarded as a social construct, legitimate authority and competence are erased, and human relationships are interpreted purely through the prism of power dynamics and group conflict.

> “And if you're cynical about that sort of thing and you should be, you might say that part of the reason that the only thing that the post-modernists believe in is power is because that helps them justify their arbitrary use of it under any circumstances whatsoever and I think that's right.” — Jordan Peterson

- Bret Weinstein held his first formal negotiation meeting with Evergreen State College leadership the day prior to avert a lawsuit. - Rogan highlights the Evergreen student body’s tactics, such as policing gestures and patrolling campus grounds with bats, as games of raw coercion. - Peterson argues that postmodernism removes any standard of competence or merit, leaving dominance and arbitrary power as the only remaining currencies of human interaction.

[04:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=294s) Charlottesville, "Punch a Nazi," and Campus De-platforming

The conversation moves to the cultural escalation around political violence, specifically the ubiquity of the slogan "punch a Nazi" online and the arbitrary expansion of who qualifies as a Nazi. Rogan observes that in activist circles, anyone who dissents is casually branded a fascist, even while legitimate white supremacists carrying tiki torches and shouting antisemitic slogans marched at Charlottesville. Peterson emphasizes that mainstream culture across both the left and right had long reached a firm consensus that Nazism was thoroughly evil, which was why genuine neo-Nazis were so easily identified and condemned by sensible conservatives.

Peterson recounts how the fallout from Charlottesville directly impacted him in Canada. He was scheduled to participate in a panel discussion regarding the suppression of free speech on university campuses at Ryerson University in Toronto. In the wake of Charlottesville, a campus activist created a Facebook campaign featuring a crossed-out swastika and the slogan "no fascists at Ryerson," falsely targeting the panel. Ryerson’s administration caved and promptly canceled the event, largely because another scheduled panelist was journalist Faith Goldy, who had covered the Charlottesville protest and captured video of the fatal car attack.

> “We all agreed on that we're not going there anymore and so when someone pops up and says well we should go there it's like they're immediately identifiable you can box them in and if you have any sense like you know like many conservatives did in the aftermath of the Charlottesville they come out and say well in case it needs to be said again we're actually not allied with those people.” — Jordan Peterson

[07:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=478s) The Swastika vs. the Hammer and Sickle

Peterson describes the aftermath of the Ryerson cancellation, where counter-protesters held a victory celebration on campus. A crowd of several hundred gathered openly under the hammer and sickle, chanting calls for communist revolution. What Peterson found striking was the utter silence from mainstream media regarding the celebration of an ideology with a catastrophic, murderous historical record. Peterson contrasts the public reception of totalitarian symbols, exploring why the swastika immediately signals moral pathology while the hammer and sickle is tolerated or treated benignly.

Peterson offers a criminological analogy to explain the differing emotional responses to fascism and communism: Nazism resembles a street mugger who corners you in an alley and stabs you for your wallet, producing an immediate, visceral terror through overt bloodiness. Communism, by contrast, operates like a sophisticated white-collar criminal who methodically steals your pension; while potentially far more destructive in scale, the harm is abstract and deferred. Rogan adds that pure historical ignorance and pop-culture romanticism drive the left-wing imagery, pointing to youth wearing Che Guevara t-shirts who imagine a stylish jungle freedom fighter resisting American empire rather than confronting Guevara's real-world history of atrocities.

> “And I think maybe it's something like the Nazi is the guy who knifes you in the alley and steals your wallet and the communist is the white-collar criminal who takes your pension and you're actually more afraid of the first person than the second person because the damage they do is more proximal and immediate and emotionally recognizable.” — Jordan Peterson

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Comparison of Totalitarian Symbols accDescr: Diagram illustrating Jordan Peterson's analogy contrasting the public perception of the swastika versus the hammer and sickle.

subgraph Nazism["Nazi Symbolism (Swastika)"] N1["Visible Brutality / Bloodshed"] --> N2["Alley Mugger Metaphor"] N2 --> N3["Immediate Visceral Terror & Universal Rejection"] end

subgraph Communism["Communist Symbolism (Hammer & Sickle)"] C1["Abstract / Systemic Atrocity"] --> C2["White-Collar Pension Thief Metaphor"] C2 --> C3["Romanticized Rebellion & Pop-Culture Tolerance"] end ```

[09:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=574s) Drawing Lines Around Extremism: Right vs. Left

Jordan Peterson begins by contrasting how political factions police their fringes, reflecting on the immediate aftermath of the Charlottesville rally. Prominent conservatives quickly distanced themselves from the extremists, citing Ben Shapiro's swift condemnation of white supremacists as a modern parallel to William F. Buckley Jr. excommunicating the John Birch Society from mainstream conservatism in the 1960s. Peterson argues that it is inherently easier for the right to establish clear boundaries because conservatives naturally excel at drawing lines: if someone wears a swastika to a protest, they are unequivocally cast out of the club.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Boundary Enforcement on the Right vs Left accDescr: Contrasting how the right uses clear visual markers like swastikas while the left relies on abstract concepts like equity. subgraph RightWing ["The Right Wing"] R1["Visible Marker: Swastika"] --> R2["Immediate Line Drawn: 'Out of the Club'"] end subgraph LeftWing ["The Radical Left"] L1["Ideological Marker: Demand for 'Equity'"] --> L2["Vague / Abstract Line: Lacks Emotional Punch"] end ```

By contrast, defining where the radical left crosses the line into unacceptable extremism is elusive. Peterson suggests that insisting on "equity" without defining it ought to be the smoking pistol, yet it fails to function as an effective cultural demarcation. Pointing to abstract concepts lacks visceral, rhetorical power; nobody can easily rally public outrage or cut social ties simply over a disagreement on equity. Peterson highlights the disparity: “On the right you say, 'Well, you wear a swastika, you're out of the club, man,' right? On the left, well, what's the smoking pistol? You believe in equity... but it doesn't have the same emotional punch as 'you wore a swastika to the protest.'”

[10:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=638s) Evolutionary Roots of Tribalism and Historical Cycles

Bret Weinstein redirects the conversation, warning that treating Nazis as the primary threat acts as a red herring. By focusing on a cartoonish view of Charlottesville and the small headcounts involved, society overlooks a deeper evolutionary dynamic that recurs throughout history. As Joe Rogan briefly pauses to advise Weinstein on keeping his microphone a fist’s distance away, Weinstein articulates his core thesis: 1930s Germany was simply a well-documented manifestation of an evolved human tendency. He notes that “tyranny is the endgame of prosperity,” explaining that extended periods of affluence foster the illusion that primal human conflict has been banished forever. Once that abundance dwindles, older survival strategies resurface under new banners, which leaders like Donald Trump cynically ride.

Peterson agrees, noting that his own public battles over campus politics stemmed from recognizing this polarization. Pushing a radical leftist agenda in universities inevitably generates a mirror counter-reaction: an inversion of identity politics where people revert to white racial identification, which he describes as extraordinarily dangerous. Weinstein analyzes this asymmetry between the two sides:

- The political left relies on an unstable coalition of disparate minority and identity groups that lack the numbers to wield dominant power alone; once they attain control, internal friction threatens to tear them apart. - The far-right's manifestation as white nationalism is dangerously cohesive and stable because it appeals to a single, historically unified population rooted in evolutionary tribalism. - Weinstein stresses the "naturalistic fallacy": an evolutionary biologist describing a pattern's emergence is not defending it, as evolution is an amoral process that has generated humanity's highest virtues alongside its most horrific pathologies.

Weinstein summarizes the moral imperative facing society: “Evolution is an absolutely amoral process. It has produced the most marvelous features of human beings and the worst features, and we are in some sense obligated to pick and choose which features to honor and promote and which ones to tamp down.”

[16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=971s) Disgust Sensitivity, Orderliness, and Authoritarianism

Peterson explains the psychological and biological mechanisms underpinning conservative and authoritarian beliefs. Temperament reliably tracks political orientation: left-leaning individuals generally score high in trait openness (associated with creativity) and low in conscientiousness. While conscientiousness can be divided into industriousness and orderliness, research reveals that conservatism specifically correlates with orderliness. Crucially, orderliness is tightly linked to an innate sensitivity to disgust rather than fear.

Citing a study published in *PLOS ONE*, Peterson notes a 0.6 correlation between the local prevalence of infectious diseases and authoritarian political attitudes across countries and sub-national regions. This reaction constitutes an "extended behavioral immune system." Throughout evolutionary history, contact between isolated groups often led to devastating demographic collapse via novel pathogens, much like Native American populations perishing from smallpox after Spanish contact. This ingrained an implicit biological and tribal bias to reject the foreign.

Peterson ties this directly to Adolf Hitler's rhetoric, noting that reading *Hitler's Table Talk* (transcripts of Hitler's private mealtime discussions from 1939 to 1942) revealed how the dictator's language was saturated not with fear of out-groups, but with visceral disgust and an obsession with hygiene. Peterson observes how easily a societal virtue tilts into catastrophe: “People think of conservatives or fascists as afraid of those who are different. They're not afraid; they're disgusted. And that's not the same thing, because you burn things you're disgusted by.”

[19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1153s) The Latent Tribal Program and Dehumanization

Bret Weinstein expands on the evolutionary root of political hostility, linking it back to the pathogen-defense mechanism discussed moments earlier. When ancestral populations encountered one another, real microbiological threats created an instinctive fear of the foreign or "other," producing a strong selective pressure favoring reluctance to mix. However, Weinstein warns that this biological legacy manifests in modern warfare and politics through systematic dehumanization—labeling opposing groups as subhuman "vermin." His immediate concern centers on how society responds to the de facto Nazis surfacing in public view, such as the demonstrators in Charlottesville. Rather than recognizing the universal human capacity for tribal violence, the public comforts itself by treating these figures as an isolated, subhuman contagion, justifying violence against them under the illusion that containing an external infection solves the problem.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Evolutionary Pathogen Defense to Political Polarization accDescr: Diagram illustrating how ancient pathogen avoidance mechanisms transform into modern political dehumanization. subgraph Ancestral ["Ancestral Biology"] A["Deeply Rooted Disgust System"] --> B["Protection Against Biological Pathogens"] B --> C["Instinctive Fear of Foreign Populations"] end subgraph Manifestation ["Modern Manifestation"] C --> D["Wartime Dehumanization: Labeling Others as 'Vermin'"] D --> E["Pathogen Model: Treating Ideological Foes as Contagions"] E --> F["Latent Violent Programs Triggered by Environmental Shifts"] end ```

Weinstein argues that this response is fundamentally flawed because tribal cruelty is not a foreign virus, but an ancient, latent program carried in reserve by human populations. Jordan Peterson concurs, sharing how he has spent decades teaching university students about the psychology of Nazi Germany and Auschwitz. When students are asked whether they would have served as concentration camp guards, their immediate instinct is self-exoneration—insisting those perpetrators were fundamentally unlike them. Peterson stresses that the honest psychological realization is far more unsettling:

> “The right response is those people were human and I'm also human and so that means that the Nazi is us that's what it means and so that and who the hell wants to think that and no one will think that and I have thought that through because I thought through for a variety of reasons what the limits of my potential behavior are and the limits of my potential and maybe I'm more pathological than the average person it's certainly possible but I understand that the limits of my potential behavior are beyond the bounds of what people would normally consider civilized and I think that's characteristic of human beings in general.”

[22:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1345s) The Peril of Taboo Topics and Radical Instability

Joe Rogan underscores why uncensored dialogue is indispensable. In a culture saturated with ideological hysteria, exploring the evolutionary roots of human darkness is treated as taboo. Forbidding these discussions does not eliminate extreme impulses; instead, it insulates them from analytical scrutiny and grants them explosive underground momentum. Rogan remarks that under slightly different circumstances—the wrong neighborhood, wrong parents, or wrong life path—any individual could have ended up marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville. Acknowledging that shared biological vulnerability is the only honest starting point for preventing political violence.

Peterson characterizes the broader sociological and psychological landscape as one of radical instability, where society stands on a knife-edge between outcomes far better or far worse than the present. In such a climate, individual actions carry outsized consequences. Peterson points to the Charlottesville car attack, where a single individual surrounded by a coterie of deplorables committed a murderous act that instantly warped the national political landscape. Peterson explains that culture is trapped in an escalating positive feedback loop:

> “I say something left like and you say something right like and that annoys me so I get more left and it annoys you and you get more right and all of a sudden were at each other's throats and that's happening everywhere right it's very unstable and what what's to be hoped for is that we can pull back from that and discuss it...”

[25:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1520s) Positive Feedback Loops, Ideology, and Tech Censorship

Peterson reflects on the tension between diagnosing ideological capture and inadvertently accelerating polarization. While friends have criticized his use of the term "social justice warrior" as contributing to demonization, he emphasizes his grave concern over radical Marxist ideologies dominating universities and driving cultural division. To break this destructive cycle, Peterson urges personal responsibility over collective identification:

> “Get it into your head that you have the capacity for great evil and stop targeting stop assuming that that's something that's manifesting itself only in the people that you disagree with politically take responsibility for that and try to put your life together I don't see an alternative to that...”

Peterson notes that this rapid ideological ping-ponging mirrors the collapse of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and 1930s. Rogan points out an alarming modern asymmetry: the American right possesses the overwhelming majority of firearms, making civil conflict a terrifying prospect, especially amid circulating warnings—such as remarks from Roger Stone—that attempts to impeach Donald Trump could trigger armed confrontation.

Weinstein insists that humanity already possesses the evolved cognitive tools to escape this trap, provided lines of open debate remain unobstructed. The greatest emerging threat is that dominant technology gatekeepers will shut off those tools:

> “...if Google and other of these online goliaths start deploying algorithms that decide what we get to talk about and see then we cannot use the very tools that are necessary in order to escape and avoid something like civil war which frankly communication and debate analyzing all the components of this issue completely objectively... taking the risks that are necessary with that and some of the risks are that if we have free and open communication that some percentage of that communication is going to be reprehensible and deplorable but yes but that but that the consequences of suppressing that are so much more dangerous than the consequences of allowing it that they're not in the same universe...”

Suppression transforms bad ideas into taboo badges of honor, allowing them to fester away from the light of public criticism where they could otherwise be thoroughly dismantled.

[28:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1729s) AI Censorship, Pre-Perceptual Filtering, and Gad Saad

Jordan Peterson begins by voicing concern over major internet platforms like Google and YouTube implementing algorithmic, "pre-perceptual censorship" powered by artificial intelligence bots. He explains that these companies aim to stop objectionable content before it is even published. Peterson brings up a recent example involving Gad Saad, an evolutionary behavioral scientist and professor. Saad had uploaded a video that had not yet gone live, only to discover it had already been flagged for demonetization.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: YouTube Pre-Publication Review Pipeline accDescr: Video upload triggers an automated or manual review leading to demonetization before public release. A["User Uploads Video"] --> B["System Content Access"] B --> C["Manual Review"] C --> D["Pre-Publish Demonetization Notice"] ```

Joe Rogan pulls Saad's tweet up on the screen, where Saad wrote: “YouTube thinks that my pointing to astounding hypocrisy is too triggering. There is nothing objectionable in my clip. Unbelievable.” While Peterson acknowledges that Saad’s video was flagged via a manual review rather than solely by an automated AI, both he and Rogan find it alarming. Given the millions of clips uploaded to YouTube, they question why a mainstream evolutionary behavioral scientist would be singled out for manual scrutiny. Rogan observes that simply asking questions about prevailing cultural movements now causes people to get immediately labeled as part of a right-wing hate group.

[30:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1821s) Radical Social Constructionism and the Totalitarian Blank Slate

Peterson connects the targeting of scientists like Saad to a broader philosophical dispute: the assertion that human beings possess an intrinsic biological nature. He points out that those defending biological realities are now labeled with the derogatory epithet "biological essentialist." Peterson argues that for radical postmodern neo-Marxists, human nature must be treated as entirely blank: “If you're a radical postmodern neo-Marxist, your theory is human beings can be anything that I want to make them into.” He asserts that this premise is inherently totalitarian because it treats human beings as mere putty to be shaped to fit an ideological agenda, rather than recognizing any inherent constraints.

Peterson compares this modern ideology to the Soviet Union, where authorities explicitly rejected evolutionary biology, wiped out historical precedent, and sought to engineer a new human being for a utopian future. Bret Weinstein agrees, noting that Soviet science severely crippled itself by adopting ideologically driven, anti-Darwinian concepts:

> “The Russians actually sidelined themselves effectively with respect to evolutionary theory that basically they were so backward on a biological front that as they were deploying this very broken ideological toolkit, they were wrecking their ability to think about how biology works.”

Weinstein stresses that the findings of evolutionary biology inherently clash with political correctness: “Nobody tells the biota what's right and what's wrong. The biota does what it does, and those of us who look at it and attempt to understand what those patterns are can't help but be deeply politically incorrect almost all the time.”

[32:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1957s) Evolutionary Biology, Racism, and the Non-Patriarchal Nature of Genes

Weinstein addresses how evolutionary mechanisms produce distinct social dynamics regarding race and sex. He makes the politically sensitive observation that human genomes carry the potential for racism for Darwinian reasons—namely, that distinct populations have historically banded together against other populations in violent competition, driving many of history's darkest moments.

However, Weinstein insists that sexism operates under an entirely different evolutionary logic. He argues that male and female genomes cannot evolve into inherently warring biological castes because genes do not stay segregated by sex:

> “It is not possible for male genes to gang up on female genes, because all of our genes spend half their time in male bodies and half their time in female bodies.”

While acknowledging that civilization has often been unfair across sex and gender lines, Weinstein clarifies that there is no biological basis for an evolved, monolithic "patriarchal force" aimed at permanently subordinating women. Any genetic program deployed by men to hurt women would inevitably be inherited by their own daughters in the next iteration. Weinstein argues that only by honestly confronting the Darwinian motives encoded in our genomes can humanity rationally decide to disempower those impulses:

- Human genomes contain evolved behavioral tendencies toward in-group favoritism and out-group competition (racism). - Genes spend equal generations in male and female lineages, making a genetic conspiracy against women biologically impossible. - Human beings are unique in their ability to use rational thought to override gene-level evolutionary drives. - Denying that biological urges exist prevents society from developing genuine tools to dismantle and diffuse tribalism.

[34:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2083s) Bill C-16, Gender Expression, and Canadian Law

Peterson recounts the controversy surrounding his public opposition to Canada's Bill C-16 a year earlier. While opponents characterized his objections as an attack on transgender rights, Peterson insists his central concern was that the statute codified a radical social constructionist theory into formal law. He explains that under this legal framework, biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual proclivity are officially decoupled and deemed entirely independent of one another.

Peterson argues that claiming these four components are causally disconnected contradicts basic biological facts. For the vast majority of human beings, biological sex matches gender identity, gender expression, and heterosexual orientation. By rendering claims of biological causation unlawful, Canadian legislation placed standard biological observation outside legal bounds. As Weinstein wryly quips: “It's not that it's illegal to be a biologist, it's just illegal to be any good at it.”

[36:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2198s) Biological Determinism, Rational Restraint, and Socializing Aggression

Rogan steps in to play devil's advocate, articulating the reasonable rationale behind opposing biological essentialism: the worry that defining individuals strictly by their biology reduces humanity to a "meat wagon" and risks sliding into horrors like eugenics. Peterson agrees that strict biological determinism carries dangerous political traps. However, Rogan and Weinstein emphasize that running to the opposite extreme—outright denial of biology—strips humanity of the cognitive tools necessary to transcend primitive urges.

Peterson illustrates how biology and environment must coordinate rather than cancel each other out, offering the development of childhood aggression as an example:

- Around 5% of young boys exhibit hyper-aggressive behaviors (kicking, biting, hitting, stealing) identifiable around two years of age. - Normal cultural socialization by parents and peers successfully curbs this behavior in the vast majority of boys by age four. - When properly guided rather than crushed, that biological temperament yields courageous, resilient, and forthright men who do not back down from challenges.

Peterson points out that achieving this healthy integration requires acknowledging both the innate biological drive and the necessary socialization, before turning to how James Damore's Google memo was similarly misrepresented as purely biological determinism.

[39:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2345s) The James Damore Memo and the Biology of Agreeableness

Jordan Peterson addresses the controversy surrounding James Damore’s Google memo, defending Damore’s grasp of psychological research while clarifying the document's true intent. Peterson emphasizes that Damore was relying on credible, peer-reviewed scientific evidence demonstrating that biological factors meaningfully influence differences in temperament and interests between men and women. Damore's argument was not an attack on female competence, but an attempt to maximize talent across the board: if an organization wants to extract the highest economic value from all individuals, it must understand real baseline differences so workplaces can be designed to help both men and women flourish.

Peterson points to agreeableness as a prime example of an evolved temperament differential. On average, women score higher in agreeableness than men, which Peterson links to maternal care: surviving the intense demands of an infant requires an orientation toward self-sacrifice. However, this same evolutionary wiring carries a distinct disadvantage in corporate environments. Being adapted for nurturing leaves agreeable individuals less inclined to confront hyper-aggressive, competitive male colleagues or demand higher compensation. In market economies, those who cannot adopt disagreeable stances—such as threatening to walk away unless they are paid more—tend to earn significantly less.

> “One of the consequences of that is that agreeable people don't make as much money and the reason for that is to make money you actually have to be disagreeable because you have to go to your boss and say give me some bloody money or something you don't like will happen to you.” — Jordan Peterson

[41:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2477s) Evolutionary Life History and Democratizing Wisdom

Bret Weinstein approaches the question through the lens of evolutionary biology, explaining why female and male lineages developed fundamentally different forms of wisdom. Because human females produce far fewer offspring over a lifetime and invest years of intensive care into raising each child, their reproductive stakes are exceptionally high. This extended maternal investment explains the evolutionary emergence of menopause, a stage where a woman's biological interests realign directly with the survival and stability of the entire lineage and community. This life-history constraint fosters an innate, long-term farsightedness about population welfare—a trait observable across mammalian females.

In contrast, human males represent a high-variance reproductive strategy: historically, a single male could father dozens of offspring or end up with zero. This variance rewarded high-stakes risk-taking, embedding that particular brand of wisdom along the male evolutionary path. Weinstein argues that in the modern world, biology does not have to be destiny. Society should actively democratize both forms of evolutionary wisdom so that women can freely adopt traditionally male-biased risk-taking strategies and men can cultivate lineage-preserving prudence. However, Peterson interjects that ideological dogma prevents this progress because mainstream discourse insists on the counter-factual premise that men and women are identical.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Evolutionary Divergence in Reproductive Strategies accDescr: Diagram illustrating how female and male reproductive trade-offs produce distinct forms of evolved wisdom.

subgraph FemaleStrategy["Female Life History Strategy"] F1["Limited lifetime offspring & high parental investment"] --> F2["Menopause & long-term lineage focus"] F2 --> F3["Lineage-preserving wisdom & social farsightedness"] end

subgraph MaleStrategy["Male Life History Strategy"] M1["High reproductive variance: zero to many offspring"] --> M2["Payoff for high-stakes competition & hazard"] M2 --> M3["Risk-taking wisdom & aggressive assertiveness"] end

subgraph ModernIntegration["Modern Cultural Integration"] F3 --> D["Democratized access to both forms of wisdom"] M3 --> D end ```

> “The fact is there's no reason if you're born female that you can't tune into what has historically been male biased wisdom and take advantage of that and we should be encouraging this.” — Bret Weinstein

[43:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2588s) The Misrepresentation of Damore and Journalistic Malpractice

Turning to possible policy interventions, Peterson suggests that recognizing aggregate differences in agreeableness could inform creative corporate strategies. Rather than relying on rigid quotas, companies could account for negotiation reluctance by instituting more frequent salary reviews for female employees—reviewing men once a year and women every eight months, for instance. He is careful to note he is not endorsing that exact policy, but rather arguing for pragmatic adjustments that optimize economic participation without invoking the flawed rhetoric of "leveling the playing field."

The tragedy of the Google memo, Peterson notes, is that Damore wrote it after being solicited for feedback during a mandatory diversity program, only to be fired when his nuanced, scientific argument leaked. Joe Rogan points out the deliberate media distortion that followed: outlets systematically stripped Damore's citations and scientific links before publishing, presenting his memo as an unhinged sexist screed rather than a referenced academic summary. Peterson warns that this failure of journalism reflects deep ideological malice or gross incompetence. Because society sits in a radically unstable moment, journalists who play fast and loose with the truth to smear opponents risk pushing civil discourse toward catastrophic failure.

> “I was willing to play fast and loose with the truth and now I've played a major causal role and you know pushing everything towards a state of chaos it's like people have better be on their toes because we're in a situation that's radically unstable.” — Jordan Peterson

- James Damore was fired from Google after submitting his internal memo in response to mandatory diversity training. - News outlets re-published the memo with all embedded academic citations stripped out, making it impossible for casual readers to tell it was based on published psychological literature. - Peterson cautions that individual ethical lapses by media commentators now carry outsized systemic risk given current social polarization.

[46:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2771s) Pepe the Frog, Kekistan, and Absurdist Internet Culture

Joe Rogan reflects on how quickly people weaponize accusations of racism over trivial internet culture. Rogan shares how he spent the previous day playfully trolling on social media with images of Pepe the Frog—posting Pepe with rainbows supporting gay rights, or showing Pepe with a sour face after biting into a lemon—to demonstrate that Pepe is simply an open-source, silly cartoon rather than a coordinated white supremacist hate symbol. Weinstein adds that he had recently researched the satirical online nation of "Kekistan," marveling at how it was constructed to baffle outsiders by imagining an absurd paradise where Jews, anti-Semites, atheists, and religious believers live alongside one another. The concept, Weinstein observes, was deliberately engineered to cause mainstream literalist minds to throw a cognitive error.

Peterson agrees, noting that because critics frequently associate him with the alt-right, he has spent significant time studying its subcultures and trolling rituals. He explains that much of Kekistan operates as satirical, defensive humor against moralistic cultural panics. Peterson even reveals that he purchased a green Kekistani flag for his father, who had been closely following the internet storms surrounding him. Peterson’s own bizarre connection to frog imagery originated innocently when he wore a carved wooden frog hat on camera—a gift from a Native American coastal carver. The artisan had explained that in their cultural mythology, because amphibians are the first creatures to die when a water supply is polluted, the frog is revered as an early warning harbinger alerting the tribe that the surrounding ecosystem has slipped dangerously out of balance.

> “The story was preposterous it was a you know it's a magical place where we're anti-semites and Jews and atheists and religious people live in harmony which is like that's hard to even parse it's designed to cause your mind to throw an error.” — Bret Weinstein

[48:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2916s) The Accidental Frog Symbol and the Flight from the Radical Left

Jordan Peterson recounts how he inadvertently got tangled up in online frog subcultures. After making jokes about how his voice naturally sounds like Kermit the Frog, he wore a carved wooden frog hat made by an artist friend in a video discussing social instability. Because the carved frog had red lips, viewers immediately assumed he was referencing Pepe the Frog and the satirical cult of "Kek." Peterson admits he nearly fainted from shock, having had no idea the symbol would be interpreted that way. This surreal incident placed him in direct conversation with a large demographic of young online men who felt deeply alienated and pushed in a right-leaning direction by the radical left. When these young men ask what they should become if they reject the far left, many wonder if the only option is to flee to the alt-right.

Joe Rogan points out that this oppositional dynamic is inherently poisonous. Rather than developing genuine personal sovereignty, people simply react to their ideological adversaries, ramping up extreme positions and altering their identities purely out of spite. Peterson explains that his content is specifically aimed at breaking this reflexive binary by providing a meaningful alternative:

> “So what I've been trying to do with my videos—and I think this is part of the reason that they've become so popular, in fact I'm certain of it—is that I've been trying to agitate for the adoption of that personal responsibility as an alternative to political ideology.”

Peterson argues that Western civilization’s most profound discovery is that the fully developed, responsible individual serves as the only real defense against societal and biological tyranny. When people refuse the heavy burden of developing themselves, they retreat into collective racial or sexual tribes, willing to watch society burn simply to evade personal responsibility. Rogan agrees, noting that modern culture suffers from a profound lack of spiritual and physical struggle, forgetting that voluntary confrontation with difficult obstacles is required to discover one's true potential. Peterson concurs, framing this as the ancient hero myth: shrinking from the tragic burden of life breeds resentment and malevolence, whereas courageously facing the dragon is the only path forward.

[52:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3151s) The Fringe as the Engine of Innovation

Bret Weinstein shifts the discussion to the evolutionary and systemic failure of collectivist groups. Whether dealing with white nationalists on the far right or social justice warriors on the far left, collectivist movements suffer from an inability to innovate or see forward. Group consensus can only preserve what is already agreed upon; it cannot discover the unknown. True discovery always originates at the individual level, requiring what Weinstein describes as a "minority of one" who tests new waters and convinces others to follow:

> “Every great idea starts with a minority of one, so we have to have the freedom to be the only person who believes something and then to compel others that it's somewhere in the right neighborhood and for others to pick up that mantle.”

Peterson connects Weinstein’s point directly to free speech, lamenting that defending speech has been mischaracterized as an exclusively right-wing issue. Speech is the vital mechanism operating on the frontier between order and chaos, pulling new insights back into the collective when existing social frameworks prove inadequate. Weinstein affirms that this is an evolutionary rule observed across all biology: adaptations do not emerge from comfortable organisms thriving at the center of a population, but from those struggling on the margins where risky experiments offer the only chance of survival.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Mechanics of Societal Innovation accDescr: A diagram showing how individual inquiry on the fringe updates collective knowledge through free speech.

subgraph Fringe ["The Fringe: Chaos & The Unknown"] Ind["Independent Individual ('Minority of One')"] Stress["Torment / Need for Adaptation"] Ind --> Stress Stress --> Discov["New Discovery / Novel Idea"] end

subgraph SpeechMechanism ["Communicative Bridge"] FS["Free Speech & Debate"] end

subgraph Center ["The Collective: Order & Established Knowledge"] Coll["Existing Social Consensus (Cannot innovate on its own)"] Update["Updated Collective Framework (Survival through adaptation)"] Coll --> Update end

Discov --> FS FS --> Update ```

- **Psychological predictors of genius**: Peterson cites psychologist Hans Eysenck's book *Genius*, noting that beyond high IQ and a creative temperament, experiencing the death of a parent before age ten was a significant statistical predictor of creative success, illustrating that creativity is spurred by torment rather than ease. - **The necessity of suffering**: People falsely treat creativity as gentle and pleasant, whereas true innovation requires being deeply burdened by an unresolved problem.

[55:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3324s) The Heroic Individual in Religious and Evolutionary Lore

Peterson highlights how closely modern evolutionary dynamics mirror foundational religious traditions. The concept of the individual stepping out from the collective to rescue the group is a precise biological restatement of the central Christian archetype, as well as the Jewish prophetic tradition. In the Old Testament, solitary prophets repeatedly emerge to confront blind, tyrannical kings, warning the rulers that they are breaching fundamental moral orders and courting ruinous natural catastrophe.

Weinstein notes that across history, dozens of such voices likely spoke out, but the ones preserved in cultural memory were those whose predictions proved true, guiding their populations through historical bottlenecks—effectively meaning that natural selection and evolution authored these enduring narratives.

Peterson reflects on his foundational writing and his ongoing public lectures:

> “And when I wrote my first book, *Maps of Meaning*, it was about ideological conflict and it was about whether or not there was any alternative to ideological conflict, because you could make a case that there isn't—there's right and there's left and there's a war, right? But there is a third way, and I think that is the way of the heroic individual, and I mean that technically.”

For Peterson, this third path requires honing personal character, articulating truthful experience, and introducing novel, unique perceptions into the collective culture to prevent it from decaying. He mentions having completed twelve live biblical lectures walking through the Book of Genesis, which he views as a historical record charting the painful psychological discovery and emergence of the divine individual.

[57:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3457s) The Abrahamic Narrative and Consciousness as the Mediator

Jordan Peterson discusses how contemporary society struggles with foundational religious texts because people evaluate them as though they are making scientific propositions about the physical world. Seen through that literalist lens, the scriptures appear factually wrong, but Peterson maintains they were never meant to serve as objective scientific descriptions. In his public lectures on Genesis, Peterson reframes these stories psychologically and philosophically, presenting consciousness as the western archetype mediating between chaos and order. This framework has resonated strongly with secular audiences, leading some of his YouTube followers to describe themselves as "Christian atheists" because they find value in the archetype of the divine individual acting across time without subscribing to supernatural dogma.

To illustrate how these ancient texts address human existence, Peterson turns to the story of Abraham. When God calls Abraham, he is already an old man who has remained too long in comfortable domestic safety—a figure Peterson likens to a modern forty-year-old living in his mother’s basement. God's call to adventure demands that Abraham abandon his family, friends, and familiarity to journey into foreign, hostile territory. Peterson emphasizes that answering this call does not result in immediate reward or comfort; rather, Abraham immediately faces famine and is forced to flee into Egypt, where his wife is nearly taken by a tyrant. Peterson highlights that the biblical narrative is fundamentally realistic about the suffering inherent in life, showing that triumph requires ethical commitment rather than naive optimism. As Peterson puts it:

> “What are you gonna find there, well, your fortune? No, you're gonna find the catastrophes of life, but if you keep yourself morally oriented and you make the right sacrifices, which is the Abrahamic story to a tee, then you can transcend the catastrophe of being and prevail.”

[01:00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3601s) "Literally False, Metaphorically True" and the Problem of Moral Accuracy

Bret Weinstein connects Peterson's interpretation of myth to Peterson's contentious debates with Sam Harris concerning the nature of truth. Weinstein suggests an evolutionary reconciliation between Peterson's metaphorical view and Harris's empirical view, while cautioning that it carries an uncomfortable implication. From an evolutionary biology standpoint, human intellect did not evolve purely to discover objective, scientific facts; it evolved to facilitate survival and reproductive success. Weinstein introduces the concept of ideas that are "literally false, metaphorically true"—beliefs that lack factual basis but yield superior practical outcomes when acted upon.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Literally False Metaphorically True Framework accDescr: Bret Weinstein's model showing how factually incorrect beliefs can produce adaptive behavioral advantages.

subgraph Belief ["Cognitive Belief"] A["Literally False Premise"] end

subgraph Action ["Adaptive Behavior"] B["Precautionary or Proactive Conduct"] end

subgraph Outcome ["Evolutionary Payoff"] C["Survival / Thriving Advantage"] end

A --> B B --> C ```

Weinstein offers two concrete examples to clarify the category. The belief that porcupines can shoot their quills is zoologically false, but anyone who behaves as if it is true maintains a safe distance and avoids quills that can migrate into vital organs or cause lethal infections. Similarly, the belief that "everything happens for a reason" is scientifically unsupported outside the laws of physics, yet adopting that mindset prompts someone struck by misfortune to search for hidden opportunities rather than succumb to despair. Weinstein argues religious truths evolved under this exact dynamic, but he presents a "bitter pill" for Peterson's moral optimism: evolved metaphorical truths are not necessarily morally upright, nor are they guaranteed to remain adaptive as environmental conditions change. Weinstein explains:

> “These are ideas that aren't true in the factual sense, but they are true enough that if you behave as if they were true, you come out ahead of where you would be if you behaved according to the fact that they're not true.”

- Porcupine quills feature microscopic barbs that cause them to work their way deeper into tissue over time once they puncture skin, posing serious risks of organ damage and sepsis. - Weinstein points out that doctrines carried along within human populations encode individual, familial, and societal truths, but effective metaphorical survival strategies can sometimes be morally reprehensible. - While ancient texts contain vital non-literal truths, Weinstein stresses that they are not inherently up-to-date or universally applicable to present-day realities.

[01:03:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3822s) Rescuing the Dead Father: Archetypes, Pinocchio, and Tradition

Peterson acknowledges that wrestling with the boundary between empirical and metaphorical truth pushes his intellectual capacity to its limits, acknowledging that it is perilous ground where mistakes are easy to make. However, he counters Weinstein's critique by arguing that great mythic structures already anticipate that tradition can become obsolete or corrupt. Peterson notes that the archetype of the tyrannical father—often used exclusively by modern activists who condemn Western culture solely as an oppressive patriarchy—is only half of the equation, as it stands alongside the archetype of the wise king. Mythological systems recognize that past knowledge eventually calcifies and dies if it is not continually revitalized.

To demonstrate how stories illustrate this dynamic, Peterson analyzes the fairy tale of Pinocchio. Pinocchio begins as an unconscious marionette, pulled by strings and prone to deceit, while his creator Geppetto embodies the good father wishing for his creation to achieve genuine individuality. When Geppetto is swallowed by a giant whale at the bottom of the ocean, he represents the dead, stagnant wisdom of the past trapped in primordial chaos. Pinocchio must mature, dive into the abyss, and rescue his father. Peterson links this to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity: the Father represents accumulated historical knowledge that is dead on its own, requiring the living, active force of the Son in the present to update and redeem it. Tearing down the past wholesale—as occurred under Mao Zedong during China's Cultural Revolution—is catastrophic because the past carries biological and cultural wisdom accumulated across billions of years. Peterson underscores the necessity of this ongoing generational renewal:

> “The father was right a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, and is still partly right, but he's dead; he can't participate in the updating of the process, so you need an active force now.”

- In the Pinocchio narrative, Geppetto's wish upon a star represents the difficult, seemingly impossible aspiration of guiding an unconscious being into true individualization. - The belly of the whale functions across worldwide mythology as a universal symbol for chaos, the unknown, and the unconscious depths. - Peterson equates throwing out inherited historical traditions to discarding the physical human body, which itself is the biological embodiment of roughly 3.5 billion years of evolutionary refinement.

[01:07:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4024s) Archetypes, Cultural Legacy, and Modern Hazards

Jordan Peterson discusses the psychological obligation to embody deep moral ideals, observing that one’s moral duty is to realize the archetype within the confines of individual existence. In Western civilization, that archetypal image of perfection is Christ. While no modern person can replicate the literal historical life of first-century Judea, they must manifest that archetype today, which forces the difficult work of continually updating ancient wisdom. Peterson cautions that attempting to forego the past entirely leads to catastrophic social breakdown: “The past is alive enough so that those of us who inhabit its corpse aren't clawing each other to death while we're feeding, right that's the critical issue.” However, because societal structures can rapidly collapse, maintaining and re-articulating those ancestral structures requires constant vigilance.

Bret Weinstein agrees that religious systems are not merely Richard Dawkins’s dismissive “mind viruses,” but adaptive cultural inheritances forged across evolutionary history. Nevertheless, Weinstein warns that ancient codices cannot adequately navigate novel existential threats that their authors never conceived. No sacred text prepares modern humanity for perils like Google's algorithms or artificial intelligence destabilizing civilization. Navigating the modern world requires recognizing the gap where ancestral guidance falls silent.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Updating Ancestral Wisdom for Modern Hazards accDescr: Diagram contrasting ancient archetypal wisdom with novel modern existential risks. subgraph Ancient["Ancestral Inheritance"] A["Archetypal Models (e.g., Christ)"] --> B["Deep Patterns of Social Order"] end subgraph Gap["The Modern Dilemma"] B --> C{"Sufficient for Today?"} C -->|"Abstract Pattern"| D["Universal Moral Anchors"] C -->|"Novel Threats"| E["Technological Hazards (AI, Algorithms)"] end subgraph Action["Required Adaptation"] D & E --> F["Continual Re-articulation & Modern Rules"] end ```

---

[01:09:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4148s) Abstract Truths vs. Legacy Code: From Taoism to Enriched Uranium

Peterson refines Weinstein’s critique by distinguishing between literal details and overarching abstract patterns. Mythological narratives operate at elevated levels of abstraction, making their foundational patterns universally applicable regardless of technological changes. As a prime example, Peterson points to the phenomenological landscape of chaos and order: order represents the domain where actions yield desired results, while chaos is where plans fail. Drawing on Taoist philosophy, Peterson argues that optimal functioning occurs directly on the boundary between the two:

> “The Daoists do that very nicely because they have a chaos order conceptualization of the of the phenomenological landscape and their claim is the the point of maximum proper being is right at the center of the border between chaos and order and I think that's true across contexts so I don't think that truth ages.”

Weinstein concedes that certain high-level patterns remain eternal, but compares older religious doctrines to computer software filled with accumulating "legacy code." When archaic instructions outweigh contemporary utility, retaining the whole package becomes perilous. Weinstein remarks that if the Ten Commandments were being issued today, the primary directive would almost certainly be:

> “Thou shalt not enrich uranium.”

Because uranium was completely unknown to ancient scribes, religious canons omit our greatest material dangers, implicitly downplaying them. Weinstein wonders whether society can honor religious traditions for guiding civilization to this point while boldly adopting more potent, up-to-date systems. Peterson cautions that updating ancient culture is notoriously difficult, pointing out that even fairy tales dating back 15,000 years resist simple modern revisions.

---

[01:12:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4325s) Examining the Universality of Traditions

Playing devil’s advocate against his own claim that religious mythologies carry universally adaptive evolutionary wisdom, Peterson questions whether all religious traditions function equally well. Obscuring significant differences between faiths under a broad umbrella of universal truth overlooks unique structural traits:

> “So I'm going to stick my neck way the hell out because why not: it isn't obvious to me that Islam does, because it's very difficult for me to see that the totalizing nature of Islam doesn't make it unique among religions.”

- Religious texts contain distinct theological frameworks that do not necessarily map onto identical evolutionary or psychological solutions. - Peterson stresses that asserting every sacred text holds identical archetypal utility avoids addressing the specific real-world consequences of particular dogmas.

---

[01:13:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4383s) Joe Rogan on the Word "Truth" and the Porcupine Metaphor

Joe Rogan interjects that the fundamental friction in these debates comes down to semantics and the misuse of the word *truth*. While terms like *tradition* or *wisdom* are readily acceptable, calling myths or protective fictions "true" invites confusion. Rogan revisits Weinstein's earlier analogy of telling a child that porcupines shoot their quills: while the warning keeps the child safe, the claim itself is factually false. Teaching an untrue mechanism builds a faulty model of reality into a child's mind when one could simply teach the factual hazard of sharp quills:

> “If you tell a kid that they can throw their quills and so therefore the kid stays clear of them, here's a faulty assumption in his head: you're lying to them for their own protection, and that was not good, I wouldn't do it.”

Rogan compares this to comforting platitudes like "everything happens for a reason," joking that after death humans might find an auditing room revealing our brains were just running simian survival routines rather than grasping ultimate reality. Weinstein agrees that he would never knowingly tell his own children that porcupines throw quills, noting that while adaptive beliefs may have evolved through natural selection to ensure survival, passing down inaccurate models risks misleading children on deeper inquiries down the road.

---

[01:15:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4514s) The Etymological Origins of Truth and the Sam Harris Debate

Peterson pushes back against Rogan's strictly empirical definition of truth by recounting his debates with Sam Harris. Harris had accused Peterson of corrupting and hijacking the definition of truth by insisting on metaphorical or Darwinian definitions. Peterson argues that Harris has the historical chronology backward: the linguistic and conceptual root of truth is far older than the modern scientific construct of objective empirical facts.

Originally, truth described fidelity, alignment, and reliability—as in an arrow flying straight and "true" toward its target. In biblical contexts, such as Christ declaring himself "the way, the truth, and the life," the term denoted an existential mode of being rather than a set of scientific facts:

> “Harris's claim with regards to my utilization of truth was that I was absconding with the definition of truth and in false manner, but he was wrong, because the idea of truth is much older than the idea of objective truth, and the original notion of truth wasn't objective truth: it was like the arrow flies straight and true, right, it meant something like reliably reliably on its way to the appropriate destination, something like that.”

Peterson emphasizes that defining truth purely through a modern objective lens fails to understand the metaphorical, teleological traditions from which human language and moral structures evolved.

[01:16:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4569s) Two Kinds of Truth: Representation vs. Action

Jordan Peterson explains that when grappling with truth, he sees two fundamental varieties that can either align or dissociate from one another. The first is the truth that manifests itself in the manner in which an individual acts; the second is the truth that represents the objective, external world. At times, both truths stack neatly atop each other, but frequently they diverge. An individual can act on a piece of wisdom that functions remarkably well in real life, even if the proposition carries an inaccurate factual representation of the physical world. Peterson points to biblical narratives as an example: when read strictly as modern science, they do not hold up, yet they may still encode functional truths.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Two Types of Truth accDescr: A diagram contrasting representational factual truth with pragmatic actionable tool truth. subgraph Truths["The Spectrum of Truth"] A["Objective / Factual Truth (Representation of the physical world)"] B["Actionable / Tool Truth (Wisdom that guides behavior)"] end A -->|"Optimal alignment"| C["Functional Reality"] B -->|"Optimal alignment"| C B -.->|"Operates effectively even with imperfect scientific knowledge"| D["Evolutionary Survival"] ```

Bret Weinstein offers the etymology of malaria as an illustration: the word derives from *mal aria*—literally "bad air." While malaria is actually transmitted by mosquitoes breeding in stagnant environments rather than the air itself, avoiding the foul-smelling swamp air kept people away from the vectors carrying the parasite. Peterson notes that this aligns with the pragmatic philosophical distinction he previously debated with Sam Harris: the difference between descriptive truth and tool truth. Just as a sharp ax is spoken of as being "more true" than a dull ax because it performs its intended function, tool truths enable humans to operate successfully in the world. Joe Rogan asks whether the confusion stems from using the word "true" when one ought to simply use the word "fact," pointing out that while $1 + 1 = 2$ is a fact and water extinguishing a match is a fact, both are also undeniably true.

> “There’s the truth that manifests itself in the manner in which you act and there’s the truth that manifests itself as a representation of the objective world and sometimes both those truths are stacked on top of each other and sometimes they’re not.” — Jordan Peterson

[01:18:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4707s) Ancient Hygiene and the Germ Theory of Disease

Bret Weinstein notes that everyone in the room likely subscribes to the laboratory-tested, empirical truth as the ultimate benchmark of physical reality. However, ancient cultures had to survive long before they possessed the scientific language or instruments to verify such facts. Weinstein points to the Old Testament concept of "filth" and its strict commands against defecating inside the camp because it was said to be offensive to God. That rule kept human populations safe from infectious microbes thousands of years before the germ theory of disease was formally discovered.

Weinstein asks whether it is better to be paralyzed until one can literally describe the microbial underpinnings of an infection, or to be liberated by a behavioral rule that protects health millennia in advance. Peterson agrees, summarizing that human beings had to figure out how to act and survive before they could comprehend the world well enough to scientifically justify those behaviors. Rogan and Weinstein observe that dietary restrictions—such as prohibitions against shellfish (which carry red tide toxins) or pork (which transmits trichinosis)—likely originated from the same pragmatic, hygienic necessity, even if they later evolved into markers of tribal identity to distinguish groups from their neighbors.

> “Human beings needed to figure out how to act without dying before they could understand the nature of the world well enough to justify that.” — Jordan Peterson

[01:20:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4841s) Fact vs. Wisdom and the Limits of Fact-Derived Ethics

Peterson suggests establishing an overarching category of "Truth" and dividing it into two distinct branches: "fact" and "wisdom." In an optimal scenario, facts and wisdom map directly onto one another, but when they do not, Peterson argues it is a serious error to discard the wisdom simply because its factual vehicle is crude—a mistake he attributes to New Atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Peterson criticizes what he sees as Harris's sleight of hand: the claim that moral wisdom is merely a secondary derivation that can be grounded straightforwardly in scientific facts.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Facts Versus Action in a Landscape accDescr: Diagram illustrating that aggregating facts does not determine a path of action. A["Infinite Objective Facts (Every blade of grass, soil density, wind)"] B["Action / Navigation (Choosing a specific path through the field)"] C["Wisdom & Value Hierarchy (Ethical and social constraints)"] A -.->|"Cannot spontaneously generate"| B A --> C C -->|"Selects viable direction"| B ```

Rogan notes that knowing the facts does not tell someone whether to prioritize their own self-interest or the welfare of others, which is precisely where ethics enter the picture. Peterson adds that aggregating facts cannot tell you how to act because the physical world contains an infinite number of facts. If a person stands before an open field, no amount of measurement regarding the soil, flora, or terrain will instruct them on which direction to walk; facts alone cannot bridge the gap between description and action.

> “Sam acts as if the process of mapping facts onto action is simple if we just got the facts right, but it’s the weakest part of his argument and we never ever got to that for a variety of reasons, but part of the reason it’s weak is, okay, well there’s like an infinite number of facts, man.” — Jordan Peterson

- The New Atheist perspective assumes that perfect factual knowledge naturally produces correct moral action. - Merely accumulating objective data about an environment does not reveal which path an individual ought to take. - Ethical dilemmas emerge whenever consequences are delayed across generations or when individual interests clash with collective welfare.

[01:22:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4956s) Game Theory, Social Contracts, and Iterated Wisdom

Bret Weinstein notes that two distinct problems are intertwined in this discussion. First, an individual cannot be an expert in everything; the rationalist community's ideal of an individual calculating every move from first-principles data is practically impossible, requiring people to rely on approximate behavioral guides. Second, while civilization must be guided by its best empirical understanding of reality, it must also respect inherited wisdom whose exact regulatory function may not yet be fully understood. Weinstein cautions that this is inherently dangerous, as traditional practices can also harbor harmful baggage alongside their adaptive benefits.

Peterson deepens the definition of wisdom through an evolutionary and game-theoretic lens. For a principle to qualify as true wisdom, it must clear several overlapping hurdles across time: 1. It must function successfully against the constraints of objective reality. 2. It must preserve the actor's social standing and not destroy the functional social contract. 3. It must work for the actor in the present, next week, next month, and decades into the future. 4. It must work simultaneously for the individual, the immediate family, and broader society across repeated iterations.

> “If it’s wise, then it works in the world—so that’d be the constraint of objective reality—but then it works for you now and the you that’ll be in a week and the you that’ll be in a month, and it works for you and your family, and it works for you and your family and society, and it works in a way that those things all line up to be iterated across time.” — Jordan Peterson

[01:24:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5099s) Ethical Constraints and the Postmodern Conundrum

Jordan Peterson proposes his solution to what he terms the "postmodern conundrum." Granting the postmodernists their core premise—giving "the devil his due"—he explains that their foundational observation is that a finite set of facts allows for an infinite number of possible interpretations. Because an observer cannot establish a single, canonical interpretation of a text or set of facts, postmodernists ask why any one reading should be privileged over another, ultimately concluding that all favored interpretations are merely assertions of power. Peterson argues that while this dilemma is real, postmodernism completely overlooks the severe role of ethical constraint. Although theoretical interpretations are limitless, practically functional interpretations—those that prevent an individual from being killed by others or failing disastrously through their own stupidity across time—are extraordinarily rare.

Bret Weinstein agrees, noting that enduring cultural narratives exist for concrete reasons: *The Odyssey* has survived through centuries, suggesting an underlying, scientifically investigable basis for its durability. Peterson highlights the fatal flaw that results when postmodernists reach this dead end: faced with infinite interpretations and paralyzed regarding how to actually act in the world, theorists default back into Marxism. Postmodernism leaves adherents bereft, aimless, and nihilistic, prompting them to sneak Marxist power dynamics in through the back door to provide purpose and a blueprint for action.

> “And so the landscape of interpretation is almost infinite, but the landscape of applicable interpretation, functional interpretation, is unbelievably constrained, and I think that constraint system is what we regard as ethics.” — *Jordan Peterson*

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Postmodern Conundrum and the Marxist Pivot accDescr: Diagram illustrating how postmodern nihilism leads back to Marxism due to lack of functional action.

subgraph Premise ["Postmodernist Premise"] Facts["Finite Set of Facts"] --> Infinite["Infinite Possible Interpretations"] Infinite --> NoCanon["No Canonical Interpretation"] NoCanon --> PowerClaim["Privilege Reduced to 'Power Games'"] end

subgraph Failure ["The Practical Dead End"] PowerClaim --> Nihilism["Nihilism & Action Paralysis ('What do I do next?')"] RealWorld["Real-World Feedback (Survival & Stupidity Constraints)"] -.->|Ignored by Postmodernism| Nihilism end

subgraph Pivot ["The Neo-Marxist Turn"] Nihilism --> MarxismBackdoor["Adopt Marxism Through Back Door (Restores Action, Purpose & Identity Politics)"] end ```

[01:27:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5254s) The Unholy Alliance of Postmodernism and Marxism

Joe Rogan questions whether people truly adopt these philosophies because of a dilemma over infinite interpretations, suggesting instead that it is simply an emotional reaction to the negative aspects of capitalism. In Rogan's view, Marxism offers a prepackaged, romanticized, egalitarian alternative centered on socialism and equality. Peterson clarifies that while romantic motivations are powerful, a rigorous historical distinction must be drawn between Marxism and postmodernism. Historically, French intellectuals developed postmodern philosophy in the wake of the late 1960s, a period when the murderous brutality of Soviet Marxism had become impossible to defend.

Peterson asserts that postmodernism functioned as an intellectual "screening tactic" that allowed discredited economic Marxism to morph into cultural identity politics. He points out a glaring intellectual contradiction: one cannot logically be both a postmodernist (which rejects metanarratives and universal structures) and a Marxist (which depends entirely on a grand metanarrative of class conflict). Peterson identifies an underlying, resentment-driven anti-capitalism as the unifying motive behind this self-contradictory stance, driven by an appetite to punish those who have achieved more.

> “You don't get to be a postmodernist and a Marxist. You actually technically cannot be both of those things at the same time, and the fact that most people are both of those things at the same time raises the specter of just exactly what their motivation is.” — *Jordan Peterson*

[01:30:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5420s) Why the Marxist Prescription Fails

Bret Weinstein intervenes, joking that he might alienate his "last few friends" by dissecting Marxism's appeal. He acknowledges that Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism makes many valid points, which serves as the intellectual hook that draws people in. However, the prescription Marx offered is fundamentally toxic. Weinstein emphasizes that Marxism fails not because its story is unappealing, but because it is neither game-theoretically functional nor evolutionarily stable, inevitably collapsing into grave violence. Rogan asks Weinstein to break down precisely why Marxism goes bad in practice. Weinstein answers bluntly: the ideology fails because it refuses to account for human nature and the foundational mechanics that allow human societies to function. Peterson quips that Weinstein's critique sounds like that of a "true fascist."

> “There's a lot in Marx's critique of capitalism that's actually right, and so that kind of gets you through the door once you start looking at the analysis, and then there's the prescription, which is toxic, but it's not obvious why it's toxic.” — *Bret Weinstein*

- Marx's diagnostic critique of market imbalances has merit, drawing readers into the ideology. - The proposed Marxist remedies ignore basic human evolutionary drives and game-theoretic viability. - Historically, attempting to implement these remedies leads directly to coercion, catastrophic failure, and state-level violence.

[01:31:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5513s) The Pareto Distribution and the Matthew Principle

Peterson returns to Marx's initial insight to demonstrate where the analysis went off course. Marx accurately noticed that capital relentlessly accumulates into the hands of fewer and fewer people, but he misdiagnosed this as an inherent flaw of capitalism. Peterson argues that this concentration is actually a manifestation of a deeper, universal law of creative production known as the Pareto distribution. In any endeavor where individual performance varies, the vast majority produce nearly nothing, a small fraction achieve moderate success, and a hyper-minority capture nearly all the output.

Peterson explains the mathematical rule of thumb: roughly the square root of the total population under consideration ends up possessing or producing 50% of the total output. This dynamic mirrors the biblical Matthew principle: *"to those who have everything, more will be given, and from those who have nothing, everything will be taken."* Peterson points out that this distribution appears across all human production, whether analyzing wealth, classical music compositions, or scientific output. When any production domain is established, unequal outcomes and hyper-concentrations of success inevitably follow.

> “What Marx observed was that capital tended to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and he said that's a flaw of the capitalist system. That's wrong. It's not a flaw of the capitalist system; it is a feature of every single system of production that we know of, no matter who set it up and how it operates.” — *Jordan Peterson*

- **The Square Root Principle**: If 10,000 individuals compete in a production system, roughly 100 people (the square root of 10,000) will control half the generated wealth or output. - **Classical Music Example**: Out of 100 classical composers, roughly 10 generate half of all performed music; out of roughly 1,000 compositions created by those 10, approximately 30 pieces account for 50% of all public performances. - **The Matthew Principle**: A New Testament observation (*Matthew 25:29*) that empirically describes the compounding nature of success and compounding penalty of failure across complex adaptive systems.

[01:34:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5652s) The Pareto Distribution, Econophysics, and the Flaw in Marxism

When productive spoils flow disproportionately to a tiny fraction of the population, a society faces a critical crisis: either the remaining majority starves, or the entire structure destabilizes because everyone grows furious. Jordan Peterson explains that humanity’s primary evolutionary solution has been to diversify the number of productive games. If an individual lacks the physical gifts to become an NBA basketball star, they can choose to run a podcast, build a business, or invent a new craft. By fractionating the production landscape, people who fail in one domain can thrive in another. However, even with multiple games, success tends to compound. A person with an immensely popular podcast or YouTube channel develops an exceptionally powerful network, concentrating utility and attention right back at the top.

Peterson points out that this concentration follows a pattern with the strength of a natural physical law. He highlights the little-known academic field of econophysics, where researchers use the exact mathematical equations governing the diffusion of gas molecules into a vacuum to model the distribution of money across an economy. Karl Marx observed this profound inequality but misdiagnosed the cause by attributing it solely to the evils of capitalism. Peterson argues the dynamic is far more fundamental: any minor advantage makes an individual slightly more attractive and capable, fractionally boosting the odds of future success until the advantage snowballs into a Pareto distribution. Peterson jokes that Joe Rogan has accumulated an astronomical 1.2 billion podcast downloads, not out of oppression, but because he rode that exact Pareto wave into the stratosphere. He facetiously asks whether Rogan should be compelled to redistribute his billions of downloads to the downtrodden.

Rogan pushes back, explaining that no listener is coerced into downloading anything; people freely choose what to consume, and if someone invests relentless effort, time, and focus into a compelling product, audiences naturally gravitate toward it, producing exponential growth. Peterson agrees with the free-market premise, emphasizing that critics and postmodernists fundamentally err when they conflate competence and authority with raw tyrannical power:

> “And this is the other problem with the Marxist perspective is that and the post modernists in particular like they conflate power competence and authority unfairly.”

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Pareto Distribution and Compounding Success accDescr: Diagram illustrating how initial competence snowballs into compounding advantage or creates the trap of zero.

subgraph DynamicOfAdvantage["Compounding Success (The Pareto Wave)"] A["Competence & Targeted Effort"] --> B["Fractional Advantage Gained"] B --> C["Increased Attractiveness & Network"] C --> D["Exponential Growth / Pareto Distribution"] end

subgraph DynamicOfDeprivation["The Black Hole of Zero"] E["Zero Resources / Absolute Privation"] --> F["Inability to Enter Productive Games"] F --> G["Severe Economic Penalization"] G --> H["Vulnerability to Revolutionary Nihilism"] end

D -.->|"Extreme gap destabilizes system"| DynamicOfDeprivation ```

[01:37:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5871s) The Trap of Being "Stuck at Zero" and the Revolutionary Temptation

While acknowledging that markets reward competence, Peterson stresses that this dynamic leaves a catastrophic problem unresolved: the impossibility of gaining traction when someone is stuck at zero. Rogan suggests that instead of solely examining what successful people do right, society ought to identify what failing individuals are doing wrong in order to maximize human potential. Peterson mentions that this exact goal drove the development of his Future Authoring program. In a functional society, the two most reliable psychological predictors of success are intelligence (IQ) and conscientiousness—both heavily influenced by a genetic lottery. Furthermore, clearly defining a concrete target and working relentlessly toward it reliably improves outcomes.

Yet none of these tools work if someone possesses literally nothing. Peterson stresses that once an individual has some capital or momentum, acquiring more is manageable; but starting from absolute zero acts like a reverse trap where no one wants to talk to you, the system penalizes you, and you lack the table stakes to even play the game. This absolute immobility creates the breeding ground for revolutionary ideologies. Young men, who are biologically more expendable and therefore predisposed to high-risk behavior, find a potent romantic appeal in radical figures like Che Guevara. When an ideology offers the chance to burn down the entire corrupt structure, the offer sounds far more tempting than permanent stagnation, because in a newly randomized deck they might no longer be stuck at zero:

> “You're poor you don't have anything no one wants to talk to you you can't get out of it because you're too poor to get out of it you know you're penalized by the economic system because you can't even afford to start playing the game you're stuck at zero.”

[01:40:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6012s) Necessity vs. Absolute Privation, and Evolutionary Purpose

Rogan presents a counterpoint: severe struggle and risk are the very engines of innovation and creativity. Unlike trust-fund heirs who can buy a new Ferrari every year and lack all drive—explaining why family fortunes notoriously dissipate after three generations—those facing real danger and uncertain futures are driven to invent and strive. Peterson concedes that brute necessity often propels the children of first-generation immigrants to remarkable heights, but he draws a sharp boundary between productive scarcity and absolute privation. Severe poverty is not an inspirational challenge; it is a black hole and a magnet. If someone is trapped in a remote village in Tanzania living by a river where people are routinely eaten by crocodiles, no amount of raw goodwill or ambition can lift them out of zero.

Bret Weinstein enters the conversation to broaden the lens from market incentives to evolutionary biology. He argues that addressing both what people do right and what they do wrong simultaneously accelerates individual maximization, but society fundamentally misconstrues human drive. Modern culture tells individuals that they are pursuing a permanent state of subjective happiness or contentment—believing that inventing a product or acquiring wealth will finally bring peace—but that expectation is an evolutionary trap. Weinstein argues that our biology did not evolve for static satisfaction:

> “The fact is what we are wired to do is to discover opportunities and then when we discover an opportunity it benefits the population that we come from and we turn that discovery into our...”

- Econophysics mathematically demonstrates that monetary distributions mirror the physical laws of gas molecules diffusing into a vacuum. - IQ and conscientiousness remain the two primary psychological determinants of individual success in functional meritocracies. - Family fortunes rarely survive past three generations due to the loss of hunger, necessity, and real existential stakes. - A critical distinction exists between motivational hardship (which drives innovation) and absolute systemic privation (which traps individuals irrecoverably at zero).

[01:42:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6173s) The Malthusian Trap, Innovation, and Pareto Distributions

Bret Weinstein elaborates on the evolutionary pitfall humanity faces whenever it discovers a new efficiency. Rather than stabilizing surplus into enduring comfort or leisure, human populations historically convert gains into additional mouths to feed or increased consumption demands, rapidly returning to a baseline of privation and fear of starvation. When Joe Rogan asks for an example, Weinstein illustrates using an ancient farmer:

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Technological Surplus Dilemma accDescr: Flowchart contrasting how technological gains can either be stabilized as luxury or consumed by population growth back to privation.

subgraph Gain ["Technological Advance"] A["Ancient Farmer Farms Land"] --> B["Discovers or Adopts Wheel"] B --> C["Transports More / Greater Output with Same Labor"] end

subgraph Paths ["Two Divergent Paths"] C --> D["Path A: Stabilize Surplus (Persistent luxury, space to investigate important things)"] C --> E["Path B: Produce More Mouths to Feed (Population growth or quest for higher consumption)"] end

subgraph Outcome ["Result"] E --> F["Return to Privation (Fear of starvation restored to previous baseline)"] end ```

Rogan summarizes this phenomenon with the quip, "More money, more problems." Weinstein agrees, observing that while humanity historically responded to surplus by producing more people, it now manifests as an insatiable quest for consumption.

Jordan Peterson pivots the discussion back to Karl Marx and economic dynamics. While acknowledging that an overall rising tide has lifted the human standard of living stupendously since 1895, Peterson points out an inherent structural tension: progress demands open competition so individuals can innovate, but that innovation inevitably produces Pareto distributions where a tiny fraction of top performers captures the vast majority of the spoils.

This concentration produces extreme inequality, which Peterson notes is provably destabilizing: - Left-wing thinkers rightly warn that extreme inequality destabilizes society because impoverished individuals at the bottom will eventually decide to violently flip the system upside down. - Right-wing conservatives also have a direct stake in limiting inequality because empirical data overwhelmingly demonstrates that local inequality—more than absolute poverty—drives violent crime rates skyward.

Peterson insists that a productive political conversation between left and right must acknowledge this core trade-off: innovation drives progress, innovation creates inequality, but unchecked inequality tears civilization apart.

> “You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it's too intense then things destabilize.” — Jordan Peterson

[01:48:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6490s) The Flaws of Universal Basic Income and the Crisis of Purpose

When Joe Rogan asks Jordan Peterson if he sees a problem with solutions like Universal Basic Income (UBI), Peterson responds that basic income is a terrible answer to the right question. While resources do need to be redistributed down to the bottom so people have enough footing to innovate, handing out cash fundamentally misdiagnoses human psychology.

Peterson argues that human beings are fundamentally "beasts of burden" who require honourable social and individual responsibilities to survive. Without meaningful function, individuals degenerate and die—a breakdown he points to as the primary driver behind the modern opioid crisis in the West. He stresses that disenfranchised men do not merely lack money; they lack purpose, utility, and societal respect.

To illustrate how modern society leaves vulnerable populations behind, Peterson points to the military's strict enlistment standards: - It is a violation of federal law to induct anyone into the United States Armed Forces with an IQ below 83. - Despite historic wartime incentives to expand recruitment numbers, the military determined that there is not a single job someone below an 83 IQ can be trained to perform that is not actively counterproductive. - Approximately 10% of the total human population falls below this 83 IQ threshold.

Peterson emphasizes that in an increasingly complex, cognitive-heavy digital economy, individuals without basic computer literacy or high cognitive ability are left with virtually zero economic utility. He criticizes both political factions for living in ideological fantasies: - Conservatives naively claim that anyone can find a job if they just work hard enough. - Liberals naively claim that all human beings are identical blank slates who can be trained to do any task.

> “The fundamental problem is that human beings in some sense are beasts of burden, and if they're not provided with a place where they can accept social and individual responsibility in an honourable manner, they degenerate and die.” — Jordan Peterson

[01:49:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6596s) Evolutionary Envy, Television, and the Threat of Tribal Warfare

Bret Weinstein analyzes human sensitivity to inequality through an evolutionary lens. Decades of social science demonstrate that people are far more distressed by relative inequality than by their absolute baseline of well-being. Weinstein explains that in ancestral human environments, this was a rational survival mechanism: if your neighbor farmed an adjacent plot and produced twice as much yield, they possessed critical knowledge you lacked. Paying obsessive attention to them was an adaptive way to discover and copy their superior techniques.

In the modern world, Weinstein warns, this ancient mental adaptation becomes completely maladaptive: - Modern living rooms feature screens broadcasting hyper-wealthy, artificial lives directly into people's visual field, simulating a neighbor's window. - Viewers instinctively feel an evolutionary trigger telling them they are failing or doing something wrong, even though the televised subjects live in entirely fabricated or disconnected contexts.

Weinstein suggests that because massive economic redistribution remains politically fraught and unpopular, modern power structures appear to employ economic austerity as a cudgel to keep a dissatisfied populace in check. He warns that when a population realizes that its era of sustained growth has permanently ended, natural instincts trigger tribal hostility and turn groups against one another in violent conflict.

> “People are motivated by the degree of inequality more than they are the absolute level of well-being that they have, and there's a very good—it's tragic, but a very good evolutionary reason for this, which is if you are working on some piece of land and your neighbor has the adjacent piece of land and they're doing twice as well as you, it's because they know something you don't.” — Bret Weinstein

[01:52:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6737s) Inequality, Rigged Games, and the Threat of Radical Egalitarianism

Bret Weinstein begins by noting that humanity has historically fallen into a “totally indefensible but nonetheless biological pattern of history,” where groups reach perceived limits of opportunity, conclude that expansion has ended, and turn violently to seize resources from those who cannot defend themselves. To avoid this destructive cycle, societies must stop broadcasting the signals that trigger this instinct—signals generated when a system fails to ensure sufficient well-being to keep perceived inequality at a tolerable level.

Jordan Peterson acknowledges the merit of proposals like Universal Basic Income and stresses the profound stabilizing power of equality of opportunity. He argues that people are not inherently bitter about others' success as long as they believe the rules are fair. Describing the psychological bedrock of the American dream, Peterson observes that someone can accept being stuck at level one if they believe their children might reasonably reach level four. When the game is straight, ethical, and offers upward mobility, some degree of inequality is tolerated as a necessary byproduct of the generative economic engine.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: The Divergent Paths of Economic Fairness accDescr: Flowchart contrasting the stable path of fair competition with the destructive cycle of rigged markets and radical egalitarianism. subgraph Stable["Sustainable System"] A["Fair Game & Ethics"] --> B["Tolerable Inequality"] B --> C["Generative Economy & Upward Mobility"] end subgraph Collapse["Destructive Cycle"] D["Rigged Game & Rent-Seeking"] --> E["Public Resentment & Backlash"] E --> F["Radical Egalitarianism / Eradication of Productive Class"] F --> G["Economic Collapse & Starvation"] end ```

However, Peterson points out that when the wealthy use their leverage to rig the rules—a frustration brought into sharp relief by the 2008 financial crisis, where the rich appeared to disproportionately benefit from system bailouts—public anger is entirely justified. When games become crooked, the social contract fractures. Peterson warns that postmodernists and neo-Marxists exploit this fracture by asserting that all hierarchies are merely corrupt structures of arbitrary power, where anyone with wealth is automatically an oppressor who stole it. Peterson cautions that while genuine criminals exist, erasing the distinction between productive creators and parasitic criminals leads straight to catastrophe: “When you radically make things egalitarian you're gonna wipe out all your productive people and then you're gonna starve.” He cites the Soviet Union in the 1920s as a catastrophic historical precedent for this exact blind spot and condemns universities for institutionalizing the belief that all inequality stems exclusively from oppression.

[01:55:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6953s) Rent-Seeking vs. Productive Enterprise

Joe Rogan asks Peterson and Weinstein why academia has embraced this worldview so wholesale. Weinstein steps back to critique the broader economic reality, pointing out that public anger is not entirely unfounded because an uncomfortably large fraction of the economy consists of unproductive, predatory rent-seeking rather than genuine innovation. Con games and wealth-transfer schemes are infinitely easier to discover and operate continuously, whereas genuine productive breakthroughs occur only in fits and starts.

Weinstein explains that public discourse is trapped between two flawed caricatures: one side naively claims that markets are pristine engines free of corruption, while the other insists that all inequality is the product of theft. The truth is nuanced: markets are remarkably effective at determining *how* to execute tasks efficiently, but they are completely incapable of determining *what* human beings should morally value or pursue:

> “Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do something really well... but what they're terrible at is telling you what you should want or what you should do.” — Bret Weinstein

If society democratically decided its goals and then deployed market mechanisms to solve those logistical challenges, Weinstein argues, it could minimize rent-seeking without succumbing to the impulse to throw the baby out with the bathwater by abolishing markets entirely.

[01:57:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7077s) Ideological Capture, Academic Envy, and Market Morality

Peterson addresses Rogan's question about the universities, diagnosing the current state of higher education as the result of a runaway positive feedback loop operating on Pareto-like distributions. Beginning with a sharp political tilt to the left during the 1960s, academic hiring panels steadily reached a threshold where left-leaning faculties predominantly hired candidates who matched or exceeded their ideological convictions. Over several academic generations, conservative voices in the humanities and social sciences were effectively weeded out.

On a more human level, Peterson dryly observes that academic hostility toward capitalism is deeply tangled with envy and resentment: - Academics are highly intelligent individuals who often feel underpaid relative to their cognitive abilities. - Earning $100,000 to $120,000 a year, professors stew with bitterness when observing Wall Street bankers pulling down $20 million annually. - Peterson jokes that “if you paid sociology professors three times as much, the probability that they would be anti-capitalist would decline precipitously.”

Peterson illustrates this institutional animus through his own experience. Colleagues frequently express moral outrage simply because he collaborates with the business school and operates his own commercial ventures. When Peterson presses them, they cannot provide a coherent critique beyond treating the idea that "businessmen are evil" as an undeniable, self-evident truth.

Weinstein steps in to articulate the steelmanned philosophical logic driving that suspicion. In an unregulated, purely free market, if an amoral actor who embraces any profitable exploit is pitted against a moral actor constrained by ethical limits, the unconstrained amoral actor will mathematically out-compete the moral one over time. Peterson immediately pushes back, arguing that in a transparent game, market participants will eventually recognize amoral actors and refuse to do business with them. Weinstein counters that, unfortunately, markets do not naturally discipline amoral behavior so cleanly.

[02:01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7284s) The Amoral Edge of Unregulated Markets

Bret Weinstein expands on the evolutionary dynamics of free markets, arguing that relying solely on consumer policing—such as customers refusing to use Uber when the company faces an ethical scandal—creates a perverse incentive. In an unregulated space, the game quickly shifts toward identifying what is being monitored and avoiding only those specific missteps, while actively exploiting every profitable, unethical move that goes unnoticed. The actor willing to behave amorously gains an undeniable competitive advantage over the ethically restrained individual, who can at best hope to break even. As Weinstein puts it:

> “The individual who is perceiving which things they can get away with has an advantage.”

When Jordan Peterson asks whether this dynamic depends entirely on the specific competitive battlefield, Weinstein suggests there is really only one major exception: people who skyrocket into dominant positions almost overnight through raw technological innovation. Founders who invent the next breakthrough have not yet been disciplined by the market to search out unmonitored blind spots for profit.

Joe Rogan notes that major tech corporations overwhelmingly lean left politically. Weinstein responds by pointing to Google’s founding motto, “Don't be evil.” In Weinstein’s view, that slogan genuinely reflected the early ethos of innovators who had not yet been pressured by brutal competition. Over time, however, exposure to rivals willing to cut corners forces even idealistic tech giants to rationalize questionable behavior simply to survive. Rogan and Weinstein bring up Google’s compromises to enter the Chinese market, including accepting state censorship to counter local competition and rampant intellectual property theft, such as knockoff Google clones and fake Apple stores.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Market Pressure Toward Amorality accDescr: Diagram showing how unregulated market competition forces idealistic companies toward amoral behavior.

subgraph EarlyStage["1. Innovation Stage"] A["Breakthrough Innovation (e.g., Early Google)"] --> B["Ethical Idealism ('Don't be evil')"] end

subgraph CompetitionStage["2. Market Pressure"] B --> C["Rivals exploit unmonitored unethical shortcuts"] C --> D{"Adapt or Perish?"} end

subgraph OutcomeStage["3. Realpolitik"] D -->|"Rationalize compromises"| E["Systemic Amorality (e.g., Censorship in China)"] D -->|"Maintain strict ethics"| F["Competitive Disadvantage"] end ```

---

[02:04:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7463s) Why Universities and Journalism Resist Market Logic

Peterson pivots back to Weinstein’s earlier caution against straw-manning the anti-business sentiment of academic peers. Peterson clarifies that while he is certainly not an anti-capitalist, he firmly rejects the notion that every human institution should be treated like a corporation. Higher education, much like religious institutions, suffers when forced into an MBA-style corporate mold:

> “A university is actually not a business, it's a—like a church isn't a business; there are organizations that aren't businesses that you can't just cram into the free market structure willy-nilly.”

He notes that university faculty have valid reasons to resent the influx of professional administrators and profit-seeking managers who distort the institution's core scholarly purpose.

Weinstein strongly agrees, observing that several vital human endeavors possess no natural immunity against the distorting pressures of the market. He points to journalism as a prime casualty: when news organizations are subject strictly to market demands, they naturally optimize for telling readers what they want to hear rather than what they need to know. Markets excel at calculating distribution, but they possess no inherent wisdom about human well-being or what people ought to value.

---

[02:06:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7566s) State Intervention, Free Speech, and Corporate Censorship

Peterson and Weinstein examine the core tension between left and right economic philosophies: leaving the market completely unchecked allows it to wander blindly without regard for long-term social health, yet using the heavy hand of the state to steer it risks introducing authoritarian pathologies. To strike a balance between conscious foresight and the decentralized calculating power of free enterprise, Peterson argues that society must maintain robust, untrammeled political discourse:

> “The answer to that is we have political discussions about it all the time that are untrammeled so that we can adjust the ratio between those two things as necessary.”

Weinstein echoes this danger, noting that an unregulated market can end up manipulating vulnerable populations, such as probing the minds of children to sell them products they cannot resist, while an overreaching nanny state destroys the market's dynamic energy.

Rogan connects this challenge directly to the modern marketplace of ideas and online speech. Platforms like Google and YouTube increasingly impose top-down morality through demonetization and content suppression, limiting what the public is allowed to discuss and distorting open dialogue.

---

[02:08:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7681s) Meritocracy, Conscientiousness, and IQ as Predictors of Success

Rogan observes that genuine freedom inevitably breeds inequality because individuals invest wildly different amounts of effort, focus, and drive into their pursuits. Peterson confirms that this reality is thoroughly documented in psychological and empirical literature. The two strongest individual predictors of long-term life success are cognitive ability (IQ) and conscientiousness:

- **Intelligence (IQ):** Acts essentially as processing speed—the sheer number of credible cognitive operations an individual can execute within a specific window of time. - **Conscientiousness:** Reflects sustained stamina and focus—the number of work cycles an individual commits directly toward executing a given task.

Peterson explains the immense predictive power of combining these two metrics. If an observer tries to guess at random whether a person will end up in the top half or the bottom half of economic success, the odds are 50/50. Using standardized, reliable tests of IQ and conscientiousness, the correlation with competitive success jumps to approximately 0.6, yielding an 85% accuracy rate when predicting which of two people will outperform the other:

> “You can say with 85 percent accuracy which of two people would be more likely to be in the top fifty percent, so it's a whopping effect, and it's actually some validation for the essential integrity of our system.”

While corruption and environmental handicaps certainly exist, Peterson stresses that this high correlation demonstrates Western society functions largely as an open meritocracy where industrious and intelligent people generally pull ahead. Weinstein interjects, noting that IQ measurements themselves raise unresolved questions about how much observed differences reflect unequal access to enriching developmental environments.

[02:10:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7832s) Environmental Factors, Head Start, and the Limits of IQ Enhancement

The conversation turns to the malleability of human intelligence and whether disparities in cognitive ability can be eliminated. Bret Weinstein suggests that biological intuition points to environmental interventions—such as eliminating lead in water or correcting vitamin deficiencies—as a major avenue for closing the gap, framing that potential as part of equal opportunity. Jordan Peterson, however, expresses deep pessimism based on his review of the scientific literature. Having researched the field while developing his Future Authoring program, Peterson observes that apart from basic baseline interventions, artificial attempts to boost intelligence yield discouraging results. He notes that simply ensuring people do not starve over the past century has caused a massive upward shift at the bottom of the IQ distribution, calling it a “walloping success.”

Peterson illustrates the limits of direct intervention using the American Head Start program from the War on Poverty. Head Start aimed to take disadvantaged children before grade school and train them cognitively, hoping to trigger a positive feedback loop—a Pareto-like effect where early gains would compound across first and second grade. Peterson explains that while participants initially gained a cognitive lead over peers, the advantage vanished by the sixth grade as other students caught up, leaving “absolutely no effect whatsoever of the training program left.” While Head Start did lead to reduced teenage pregnancy and dropout rates, Peterson attributes this to socialization or temporary removal from toxic home environments rather than lasting intellectual gains. Weinstein counters that Head Start is an uncontrolled experiment that starts too late in life and fails to insulate children from chronic neighborhood hardship, leaving the underlying biological truth of IQ unresolved.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Head Start Intervention and Outcome Flow accDescr: Diagram tracing the expected versus actual outcomes of early childhood cognitive interventions like Head Start.

subgraph Design["Program Design"] A["Deprived Children Identified"] --> B["Early Pre-School Cognitive Training"] end

subgraph Expected["Intended Trajectory"] B --> C["Compounding Cognitive Jump: Kindergarten to Grade 2"] end

subgraph Actual["Observed Long-Term Results"] B --> D["Initial Early IQ Advantage"] D --> E["Peers Catch Up by Grade 6: Net Zero IQ Difference"] B --> F["Secondary Social Benefits: Fewer Dropouts & Teen Pregnancies"] end ```

[02:13:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7996s) Heritability, Separated Twin Studies, and Universal Opportunity

Peterson notes that Western society may already be experiencing diminishing returns in equalizing IQ because universal access to basic necessities—central heating, air conditioning, sufficient food, and the internet—gives motivated individuals broad access to information. He then points to twin research as evidence of the biological resilience of IQ: identical twins separated at birth and adopted into different families consistently show adult IQs that correlate far more closely with their biological parents than their adoptive parents. Furthermore, separated twins show an IQ correlation that tightens with age, until at age sixty their scores align almost as if the same person were tested twice, defying the intuitive expectation that divergent life experiences would cause their intellectual trajectories to separate. Weinstein critiques these studies by emphasizing that the sample size of identical twins reared apart is tiny, and that shared prenatal environments could explain enduring similarities if maternal stress or malnutrition affected both fetuses before birth.

Despite their differing views on the plasticity of intelligence, Weinstein highlights foundational principles they share: speech must remain unrestricted so any hypothesis can be advanced and scrutinized, and society must guarantee equal opportunity. Expanding on Peterson's earlier observation that freedom inevitably yields inequality, Weinstein argues that a free society does not have to let people fall completely to the bottom. “The fact is we could make people safe to fail,” Weinstein argues, suggesting that if society provides a floor through mechanisms like universal basic income, people will take creative, high-value risks without the terror of outright destitution or homelessness.

- Peterson summarizes the twin research trajectory: “By the time you're sixty, no matter how long you've been separated as an identical twin, your IQ score is so much like your twin's IQ score that it's as if the same person was being tested twice.” - Weinstein affirms their shared baseline: “The other thing that I think we would agree on is that equality of opportunity is nothing but good, right? A fair game with equality of opportunity.”

[02:17:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8222s) Entrepreneurship, Healthcare Safety Nets, and Closing the Episode

Peterson observes that empirical data may support Weinstein's premise about a safety net fostering risk-taking. In Canada, the rate of entrepreneurial activity is higher than in the United States, which Peterson notes may stem from the presence of universal healthcare: a 25- or 27-year-old with a family can leave a corporate job to launch a startup without risking their family's medical coverage. While acknowledging that the Canadian single-payer system suffers from artificial scarcity, wait times, and cannot match the high-end private care of institutions like the Mayo Clinic, Peterson argues it performs substantially better and cheaper for the middle and lower classes than the American model, noting that the United States spends a far larger percentage of its GDP on healthcare. Joe Rogan points listeners to an episode of the television show *Adam Ruins Everything*, which explains how inflated pricing and profit recovery drove dysfunction in the American healthcare market.

As the broadcast crosses the two-hour-and-forty-minute mark, the hosts realize they have not yet addressed Dr. Peterson's planned thesis regarding Adolf Hitler. Weinstein invites Peterson to lay out the argument, but Peterson decides against opening such an explosive subject at the tail end of an exhausting discussion. Peterson admits that his fatigue makes it too risky to navigate the nuances of the Nazi regime without making an unforced error. Rogan and Weinstein agree with the decision, acknowledging that Hitler is an intensely charged subject where any slip in phrasing could be catastrophic.

- “I'm at the point where the probability that I will say something stupid is starting to increase, and I would rather not, because just saying the things that I'm trying to say that aren't stupid is dangerous enough,” Peterson explains when declining to start the Hitler topic.

[02:19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8387s) Historical Distance and the Rationality of Monsters

Joe Rogan reflects on how historical atrocities are perceived over vast expanses of time, citing Dan Carlin's analysis on *Hardcore History*. Carlin points out that despite Genghis Khan killing roughly ten percent of the world's population—an atrocity so immense it measurably reduced humanity's carbon footprint—modern observers routinely credit his empire with positive achievements like establishing international trade routes and opening commerce with China. Rogan wonders aloud whether a distant future might attempt a similar reappraisal of Adolf Hitler, though he acknowledges that modern documentation and film make that nearly impossible. Bret Weinstein steps in gingerly, aware of how easily conversations about Hitler can be weaponized or misunderstood, remarking that he intends to frame his evolutionary argument with extreme care.

Weinstein revisits a paper he originally wrote for evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, arguing that while Hitler was indisputably a monster, he was a rational monster whose actions served an evolutionary logic rather than purely insane impulses. Hitler’s explicitly stated ideology was scientifically distorted and tangled around Darwinian ideas, but his concrete actions functioned to secure and maximize resources for his own population. Weinstein warns that genocidal impulses are not eradicated relics of the past; rather, they remain latent behavioral programs coded into human biology. When economic opportunities peak, populations expand to exhaust those resources, leading to severe austerity. When conditions become zero-sum, populations instinctively search for vulnerabilities: if that group lies across a border, it manifests as war; if it resides within the border, it culminates in genocide.

> “So my argument from all those years ago in my paper that I did for Bob Trivers that I mentioned at the beginning was that Hitler was a monster, as we all know, but he was a rational monster, that the program that he deployed was not what he said, mind you—what he said was wrong in many places, especially where it gets near Darwinism, it's just all tangled and broken—but what he did was rational from the point of view of increasing the amount of resource that was dedicated to producing members of his population.” — Bret Weinstein

- Genghis Khan's conquests wiped out an estimated 10% of the global population, altering land use enough to lower the planet's carbon footprint during his lifetime. - Weinstein stresses that genocidal drives surface under conditions of ecological and economic austerity once an expanding population saturates its resource base.

---

[02:22:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8564s) Evolutionary Utility, Kin Selection, and Hitler's Strategy

Jordan Peterson clarifies that he does not fundamentally disagree with Weinstein’s warning against dismissing Hitler as merely an incomprehensible madman. Peterson insists on giving the devil his due: Hitler cannot accurately be described as stupid, uncharismatic, devoid of artistic talent, or an incompetent organizer, particularly given Germany’s economic turnaround during the early years of his rule. However, Peterson highlights a paradox he had raised in earlier lectures: as the German military began losing the war on the Eastern Front, instead of redirecting trains and logistics to win the war, the regime actively accelerated the machinery of extermination. Weinstein counters that from a cold, evolutionary fitness standpoint, the Nazi state sought to eliminate competing genomes while simultaneously enslaving able-bodied Jews to feed the war machine, noting that camps like Auschwitz served as both forced-labor and extermination centers.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Evolutionary Pressures and State Genocide accDescr: Flowchart illustrating resource austerity triggering latent biological drives toward war or internal extermination.

subgraph Resource_Shock ["Ecological & Economic Shock"] A["Population Expansion"] --> B["Resource Ceiling Reached"] B --> C["Severe Austerity / Zero-Sum State"] end

subgraph Latent_Programs ["Latent Evolutionary Mechanisms"] C --> D{"Vulnerable Population Target"} D -->|"External Target"| E["Territorial War"] D -->|"Internal Target"| F["Internal Genocide & Expropriation"] end

subgraph Resource_Outcome ["Resource Reallocation"] F --> G["Enslavement & Labor Extraction"] F --> H["Expropriation of Capital to Dominant In-Group"] end ```

Peterson then asks whether a viable evolutionary survival strategy might involve homogenizing an environment across racial or ethnic lines to minimize future existential threats to one's lineage. Weinstein agrees, but pushes back against the standard biological orthodoxy that restricts evolutionary kin selection exclusively to immediate, close genetic relatives. He argues that evolutionary theorists originally narrowed the operational definition of fitness to immediate kin simply because wider population-level fitness was difficult to quantify mathematically, not because kin selection logically terminates at the nuclear family. In Weinstein's view, Hitler struck against a distinct domestic population to expropriate their accumulated capital, then pushed into Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union for *Lebensraum*—a campaign that cost at least twelve million Soviet military deaths and millions more civilian lives. Genes do not consciously calculate superiority, Weinstein points out, but they act blindly to supplant alternative genetic lineages.

> “I've studied Hitler a lot and there's a bunch of things that you can't say about him: you can't say he was stupid, right; you can't say he was without artistic talent; you can't say that he was a poor organizer; you can't say that he wasn't charismatic; you can't say that he did [not do] wonders for Germany's economy in the first part of his reign; and so it's very necessary when you're dealing intelligently with a true monster that you give the devil his due.” — Jordan Peterson

- Jordan Peterson highlights that rather than diverting logistical resources to reverse military losses, the Nazi apparatus escalated the rate of extermination toward the end of the war. - Soviet losses in turning back the German offensive amounted to roughly 12 million military deaths, alongside an even larger civilian death toll. - Weinstein rejects orthodox kin selection models that treat genetic competition as terminating at immediate relatives, contending that genes operate to displace alternative population lineages.

---

[02:27:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8867s) Latent Programs, Charlottesville, and "Black Truths"

Peterson emphasizes that the primary purpose of tracing this dark evolutionary logic is to warn contemporary society that these genocidal programs remain dormant within our shared biological architecture. Weinstein concurs, noting that while civilized adults resist such behavior, the latent circuitry remains waiting to be triggered by opportunistic political figures. He brings up Donald Trump, arguing that Trump cynically tapped into these dormant tribal impulses during his rise to power, citing his equivocal response to the Charlottesville violence as an example. Rogan and Weinstein recall how neo-Nazi publications, such as *The Daily Stormer*, celebrated Trump's remarks because he refused to single out or condemn the white nationalists, praising the fact that he attributed the violence to "both sides."

Peterson reflects on the philosophical problem of truth raised by Trump’s Charlottesville statement, recalling his own experience addressing the issue in the Canadian press after a planned free speech panel was canceled. While it is factually correct that reprehensible behavior existed on the fringes of both political extremes, Peterson argues that context and timing fundamentally dictate whether an utterance is truly honest. He draws a distinction between a "white lie"—an untruth spoken to prevent harm—and what he defines as a "black truth." A black truth occurs when someone weaponizes a literal fact out of proper context to wound, deceive, or grant cover to bad actors, turning the truth itself into an instrument of deceit.

> “Truth is a tricky thing because you have to take the temporal context into account, you know, because I would say you can imagine that there are white lies and black truths: a black truth is when you use the truth in a way that isn't truthful, just like a white lie is when you lie in a way that isn't harmful—you can use the truth to wound and hurt, and what that really means is that you've misused the truth.” — Jordan Peterson

- Following the Charlottesville rally, white nationalist platforms like *The Daily Stormer* celebrated Donald Trump's rhetoric, interpreting his refusal to condemn them exclusively as a quiet endorsement. - Peterson's scheduled free speech panel in Canada was abruptly canceled around the time of the Charlottesville events, forcing him to address the resulting media storm regarding political extremism.

[02:30:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9003s) Trump, Charlottesville, and the "Wink and a Nod"

Jordan Peterson argues that Donald Trump committed a fundamental communication error following the violence in Charlottesville, regardless of whether Trump was acting out of deceit or sheer ineptitude. Peterson contends that Trump’s mistake was failing to establish the correct time and place for his statements. In Peterson’s view, Trump should have immediately and unequivocally denounced the white supremacist racism displayed in Charlottesville, remained silent on other fronts for two weeks, and only later addressed the broader political landscape—such as left-wing violence in Berkeley—to make the point that reprehensible extremists exist on both sides.

Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein disagree that Trump’s remarks were merely inept timing. Weinstein argues that looking at Trump’s behavior during the 2016 election makes it clear his response was entirely deliberate and expected. Rogan emphasizes that Trump consistently offers a "wink and a nod" to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Looking at the direct reactions published on white supremacist outlets like *The Daily Stormer*, Rogan reads how they celebrated Trump’s refusal to single them out, pointing out that Trump blamed "both sides" and implied Antifa were the real instigators. Rogan cites a memorable quip from comedian Alonzo Bodden: “Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all racists are Trump supporters.”

> “Because what he should have come out and done was said, ‘I unequivocally denounce the white supremacist racism that emerged in Charlottesville,’ and then he should have shut up.” — *Jordan Peterson*

- White supremacist websites openly celebrated Trump’s press conference, highlighting that he walked out of the room rather than answering shouted questions about white nationalism. - Rogan stresses the political utility Trump derives from courting these fringe groups, even if only by providing the bare minimum acknowledgment they crave.

---

[02:32:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9147s) The Faith Goldy Controversy and Rebel Media

The conversation shifts to the broader fallout of Charlottesville in conservative media, specifically concerning Canadian journalist Faith Goldy and her firing from Ezra Levant’s *The Rebel Media*. Peterson explains that Goldy was dismissed after appearing on an affiliated podcast with *The Daily Stormer* network (associated with "The Krypto Report"). Peterson, who listened to the recording closely alongside his son, notes that Goldy had originally been scheduled to speak on an upcoming free-speech panel alongside him. The situation created a layered, meta-level irony: a university panel discussing the shutdown of free-speech events on campuses was canceled by the institution, while the organizers themselves had simultaneously ejected Goldy over speech issues.

Analyzing Goldy’s interview, Peterson concludes her critical journalistic failure was treating neo-Nazis like friendly neighborhood acquaintances. While a journalist has every right to interview extremists, Peterson argues she failed by refusing to press them on their underlying agenda or ask challenging questions. He explains that even a single pointed "snake bite" of critical pushback would have preserved her journalistic credibility. By maintaining an uncritical, cordial tone throughout, she inadvertently allowed hateful actors to masquerade as innocent, rational participants.

> “And so I would say she damned herself by insufficiently criticizing the villains—it was something like that.” — *Jordan Peterson*

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Journalistic Engagement with Extremists accDescr: Flowchart contrasting critical engagement versus passive cordiality when interviewing extremist groups.

subgraph Critical_Approach["Rigorous Journalism"] A["Engage Extremists / Neo-Nazis"] --> B["Ask Tough Questions & Expose Agendas"] B --> C["Reveal Abhorrent Views to Public"] end

subgraph Flawed_Approach["Faith Goldy Scenario"] D["Engage Extremists / Neo-Nazis"] --> E["Maintain Unbroken Cordiality"] E --> F["Allow Villains to Masquerade as Innocent"] F --> G["Journalistic Failure & Backlash"] end ```

---

[02:34:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9265s) Interviewing Extremists: Louis Theroux and W. Kamau Bell

Joe Rogan pushes back against the premise that hostile confrontation is the only legitimate journalistic tactic. He cites acclaimed British documentarian Louis Theroux, celebrated for embedding himself within extreme subcultures like the Westboro Baptist Church and Scientology. Rather than staging aggressive arguments, Theroux adopts an unthreatening, polite, and congenial demeanor for weeks at a time. Rogan notes that this non-combative style disarms subjects, leading them to drop their guard and reveal the ugly, irrational nature of their beliefs far more effectively than an adversarial interrogation would.

Rogan points to another example: W. Kamau Bell’s CNN series *United Shades of America*, where Bell sat down with members of the Ku Klux Klan. By sharing jokes and being friendly, Bell allowed the sheer absurdity and ugliness of their worldview to become obvious on camera. Rogan points out a glaring double standard in public perception: because Bell is Black, no one would ever accuse him of sympathizing with the Klan, much like Oprah Winfrey was never accused of racism when she interviewed Klansmen. When a white journalist like Faith Goldy interacts cordially with white supremacists, however, the public reflexively assumes ideological alignment.

> “Sometimes you don’t have to be confrontational with them; you just got to allow them to be comfortable.” — *Joe Rogan*

- Louis Theroux’s method relies on subtle, repeated inquiries wrapped in British politeness rather than overt debate. - Kamau Bell's rapport with Klan members highlighted racial prejudice naturally without requiring shouting matches.

---

[02:37:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9476s) Raising the Threshold of Offense and Off-Ramping the Anti-Left

Bret Weinstein emphasizes that society must raise its threshold of offense if it wants genuine truth-seeking journalism to exist. He argues that embedding with abhorrent subcultures and allowing the public to understand how these groups view themselves is a vital service, not an endorsement of their views. Weinstein points out that viewing extreme ideologies clearly requires stepping back from the demand for performative condemnation.

Peterson connects this dilemma to his own public reputation. He notes that critics frequently smear him as "alt-right" or "far-right" simply because he is willing to talk to individuals on the fringes of conservative circles. Peterson explains that the broader anti-left spectrum is disorganized and at high risk of tilting rapidly into hard-right reactionism. He sees his dialogues as an intentional effort to provide a rational off-ramp for disaffected young people who are exhausted by blanket accusations of systemic and implicit racism. His objective is to show them that it is possible to reject radical leftist ideology without falling into the trap of far-right extremism.

> “Partly what I’m hoping is that I can talk to people who might conceivably be on that developmental pathway, because they’re tired of being accused of implicit racism, let’s say, and say, ‘Look, you can be anti-radical-left without falling all the way into the far right, and here’s how you might do it.’” — *Jordan Peterson*

[02:39:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9575s) The Pepe the Frog Controversy and Humorless Ideology

Jordan Peterson reflects on the precarious nature of public dialogue, noting that engaging in conversation with certain controversial figures instantly carries the threat of guilt by association and being permanently tainted. Joe Rogan connects this dynamic to the uncompromising posture of the hard left, pointing specifically to the cultural panic surrounding Pepe the Frog. Rogan recounts a recent incident on Twitter where a critic declared he had just admitted to being a Nazi simply because he shared a user-generated meme depicting himself as Pepe. Rogan emphasizes that internet culture generates Pepe variants of virtually every public figure and that the meme is overwhelmingly deployed for defensive humor and satire rather than ideological extremism.

Bret Weinstein highlights how internet satire operates as a deliberate provocation against dogmatic groups, observing that the meme's primary power is exposing humorlessness. Rogan admits to a slight hesitation when talking about the meme publicly, fearing that some obscure detail might be weaponized against him, yet maintains that the vast majority of people—including the self-described "Kekistani" subculture—use the imagery simply to troll and mock overly sensitive critics. While Rogan acknowledges having done extensive image searches that uncovered genuinely abhorrent, antisemitic, and Nazi-themed versions created by bad actors, he stresses that decentralized internet users do not operate under coordinated command. To illustrate the absurdity of painting an entire character with the actions of a few, Rogan points out that historical Mickey Mouse cartoons frequently relied on blatantly racist caricatures of Black people, yet nobody makes the leap that Mickey Mouse itself is fundamentally a hate symbol that warrants a total boycott of Disneyland.

> “There’s something about the idea that the effectiveness of this meme is that it tangles people with no sense of humor in knots and that’s a huge part of why those things are generated.” — Bret Weinstein

- Rogan was accused on Twitter of admitting to being a Nazi solely for posting a meme of himself styled as Pepe the Frog. - The term "defensive humor" is highlighted as the primary mechanism behind online meme culture targeting self-serious ideologues. - While abhorrent Nazi and antisemitic variations of Pepe exist online, Rogan stresses they represent an uncoordinated, tiny fraction of the meme's widespread humorous use.

---

[02:42:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9728s) The Slippery Slope of Hate Labels and the Vanishing Middle Ground

Rogan warns of the dangerous precedent set when institutions begin labeling cartoon characters as hate symbols, joking about a slippery slope where "first they came for Pepe." He argues that virtually any cartoon or cultural figure can be hijacked and placed into a hateful context, but doing so does not inherently transform the underlying symbol into hate speech. He strongly criticizes organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for formally classifying Pepe the Frog as a hate symbol and white supremacist icon. According to Rogan, branding a meme that is ninety-nine percent silly and humorous as an emblem of hate achieves nothing except backing everyday internet users into a corner, making them realize that the arbiters of culture are acting completely irrationally.

Weinstein observes that classifying mainstream internet humor as hate speech eliminates the vital middle ground of public discourse. By equating irreverent jokes with catastrophic extremes, authoritarian critics erase the intermediate space where sensible, rational human beings actually reside. Rogan laments that society has become completely trapped in binary ideological warfare, where individuals standing on extreme opposite edges of the field do nothing but hurl stones at one another. He concludes that when public discourse cannot even distinguish a ridiculous cartoon frog from genuine hate, the ability to have nuanced, productive conversations is severely threatened.

> “They're just drying up all of the space between their preposterous perspective and the nightmare at the other end of the spectrum and the point is almost all of us live in that intermediate space.” — Bret Weinstein

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Escalation of Meme Condemnation accDescr: A flowchart showing how irreverent internet humor gets escalated into institutional hate labeling, eliminating the middle ground.

subgraph Origin["Online Subculture"] A["99% Humorous / Defensive Memes"] B["Isolated Bad Actors Make Extremist Variants"] end

subgraph InstitutionalReaction["Institutional Escalation"] C["Humorless Critics & SPLC Flag Symbol"] D["Symbol Formally Branded as White Supremacist"] end

subgraph CulturalFallout["Cultural Fallout"] E["Intermediate Nuanced Space Dries Up"] F["Polarized Extremes Throw Stones Across Divide"] end

A --> C B --> C C --> D D --> E E --> F ```

- Rogan contends that labeling the frog a hate symbol illustrates how out-of-touch watchdog groups have become, as the hateful variants are the product of specific individuals rather than the symbol itself. - Weinstein points out that almost all human thought relies on variability and nuance, which authoritarian labeling deliberately erases. - The speakers agree that hyper-polarization forces moderate, ordinary people into unnecessary conflict by treating intermediate dialogue as nonexistent.

---

[02:44:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9855s) Final Thoughts and Sign-Off

Rogan closes the discussion on a note of exhaustion and humor regarding the absurdity of modern ideological debates. He remarks that if society cannot even agree on how to interpret internet cartoons, the prospect of resolving serious cultural divides feels almost hopeless. Peterson and Weinstein agree that the current state of cultural tension makes open dialogue essential, even if reaching that conclusion feels grim.

Rogan thanks both guests for coming up with the concept of a joint appearance and making the time to sit down together. Before wrapping up the recording, Rogan prompts Peterson and Weinstein to share their public Twitter handles so listeners can follow their ongoing work. After a brief, humorous moment where Rogan stumbles over the pronunciation of Bret Weinstein's surname, the three share friendly parting words and sign off from the broadcast.

> “Listen, this was a lot of fun as always and I'm glad you guys came up with this idea and I'm glad we had the time to do it.” — Joe Rogan

- Joe Rogan gives closing shout-outs to Jordan Peterson's Twitter (@jordanbpeterson) and Bret Weinstein's Twitter (@BretWeinstein). - Rogan shares a quick laugh with Weinstein over repeatedly mispronouncing his last name before closing out the episode.

## Notable quotes > [01:42:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6173s) You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it's too intense then things destabilize. — Jordan Peterson

> [01:55:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6953s) Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do something really well... but what they're terrible at is telling you what you should want or what you should do. — Bret Weinstein

> [16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=971s) People think of conservatives or fascists as afraid of those who are different. They're not afraid; they're disgusted. And that's not the same thing, because you burn things you're disgusted by. — Jordan Peterson

> [32:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1957s) It is not possible for male genes to gang up on female genes, because all of our genes spend half their time in male bodies and half their time in female bodies. — Bret Weinstein

> [01:48:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6490s) The fundamental problem is that human beings in some sense are beasts of burden, and if they're not provided with a place where they can accept social and individual responsibility in an honourable manner, they degenerate and die. — Jordan Peterson

> [01:52:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6737s) When you radically make things egalitarian you're gonna wipe out all your productive people and then you're gonna starve. — Jordan Peterson

> [01:18:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4707s) Human beings needed to figure out how to act without dying before they could understand the nature of the world well enough to justify that. — Jordan Peterson

> [10:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=638s) Evolution is an absolutely amoral process. It has produced the most marvelous features of human beings and the worst features, and we are in some sense obligated to pick and choose which features to honor and promote and which ones to tamp down. — Bret Weinstein

## Mentioned Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Joe Rogan, Adolf Hitler, Robert Trivers, Evergreen State College, Ben Shapiro, William F. Buckley Jr., John Birch Society, Faith Goldy, Ryerson University, Che Guevara, Donald Trump, Roger Stone, Google, YouTube, Gad Saad, James Damore, Bill C-16, PLOS ONE, Hitler's Table Talk, Pepe the Frog, Kekistan, Hans Eysenck, Genius, Maps of Meaning, Book of Genesis, Abraham, Sam Harris, Pinocchio, Geppetto, Mao Zedong, Richard Dawkins, Christ, Ten Commandments, Karl Marx, The Odyssey, Old Testament, New Testament, Matthew 25:29, Future Authoring, United States Armed Forces, Tanzania, Genghis Khan, Dan Carlin, Hardcore History, The Daily Stormer, Uber, Apple, Mayo Clinic, Adam Ruins Everything, Head Start, War on Poverty, Auschwitz, Alonzo Bodden, Antifa, Ezra Levant, The Rebel Media, The Krypto Report, Louis Theroux, Westboro Baptist Church, Scientology, W. Kamau Bell, United Shades of America, CNN, Ku Klux Klan, Oprah Winfrey, Twitter, Mickey Mouse, Disneyland, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

## Video description Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. You can check out all Dr. Peterson's self-improvement writing programs at www.selfauthoring.com Bret Weinstein is a biology professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. Currently he is in the middle of an intense controversy that has been documented by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and several other mainstream media outlets. Sign up for a free crash course on Evolutionary Thinking at http://bretweinstein.net/early

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI)

中文简报

乔·罗根体验播客第1006期：乔丹·彼得森与布雷特·韦恩斯坦乔丹·彼得森与布雷特·韦恩斯坦做客乔·罗根的节目，深入剖析了推动现代政治极化与制度崩溃的文化、进化及心理机制。讨论结合进化生物学，探讨了人类的部落主义、厌恶敏感性以及外群体竞争如何助长极权统治和当代的言论争议。彼得森与韦恩斯坦分析了经验科学与后现代新马克思主义之间的哲学分歧，并探讨了帕累托分布如何自然地主导各类系统中的创造性产出和资源集中。两人一致主张，英雄般的个体、言论自由以及细致入微的公众对话，是抵御极左与极右意识形态激进化所必需的保障。乔丹·彼得森与布雷特·韦恩斯坦指出，将阿道夫·希特勒等极权领导人仅仅视为“疯子”，会掩盖潜在的、进化而来的人类心理机制——包括对外群体的厌恶敏感性以及资源竞争程序——而正是这些机制促成了大规模暴行。 (0:00) 后现代新马克思主义被批评为一种不可调和的学术自相矛盾：它既否定生物学现实和普遍的宏大叙事，同时又依赖于阶级与权力动态的马克思主义宏大叙事。 (87:34) 韦恩斯坦提出了“字面为假，隐喻为真”的信念概念，即某些启发式方法和神话叙事虽然在事实上不真实，但付诸行动时却能带来显著的进化生存优势。 (60:01) 彼得森解释称，在所有创造性系统中，财富和生产力都会发生极度不平等的帕累托分布倾斜，因此强行追求结果平等的激进平均主义尝试不仅在经济上具有破坏性，而且在历史上也带来了致命后果。 (91:53) 两位学者敦促践行个体责任与开放对话，将其视为抵御激进左翼与另类右翼之间不断升级的部落化反馈回路所必需的文化防线。 (25:20)

Reading summary

Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein argue that escalating political polarization and ideological dogmatism stem from evolved biological instincts and psychological vulnerabilities that surface when prosperity wanes or open dialogue is suppressed. Evolutionary and Psychological Roots of Extremism (0:00) Weinstein contends that treating authoritarian figures like Adolf Hitler merely as insane bypasses the deeper evolutionary mechanics of human conflict, describing tyranny as a recurring historical endgame when resource security dwindles. Peterson links political temperament directly to biological traits, observing that conservatism correlates with orderliness and disgust sensitivity rather than fear. He cites research published in PLOS ONE demonstrating a 0.6 correlation between local pathogen prevalence and authoritarian attitudes, which acts as an extended behavioral immune system designed to police borders and foreign contagions. Biological Reality Versus Totalitarian Blank Slates (30:21) Both speakers criticize postmodern and radical social constructionist theories for treating human nature as an infinitely malleable blank slate, drawing parallels to Soviet-era anti-Darwinian ideological frameworks that crippled biological sciences. Peterson points to Canada's Bill C-16, arguing it legislated the unscientific premise that biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are causally decoupled. Similarly, he defends James Damore’s Google memo for recognizing peer-reviewed evidence of biological differences in temperament—such as women averaging higher in agreeableness due to maternal investment, a trait that presents distinct trade-offs in aggressive corporate wage negotiations. Mythology, Empirical Truth, and Adaptive Wisdom (60:01) Weinstein and Peterson explore the reconciliation between scientific facts and cultural narratives, with Weinstein introducing the concept of beliefs that are "literally false, metaphorically true"—such as ancient religious hygiene rules against camp contamination that shielded populations long before the discovery of germ theory. Peterson argues that pure empirical data cannot dictate human action, as navigating infinite facts requires an overarching hierarchy of moral wisdom. He maintains that enduring cultural archetypes, such as the prophetic individual challenging tyrannical authority or Pinocchio rescuing the stagnant father from the abyss, encode vital evolutionary adaptations that prevent societal stagnation. Competence Hierarchies and Market Failures (91:53) Peterson explains that wealth and productivity naturally concentrate according to the Pareto distribution—where the square root of a population produces roughly 50% of the total output—meaning extreme inequality is a mathematical feature of creative production rather than a unique flaw of capitalism. However, being trapped at absolute zero creates severe social instability and invites violent revolutionary impulses, particularly among disenfranchised young men. While Peterson notes that IQ and conscientiousness combine to predict competitive success with an 85% accuracy rate, Weinstein warns that unregulated markets naturally favor amoral actors who exploit unmonitored blind spots for predatory rent-seeking rather than productive innovation. Free Speech and Cultural Off-Ramps (48:36) Peterson and Weinstein argue that censorship and uncritical media panics, such as the moral hysteria surrounding internet trolling subcultures and Pepe the Frog, push alienated individuals toward extreme reactionism. Peterson explains that his public engagement aims to offer a constructive third path of individual responsibility and sovereignty, providing an off-ramp for young men tempted by the alt-right in reaction to far-left rhetoric. Both speakers stress that society must raise its threshold of offense and defend unrestricted inquiry, as shutting down open debate leaves ideological grievances to fester without analytical scrutiny. The conversation concludes with the unresolved challenge of maintaining social cohesion in an increasingly complex cognitive economy, particularly as technological disruption leaves lower-ability populations behind and hyper-polarized discourse prevents institutions from distinguishing between productive enterprise and amoral rent-seeking.

精炼阅读摘要

乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）与布雷特·韦恩斯坦（Bret Weinstein）在乔·罗根的播客中指出，当代政治极化与极端主义并非源于不可理喻的个别疯癫，而是植根于演化生物学机制；若以激进社会建构论或纯粹的后现代权力解构替代生物学事实与传统伦理，将加剧社会动荡并剥夺个体的生存意义。极权主义与部落主义的演化根源 (0:00) 韦恩斯坦结合其导师罗伯特·特里弗斯（Robert Trivers）的研究指出，将希特勒等历史罪人简单斥为疯子是危险的，这遮蔽了种族灭绝背后演化层面的冷酷机制。在他看来，繁荣往往是暴政的终局：长期的物资充裕让人误以为人类根本冲突已经消除，一旦资源触底收缩，古老的部落生存机制就会卷土重来。彼得森则引用《PLOS ONE》的研究说明，保守与威权态度和病原体流行度存在0.6的相关性，保守主义中的“条理性”（Orderliness）深层对应着演化上的厌恶敏感性，即抵御外来感染的“延伸行为免疫系统”。白板论的意识形态盲区与生物学约束 (30:21) 彼得森批评激进的后现代新马克思主义试图将人视作可以随意捏塑的白板，这种完全无视生物学约束的构想本质上具有极权倾向，类似于苏联时期排斥达尔文主义的李森科式弯路。他援引加拿大C-16法案与詹姆斯·达莫尔（James Damore）的谷歌备忘录事件辩称，男女在宜人性（Agreeableness）等性格维度上的差异存在深层演化基础——女性的高宜人性适应抚育需求，但在强调激进博弈的商业职场中可能处于薪酬劣势。韦恩斯坦补充认为，女性的高额抚育投入形成了顾及群体长远的智慧，而男性的高风险繁衍策略造就了冒险取向，现代社会应设法使两性共享这些演化智慧，而非靠意识形态强行否认差异。神话隐喻、行动智慧与后现代困境 (60:01) 在探讨客观事实与道德指南时，彼得森反驳了山姆·哈里斯（Sam Harris）纯粹以经验事实推导伦理的观点，主张“事实”与“智慧”存在分工：面对无限的客观事实，单凭数据无法决定主观行动方向。韦恩斯坦提出了“字面错误但隐喻正确”（Literally False, Metaphorically True）的概念，例如古代宗教将排泄物视为“触怒神明”并规定营地卫生，虽缺乏现代细菌理论，却达成了演化适应与防疫保护。彼得森借匹诺曹在鲸腹中拯救父亲的寓言阐述，后现代主义虽然敏锐指出有限事实有无限种解释，但因忽略了行动伦理的严苛约束而陷入瘫痪，最终又滑回原始的权力斗争，唯有依托传统智慧并践行责任的“英雄个体”才能破局。帕累托分布、均贫陷阱与社会保障的局限 (91:53) 彼得森指出，马克思敏锐观察到了资本高度集中的现象，但错误地将其归咎于资本主义特有的缺陷。事实上，任何涉及生产力差异的领域均服从帕累托分布与马太效应，即极少数人获取绝对多数的产出。然而，陷入“绝对归零”（Stuck at zero）的群体由于缺乏参与游戏的初始资本，极易成为激进革命的温床。针对全民基本收入（UBI），彼得森认为仅靠发钱无法解决现代男性的精神危机，人类作为“负重动物”需要明确的责任、社会分工与尊重；例如美国军方依法拒绝征召智商低于83的人口（约占总人口10%），突显了在高度数字化的复杂社会中如何赋予低认知门槛人群尊严是一个严峻难题。韦恩斯坦与彼得森同时强调，自由市场虽能高效解决“如何做”，却无法决定“应追求什么”，过度金融化的寻租行为与不公平竞争正在摧毁社会契约。言论空间压缩与反极端主义的退路 (150:03) 围绕夏洛茨维尔冲突、裴裴蛙（Pepe the Frog）迷因引发的道德恐慌以及记者费丝·戈尔迪（Faith Goldy）被解雇等事件，罗根与彼得森担忧当前文化正陷入非黑即白的恶性正反馈。大学与主流平台借助预先审核机制与标签化审查压制异见，将任何偏离激进叙事的声音一律斥为法西斯，导致大批被疏离的年轻人只能在极左与极右之间被迫站队。彼得森强调，之所以愿意接触边缘保守群体，是为了提供理性对话的出口，证明个体无需滑向另类右翼也可以合理抵制极左的激进身份政治；社会必须提高对冒犯言论的承受阈值，以维护探求真实所需的基本自由。本期对话揭示了现代文化战争在技术、经济与演化机制交织下的系统性失衡，指出放弃生物学现实与传统神话伦理将诱发社会灾难。不过，对话者对如何在维持自由市场竞争的同时提供兜底尊严、以及如何用现代语言清洗古老宗教中的过时指令（即韦恩斯坦所谓“不可浓缩铀”式的遗留代码更新），仍留下了有待深入探索的理论张力。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本期节目由 YouTube 频道 PowerfulJRE 于 2017 年 9 月 1 日发布。视频为《Joe Rogan Experience》第 1006 期，嘉宾是多伦多大学心理学教授乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）以及当时身处常青州立学院争议漩涡中心的生物学教授布雷特·韦恩斯坦（Bret Weinstein）。 ## TL;DR 对谈围绕后现代主义与马克思主义的内在逻辑矛盾展开，深入探讨了帕累托分布与马太效应如何揭示出不平等是创造力与系统运转的自然产物而非资本主义独有缺陷。两位学者从演化生物学、博弈论及心理学视角剖析了“卡在零点”群体的极端化倾向、智商与尽责性对阶层流动的决定性影响，以及全民基本收入（UBI）面临的心理局限。节目还针对大学体制极化、言论自由危机、夏洛茨维尔事件后的种族与媒体话语，以及网络模因被政治标签化等尖锐社会议题进行了深刻辨析。 ## Atmosphere & style 全场对话极具学术思辨深度与紧迫感，兼具冷峻严密的逻辑剖析与坦诚沉郁的情感共鸣。彼得森的情绪充沛而警觉，时常以带有悲剧色彩的精确警句解剖制度与人性阴暗面；韦恩斯坦则以从容沉静的演化生物学框架予以理性呼应与延展。罗根以务实直接的提问和幽默调剂其间，使长达两小时余的沉重学术讨论始终保持着紧绷而引人深思的思想张力。 ## Bulletin - [01:31:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5513s) 财富集中并非资本主义所独有，而是普莱斯定律与帕累托分布等自然法则的必然结果，但自由市场无法解决一无所有者“卡在零点”（stuck at zero）所诱发的极端革命风险。 - [01:48:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6490s) 全民基本收入（UBI）无法替代人类作为“驮畜”对尊严与责任的本能渴求，而认知门槛正加剧社会撕裂——美军已依法设立智商83的入伍底线，且现存科学干预手段在长期内难以改变智商基准。 - [01:49:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6596s) 演化心理学揭示人类对“相对剥夺感”的敏锐度远超对绝对物质水平的感知，现代屏幕将极端奢靡生活放大投射，极易在资源紧缩期激活群体内部排他或对外掠夺的部落本能。 - [02:38:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9515s) 极左阵营与南方贫困法律中心对佩佩蛙等网络模因的泛纳粹化标签化，不仅扼杀了幽默反讽与中间讨论空间，反而容易将反感政治正确的年轻人推向真正的极右翼深渊。 ## Key takeaways - [01:24:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5099s) 后现代主义主张事实存在无限解读并将其归结为权力争斗，但物理规律与演化法则构成了严苛的伦理约束，经受住时间考验的功能性解读极其罕见。 - [01:26:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5199s) 后现代主义与马克思主义在逻辑上互相矛盾，前者解构所有宏大叙事，而后者依赖宏大叙事，二者结合的实质粘合剂是对资本主义的怨恨以及对身份政治的借壳操作。 - [01:31:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5513s) 生产力与资源的集中符合普莱斯定律（总产出的50%由总人数的平方根贡献）和马太效应，经济物理学模型证明财富向少数人集中是复杂的数学必然。 - [01:36:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5798s) 智商与尽责性是现代社会最强的成功预测指标，但处于绝对零点的底层群体被系统性排斥且缺乏参与资格，往往成为激进政治运动的潜在燃料。 - [01:42:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6173s) 演化并未将人类大脑设计为追求持久满足，每当技术突破带来生产力盈余，人类倾向于迅速将其转化为人口激增或过度消耗，从而重新滑入马尔萨斯陷阱。 - [01:45:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6323s) 不平等是社会为了获取创新而必须付出的代价，但过度悬殊的不平等会严重破坏系统稳定并推高犯罪率，合理约束不平等本应成为左右两派对话的核心基石。 - [02:04:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7481s) 心理学长期追踪研究表明，以美国“先行计划”为代表的早期智力干预红利到小学六年级基本归零，智力具有极强的遗传稳定性与抗干预性。 - [01:54:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6882s) 市场是寻找高效率执行路径的优秀引擎，但完全无法界定人类应当追求何种价值；若任由唯利是图的逻辑侵蚀大学与新闻业，将摧毁社会的自我纠偏机制。 - [02:12:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7970s) 社会应通过构建基础医疗与安全网鼓励高风险创新，加拿大全民医保为创业者解除了后顾之忧，使其多变量创业率甚至优于医疗成本高昂的美国。 - [02:19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8387s) 从演化博弈论视角审视，纳粹与希特勒的极端暴行本质上是在资源紧缩时群体为争夺生存空间、通过消灭异质弱势群体释放资源的“冷酷理性”演化体现。 - [02:27:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8867s) 脱离具体情境陈述所谓事实会构成具有误导性的“黑色真理”，新闻媒体在面对极端仇恨言论时若放弃尖锐质询与批判，极易陷入共谋或合法化极端立场的伦理困境。 - [02:43:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9828s) 极端意识形态在两极互相攻讦，将复杂的讽刺模因与无辜大众一并推入对立阵营，社会若失去基于弹性和理性的对话空间将彻底陷入危机。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=0s) 对谈契机与以演化视角审视希特勒节目开场气氛轻松，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）调侃乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）西装革履，显得他们俩十分邋遢。在谈到促成这次三人同台的由头时，布雷特·韦恩斯坦（Bret Weinstein）提到，他在社交媒体上看到了一段彼得森分析阿道夫·希特勒（Adolf Hitler）的视频片段。彼得森在片段中提出一个论点：希特勒的邪恶程度其实远比人们普遍认知的恶名还要深重得多。这个观点立刻引起了韦恩斯坦的强烈共鸣。韦恩斯坦回忆起自己本科阶段的第一个演化生物学研究课题，当时他的学术导师是20世纪著名演化生物学家罗伯特·特里弗斯（Robert Trivers）。他们曾试图从演化生物学视角对大屠杀进行系统分析。韦恩斯坦指出，主流舆论往往直接给希特勒贴上“疯子”的标签，但他一直对这种肤浅的定性抱有怀疑。正如布雷特·韦恩斯坦所说：“I think there's something actually dangerous that we dismiss somebody like Hitler as crazy before we understand actually what they're up to.”（我认为，在搞清楚像希特勒这样的人究竟想干什么之前，就把他简单归咎为疯子，其实是一件很危险的事。） ### [01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=111s) 常青州立学院危机与校方的执迷不悟罗根在深入探讨历史问题前，追问了韦恩斯坦近期的现实处境。韦恩斯坦正深陷常青州立学院（Evergreen State College）的激烈风暴中心，由于校园内针对他的敌意与安全威胁，他实际上已经离开了该地区，外界传闻他正准备对校方提起诉讼。韦恩斯坦澄清，他们当时尚未正式向法院提交起诉书。就在录制节目的前一天，他刚刚与常青州立学院的管理层进行了首次正式会面，旨在避免对簿公堂。然而谈判结果令人极其失望。正如布雷特·韦恩斯坦所说：“It appears that the college has learned nothing from this episode and that it is doubling down on the same foolish sets of beliefs and assumptions that got it into trouble in the first place.”（看起来该学院没有从这一事件中吸取任何教训，反而变本加厉地坚持那些当初让它陷入困境的愚蠢信念与假设。）罗根回顾了常青州立学院事件的荒唐始末：激进的学生在校园内手持棒球棍巡逻，将校园演变成极左“社会正义战士”（SJW）失控的游乐场。学生甚至公开训斥大学校长，命令他说话时不得手舞足蹈，声称做手势是一种“微侵犯”（microaggression）；校长屈服放下了双手，学生们随之哄笑喝彩。罗根直言，这些学生本质上是在玩弄权术，试图通过支配他人来获得权力。 ### [03:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=222s) 后现代主义、权力崇拜与“揍纳粹”狂潮彼得森从思想理论根源对学生的行为进行剖析。他指出，这批学生深受后现代主义教条的灌输，在其理论框架中，不存在客观现实，一切都是社会建构，人际关系归根结底只剩下了纯粹的“权力斗争”。既然等级制度顶端的人被假定为纯靠强权进行压迫，那么能力、权威和专业素养的概念就被全盘抹杀。正如乔丹·彼得森分析道：“Part of the reason that the only thing that the post modernists believe in his power is because that helps them justify their arbitrary use of it under any circumstances whatsoever.”（后现代主义者唯一相信的就是权力，部分原因在于这能为他们在任何情况下肆意妄为地使用权力提供正当性借口。）因此，学生们展现出的暴徒式行为，正是这种意识形态教育的必然产物。罗根接着谈到了激进群体中蔓延的“为了目的不择手段”的心态。例如网络上泛滥的“去揍纳粹”（punch a Nazi）口号，而所谓“纳粹”的定义已经被随意泛化到任何持不同意见的人身上。然而具有讽刺意味的是，在夏洛茨维尔（Charlottesville）事件真正出现极右翼分子时，网络上的激进分子却少有实际作为。彼得森补充说，西方社会从左到右早已达成共识：纳粹走过的道路是彻头彻尾的灾难，任何公开附和纳粹主义的人都会立刻遭到普遍排斥，许多保守派也在夏洛茨维尔集会后明确划清了界线。 ### [06:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=393s) 意识形态双标：万字符与铁锤镰刀罗根提到，唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）在夏洛茨维尔事件后表态称“双方都有过错”，未能在第一时间坚决谴责那些手持火把、高喊反犹口号的白人至上主义者，这引发了极大的公众愤怒。彼得森由此谈到了自己在加拿大遭遇的言论审查经历。在夏洛茨维尔事件余波未平之际，彼得森原定在多伦多怀雅逊大学（Ryerson University）参加一场关于大学校园言论自由受限的学术讨论会。由于同台嘉宾包括报道过夏洛茨维尔事件的女记者费思·戈尔迪（Faith Goldy），他们立即被抗议者扣上了“纳粹”的帽子。有人在社交网络上用一条红线划掉万字符做海报，煽动抗议，迫使校方最终取消了活动。更荒谬的是，活动取消当晚，数百名抗议者在校园内举办庆祝派对，公开打着苏联的“铁锤与镰刀”旗帜，高呼共产主义革命口号，而主流媒体对此却几乎未置一词。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 极权符号社会认知差异机制 accDescr: 对比纳粹万字符与共产主义铁锤镰刀在公众心理和道德认知上的不同反应路径。 subgraph Symbol_Nazi["纳粹符号（万字符）"] N1["巷子里持刀抢劫并伤人的暴徒"] N2["直接、血腥、即时的物理伤害"] N3["普遍的心理恐慌与即时道德谴责"] end subgraph Symbol_Communist["共产主义符号（铁锤与镰刀）"] C1["卷走养老金的白领罪犯"] C2["系统性、抽象、长期的隐性破坏"] C3["大众警惕性缺失与历史认知盲区"] end Symbol_Nazi -->|"情感唤醒度极高"| Judgement["社会舆论即时判定为病态人格"] Symbol_Communist -->|"抽象化包装与浪漫化掩盖"| Tolerance["主流舆论视而不见或浪漫化"] ``` 彼得森深刻探讨了为什么万字符被公认为病态人格的标志，而同样沾满鲜血的铁锤与镰刀却未引起等同的反感。他打了个生动的比喻： - 纳粹就像在小巷里直接掏刀抢劫并捅伤你的罪犯，带来的伤害即时、血腥且具象，极易引发直接的情感恐惧； - 共产主义极权则更像卷走你全部养老金的白领罪犯，其危害甚至更为巨大、波及范围更广，但由于缺乏直接的血腥视觉冲击，人们往往对其缺乏足够的警惕。罗根和彼得森共同指出，除了认知机制的差异外，大众对历史的普遍无知也是关键原因。许多年轻人热衷于穿印有切·格瓦拉（Che Guevara）头像的T恤，只把其视作对抗美国霸权、头戴贝雷帽在丛林打游击的浪漫反叛符号，却对其真实的冷血暴行毫无概念。 ### [09:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=574s) 左右翼界限划分的困境与夏洛茨维尔事件 Jordan Peterson 与 Bret Weinstein 探讨了左右翼划清极端界限的难度差异。Peterson 指出，在夏洛茨维尔（Charlottesville）暴力事件发生后，以 Ben Shapiro 为代表的众多保守派人士立即与纳粹分子彻底切割，这非常类似于 1960 年代 William F. Buckley 与极右翼的约翰·伯奇协会（John Birch Society）划清界限的做法。右翼划定界限相对简单，因为保守派本身擅长界定边界，且标准极其直观：“在右翼，你说‘你戴了纳粹卐字袖标，那你出局了’。”但若试图给激进左翼划定边界，却很难找到如此明确的标志。在 Peterson 看来，左翼的“确凿罪证”（smoking pistol）在于他们对“结果均等”（equity）的执念，但正如 Peterson 所说：“‘你相信结果均等，但你拒绝给出定义’——这确实是个问题，但它根本没有像‘你戴了纳粹卐字袖标去游行’那样强烈的直观冲击力。”因为这种理念过于复杂抽象，大众很难仅凭此就果断与对方断绝往来。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 左右翼极端思想边界划分对比 accDescr: 对比右翼与左翼在划定极端势力界限时的可见度与认知难度 subgraph RightWing ["右翼边界划分（清晰直观）"] R1["外显极端符号（如纳粹卐字）"] --> R2["触发群体排斥与迅速切割"] end subgraph LeftWing ["左翼边界划分（模糊抽象）"] L1["抽象政治理念（如结果均等 Equity）"] --> L2["缺乏直观冲击力，边界难以界定"] end ``` - **历史对照**：William F. Buckley 在 1960 年代主动驱逐约翰·伯奇协会，为现代保守主义确立了主流边界。 - **左翼边界难题**：极左翼理念以社会正义和均等为包装，公众很难建立直观的道德警惕。 --- ### [10:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=638s) 繁荣的终局与进化的危险潜流 Bret Weinstein 介入讨论并提醒，过分聚焦于“纳粹”这个词容易变成转移注意力的“红鲱鱼”（red herring），从而低估了真正的深层威胁。夏洛茨维尔展现出的现象绝非简单的几个卡通化极端分子在游行，而是一种深刻植根于人类进化模式中的历史重现。在 Weinstein 调整好与麦克风的距离后，他深入阐述了自己的核心观点：1930 年代德国发生的事情，只是整个人类历史上反复出现的某种普遍模式中一个记录极其完备的典型案例，因为这种模式源于人类进化机制的内在特征。 Weinstein 总结道：“暴政是繁荣的终局（tyranny is the end game of prosperity）。”在一个社会极度繁荣的时期，人们往往会误以为野蛮与暴政已经被彻底消灭，群体之间再无互相攻击的理由；然而，一旦繁荣发展的周期见顶消退，这种潜伏的野蛮模式便会换上一面完全不同的旗帜重新抬头。Weinstein 认为唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）是在犬儒地顺水推舟，驾驭这一股暗潮。如果现代人不警惕历史规律，很多在当代社会原本被视作不可逾越的思想禁忌，将不可避免地重新变得“可被接受”。 Peterson 对此表示赞同，他指出自己过去一年陷入政治风暴的核心原因，正是由于敏锐意识到这种两极分化正在剧烈发生。激进左翼在大专院校等领域不断蚕食新领地，正在催生出一种极度危险的反向对立力量。夏洛茨维尔正是这种对立的具体表现，右翼光谱之外正涌现出另类右翼（Alt-right）、网络恶搞（如 Kekistan 与 Pepe the Frog 梗图）以及将严肃政治与讽刺讽喻混杂的奇异亚文化。Peterson 严厉警告，其中最危险的莫过于“身份政治的逆转”——当白人也开始退化到以种族身份来凝聚认同时，整个人类社会将步入极其危险的深渊。 - **繁荣周期的幻觉**：长时间的和平富足让大众误以为部落冲突已成为历史陈迹。 - **身份政治的反噬**：极左翼推行的身份政治逻辑最终必然诱发多数族裔效仿，演化成白人民族主义认同。 --- ### [14:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=870s) 左右翼的部落主义形态与自然主义谬误 Weinstein 分析了当前左右翼部落主义（tribalism）在结构上的根本不同。左翼目前展现出的是一种由多个弱小部落身份组成的联合体，这些群体因自身力量不足以单独抗衡主流，因此结成统一战线形成声势浩大的政治力量。然而 Weinstein 警告说：“这是一种极不稳定的实体，一旦该力量真正掌权，其内部的动态冲突就会将其彻底撕裂。”相比之下，右翼出现的白人民族主义部落形态却具有残酷的稳定性，因为它代表了一个在进化层面上具备保持凝聚力基础的真实人群。作为一名进化生物学家，Weinstein 严肃澄清了公众对进化生物学的普遍误解，即“自然主义谬误”（naturalistic fallacy）。他强调，解释某种现象具有进化起源，绝不等于为其提供道德辩护。自然选择是一个完全不讲道德的盲目过程，它孕育了人类最璀璨的美德，也锻造了最恶劣的劣根性。Weinstein 强调人类必须主动挑选值得发扬的特质，压制那些具有破坏性的本能：“某种特质在特定环境下可能是演化而来的生存优势，但如果被放大超出其合理界限，就会演变成彻底的病态。” --- ### [16:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=971s) 政治人格、厌恶敏感度与集权主义的病原学起源 Peterson 随后分享了一项令他至今深感震撼的心理学发现，将意识形态倾向与人类的生物本能联系起来。人格心理学研究表明，政治倾向深受天生气质的影响：左翼自由派人士通常具有极高的“经验开放性”（Openness to experience，代表创造力）和较低的“尽责性”（Conscientiousness）；而尽责性又可以拆解为“勤奋”（industriousness）和“秩序性”（orderliness）两个子维度。深入的心理测量表明，保守派政治倾向真正的预测指标并非勤奋，而是**秩序性**。更为关键的是，科学研究证实**秩序性与“厌恶敏感度”（sensitivity to disgust）高度正相关**。Peterson 援引了约三年前发表在学术期刊《PLOS ONE》上的一篇重要论文：该研究调查了全球各国以及各国不同州/省内传染病的流行率，结果发现局部地区的传染病流行程度与威权主义/右翼政治信仰之间存在高达 0.6 的正相关系数。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 行为免疫系统与威权主义心理链路 accDescr: 展现从演化中的病原体防御到厌恶敏感度及政治秩序诉求的演变过程 A["远古群体隔离与病原体威胁"] --> B["演化出行为免疫系统 (Behavioral Immune System)"] B --> C["心理机制：厌恶感 (Disgust) 与外群体偏见"] C --> D["人格特质：高度秩序性 (Orderliness)"] D --> E["政治形态：威权主义、清洁狂热与法西斯极端化"] ``` Peterson 解释道，这就是所谓的“扩展行为免疫系统”（extended behavioral immune system）。在人类进化历史上，与陌生隔离群体的接触常常伴随着灭顶之灾，正如美洲原住民遭遇西班牙征服者后，短短几代人内 90% 的人口便死于天花、麻疹和腮腺炎等外来致命病菌。因此，人类大脑进化出了一套将“外人”与“污染/疾病”联系起来的隐性生物学防御机制，即通过厌恶感来排斥外来者。带着这项研究认知，Peterson 重新研读了记录希特勒在 1939 年至 1942 年间非正式进餐言论的《希特勒餐桌谈话》（Hitler's Table Talk）。他发现主流学界长期以来的假设是错误的：“人们总以为保守派或法西斯主义者是害怕那些与自己不同的人，但他们不是害怕，他们是感到恶心（disgusted）——而这两者完全不同，因为面对令你恶心的东西，你会选择将其彻底焚烧消灭。”Peterson 总结道，秩序感本是维持文明运转所必需的优良品质，德意志文明正因高度的秩序性而强大卓越；然而，一旦厌恶机制失控并稍微越界，整个社会便会陷入极端清洁狂热，希特勒在谈话中对“清洁”与“消毒”的狂热追求绝非隐喻，而是其生理厌恶机制在政治层面的致命具象化。 - **人格与政治**：尽责性中的“秩序性”而非“勤奋”，是预测右翼保守倾向的核心心理指标。 - **PLOS ONE 研究**：病原体威胁越高的地区，当地居民的威权主义倾向越强，相关系数达到显著的 0.6。 - **恐惧与厌恶的区别**：恐惧引发逃避，而生理厌恶则引发清除、消灭与焚毁的净化冲动。 ### [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1153s) 厌恶机制、非人化与潜藏的部落程序 Bret Weinstein 深入探讨了人类深层厌恶机制的进化起源。他指出，该机制原本是为了防止致命病原体入侵而演化出来的生存工具，但在群体相遇时，它极易泛化为对异族本能的恐惧与排斥，并在政治领域中以极其危险的形式具象化。在战争爆发时，人们往往会通过将敌对人群降格为“非人”、“害虫”来合理化攻击行为。Weinstein 担忧地指出，当前公众对屏幕上出现的 Charlottesville 新纳粹分子也正在采取这种心态——将其归类为下等人类，并以此为理由去挥拳相向： > “My concern is that if you take the pathogen model and you imagine that all those folks who showed up in Charlottesville that that is a contagion and it needs to be isolated, then you will have the sense that as long as you do that it's not going to show up somewhere else; whereas what's I think the the actual hazard is that that's actually a latent program that has served populations in past circumstances.” Weinstein 强调，这种部落主义和排外行为虽然在道德上绝不可辩护，但在漫长进化史中确实曾为特定种群带来过生存优势，因此它作为一种“休眠程序”深植于人类基因中。一旦环境条件具备，这种程序便会重新激活。Jordan Peterson 赞同这一观点，并分享了他数十年来对心理学学生的教学实验：他常问学生，若置身于 1930 年代的纳粹德国，是否会成为奥斯威辛等集中营的守卫。许多学生的直觉反应是“绝不可能，他们与我不同”，但 Peterson 认为这是极其盲目的认知错误。唯有承认“纳粹也是人类，而我也同样是人类，因此纳粹的潜能就潜藏在我们每个人心中”，人们才能认清人性的边界；每个人在特定条件下，其潜在行为都可能远远突破文明规范的底线。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 潜藏排外程序与现代极化机制 accDescr: 展示从演化遗留的潜藏程序演化为现代两极分化正反馈循环的机制 subgraph EVOL["演化心理根基"] P1["演化厌恶系统 （抵御致命病原体）"] --> P2["群体相遇时的陌生恐惧"] P2 --> P3["战争时期的非人化倾向 （贬斥为害虫/非人）"] end subgraph DANGER["现代错误应对"] P3 --> D1["将极化分子当成偶发孤立'病毒'"] D1 --> D2["忽视自身潜在阴暗面 （潜藏程序被激活）"] end subgraph LOOP["现实极化正反馈循环"] D2 --> L1["左翼话语激进化"] L1 -->|"刺激反弹"| L2["右翼话语激进化"] L2 -->|"进一步激化"| L1 end ``` --- ### [22:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1344s) 极化正反馈循环与个人责任 Joe Rogan 介入讨论，强调了开展毫无审查的公开对话的重要性。他指出，探讨人性中潜藏的阴暗面或演化程序在当前文化语境下已沦为禁忌，而这种歇斯底里的禁声只会让极端思想在暗处滋生壮大。假若生活境遇、家庭环境或成长社区发生变化，普通人也完全有可能成为手持火把狂热游行的极端分子。 Peterson 随后分析了当前社会与心理格局的极度不稳定性，指出整个社会正处于危险的“正反馈循环”之中。一个小小的恶性事件——例如 Charlottesville 某位暴徒开车撞人的凶残行径——便能剧烈撼动整个政治天平。他解释道，当一方发表偏左言论激怒了偏右阵营，右翼就会更加极端化，反过来促使左翼变本加厉，最终双方走向你死我活的对立： > “Get it into your head that you have the capacity for great evil and stop targeting, stop assuming that that's something that's manifesting itself only in the people that you disagree with politically; take responsibility for that and try to put your life together.” Peterson 坦言，即使是自己也因经常使用“社会正义战士”（SJW）等标签而受到朋友批评，被指责助长了妖魔化与极化。然而，面对激进马克思主义思潮对高校的侵蚀，他深感两难，极力寻求在不卷入极化阵营的同时警示大众的方法。他坚信避免重蹈魏玛共和国覆辙的唯一出路，在于回归个人责任，承认自身作恶的能力，而非躲在意识形态身份背后推波助澜。 - **脆弱的社会均势**：微小的个人决策正在产生不成比例的系统性政治震荡。 - **正反馈恶性循环**：左右两翼在日常言论交锋中彼此激怒，形成不断攀升的报复性对抗。 - **历史镜鉴**：20 世纪 20 至 30 年代魏玛德国的崩溃，正是激进左翼与激进右翼“乒乓球式”反复激化对抗的惨痛后果。 --- ### [26:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1599s) 力量失衡的隐患与算法审查的危机讨论随后转向极端阵营的组织能力与潜在暴力冲突。Peterson 和 Rogan 观察到，与容易自我分裂的激进左翼相比，极右翼一旦完成动员往往具备更高的稳定性和组织凝聚力，加之在美国拥有大量武器储备，这种不对称构成了深层次的恐惧。Rogan 提及诸如 Roger Stone 等人关于“特朗普若遭弹劾可能引发内战”的言论，指出这种暴力对抗的幽灵令人不寒而栗。 Weinstein 对此提出反制视角。他指出，演化工具箱不仅赋予了人类毁灭性的部落程序，同时也赋予了人类通过理性与辩论摆脱困境的认知工具。真正的致命危机在于，以 Google 为首的科技巨头正在通过算法审查来决定公众的视野与讨论范畴： > “If Google and other of these online Goliaths start deploying algorithms that decide what we get to talk about and see, then we cannot use the very tools that are necessary in order to escape and avoid something like civil war.” Weinstein 强调，开放且不设防的自由沟通必定伴随风险，其代价是必然会有部分令人作呕、卑劣不堪的言论流向公共空间。然而，压制这些言论的后果比容忍它们要可怕得多，二者完全不在同一个量级。如果将劣质观点打上电子禁忌的标签，它们只会在暗地里持续溃烂发酵；唯有通过毫无掩饰的辩论将其置于阳光之下，公众才能剔除糟粕，避免文明无可挽回地滑向内战深渊。 ### [28:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1729s) 科技巨头的预知审查与加德·萨阿德被黄标事件乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）与乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）谈到了科技巨头的审查机制。彼得森指出，像 Google 和 YouTube 这样的大型互联网企业，早就不仅是在考虑制作自动化机器人来进行预感知审查（pre-perceptual censorship），而是已经在付诸实践了。彼得森援引了加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）前几天的经历：萨阿德刚把一段视频上传到 YouTube 后台，还没正式对外发布（publish），YouTube 就在后台抓取并审核了其内容，并提前通知他说这段视频将被黄标（去货币化，demonetized）。萨阿德在推特上愤怒地写道：“YouTube 认为我指出其惊人的虚伪太令人破防了，我的片段里绝对没有任何令人反感的内容，简直难以置信。” 罗根随后注意到萨阿德的视频其实经历了“人工审核”（manual review）。彼得森反问道：在 YouTube 每天上传海量视频的情况下，审核系统到底凭什么精准挑选出加德·萨阿德的视频来进行人工审查？罗根指出，萨阿德根本不是什么极右翼分子，但作为一名进化生物学家（evolutionary biologist），仅仅因为提出质疑，在如今的政治氛围中就会瞬间被贴上“极右翼仇恨团体”的标签。彼得森补充说，萨阿德主张人类存在内在本质（intrinsic nature），而当下一旦主张这一点，就会被扣上一顶全新的污名化帽子——“生物本质主义者”（biological essentialist）。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: YouTube Pre-Publication Demonetization Flow accDescr: 展现创作者上传视频至发布之间遭到平台算法与人工预先审查并被去货币化的过程。 subgraph Upload["内容上传阶段"] A["视频上传至后台"] --> B["平台未公开访问权限"] end subgraph Moderation["审查与定性"] B --> C["算法/人工预先审查"] C --> D["触发违规或敏感判定"] end subgraph Outcome["处置结果"] D --> E["未发布即被去货币化"] E --> F["创作者被贴标签 (生物本质主义/右翼)"] end ``` - 加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）在视频尚未公开上线之前即被通知取消广告变现。 - 自动化算法与人工审核结合，针对质疑既定意识形态的学者进行定点审查。 --- ### [30:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1831s) 后现代新马克思主义的空白石板说与苏联生物学灾难彼得森剖析了这种审查背后的哲学动机：激进的后现代新马克思主义者持有一种核心教条，即“人类可以被捏造成我想要的任何模样”。彼得森直言：“这是该理论的核心教条，也是使其具有强烈极权主义色彩的部分原因，因为人类在他们眼中不过是可以随意塑形的泥巴。”他们声称彻底的社会建构主义（radical constructionism）、否认任何生物学本质，表面上的借口是“为了将人们从偏见和暴政中解放出来”，但真正的动机是为他们按照意识形态重新改造人类提供合法性。这种思想在历史上早有灾难性的先例。彼得森与布雷特·韦恩斯坦（Bret Weinstein）指出，苏联共产主义时期就公开宣称要抹杀过去，否认生物学同一性，试图依照极权主义意识形态塑造未来的“新人”。韦恩斯坦补充指出，苏联因此在进化论方面彻底边缘化并严重倒退，李森科主义等意识形态工具摧毁了他们对生物学机制进行理性思考的能力。韦恩斯坦强调，进化生物学天生就是“政治不正确”的，因为“没有人能命令生物群（biota）什么是对、什么是错；生物群自行其是，而我们这些观察并试图理解其规律的人，几乎时刻都不可避免地处于深度政治不正确的境地”。如今人们却试图将生物学的客观事实边缘化，强推意识形态。 --- ### [32:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=1957s) 达尔文主义视角的种族主义与“父权制”神话韦恩斯坦从进化生物学角度分析了种族与性别的本质区别。他坦承，生物学在达尔文主义的驱动下，确实让人类基因组携带了产生种族主义的潜在倾向（potential for racism）——在达尔文意义上，一个种群确实可能联合起来攻击打压另一个种群，这解释了人类历史上最黑暗的章节。然而，性别问题在进化机制上完全不同。韦恩斯坦发表了一段极为尖锐的生物学论述：“雄性基因不可能联合起来打压雌性基因，因为我们所有的基因有一半时间生活在男性体内，另一半时间生活在女性体内。”虽然这并不意味着文明社会在性别层面已经做到绝对公平，但它从根本上否定了“父权制进化出一种系统性压迫女性的力量”的生物学理论：因为父权制成员体内的基因在下一代就会进入女性后代体内，并承受压迫带来的后果。韦恩斯坦指出，只有认清基因的达尔文主义目标并无道德防御力（“基因在宇宙中的目标在理性层面是站不住脚的”），人类才能通过理性将基因从掌控地位拉下来；如果否认基因中潜藏的阴暗面，人类反而失去了化解种族主义的科学工具。 - 种族主义在达尔文进化竞争中存在种群联合对抗其他种群的生物学根源。 - 基因在两性之间轮替遗传，决定了在生物学机制上不存在以损害女性为目的的“雄性基因联合体”。 - 认识基因的进化动力不是为了顺从它，而是为了运用理性超越其原始控制。 --- ### [34:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2083s) 加拿大 C-16 法案、社会建构主义与生物本质主义彼得森回顾了自己一年前公开反对加拿大 C-16 法案的初衷。他解释说，自己的抗议核心根本不是反对跨性别群体的权益，而是因为该法案将彻底的“社会建构主义人类身份认同”写入了法律。在该法律框架下，甚至诞生了这样一种主张并具有了法律效力：生理性别（biological sex）、性别认同（gender identity）、性别表达（gender expression）以及性倾向（sexual proclivity）之间没有任何因果联系。彼得森指出，断言这四者之间存在因果关联本身是一个确凿的生物学事实，几乎绝大多数生理为男性的人，其认同、表达及性取向都是高度协同的，这种紧密关联由生物与文化共同塑造。但法律却将它们在概念上强行解绑。彼得森当时就警告：“你把社会建构主义写进法律，这意味着现在作为一名生物学家是违法的。”针对彼得森的断言，韦恩斯坦机智地插话纠正道：“我想纠正你一下：并不是作为生物学家是违法的，只是如果你的业务水平很优秀，那就是违法的。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Correlation of Gender Dimensions vs Social Constructionism accDescr: 对比生物学中生理性别、认同、表达与取向的紧密因果关联与法律建构论的切断。 subgraph BioReality["客观生物学事实（高度紧密协同）"] S["生理性别 (Biological Sex)"] --- I["性别认同 (Gender Identity)"] I --- E["性别表达 (Gender Expression)"] E --- P["性取向 (Sexual Proclivity)"] end subgraph BillC16["C-16 法案及建构主义法理"] Law["法律拟制：切断因果关联"] -.->|"认定独立无因果"| BioReality Law --> Penalty["违背建构论者被冠以标签： 生物本质主义者 / 纳粹"] end ``` --- ### [36:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2198s) 摆脱生物肉身局限与理性社会化的结合罗根提出反思：社会上反对生物决定论的观点，是否源于人们担心将生物学视为不可动摇的事实会阻碍文明进步？因为人类自认为正在进化，希望超越纯粹的生理肉体束缚，赋予个人自由选择性别、性取向及自我表达的权利，而不是“依靠一具肉身大篷车（meat wagon）而不是心灵来带领文明前行”。彼得森赞同罗根精准总结了反对生物本质主义的合理出发点，并承认生物决定论如果走向极端确实有退化为优生学（eugenics）的政治危险；但罗根与彼得森同时强调，彻底否定生物学的危险同样致命——因为那样人类就无法运用理性去克制和调解与生俱来的生物冲动。彼得森举例说明了生物学倾向与后天社会化的互动机制：大约有 5% 的两岁男童天生具有极高攻击性（hyper-aggressive），会踢人、打人、咬人、抢东西，这是先天的生物回路所致。然而通过妥善的社会化过程，绝大多数孩子在四岁前就会学会克制自己的攻击性。彼得森提到自己的儿子小时候也是这种性格，他指出：“如果你对他们进行恰当的社会化，他们会变得极其有用：他们勇敢、坦率、绝不退缩，具有极高的社会功用价值。”这正是生物机制与社会化教化良性互动的典范。然而当詹姆斯·达莫尔（James Damore）在其 Google 备忘录中探讨这种男女倾向的生物学差异时，却同样遭到了残酷的政治围剿。 > “在理性层面，你基因的目标是无法辩护的；你基因所想要达成的目的，在理性语境中根本站不住脚。只有认识到这一点，我们才获得了去做别的事情的自由。” —— 布雷特·韦恩斯坦 ### [39:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2345s) 詹姆斯·达莫尔备忘录与两性生物学差异乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）为前谷歌（Google）工程师詹姆斯·达莫尔（James Damore）撰写的备忘录辩护。他指出，达莫尔的观点并非出于毫无事实依据的“本质主义”，而是基于坚实可信的科学证据。研究表明，男性与女性在气质（temperament）和兴趣层面上确实存在显著的生物学差异。彼得森强调，这并不是说科学结论绝对不可推翻，但绝不能说达莫尔“在科学上无知”。达莫尔的核心逻辑在于：如果社会的目标是从有才华的人群中挖掘最大的经济价值，就应当认清男女两性的客观差异，从而对工作环境进行合理改造，让所有人都能最大化发挥潜能，实现个人与社会的双赢。彼得森随后用大五人格中的“宜人性”（Agreeableness）展开举例。统计上，女性平均比男性更加宜人，这在演化上十分合理——为了忍受并胜任照料新生儿的繁重任务，女性需要在神经回路中具备极高的自我牺牲倾向上。然而，这种旨在照料婴儿的特质在商业竞争中往往需要付出代价，导致她们在面对高度激进、好斗的男性时缺乏足够的博弈准备。这也是为什么宜人性高的人往往收入偏低，因为要争取更高的薪资，个人必须展现出相当程度的“不宜人”（disagreeable），敢于走到老板面前提出严苛的要求并承担对抗后果。 > “One of the things James said is look, there's credible evidence that there are biologically mediated differences between men and women at the level of temperament and interest that are actually large and profound, and I would say the science on that is sufficiently settled so that someone can come out and say that's scientifically credible.” —— 乔丹·彼得森 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 两性演化特质与职场博弈差异 accDescr: 展示两性在繁殖投资与生物学演化上的差异，如何影响性格特质并在现代职场博弈中产生薪资差异。 subgraph Evolution["演化与生物学基础"] F1["女性：生育上限低 / 照料周期漫长"] M1["男性：繁殖方差极高（高风险高回报）"] end subgraph Temperament["气质与行为分化"] F2["高宜人性 / 族群长远视界 / 自我牺牲"] M2["高风险承受力 / 激进竞争 / 低宜人性"] end subgraph Workplace["现代职场机制与结果"] W1["薪资谈判需要激进争取与对抗"] R1["宜人性高者处于劣势，产生薪酬落差"] R2["需要理解差异以制度化优化贡献"] end F1 --> F2 M1 --> M2 F2 --> W1 M2 --> W1 W1 --> R1 W1 --> R2 ``` ### [41:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2477s) 演化投资策略与职场制度设计布雷特·韦恩斯坦（Bret Weinstein）从演化生物学角度补充了该议题。在整个演化历史中，雌性一生的后代数量相对有限，面对极其漫长的人类抚育周期，女性演化出了更广阔的族群长远视界；人类女性绝经期（Menopause）的出现，更使年长女性的演化利益与整个血脉和族群的存续高度绑定。相对而言，雄性具有“高方差”（High Variance）的繁殖特征——有些男性后代众多，许多男性则断子绝绝。因此，与高风险冒险相关的智慧往往沿着雄性路径演化。但在现代社会，没有理由不将这两类演化智慧普及化并互相融合，女性完全可以学习并运用传统的冒险策略。彼得森对此表示赞同，但批评当前环境根本无法展开理性探讨，任何对话都被“男女毫无差异”的教条所阻断。针对宜人性高导致的薪酬差异，彼得森探讨了潜在的政策思路：如果承认这一事实，企业大可以通过制度设计来平衡，比如针对不同群体的谈判倾向，采用更有针对性的薪酬复审机制（例如男性每年审核一次，女性每八个月审核一次）。尽管这只是一个假设性构想，但彼得森认为，唯有基于客观现实，才能最大化两性的经济贡献，而不是空喊“平整竞技场”（level the playing field）这种空洞口号。达莫尔原本只是在参加公司强制性的多样性培训后，应要求撰写反馈，未料该备忘录在公司内网迅速发酵并被公开，最终导致其被解雇。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）补充道，媒体在报道时甚至恶意剥离了文中的学术参考文献，导致外界在没有原始引文支撑的情况下完全误读了这份文档。彼得森痛斥部分记者的失职与恶意，认为这种因懒惰和意识形态僵化而篡改事实的行为，在社会极度脆弱动荡的当下，正将整个文明推向混乱的深渊。 > “Well, the fact is there's no reason if you're born female that you can't tune into what has historically been male-biased wisdom and take advantage of that, and we should be encouraging this.” —— 布雷特·韦恩斯坦 - 达莫尔的备忘录是在谷歌强制性多样性培训的背景下撰写的，并非为了向外界博取眼球。 - 媒体在二次传播时删减了论文索引，剥离了学术证据的背书，加剧了舆论审判。 - 彼得森警告，在极端不稳定的社会周期中，个人的媒体伦理缺失会产生远超局部的破坏性系统后果。 ### [46:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2765s) “佩佩蛙”、Kekistan 与被武器化的污名标签罗根指出，当今社会动辄给他人扣上“种族主义者”帽子的现象极其怪异且泛滥。他分享了自己前一天的经历：因为感到无聊，他便在网上用“佩佩蛙”（Pepe the Frog）制作恶搞迷因（Meme）来进行反向恶搞（trolling）——比如发一只配着彩虹图案的青蛙支持同性恋平权，或是发一只吃柠檬被酸到做鬼脸的青蛙。罗根不解地表示，任何人都能创作佩佩蛙迷因，原本马特·弗里（Matt Furie）绘制的“Feels Good Man”青蛙只是一个荒诞搞笑的漫画形象，怎么就突然被舆论定性为不可饶恕的种族主义符号？韦恩斯坦提到他在网上调查“Kekistan”（佩佩蛙文化中虚构的“克克斯坦国”）的荒诞发现。主流舆论将这个概念描绘成人类社会的巨大威胁，但在其设定中，它被戏谑地描述为一个“反犹主义者、犹太人、无神论者与宗教信徒和谐共处”的魔幻之地。韦恩斯坦直言，这种无厘头的设定本身就是为了让理性思维陷入死机（throw an error）而设计的恶搞产物。彼得森随后解释了自己对这一亚文化的观察。由于他本人经常被外界莫名其妙地与另类右翼（Alt-Right）联系在一起，他深入调查了这个庞杂且无组织的群体。他发现这本质上是一种带有高度荒诞意味的“防御性幽默”。彼得森分享了一件逸事：大约三周前，他送了父亲一面 Kekistan 的旗帜，因为父亲一直密切关注他在网络上的遭遇。彼得森解释自己之所以卷入青蛙符号，源于他在一次视频中戴了一顶由原住民雕刻师赠送的青蛙造型帽子。那位雕刻师曾告诉他，在美洲原住民神话中，青蛙是环境失衡与生态灾难的预警者（Harbinger），因为水体一旦遭受污染，青蛙总是最先死亡。因此，青蛙是一个警示部落社会已然脱轨的古老图腾。 > “It's designed to cause your mind to throw an error.” —— 布雷特·韦恩斯坦 ### [48:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=2916s) 佩佩蛙帽子风波与极化反应的危险乔丹·皮特森（Jordan Peterson）回忆起一段荒诞而离奇的经历：由于自己的声音和布偶青蛙科米蛙（Kermit the Frog）很像，他一直喜欢拿这事开玩笑；后来一位雕刻师朋友送了他一顶带有红嘴唇的青蛙帽子，他便戴着这顶帽子录制了一段讨论局势不稳定的视频。没想到视频一发布，网友立刻炸了锅，纷纷指认他戴的是极右翼迷因“佩佩蛙”（Pepe the Frog）。皮特森直言自己当时“几乎快要晕厥”，因为他在此之前根本没把这两者联系在一起。这起荒唐的风波阴差阳错地将他推到了互联网舆论的交叉路口，也让他直接面对了大量在网络上寻找答案的年轻群体。皮特森敏锐地察觉到，如今许多年轻男性正在被激进左翼的疏离政策无情地推向右倾阵营。由于极度反感激进左翼，这些年轻人陷入了“既然我不属于那里，那我到底属于哪一边？难道我的对立面就是另类右翼（alt-right）吗？”的身份迷思。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）顺势指出，人们总是落入非此即彼的“对立面”陷阱，很多人的政治观点完全是对敌对阵营的机械应激反应，而非源于健全的个人主权（personal sovereignty）。这种为了反对而反对的站队机制，正让人彻底丧失真实的自我。皮特森对此深表赞同，正如他谈到极化现象时所总结的： > “And that's what opposition is a real issue with people, right? Like what you were talking about before when people just ramped up their positions and get more ideologically based and they're doing it as a reaction to the other side instead of just being who they are, instead of having some sort of a personal sovereignty, they are literally reacting to the opposite side and changing who they are.” --- ### [50:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3003s) 个人责任：对抗意识形态暴政的西方解药皮特森阐述了他视频走红的核心根源：他始终在呼吁用“个人责任”去取代空洞的政治意识形态。他给年轻人的建议异常直接：收拾好自己的烂摊子、树立清晰的目标、讲真话、远离简化幼稚的意识形态套路。他指出，西方文明最伟大的发现就在于意识到——一个高度健全、充分发展的个体，是抵抗社会体制暴政与生物学局限的终极解药。一旦社会放弃对崇高个体的追寻，倒退回以种族、性别为阵营的身份政治撕裂中，人们必将自相残杀。不幸的是，许多人因为畏惧承担自我发展的沉重责任，宁愿选择躲进集体意识形态中，哪怕整个世界因此被点燃也在所不惜。罗根指出，皮特森推广的自我规划项目（Self-Authoring Program）绝非与文化议题脱节，而是直击当代痛点。现代人缺乏对“痛苦挣扎”的深刻理解，这种挣扎不仅是经济上的，更是肉体与精神上的磨砺。皮特森补充道，生而为人本身就是一种悲剧状态；若是逃避这种沉重，内心的痛苦就会加倍蔓延，演变成深层的怨恨与恶意。正如神话中迎击恶龙的英雄叙事一样，唯有主动拥抱苦难并向前迈进，才是生命的救赎之路。皮特森在谈到西方文化内核时断言： > “I think that the well-developed individual is the antidote to the tyranny of society and biology.” --- ### [52:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3151s) 少数者的自由：从边缘创新到生物演化法则布雷特·韦恩斯坦（Bret Weinstein）将话题从个体心理提升至认知演化的系统层面。他指出，无论是右翼的白人至上主义还是左翼的“社会正义战士”（SJW），集权式的集体主义运动致命缺陷都在于“无法前瞻”。群体性的共识只代表“已知事物”，而探索未知世界的方法完全依赖于能够独立思考的个体。韦恩斯坦精辟地概括道：“每一项伟大思想最初都始于一个人的绝对少数（a minority of one）。”如果强迫所有人服从统一标准，人类将丧失发现盲区的一切可能。皮特森借此强调，言论自由如今被窄化为右翼标签是一场悲剧，言论自由在本质上是保证个体能够游走在混沌与秩序的边界、并将边缘发现带回集体的核心机制。韦恩斯坦从演化生物学角度印证了这一观点：在自然界中，无论是一个生物个体习得新技能并衍生出全新物种，还是一支种群找到新的生存途径，所有的革新无一例外来自“边缘（fringe）”。处于生态中心、环境优渥的种群缺乏创新的动力，只有身处恶劣境遇、运转不畅的个体，尝试探险才可能带来颠覆性的回报。韦恩斯坦以生物学为镜，深刻剖析了创新背后的动能： > “The people at the center for whom things are working best aren't going to be the ones to innovate the new way; it's people for whom things are not quite working that are going to innovate new ways.” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 边缘创新与集体认知的演化机制 accDescr: 展示处于边缘的独立思考者如何探索未知，并将经验通过言论自由带回中心集体以推动文明更新。 subgraph FringeArea["边缘地带：混沌与秩序的边界"] Ind["独立个体 (Minority of One) 身处困境/非中心舒适圈"] Innov["探索未知与遭遇磨难 产生颠覆性创新与真理"] end subgraph CollectiveArea["中心地带：已知共识"] Coll["集体组织 / 社会共识 仅代表当前已知事物"] Stagn["若强求一致：认知停滞 落入集体主义盲区"] end Ind -->|"面对危机迫切突破"| Innov Innov -->|"言论自由：沟通反馈"| Coll Coll -.->|"压制独立思考"| Stagn ``` --- ### [54:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3290s) 痛苦驱动的创造力与《圣经》中的“神圣个体” 皮特森引用心理学家汉斯·艾森克（Hans Eysenck）的著作《天才》（*Genius*）指出，高水平创造力的预测因素除了高智商和创造性人格外，“10岁前丧父丧母”也是一个显著指标。这打破了人们将创造力视为浪漫美好的幻想——创造力本质上源于个体被某种难以忍受的痛苦问题所折磨；若非身处绝境，没人愿意承受创新所需的巨大风险与代价。顺着这一演化逻辑，皮特森指出宗教经典恰恰映射了这种生物学真相。在《旧约》中，先知永远是以孤胆发声者的姿态出现：先知往往挺身而出挑战盲目的君王，警告其正在践踏道德常态并终将招致自然规律的反噬。正如基因穿越演化瓶颈一样，那些被历史铭记的文本，本质上是大自然借由演化筛选出的生存智慧。皮特森回顾了自己的第一本书《意义之图》（*Maps of Meaning*），强调他在意识形态战争之外寻找的是“英雄个体”的第三条道路。他当前正在进行的《创世记》系列公开讲座（当时已录制12场），其核心目的就是为了阐明《圣经》在深层意义上的本质：它不仅是一部宗教典籍，更是人类文明记录“神圣个体（divine individual）”这一理念如何诞生的宏伟演化史。关于宗教与个体价值的联系，皮特森明确表示： > “I believe that the Bible is the documentation of the emergence of the idea of the divine individual, that's essentially what it is.” ### [57:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3457s) 圣经文本的心理学解读与亚伯拉罕的冒险召唤 Jordan Peterson 谈到现代人与圣经文本之间的尴尬关系：人们习惯于将其视为对客观物质世界的科学声明，而从现代科学的角度看，这些断言显然站不住脚。但他坚称这些文本从一开始就不是为了陈述客观事实而写的。Peterson 表示，他一直在尝试用一种无神论者也能理解的方式来讲解《创世记》（Genesis）的故事，并收到了大量来自无神论者的积极反馈，甚至有些 YouTube 观众在评论区自称为“基督教无神论者”（Christian atheists）。他们开始理解 Peterson 所描述的核心概念：西方思想中涌现出一种认知——意识是介于“混沌”（chaos）与“秩序”（order）之间的调解者，是催生一切经验现象的力量，而这种存在形态在本质上可以被归入“神圣”的范畴。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Peterson 对圣经叙事心理学功能的解读 accDescr: 意识在混沌与秩序之间调解，个体面对未知召唤虽遇灾难但凭道德超越。 A["意识：混沌与秩序的调解者"] --> B["神圣个体在时间中的显化路径"] B --> C["亚伯拉罕的故事：走出舒适区"] C --> D["遭遇灾难：饥荒、埃及暴政"] D --> E["道德导向与牺牲：超越存在的灾难并最终胜出"] ``` Peterson 进一步以亚伯拉罕（Abraham）的故事为例，阐述了神圣个体如何在时间的长河中显现。亚伯拉罕在被上帝召唤时已经上了年纪，“就像那些四十岁了还赖在母亲地下室里的家伙”（“he's like one of these guys who's 40 years old and has stayed in his mother's basement”）。上帝对他的指令是：离开家人、朋友和安乐窝，踏入异乡的土地。这就是经典的“冒险的召唤”（call to adventure）。但被上帝选中并不意味着一帆风顺，亚伯拉罕刚动身就遭遇了饥荒，为了活命逃入暴政统治的埃及，妻子差点被抢走。Peterson 指出，这种叙事极其现实：“离开你安全的地方，进入你所不知的世界；你在那里会找到什么？财富吗？不，你会遭遇生命的灾难；但如果你保持道德上的端正，做出正确的牺牲——这完全就是亚伯拉罕的故事精髓——你就能超越存在的灾难并胜出”（“if you keep yourself morally oriented and you make the right sacrifices which is the the Abrahamic story to a tee then you can transcend the catastrophe of being and prevail”）。 --- ### [01:00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3601s) 扎克的“字面虚假，隐喻真实”与对宗教真理的质疑听到这里，Bret Weinstein 指出这触及了 Peterson 此前与 Sam Harris 之间关于“真理的本质”所产生的分歧。Weinstein 认为自己有一套视角或许能调和这两种观点，但其中包含着一颗难以下咽的“苦药丸”。他解释道，人们通常认为智力的进化是因为“知晓真相能带来生存优势”，然而进化生物学中没有任何法则规定“优势必然存在于字面真理之中”。为此，Weinstein 提出了一个核心分类概念：“字面虚假，隐喻真实”（literally false, metaphorically true）。所谓隐喻真实，是指某些观念虽然在事实上是不成立的，但如果人们在行动中“假装它是真的”，最终获得的实际处境反而优于那些依据客观事实行事的人。 Weinstein 列举了两个日常示例来证明这一点： - **豪猪甩刺的迷信**：豪猪并不能真的把身上的刺射出来。但如果一个人误以为豪猪会射刺，就会自觉与它保持距离；如果一个人深知豪猪不会射刺而靠得太近，豪猪猛然一甩尾巴将刺扎入人体，倒钩设计的刺会随肌肉运动不断向内深入刺穿内脏，造成致命感染。相信假话的人在此获得了真正的生存优势。 - **“凡事皆有因”的宿命论**：从纯粹物理学以外的角度看，事情并不会为了某种目的而发生。但如果一个遭遇巨大不幸的人坚信“凡事必有缘由、坏事背后定有机遇”，他就不会陷入怨天尤人的泥潭，从而能敏锐地抓住转机。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Weinstein 的隐喻真实概念 accDescr: 字面虚假的信念在行为层面转化为现实优势。 A["字面虚假 (豪猪能甩刺 / 凡事皆有因)"] --> B["行动指导 (保持距离 / 寻找逆境中的转机)"] B --> C["实际优势 (避免致命创伤 / 抓住潜在机遇)"] ``` 接着，Weinstein 指出了那颗“苦药丸”：宗教教条中固然编码了个体、家族和族群繁衍演化出的隐喻真理，但 Peterson 似乎默认这些被编码的隐喻真理必然在道德上是正当的。Weinstein 反驳道，没有任何机制能保证隐喻真理必定合乎道德，某些观念完全可能在道德上令人作呕，但在繁衍竞争中却极具成效。他一针见血地指出：“那些记录了这些描绘的文献中，充满了在某种非字面科学意义上为真的东西，而且那也不是它们原本的意图；但认为这些东西本质上能够与时俱进，则并非事实”（“what isn't true is that those things are inherently up-to-date”）。 --- ### [01:03:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=3823s) 木偶奇遇记、吞噬之鲸与死去的传统需要被更新面对 Weinstein 的挑战，Peterson 坦言这类触及智力极限的讨论极其艰难且容易犯错，但他强调，伟大的古代神话本身就已经内置了对“传统可能过时”的深刻洞察。神话中既有“暴君父亲”（tyrannical father）的原型，也有“贤明君王”（wise king）的原型。批判西方社会是父权制的人往往只被“暴君父亲”这单一原型所攫住，而忽视了象征智慧的另一面。为了说明如何对待过去的古老智慧，Peterson 详细拆解了《木偶奇遇记》（Pinocchio）的象征结构： - **匹诺曹（Pinocchio）**：最初是一个傀儡木偶、榆木脑袋、满口谎言，被自己无法理解的力量所操纵。 - **老木匠杰佩托（Geppetto）**：代表“贤明的君王”与慈父，他向星空许愿希望木偶成为真正的人，深知这几乎是不可能的奇迹。 - **被鲸鱼吞噬的父亲**：当杰佩托失去了匹诺曹——即失去了年轻一代身上活跃、充满动能的专注力量时，他便陷入停滞，被困在象征大洋深处混沌之地的鲸鱼腹中。 - **儿子的救赎之行**：匹诺曹的成熟之路，正是主动潜入混沌之海，将受困在鲸腹中僵死的父亲拯救出来。 Peterson 阐述道，这也是基督教神学中“三位一体”构造的内在逻辑之一：圣父代表了百年前、千年前正确的古老秩序，但他已经僵死，无法主动适应环境的新变化；因此必须有圣子这一当下鲜活的力量去完成更新。Peterson 承认 Weinstein 的质疑完全切中要害：“老旧的真理充其量是不完整的，而在最坏的情况下则是盲目的”（“those old truths are at best partial and at worst blind”）。由于生存环境已经发生了翻天覆地的改变，过去的方案不可能原封不动地照搬。然而，这绝不意味着可以像毛泽东在文化大革命中所做的那样全盘摧毁过去，“那就像是在说你不再需要身体了一样，因为你的肉体正是三十五亿年进化历程所沉淀的智慧结晶”。正因为这些故事并非字面事实，辨析其中包含的隐喻真理在当下是否仍然适用、抑或已经颠倒错乱，才显得尤为困难与迫切。 ### [01:07:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4024s) 原型的具身化与“更新古老智慧”的沉重代价 Jordan Peterson 进一步阐述了他对心理学和道德使命的理解。他指出，人的道德责任是在自己有限的生命范围内去实现某种原型（Archetype）。在西方文化中，贯穿始终的至高完美原型可以被称为“基督形象”。然而，现代人不可能去过两千年前生活在中东的耶稣那一模一样的历史生活，唯一能做的，是将这一原型提取出来并在当下的具体生活中加以显现。这一过程强迫个体去面对极其艰难的挑战：更新古老智慧。 Peterson 强调，人类无法直接抛弃古老传统，否则必将付出巨大的社会瓦解代价。他形象地描述道，过去的遗产目前依然保留着足够的生机，使得寄居在传统这具“尸骸”上的现代人不至于在争夺资源时互相残杀吞噬；但它又不够鲜活，甚至随时面临彻底崩溃的危险。因此，人们必须保持高度警觉，不断对其进行维护与更新。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 古老智慧原型与现实生活的更新循环 accDescr: 展示古老智慧、原型抽象、个体具身化以及现代社会稳定的相互作用关系。 subgraph S1["传统与原型"] A["古老智慧与神话叙事"] --> B["提炼普遍抽象原型"] end subgraph S2["现实具身化"] B --> C["在具体生活中显现实践"] C --> D["承担艰难更新古老智慧的责任"] end subgraph S3["文明后果"] D --> E["防止社会陷入瓦解与互残"] E --> A end ``` - Jordan Peterson 强调传统的脆弱性：“过去还保留着足够的生命力，以至于生活在它尸骸上的我们不至于在觅食时将彼此撕碎，这才是关键所在；但它又不够鲜活，因为这该死的东西随时都有可能彻底瓦解。” --- ### [01:08:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4093s) 现代技术风险与宗教隐喻的局限性 Bret Weinstein 对宗教的价值提出了深刻的保留意见。他批评理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）将宗教轻率地贬为“思想病毒”（mind virus），认为这种定性极度危险，因为它彻底忽视了宗教文本作为对过去环境的演化适应这一事实。 Weinstein 承认宗教包含着非字面的智慧，但他指出，任何古老的宗教文本都没有预料到当今文明所面临的真正浩劫。例如，古代没有一条戒律能够指导人类应对 Google 算法对文明构成的潜在生存威胁。面对古老智慧在现代技术面前的空白，Weinstein 借用软件概念提出了疑问：传统中积攒了如此庞大的“遗留代码”（legacy code），全盘接收这套代码带来的危害是否已经超过了其益处？他半开玩笑地提出，如果上帝在今天颁布诫命，第一条大概会是“不可浓缩铀”，但古人根本不可能写出这条戒律。面对现代性问题，人们必须在尊重祖先智慧的同时，迈向更有效、更符合当下的新框架，尽管直接套用瞬息万变且时常出错的现代科学真理也绝非易事。 - Bret Weinstein 评价现代威胁：“当今没有哪个古老宗教跟得上时代，能预见到 Google 的算法可能成为对文明的巨大威胁；我们必须弄清楚，当祖先的智慧根本跟不上现实时，该如何导航。” - Bret Weinstein 论现代戒律：“如果上帝今天写戒律，我深信第一条会是‘不可浓缩铀’，这完全应该作为头号诫命存在。” --- ### [01:09:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4148s) 混沌与秩序：跨越语境的抽象神话真理 Jordan Peterson 对 Weinstein 的质疑进行了补充与反驳。他认为宗教叙事在具体的细节上确实可能出错，但在宏观模式（pattern）上往往是完全正确的。例如，神话英雄反抗国家暴政的母题并不依赖于暴政的具体历史形式，它在任何时代和环境中都是适用的普遍真理。伟大的宗教神话之所以长存，是因为它们在极高维度的抽象层面上运作。为了证明这一点，Peterson 提出了“混沌”（Chaos）与“秩序”（Order）的现象学二分法。从技术角度来看，当你的行动产生了预期的结果时，你便处于秩序之中；反之，当行动产生无法预料的后果时，你便跌入混沌。道家思想精准地捕捉了这种结构，主张最佳的存在状态正是横跨在混沌与秩序的交界处：停留于完全的秩序会让人停滞不前、学不到新东西，而陷入完全的混沌则会让人被压力彻底压垮。这种生存状态的真理是永恒的，不会随着时间而老化。 Peterson 随后甚至主动反驳自己的立场，提出一个棘手的问题：如果说宗教文本编码了普遍真理，那么到底是“哪一种”宗教文本？如果认为所有宗教文本皆是如此，就会抹杀不同传统间的深刻分歧。他坦言自己冒着风险也要指出：伊斯兰教的全盘统摄性特征（totalizing nature）在各宗教中显得尤为独特，很难轻易归入普遍抽象的范畴中。 - Jordan Peterson 论真理的层次：“这些故事在细节上是有瑕疵的，但在模式上是正确的。” - Jordan Peterson 论道家与生存的最佳平衡点：“道家对此做出了非常精彩的阐述，他们拥有关于现象学版图的‘混沌与秩序’概念，他们的主张是：最完美的存在状态，恰好处于混沌与秩序交界处的最核心。” --- ### [01:13:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4381s) 豪猪刺与“字面谎言”：实用适应与科学客观性的交锋 Joe Rogan 介入了讨论，质疑使用“真理”（Truth）这一词汇本身就是造成混乱的根源。他认为用“传统”或“智慧”来形容更准确。Rogan 举了此前关于豪猪的例子：如果为了保护孩子不被刺伤，而欺骗他们说“豪猪能发射身上的刺”，即使这种恐吓在客观上让孩子远离了危险，它本质上也是一个虚假的谎言。教导孩子真实的事实，远比植入一个错误的认知模型更健康。针对 Rogan 的反驳，Weinstein 解释了演化视角下的机制：在人类演化史上，那些将“豪猪会射刺”编码进直觉认知中的个体，由于过度谨慎反而获得了生存优势。虽然这种生存策略是演化筛选的产物，但他自己也不会这么教育孩子，因为给孩子输入错误的认知模型很可能在未来引发其他灾难性判断。Rogan 随即调侃，所谓的“凡事皆有其因”或许也是类似的人脑局限：也许人死后会进入一个结算室，才被告知这一切不过是由于大脑原始的运算能力无法理解更高维度的宇宙几何，为了让肉体繁衍演化而编写的简单脚本罢了。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 豪猪警示模型的演化适应与事实认知分歧 accDescr: 比较出于实用保护的隐喻性谎言与基于客观事实的认知模型在适应性上的差异。 subgraph G1["隐喻/实用性叙事"] A["假定豪猪能射刺"] --> B["产生极度恐惧远离"] B --> C["演化生存优势 (避免受伤)"] C --> D["植入错误认知模型"] end subgraph G2["客观事实认知"] E["认知刺不会射出但极度危险"] --> F["基于事实保持安全距离"] F --> G["获得生存保障同时保持模型准确"] end ``` - Joe Rogan 对隐喻性说谎提出批评：“你说豪猪能朝你射出刺来，孩子因此躲得远远的，但他的脑子里就建立了一个错误的假设；你为了保护他们而撒了谎，这并不好，我是不会这么干的。” --- ### [01:15:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4512s) 重审真理的定义：萨姆·哈里斯的误解与古老语义 Jordan Peterson 针对“真理”一词的争议做出了根本性的哲学辩护，并提到了他与萨姆·哈里斯（Sam Harris）之间的著名辩论。哈里斯曾指责 Peterson 在关于真理的讨论中偷换概念、篡改了真理的定义。Peterson 断然反驳了这种观点，指出“客观真理”（Objective truth）的概念其实非常年轻，而“真理”本身的词源要古老得多。在古代文化中，真理最初的含义根本不是指代客观的实证事实，而是类似于射箭术语——“箭矢笔直而真实地（true）飞向目标”，意指“可靠且准确地通往适宜的终点”。当耶稣说“我就是道路、真理、生命”时，他所指的也绝非现代科学意义上的客观真理。因此，Peterson 坚称，指责他窃取客观真理定义的人完全忽视了语言与思想的历史深度，真理本身在人类漫长的经验中从来就拥有不止一种维度。 - Jordan Peterson 驳斥萨姆·哈里斯对真理定义的指责：“哈里斯的观点是他认为我在真理的运用上偷换了概念、采用了错误的方式，但他错了，因为真理这一观念比‘客观真理’这一观念要古老得多。” - Jordan Peterson 还原“真理”的原始意涵：“真理最初的概念并不是客观事实，它的意思更像是‘箭矢笔直且真实地飞向目标’，意味着可靠地通往正确的目的地。” ### [01:16:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4569s) 两种真理：客观事实与行为工具 Jordan Peterson 指出，讨论的核心在于存在着两种不同维度的真理：一种是通过行动方式体现出来的真理，另一种则是对客观世界的表征。在理想情况下，这两种真理可以重叠一致，但现实中它们经常发生脱节。例如，某条古老的智慧教诲在指导人们实际行动时非常管用，但其内部所包含的对客观现实的描述却可能是完全错误的——圣经中的许多故事若当作现代科学来读就会显得荒谬。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 两种真理的划分与关系 accDescr: 展示客观事实真理与行为工具真理的分野，以及两者在理想状态下的映射重叠。 subgraph Truth["真理 (Truth)"] A["工具/行为真理 (Tool Truth / Wisdom) 指引行动、维持生存与社会功能"] B["客观事实真理 (Objective Truth / Facts) 实验室或实证经验中检验的描述"] end A <-->|"理想状态下相互映射 但认知受限常发生脱节"| B ``` Peterson 进一步用工具来打比方：人们可以争辩一把锋利的斧子比一把钝斧子“更真”（more true），因为在实用主义（pragmatism）的语境下，它能有效发挥功用。人们赖以生存的根本真理往往像工具一样，用来帮助个体在世界中维持功能运作。Joe Rogan 随后询问这是否是一个用词问题，即把本该称作“事实”（fact）的东西（比如 $1+1=2$ 或水能浇灭火柴）混淆成了“真理”（truth）。Peterson 承认两者存在区分，并感叹道：“在这个问题上情况变得极其复杂，我甚至都难以完全驾驭：存在着体现在你行动方式中的真理，也存在着作为客观世界表征的真理，有时这两种真理能够重叠在一起，有时却不能。” - 疟疾（Malaria）的词源演变提供了极佳的例证：该词源于意为“坏空气”（mal-aria）的词根，虽然现代医学证实它是由蚊子传播而非腐败空气，但“避开空气污浊沼泽”的经验行为在客观上降低了感染几率，在认识到真正机理前起到了一定的保护作用。 - Peterson 提及自己此前与 Sam Harris 在实用主义定义上的辩论焦点：描述的真实性与工具的有效性到底哪一个更为根本。 --- ### [01:18:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4711s) 细菌学说之前的卫生禁忌与进化生存 Bret Weinstein 提出，确实存在一个最高层级、可在实验室或严格野外实验中验证的终极真理，但在科学出现之前，人类社会必须依靠那些“还无法言说本质机制的真理”来保命。他以《旧约》中对“污物”（filth，即人类粪便）的禁令为例：经文规定不得在营地内排便，理由是这会冒犯上帝。在当时，人类根本无法理解数千年后才诞生的微生物学与细菌学说，但这条宗教戒律成功阻止了病原体在人群中蔓延。人类必须在拥有解释世界本质的能力之前，先学会如何在不丧命的情况下行动。 Joe Rogan 补充道，《旧约》中对于红潮期贝类以及可能携带旋毛虫病的猪肉所设定的饮食禁忌，大概率也源于相似的生存保护经验。Peterson 与 Weinstein 则补充，这些规定在承担卫生防护功能的同时，还兼具社会学功能，帮助特定族群建立内部凝聚力并与其他群体区分开来。如今既然人类已经掌握了细菌学说，再继续坚持那些原始粗糙的表述就失去了必要性，这也是为何现代人不再在神学中强调那些旧约卫生条例的原因。Weinstein 总结道：“人类在能够充分理解世界本质从而证明自身行为合理之前，必须先弄清楚如何在不死掉的情况下采取行动。” --- ### [01:20:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=4841s) 事实无法推导价值：批驳 Sam Harris 的道德景观讨论转向对理智主义和 Sam Harris 观点的批判。Peterson 建议将“真理”这一大类划分为“事实”（fact）与“智慧”（wisdom）。他强烈反对 Sam Harris 和 Richard Dawkins 的还原论倾向——他们认为事实是第一性的，智慧仅是衍生品，只要充分掌握客观事实就能自然推导出该如何行动。Peterson 强调事实并不能自动指导行为，二者之间并不存在简单直接的映射通道。面对客观世界，人类面临着海量的信息与无穷的选择。Peterson 用穿过田野作比喻：一个人站在一片原野前，即便收集了关于这片田野的所有物理事实，田野本身也绝不会告诉你穿过它的最佳路线。Joe Rogan 指出这正是伦理学介入的节点，因为符合个人眼前利益的选择往往会与集体利益发生冲突，行为后果往往需要跨越数代人才能显现。Weinstein 则指出这里交织着双重困境：个体不可能成为无所不知的通才，只能依赖近似的行为准则；而人类文明所继承的古老智慧中，有许多核心机制连现代人都尚未完全理解，全盘丢弃往往极其危险。正如 Peterson 针对 Harris 的论点所尖锐指出的：“面对这片田野，有成千上万种穿行方式；无论你聚合了多少关于这片田野的事实，你都无法仅仅通过汇总这些事实来决定该走哪条合适的路径。” --- ### [01:23:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5016s) 智慧的博弈论约束与时间跨度 Peterson 深入剖析了“智慧”之所以成立所必须满足的严苛约束条件。一种行为原则要被定义为具有智慧，首先它必须在物理世界中行得通；更关键的是，它必须受到功能性社会契约的强力约束。任何行动如果只对个体有利却破坏了其赖以生存的社会结构，就绝称不上是智慧。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 智慧原则的多层嵌套约束结构 accDescr: 展示智慧原则如何从个体当前扩展到时间迭代、家庭以及更广泛的社会契约。 subgraph TimeIteration["时间迭代维度"] T1["此时此刻的你"] --> T2["一周后的你"] --> T3["一个月后的你"] end subgraph SocialScope["社会尺度维度"] S1["个体生存"] --> S2["家庭福祉"] --> S3["整体社会契约"] end Obj["客观现实约束 (在物理世界中可行)"] --> TimeIteration TimeIteration --> SocialScope ``` 由此，智慧展现出极强的博弈论属性。一个真正明智的方案不仅要符合客观规律，还必须实现多层利益在时间长河中的和谐统一：它必须同时对此时的你、一周后的你、一个月后的你有效；对你有利的同时，也必须对你的家庭有利，进而对整个社会有益。只有当所有层级的利益都能够经受住时间的反复迭代考验时，这种解决方案才是成立的。Peterson 强调，智慧并非凭空产生的抽象思辨，而是一种高度复杂、跨越个体寿命与社群维度的博弈均衡解。 - 智慧行动的第一道边界是客观现实的物理约束（必须有效解决现实问题）。 - 智慧行动的第二道边界是健康社会契约的约束（不得摧毁人际关系网络与制度框架）。 - 智慧行动的核心在于可持续的时间迭代（在个人、家庭、社会的同心圆结构中，实现长期跨时间维度的博弈均衡）。 ### [01:24:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5099s) 伦理约束：破解后现代主义“无限解读”的钥匙乔丹·皮特森（Jordan Peterson）提出了他认为破解后现代主义困境的终极方案。他解释称，后现代主义者看到了一个不可否认的事实：“面对有限的事实，存在着无限多种解读方式。”这导致后现代主义者断言，人们永远无法对一部伟大文学作品达成权威的经典解读；既然潜在的解读有无限多种，凭什么优先选择某一种解读？他们因此得出结论：所有的价值评判与优选本质上都只是“权力游戏”（power games）。皮特森指出，后现代主义者的这种观察确实有其敏锐之处，绝不能等闲视之，但他们却忽略了一个至关重要的核心维度——伦理约束（ethical constraint）。皮特森强调，虽然理论上潜在的解读浩瀚无边，但在现实世界中行得通的解读却少之又少。绝大多数解读要么会导致你被他人消灭，要么会因为你自身的愚蠢而在时间长河中走向惨败。现实生活极其严苛地筛选着有效认知，能够长期维持个体与群体生存的“功能性解读”极度有限。正如乔丹·皮特森所断言：“我认为这种约束系统，正是我们所认为的伦理，大致就是这么回事。”（“I think that constraint system is what we regard as ethics it's something like that.”）他进一步以荷马史诗《奥德赛》（The Odyssey）为例，指出优秀的故事之所以能够历经千百年历久弥新，背后必然存在着深层的演化或科学原因，而非单纯的权力建构。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 后现代困境与伦理约束模型 accDescr: 展示后现代主义从无限解读滑向权力游戏，以及皮特森提出通过现实伦理约束筛选出可持续功能性解读的对比路径。 subgraph PostmodernPath ["后现代主义路径"] A["有限的事实"] --> B["无限多的潜在解读"] B --> C["无法确立经典解释"] C --> D["归结为纯粹权力斗争"] end subgraph RealityFilter ["现实与演化约束"] B --> E["严苛的现实世界检验"] E --> F["无效解读导致死亡或毁灭"] E --> G["功能性与可持续解读（极少数）"] G --> H["凝结为伦理系统与传世神话"] end ``` --- ### [01:26:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5199s) 虚无主义与怨恨：后现代主义与新马克思主义的“不圣洁联盟” 皮特森深入剖析了后现代主义与马克思主义之间奇特的联手。后现代主义虽然指出了人类认知主观性的局限，但在提供实用生活智慧方面却是一条死胡同：它告诉人们存在无限多的选择，却无法回答“人下一步到底该做什么”，最终导致虚无主义与精神匮乏。为了逃避虚无，后现代主义者暗度陈仓，通过后门重新引入马克思主义，重新退回到基于权力和阶级斗争的话语体系中。这种结合在智识上形成了某种不合逻辑的“不圣洁联盟”（unholy alliance）。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）提出了不同的看法。他认为后现代主义者倒向马克思主义，未必是因为复杂的解读困境，而更可能只是出于对资本主义负面弊端的反弹。在罗根看来，资本主义存在残酷性，而马克思主义提供了一套现成且被极度浪漫化的替代方案，其宣扬的社会主义具有人人平等、匡扶弱者的道德光环。皮特森随后梳理了思想史的演变： - **早期马克思主义的驱动力**：阶级斗争理论兼具浪漫色彩与破坏性，一方面赋予信奉者“为受压迫者而战的崇高战士”的自我认同，另一方面激发了深沉的嫉妒与怨恨——“凭什么那个混蛋拥有的比我多，必须把他彻底打倒”。 - **历史破产与后现代伪装**：到了20世纪60年代末，随着苏联大屠杀和极权暴行的彻底曝光，马克思主义作为政治教条在道德上身败名裂。以法国知识分子为主的阵营迅速开创了后现代哲学，并将其作为掩护战术，把原本的阶级斗争偷换概念包装成身份政治（Identity politics）。 - **逻辑上的内在精神分裂**：正如乔丹·皮特森严肃指出的那样：“在技术层面上，你实际上不可能同时既是后现代主义者又是马克思主义者。”（“You actually technically cannot be both of those things at the same time.”）因为后现代主义解构一切宏大叙事，而马克思主义本身就是一种总体性的宏大叙事。两者之所以能强行糅合，背后唯一的粘合剂就是那种由怨恨驱动的反资本主义仇恨。 --- ### [01:30:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5420s) 人性盲区与致命药方：马克思主义为何必然走向崩溃布雷特·韦恩斯坦（Bret Weinstein）随后加入了讨论，他半开玩笑地自嘲道，接下来的话可能会冒着得罪自己仅剩的几个朋友的风险。韦恩斯坦指出，马克思主义之所以极具诱惑力，是因为马克思对资本主义固有弊端的许多分析和批判其实相当切中要害，这正是许多人刚接触该学说时被吸引进门的原因。然而，分析正确并不等于解决方案有效；马克思开出的药方极其有毒，而这种毒性对缺乏经验的人来说并不直观。韦恩斯坦阐述道，马克思主义构建了一个听起来非常动听的故事，但在博弈论（Game Theory）的层面上，它根本不具备可行性、稳定性与功能性，在历史实践中无一例外地演变为不可避免的大规模暴力与浩劫。在历史事实已经多次印证其灾难性后果的情况下，仍然有人向毫无辨别力的年轻学生灌输这套说辞，这是极其危险的。当罗根追问为什么这套理论一付诸实践就会变质崩盘时，布雷特·韦恩斯坦一针见血地给出了经典的生物学与社会学批评：“正如布雷特·韦恩斯坦所说：‘它根本没有考虑到人究竟是什么，以及究竟是什么让社会得以运转。’”（“It just does not take account of what the human being is and what makes society function.”）罗根随即幽默地插话调侃道：“听起来真像个纯正的法西斯分子。” --- ### [01:31:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5513s) 帕累托分布与马太效应：不平等并非资本主义的专利皮特森顺着对马克思的讨论，进一步探究其观察背后的底层自然法则。马克思准确观察到在资本主义运作中，财富会不可避免地集中在越来越少的人手中，并据此认定这是资本主义制度本身的内在罪恶与根本缺陷。皮特森断言，马克思的归因彻底错了——资本集中绝非资本主义系统的专属缺陷，而是人类所有已知创造性生产系统中普遍存在的一种未知自然法则，即帕累托分布（Pareto Distribution）或普莱斯定律（Price's Law）。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 帕累托分布在各领域的表现 accDescr: 展现平方根法则是自然界与人类所有创造性领域的普适规律，而非资本主义独有。 subgraph MathRule ["平方根法则"] N["参与总人数 N"] --> S["根号 N 的超少数核心"] S --> P["占有或产出 50% 的全部资源"] end subgraph RealWorldExamples ["跨领域验证"] MathRule --> E1["财富分配：10,000 人中有 100 人占据半数财富"] MathRule --> E2["古典音乐：100 位作曲家中仅 10 位包揽半数常演曲目"] MathRule --> E3["作品热度：1,000 首作品中仅约 30 首占据 50% 播放量"] end ``` 在任何需要人类付出创造力且个体产出存在差异的领域中，竞争的结果都极度残酷：绝大多数竞争者最终的产出趋近于零（彻底出局），少数人能取得微小成功，而极其微小的超级少数人则囊括了不可思议的巨大成就。皮特森指出，这一规律在数学上大体表现为“总参与人数的平方根占有整个产出总量的50%”。新约《马太福音》中甚至早已用冷酷的语言描述了这一残酷现象：“凡有的，还要加给他，叫他有余；凡没有的，连他所有的也要夺去。”皮特森总结道，人类面临的真正悲剧在于，只要建立起任何一个富有成效的生产领域，竞争与这种极端的帕累托式不平等就会在瞬间自动滋生。 - **财富集中案例**：在 10,000 名人口中，最顶尖的 100 人（10,000 的平方根）将拥有整体一半的财富。 - **艺术创作案例**：在 100 位古典作曲家中，排名前 10 位的人创作了现代被演奏音乐的 50%；若在这 10 位顶级大师的 1,000 部作品中筛选，大约仅有 30 部核心曲目（1,000 的平方根约等于 31.6）就占据了日常上演频率的 50%。 - **核心结论**：不平等分布并非源自资本主义的贪婪，而是所有人类生产系统与宇宙自然法则共同遵循的普遍特征。 ### [01:34:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5652s) 帕累托分布、经济物理学与成败的分化 Jordan Peterson 接着讨论成果分配不均的深层根源。他指出，在任何生产性领域，大部分收益都会不成比例地落入极少数人手中，这会导致严重问题：其他人会挨饿，或者因为普遍的愤怒导致整个社会系统陷入动荡。人类为了缓解这种危机，采取的第一种自救方式就是多元化生产性博弈的赛道——如果你成不了 NBA 篮球巨星，你可以去主持播客；人类通过创造力把竞争版图碎裂化、多元化，让在某个领域受挫的人能在其他赛道取得成功。然而，这种努力仍然难以摆脱一个残酷规律：成功人士之间往往存在正向关联（positive correlation）。Peterson 指着 Joe Rogan 说明，因为 Rogan 的播客与 YouTube 视频极其成功，其建立的人脉网络也变得无比强大，有价值的资源再次不可避免地走向不均等分配。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 帕累托马太效应机制 accDescr: 展示成功通过马太效应与网络累积导致极端不平等的循环过程。 subgraph Advantage["正向累积机制"] A["单一优势获取 （技能、作品或机遇）"] --> B["吸引力与权力增加 （吸引关注与资本）"] B --> C["边际成功几率飙升 （网络效应强化）"] end C --> D["帕累托极端分布 （极少数人占有绝大部分资源）"] D --> E["底层停滞于零 （系统不稳定性上升）"] ``` Peterson 强调，这种分布规律具有物理定律般的冷酷力量。当代有一门鲜为人知的学科叫做“经济物理学”（econophysics），学者们使用描述气体分子向真空中扩散的相同数学方程式，来刻画金钱在经济体中的分布轨迹。Karl Marx 敏锐地指出了这种极度不平等的根本现象，但他把罪责归咎于资本主义，Peterson 认为这是完全错误的诊断：“Marx pointed to a fundamental issue but he said well that's a fault with capitalism it's like no it isn't it's something way more pernicious than that and it's it's something like well when one good thing Institute makes you a little more powerful and attractive and so that fractionally increases the possibility that another good thing will happen to you and then that spirals out of control and you get people who have well they have all the money or they have all the podcast downloads you're in that position you know what is it 1.2 billion like what the hell but it's to those who have more and it's not because there's something oppressive about you it's because you you rode the wave of the Pareto distribution in it and it threw you way that way the hell up into the stratosphere and we don't know what to do about that”。 - 经济物理学（econophysics）采用统计物理学方程式（如气体分子扩散模型）证明，资本向少数人聚集是系统运行的数学必然，而非资本主义独有的产物。 - 圣经马太效应（Matthew Effect）在所有创造性与生产性领域普遍存在：凡有的，还要加倍给他。 --- ### [01:36:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5798s) 权力与能力的混淆、预测成功的要素与“卡在零点”的绝境面对 Peterson 提出的“是否该为了公平强行把 Rogan 数十亿的播放量分给底层播客主”的讽刺性设问，Joe Rogan 辩护道，这与强迫性权力有本质区别。没有任何人强迫观众去下载特定内容，观众完全根据自己的喜好用脚投票；只要创作者在播客或视频中投入更多专注与心血，受众自然会聚集并呈指数级放大。Peterson 完全赞同 Rogan 的自由市场逻辑，但他指出，后现代主义与马克思主义者的最大病灶，在于“不公正地将权力、能力与权威混为一谈（conflate power, competence and authority unfairly）”。哪怕 Rogan 凭借纯粹的才华与能力获得成功、没有压迫任何人，自由市场机制依然无法解决其带来的严酷现实后果：放任货币系统运行，钱最终注定会集中在极少数人手里。 Peterson 进而探讨如何破局。Rogan 提议与其盯着成功者做对了什么，不如探究失败者做错了什么，找出未能发挥潜力的堵点。Peterson 介绍这正是他参与开发“未来写作计划”（Future Authoring Program）的初衷。在运转相对正常的现代社会中，智商（IQ）与尽责性（conscientiousness）是预测成功的最强指标；尽管基因彩票的存在让人无可奈何，但清晰设定目标并坚持为之努力，确实能显著提高胜率。然而，这依然无法解决最底层的无解难题——“卡在零点”（stuck at zero）。Peterson 解释道：“If you don't have any money it's really hard to get some like once you have some it's not so hard to get some more all right but if you're at zero Jesus man you're in this you're in the reverse situation mm-hmm you're poor you don't have anything no one wants to talk to you you can't get out of it because you're too poor to get out of it you know you're penalized by the economic system because you can't even afford to start playing the game you're stuck at zero”。这种零点困境构成了政治极端主义的温床。革命煽动者走向这些卡在零点的人，鼓动他们把现存体制彻底烧成平地，因为反正一无所有，推倒重来至少还有不为零的希望。Peterson 指出，对于年轻男性而言，这种号召具有致命吸引力，因为他们在生物学上属于“可消耗的”（biologically expendable），这促使他们更具冒险倾向，也解释了为什么年轻人热衷于穿切·格瓦拉（Che Guevara）的文化衫。 --- ### [01:40:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6012s) 匮乏的动力与绝对贫困的黑洞，进化驱动的探索本能 Joe Rogan 随后提出另一种视角：身处匮乏和挣扎往往能激发出巨大的创造力、创新力与远见。相比于生活在信托基金庇护下、每年能买一辆全新法拉利而毫无危机感的富二代，一无所有的穷人由于面对真实的危险和未来焦虑，拥有远为强大的动力。Peterson 赞同这一机制，认为这也是家族财富往往“富不过三代”的原因，也是为何第一代移民的子女往往表现出惊人成就——他们被残酷的生存必然性所驱动。然而，Peterson 提醒必须区分相对匮乏与绝对赤贫：如果一个人生活在坦桑尼亚河边的小村庄，周围随时有人被鳄鱼吃掉，且完全没有任何阶层跃迁的通道，那就是彻底的“零中之零”；此时零不仅不是激励，反而像一个连光都无法逃脱的黑洞。Rogan 补充道，极其荒谬的是，那种原始村落里的人，心理幸福感有时反而高过比弗利山庄封闭社区里的富豪。 Bret Weinstein 随后介入讨论，梳理 Rogan 与 Peterson 的观点。他指出，无论是着眼于“做对的事”还是纠正“做错的事”，两者同时推进才能实现最高效的提升。但他认为更深层的危机在于，现代社会运行逻辑建立在对人类进化本质的误解之上。人类普遍以为自己毕生是在追求某种幸福（happiness）或满足（satisfaction）的终极状态，以为只要发明某样东西或实现某个财富目标就能获得恒久幸福，然而 Weinstein 警告说这是一个进化陷阱。Weinstein 指出，从演化生物学来看，人类的大脑绝非为了安逸享乐而设计，人类被进化所预置的核心本能是去发现新的机遇，并将这些发现转化为整个群体能够共享的生存利益。 ### [01:42:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6173s) 技术盈余、马尔萨斯陷阱与人类无休止的消费驱动 Bret Weinstein 深入探讨了人类面对技术进步时的固有生物学行为模式。当人类获得新的机会或生产力跃升时，人们本可以利用盈余来换取长久的满足与稳定，但现实中人类往往会迅速将收益转化为更多的消费或更多的人口，从而使社会重新陷入匮乏状态。为了解决共产主义自以为能解决却彻底失败的困境，社会必须绕开这种根植于人性深处的机制。当 Joe Rogan 询问具体案例时，Bret 给出了远古农夫的假想模型：一位农夫在固定土地上耕作，技术受限；后来他发明或习得了“轮子”技术。轮子大幅降低了运输成本，使相同的土地与劳动力能产出更多粮食。此时社会面临两种选择：一是将技术盈余固定为一种持久的宽裕，腾出空间去探索更高价值的事物；二是将其转化为更多张吃饭的嘴。一旦人口膨胀填满了新增产能，人们对饥荒的恐惧立刻回到了原点。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Malthusian Trap Cycle accDescr: 农夫技术创新带来盈余后，因转化为人口膨胀而重新陷入匮乏的恶性循环流程图。 subgraph Innovation ["生产力跃升"] A["传统耕作受限"] --> B["引入新技术（如轮子）"] B --> C["单位土地与劳动产出大幅增加"] end subgraph Choices ["盈余分配路径"] C --> D["理想路径：转化为持久宽裕与深度探索"] C --> E["现实路径：人口膨胀或过度消费增长"] end subgraph Outcome ["马尔萨斯复归"] E --> F["新增消耗吞噬所有剩余"] F --> G["重回匮乏与饥饿恐惧状态"] G -.-> A end ``` Joe Rogan 幽默地借用嘻哈歌词总结道：“所以就是钱越多，麻烦越多（more money, more problems）。”Bret 对此表示赞同，并指出在过去人类倾向于生产更多的人口，而在现代社会，人类则将其转变为无止境的消费欲望。人类如果足够明智，就必须学会如何将不必挣扎于系统极限之外所获得的收益，沉淀为真正具有长远价值的东西。 - “If you really wanted to fix this problem, if you wanted to address the problems that communism thinks it's solving but fails to, you have to engineer around this feature of human beings where we pursue new opportunities and, as soon as we find a new opportunity, instead of figuring out a way to stabilize the benefits so that it results in a stable sense of satisfaction, for example, we fall all over ourselves to turn it into more of the same, because, of course, that's how we got here.” —— Bret Weinstein --- ### [01:45:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6323s) 创新代价与帕累托分布：左右两派的理性对话空间 Jordan Peterson 指出，尽管存在消耗盈余的冲动，但正如“水涨船高”所说，自 1895 年以来全人类的整体生活水平发生不可思议的飞跃，这证明了现代文明的技术变迁。然而，社会的根本性矛盾仍未解决：为了实现社会进步，必须允许个体在一个相对自由不受拘束的空间中竞争与创新；但创新的必然副产物就是“帕累托分布”（Pareto distribution）——处于头部极少数的创新者或次位竞争者赢得了绝大部分战果。 Peterson 强调，不平等就是社会为了获取创新而必须付出的代价，然而极度悬殊的不平等会彻底瓦解社会稳定性。左派关于“贫富差距过大将导致底层掀翻棋盘”的警告完全正确；即便从右翼保守派甚至共和党的治安视角来看，这一规律同样不可动摇，因为实证数据压倒性地证明了“不平等直接助长犯罪率暴增”。因此，两派本可以在承认“创新需要代价，而不平等必须被约束”的框架下展开理性探讨。然而当前的政治语态已经堕落为道德二元论：拥有财富被贴上压迫与邪恶的标签，而贫困匮乏则被等同于道德高尚的受害者。 - “You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it's too intense, then things destabilize.” —— Jordan Peterson --- ### [01:48:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6490s) 全民基本收入的局限、人类的职责需求与认知门槛危机针对 Joe Rogan 提出的全民基本收入（UBI）是否可行的提问，Jordan Peterson 直言这是一个糟糕的方案，因为它没有触及核心的人类心理危机。Peterson 认为，人类在本质上是需要承担重任的“驮畜”（beasts of burden），如果剥夺了一个人以有尊严的方式承担个体与社会责任的阵地，人就会退化并走向毁灭。当前西方泛滥的阿片类药物危机正是其体现——失去社会角色的男性需要的不是微薄救济金，而是不可或缺的“社会功能”与目标。随后，Peterson 抛出了一个残酷的实证认知数据：美军依法严格禁止征召智商（IQ）低于 83 的个体入伍。军方尽管有各种动机希望扩大兵源，但几十年严格测试得出的结论是：对于智商低于 83 的人，没有任何军事训练能让他们在战场上不产生反作用。这一群体占整个人口结构的 10%。随着现代社会的技术复杂度指数级上升，一个人如果连使用电脑的基本能力都不具备，在经济生产中就会完全沦为“零”。保守派幻想“只要努力工作人人都能找到活干”，而自由派幻想“所有人本质相同、后天皆可培训”，双方都在残酷的生物认知差异面前自欺欺人。 - “I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money; I think the fundamental problem is that human beings in some sense are beasts of burden, and if they're not provided with a place where they can accept social and individual responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die.” —— Jordan Peterson - 美军法规严禁招募 IQ 低于 83 的人员，原因是研究显示无法在军队中为其提供任何非反建设性的训练岗位。 - 该认知门槛群体占到了社会总体人口的 10%，在高度信息化的现代经济中生存空间被极度压缩。 --- ### [01:49:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6596s) 进化视角的相对剥夺感、屏幕虚妄与部落冲突的威胁 Bret Weinstein 从演化生物学角度分析了为什么人类对“不平等的程度”比对“自身绝对生活水平”敏感得多。在远古演化环境中，如果邻近土地的同伴收获是你的两倍，那必然是因为对方掌握了某种你不知道的技术或信息；因此，将全副精力用来紧盯邻居、搞清他们到底掌握了什么秘密，是一种极其理性的演化策略。但在现代社会，这种机制引发了灾难性的错配。人们如今的“邻居”变成了客厅墙上的电视与屏幕，屏幕中充斥着被高度人工滤镜美化、腰缠万贯的名人生活。大脑错误地以为隔壁邻居正活得不可思议地优渥，从而诱发强烈的自我怀疑与愤怒，但实际上屏幕里的人不仅可能是虚构的，且生活在完全不同的环境层级中。Bret 总结指出，当前社会一方面面临着真实的财富极度分化，另一方面又对再分配方案争执不下。在这种僵局下，统治阶层试图以“财政紧缩”作为威慑手段，迫使可能反抗的民众保持顺从；然而，这种切断增长预期的压制，极易点燃本段对话开篇所警示的族群内部残暴厮杀与部落化暴力对抗。 - “We know from careful study that people are motivated by the degree of inequality more than they are the absolute level of well-being that they have, and there's a very good, tragic, but very good evolutionary reason for this: which is if you are working on some piece of land and your neighbor has the adjacent piece of land and they're doing twice as well as you, it's because they know something you don't.” —— Bret Weinstein ### [01:52:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6737s) 资源耗尽信号与阶层流动的“公平博弈” Bret Weinstein 承接前文指出，人类历史上存在一种虽在道德上不可辩护、但在生物学上根深蒂固的模式：当群体意识到发现新机遇的边际已经到头，就会本能地把目光投向弱者，抢夺那些无法保卫自身地位之人的资源。为了避免陷入这种掠夺周期，社会必须停止释放“机遇已尽”的危险信号。而当前社会释放这种信号的方式，正是未能提供足够的普遍福祉，使人们对不平等的感知无法降至可容忍的水平。 Jordan Peterson 随即探讨了应对方案，提到全民基本收入（UBI）的提议具有一定说服力，但维护“机会平等”更为关键。Peterson 强调，人们对他人成功的怨恨其实远没有想象中那么大，怨恨的真正根源是感觉“这场游戏被暗中操纵了”（the game is fixed）。许多普通人愿意以长远眼光看待竞争，心想自己虽然可能停留在层级底层，但孩子有望攀升到更高的阶层，这正是美国梦的核心魅力。然而，这种契约成立的前提是规则公正，富人不应该利用特权操纵规则；一旦规则被篡改，整个社会的稳定性就会崩溃。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 不平等与社会稳定性流向图 accDescr: 展示合法竞争带来稳定与操纵规则引发社会动荡的两种因果路径。 subgraph 公平博弈机制 A["机会公平与道德约束"] --> B["人们容忍必要的不平等"] B --> C["寄托于代际流动（美国梦）"] C --> D["社会结构长期稳定"] end subgraph 作弊与意识形态极端化 E["富人操纵游戏规则/寻租"] --> F["2008年金融危机救助偏向富人"] F --> G["公众感知规则腐败并滋生怨恨"] G --> H["后现代/新马克思主义推波助澜"] H --> I["视所有层级为压迫并消灭生产阶层"] end ``` - Jordan Peterson 强调：“They're resentful about it if they feel that the game is fixed, but they're also willing to consider the game long term.”（如果他们觉得游戏被操纵了，他们就会产生怨恨；但他们也愿意从长远的角度来看待这场游戏。） - Peterson 提及 2008 年金融危机作为例证：普通民众清晰地看到富人在经济体系的重组稳定过程中获得了不成比例的好处，这让公众确信游戏机制存在根本性的腐朽。 --- ### [01:54:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6882s) 寻租经济与撕裂现代思潮的“双重假象” Jordan Peterson 警告，当前后现代主义和新马克思主义正在将社会推向极端。这类思潮主张所有社会层级都是任意权力的产物，富人皆为压迫者，财富必然源自掠夺。Peterson 指出，现实中确实存在罪犯，但若像 1920 年代的苏联那样将生产力创造者与罪犯混为一谈，激进追求绝对平均主义，最终的灾难就是消灭所有具有生产力的人并导致全社会大饥荒。大学系统如今正不断批量培养深信“一切不平等皆源于压迫”的学生，这种做法在学术与实际上都是彻底错误的。对此，Bret Weinstein 深入分析了这一现象背后的经济现实。他提出，目前尚无严谨研究能确切证明经济体中有多少比例属于非生产性的“寻租”（rent-seeking）或骗局，但他担忧这一比例非常庞大。原因在于正向机遇是有限的，技术与产业创新往往断断续续，但巧取豪夺、无需产出即可转移他人财富的骗局机制却层出不穷。这导致公众陷入了两种极端假象的争吵：一方盲信市场完美无瑕、绝无腐败；另一方则认定导致不平等的一切机制皆为腐败产物。 - Bret Weinstein 评价市场机制的本质：“Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do something really well, they're brilliant at this, right? And so people who see that fall in love with it understandably because they're so good at it. But what they're terrible at is telling you what you should want or what you should do.”（市场是弄清如何高效完成某件事的绝妙引擎，它们在这方面才华横溢。正因如此，看到这一点的人爱上市场是可以理解的。但市场极度不擅长的是告诉你应该追求什么，或者你应该做什么。） - Weinstein 认为，合理的体制应当由人类社会提出目标，再由市场寻找最优实现路径；但如今由于寻租现象过于普遍，人们在倒洗澡水时把孩子也一起倒掉了，试图全盘否定市场。 --- ### [01:57:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7077s) 学术界的偏见反馈循环与道德不对称假设谈及大学为何陷入单向意识形态泥潭时，Jordan Peterson 将其归结为自 1960 年代以来的失控正反馈循环，并符合帕累托分布的规律：当左翼学者比例达到一定阈值后，他们只雇佣同等或更偏左的人的概率便趋近于 100%，经过几代人的迭代，人文学科与社会科学领域中的保守派声音基本被清除殆尽。此外，Peterson 还开玩笑地提出了一个现实原因：大学里许多绝顶聪明的教授相较于其智力水平而言处于低薪状态（年薪仅十万至十二万美元左右），眼睁睁看着年入两千万美元的华尔街银行家，内心难免滋生强烈的怨恨与反资本主义情绪。 Peterson 分享了自己在多伦多大学的亲身经历。当他与商学院建立学术合作并运营自己的公司时，同事们经常用居高临下的态度质疑其道德动机，潜台词直接将“商业”等同于“邪恶”，且认为这种指责是不言自明的真理。随后，Bret Weinstein 尝试为反对完全自由市场的一方梳理其最深层的逻辑前提： - Jordan Peterson 调侃道：“I often think comically that if you paid sociology professors three times as much, the probability that they would be anti-capitalist would decline precipitously.”（我常开玩笑地想，如果你给社会学教授三倍的薪水，他们持反资本主义立场的概率就会急剧下降。） - Bret Weinstein 提出了一个纯粹自由市场的博弈推演：假设有两个个体在完全自由的市场中竞争，一方彻底丧失道德底线、愿意为了利润不择手段，另一方则设有道德红线；在足够长的时间跨度下，缺乏道德底线者将凭借无边界的竞争优势胜出。 - Joe Rogan 随即插话反驳这一前提，认为市场并非盲目，一旦消费者或合作方发现某人毫无道德底线，就会主动退出其市场并切断合作；但 Weinstein 回应指出，现实情况往往没有那么乐观。 ### [02:01:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7284s) 市场演化与“不讲道德者”的竞争优势 Bret Weinstein 继续深入探讨市场的动态机制。当公众试图通过消费监督来约束企业（例如因为 Uber 出现道德问题而选择拒用）时，企业之间的博弈逻辑便悄然改变：企业会去精确计算哪些行为正在被监督，从而规避那些被紧盯的不道德举动；但与此同时，它们会去肆无忌惮地实施所有未被监管的不道德行为。在这种机制下，善于钻监管空子的人便拥有了巨大优势。Bret 强调，这甚至不能单纯称作“精神病态者的优势”，而是无监管市场机制对所有参与者的必然驯化：“市场如果处于无监管状态，它就会训练你这么做；受道德约束的人最多只能做到平手，根本无法取得领先，因为完全不受道德约束的商业行动者能够做受约束者所能做的一切事情。” Joe Rogan 询问这是否完全取决于竞争的战场环境。Bret 指出大致如此，但存在一个特例：那些凭借颠覆式创新突然跻身巨头地位的人或群体（例如科技行业的新贵）。这些人最初没有经历过残酷市场长期寻找监管盲区来牟利的训练。Joe 补充道，科技行业一个极为耐人寻味的现象正是这些巨头几乎都偏向左翼。Bret 随之以 Google 为例：Google 创立之初喊出著名的口号“不作恶”（Don't be evil），当时他们大概确实是真心的；“‘不作恶’正是那种当你还没被市场训练出为了打败竞争对手而不择手段时才会说出的话。”然而随着时间推移，该实体必然面临大量其他竞争对手的挑战，竞争对手通过越过道德底线来获取优势，最终倒逼 Google 这样的企业为了生存朝着非道德的方向演化。例如为了打入中国市场，Google 最终不得不与现实妥协并接受网络审查制度。Joe 指出，在中国市场甚至存在各种山寨 Google 和山寨 Apple 零售店，当地缺乏相同的版权保护法规，抄袭无处不在；企业如果不对竞争对手能够利用的手段做出合理解释与模仿，就会在残酷的角逐中面临消亡。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 市场竞争中道德侵蚀的演化机制 accDescr: 展示初创企业从秉持崇高道德准则到在无监管竞争中被逼向非道德妥协的演化过程。 subgraph Phase1 ["初始创新阶段"] A["技术创新红利"] --> B["秉持理想主义道德 (例如 '不作恶')"] end subgraph Phase2 ["市场残酷竞争"] B --> C["遭遇无道德底线的竞争对手"] C --> D["对手开辟监管盲区获利"] end subgraph Phase3 ["生存与妥协"] D --> E["被迫理性化非道德手段"] E --> F["妥协与生存演化 (如接受审查制度)"] end ``` --- ### [02:04:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7463s) 并非万物皆是商业：大学与新闻业的异化 Jordan Peterson 接着反思自己此前对大学同行反商业情绪的批评，承认不能将同事的观点树为稻草人。他指出，尽管自己绝非反资本主义者，但他同样坚信“并非所有机构都是商业实体”。大学目前在多个维度上出现了病态，其中极具破坏性的一个维度就是“商业化病态”：大学的行政管理层越来越普遍地由商业管理人员组成，或者直接按照商学院 MBA 的模式运转。然而，大学本质上与教堂类似，属于绝对不能被随随便便硬塞进自由市场结构的机构。同事们反对由唯利是图的 MBA 来执掌大学是有充分理由的，因为那背离了学术机构的根本宗旨。Peterson 承认，同事们对自己与商学院的合作心存疑虑，这绝非单纯源于肤浅的反资本主义意识形态。 Bret Weinstein 对此表示高度赞同，指出世间有许多事物一旦与纯粹的市场接触便毫无免疫力。大学系统被市场推向了严重损害学术使命的境地，而新闻业亦是如此。新闻一旦完全交由市场驱动，最终就会变成“迎合人们想听的内容，而不是告诉人们需要知道的真相”。市场固然是一套极其精妙的算力系统，但必须划定明确边界：有些领域决不允许市场介入，市场也绝不能越俎代庖来界定人类的终极欲望，因为没有任何神奇原则能保证市场天然知晓什么是真正健康的。 - **非商业实体属性**：大学与宗教场所的核心使命是探寻真理与精神维系，不能以追求利润最大化的指标来考核。 - **新闻业的市场困境**：当新闻媒体将点击率与受众偏好置于真相之上，监督与求真的第四权力便退化为取悦受众的消费品。 --- ### [02:06:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7566s) 国家监管与自由市场的平衡：言论自由为何至关重要 Peterson 进而将讨论引申回保守主义与自由主义/左翼的核心两难困局：如果由国家出面管控市场，就意味着强加国家机器的笨拙重手及其潜在的极权病态；但如果完全放任不管，市场就会在不可预测的复杂地形中漫无目的地野蛮游荡。大规模现代国家在构建时必须平衡具有前瞻性的“规划与远见”与市场机制所展现的“综合计算能力”。Peterson 指出，协调这两者动态平衡的唯一解法，就是保持永不受阻碍的政治讨论与自由言论，以便随时动态调整监管与自由的配比。因此，这构成了捍卫言论自由的一个不可动摇的核心支柱。 Bret 对此深表赞同，直言两极分化的失败都是极其骇人的：“你既不希望保姆式国家对市场过度监管，从而剥夺了市场的魔力；你也不希望看到完全不受监管的荒蛮景象，任由市场去试探你孩子的内心，想方设法向他们兜售他们根本无法抵御的东西。”寻找这条黄金平衡点绝非易事，而如果身处一个连基本问题都不允许公开探讨的环境中，这件事情根本不可能达成。 Joe Rogan 随即指出，这直接触及了当下科技巨头的审查问题。当 Google 或 YouTube 这样的垄断平台开始充当思想市场的裁判，将自身的主观道德标准强加于社会，武断地规定大众什么可以讨论、什么不能讨论，乃至通过取消内容变现来实施经济制裁时，它们实际上正在扼杀整个社会的自省与纠偏机制。 --- ### [02:08:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7681s) 自由孕育不平等：智商与尽责性对成功的预测力 Joe Rogan 提出了一个深刻的观点：自由本身必然孕育不平等。在一个真正自由的世界里，每个人都可以根据自己的意愿投入不同程度的努力，由此必然导致结果的不均等。那些具备更高度专注、更强奉献精神的人自然会脱颖而出。 Peterson 随后从严格的心理学实证研究角度对这一现象进行了量化论证。在心理学文献中，预测一个人长期成功的两个最强指标是“智力”（Intelligence）与“尽责性”（Conscientiousness）： 1. **智力**：本质上相当于一个人在特定时间内能够调动并执行的可信操作数量，即认知处理的速度。如果处理方案有效且速度极快，在竞争中必然占据压倒性优势。 2. **尽责性**：代表一个人将多少努力的循环周期精准投入到特定任务之中。在努力程度与任务成功率直接挂钩的现实中，投入更多专注努力必然带来更好的产出。 Peterson 详细解释了这一统计学效应的威力： - 智商与尽责性结合后，对竞争环境下的个体成功预测的相关系数高达约 **0.6**。 - 如果随机抽取两个人，猜测谁会跻身成功者的前 50%，猜中的概率只有 **50%**。 - 但如果掌握了这两个人的优质认知能力测试和尽责性测试成绩：“凭借一项优秀的认知测试和尽责性测试的结果，你会有 85% 的概率做出正确判断。” - 能够以 **85%** 的准确率断定两人中谁更有可能进入前 50%，这在社会科学中是一个极为惊人的庞大效应。 Peterson 指出，这一数据在某种程度上验证了西方现有制度的基本正当性：在本质上开放的人才选拔体制（Meritocracy）中，更聪明、更勤奋的人确实能够获得更高的回报。当然，腐败等外部负面因素同样存在。Bret Weinstein 随即补充提醒道，智商差异背后还包裹着一个巨大的待解难题：现存的智商差异中有多少实际上反映了环境劣势，即缺乏充足启蒙和滋养的恶劣成长环境在多大程度上人为拉低了这部分人群的认知潜能表现。 ### [02:10:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=7832s) 智力提升的困境与 Head Start 项目的局限三人探讨了环境因素（如铅中毒、维生素缺乏等）对智商差异的影响。Bret Weinstein 基于生物学认知推测，智商差异中有相当大的比例甚至可能全都可以被普遍化和改善，这理应属于机会均等的一部分。Jordan Peterson 则对此持悲观态度。Peterson 谈到自己曾因开发“未来写作计划”（Future Authoring Program）而希望找到提升人们效能的方法，因而彻底翻阅了关于智商提升的学术文献，但结果却令人沮丧。Peterson 严厉地总结道：“I scoured the literature on on IQ enhancement and it's bloody dismal man when it's rough it's very very difficult to put to a cognitive training program.” 虽然在过去一百年里，解决温饱问题极大地拉高了智商分布的最底端，取得了巨大成效，但许多寄予厚望的认知干预项目却收效甚微。Peterson 举了美国“向贫困宣战”时期的“先行计划”（Head Start）为例：该项目原本希望在贫困儿童入学前提供认知训练，借由马太效应（Peterson 称之为 Pareto 效应）让他们在幼儿园领先一步，从而在小学一、二年级表现更好并持续累加优势。然而实际追踪显示，虽然接受干预的孩子最初确实获得了认知优势，但到六年级时，其他同龄人全部赶了上来，培训对智力的提升效果荡然无存。虽然该项目带来了青少年怀孕率下降、辍学率降低等附带社会收益，但 Peterson 认为这只是因为孩子们社会化更好，或者暂时离开了极其恶劣的毒性家庭环境，它并未带来左右两派所期望的长期智力提升。Bret 则反驳称，Head Start 是一个缺乏严格控制的实验，不仅干预介入的时间太晚，而且完全无法隔绝贫民区成长环境中的其他负面影响。 - 消除饥饿在过去一个世纪将人类智商分布的底线大幅推高。 - Head Start 项目旨在通过学前认知训练打破贫困循环，但到六年级时认知层面的优势完全消失。 - Head Start 确实减少了青少年怀孕和退学，主要是由于改善了社会化或暂时隔离了不良环境。 ### [02:13:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8002s) 智力的生物学现实与双胞胎研究 Peterson 指出，人类智力具有极强的抗改变性（lack of malleability），并且在消除智力个体差异方面可能已经进入了边际收益递减阶段。在现代发达社会，暖气、空调、基本食物已普遍普及，互联网更提供了无穷无尽的信息库，即使身处贫困环境，聪明的头脑也拥有前所未有的广阔空间。更具决定性、令人沮丧的生物学研究来自同卵双胞胎领养研究：自出生起就被不同家庭领养的同卵双胞胎，其智商与生父母的接近程度远高于领养父母；而且随着年龄增长，这对分开抚养的双胞胎彼此之间的智商相关性不降反升。如果从 4 岁一直测试到 60 岁，不管两人分开多久、经历有多大差异，60 岁时的智商测试分数高度一致，宛如同一人测了两次。 Bret Weinstein 对此提出了质疑。他指出这类研究有其局限性：分开抚养的同卵双胞胎样本量极小；此外，同卵双胞胎在出生前共享同一个子宫环境，如果母亲在怀孕期间受到不良环境的损害，这种产前创伤会伴随双胞胎一生，并在日后表现为相似的智商缺陷。Bret 强调，必须看到正面维度的证据而不仅仅是负面损伤，目前科学对人类智力的真实全貌还处于极早期阶段。不过两人达成共识：一个能够自由提出任何论点并接受检验的环境是探索未知的基石，而真正的“机会均等”（equality of opportunity）也是无可争议的崇高价值。 ### [02:16:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8170s) 容错安全网、全民基本收入与加拿大医疗体系 Weinstein 随后将话题引申到社会制度设计上：基于能力和自由的系统必然会产生不平等，但这并不意味着社会必须任由落败者坠入深渊。他主张社会应当构建一个“允许失败的安全网”（make people safe to fail），鼓励人们尝试高价值却充满风险的事业；即便失败，也不至于流落街头。Joe Rogan 立刻指出这就是全民基本收入（Universal Basic Income, UBI）的核心论点：当基本温饱与住所得到保障，人们就能卸下生存负担，自由追求各种创新想法。 Peterson 补充了加拿大的现实经验：多变量数据显示，加拿大的创业率实际上高于美国，其中一个关键原因在于全民医疗保险制度。一个 25 至 27 岁且有家庭的年轻人，如果辞职去搞初创公司，不会因此失去医疗保障。Peterson 客观地对比了两国医疗体系： - **高端医疗**：美国在顶尖技术层面（如梅奥诊所 Mayo Clinic）优于加拿大，只要有钱就能迅速买到最顶级的服务。 - **中低端医疗**：加拿大的全民系统明显更胜一筹，尽管存在人为稀缺和排队等待时间长的问题，但整体运转了近 50 年且更具普惠性。 - **经济成本**：尽管美国医疗更偏向自由市场，但美国人因医疗投入的 GDP 比例却远高于加拿大及其他半公费医疗国家。 Rogan 随后提到了电视科普节目《亚当搞砸一切》（*Adam Ruins Everything*）关于美国医疗的专题单集，力荐大家观看，指出该节目生动剖析了美国医疗体系为了弥补利润短缺而肆意抬高各种费用的荒唐内幕。 ### [02:18:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8337s) 疲惫边界与危险的希特勒话题随着录制逼近三个小时，Peterson 主动叫停了深入探讨希特勒（Adolf Hitler）历史话题的提议。当 Weinstein 询问 Peterson 是否愿意陈述其关于希特勒的论点再由自己回应时，Peterson 坦言自己已经达到心智极限，必须踩刹车。Peterson 诚恳地承认：“I actually think that I should stop because I'm kind of at the limits of I'm at the point where the probability that I will say something stupid is starting to increase and I would rather not because just saying the things that I'm trying to say that aren't stupid is dangerous enough.” Rogan 和 Weinstein 都对此表示理解与赞同，认为希特勒是舆论场中最具危险性和煽动性的敏感话题，在精力耗尽时讨论极易祸从口出。Weinstein 同时也打趣地评论道，这个话题之所以如此微妙且充满火药味，其荒谬之处恰恰在于——在这个世界上，大家对于希特勒的基本定性实际上早已达成了压倒性的共识。 ### [02:19:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8387s) 成吉思汗的历史洗白与希特勒的“理性怪物”假说乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）提及硬核历史播客（Hardcore History）主持人丹·卡林（Dan Carlin）探讨过的一个奇特历史现象：当恶行过去足够长的时间后，世人对暴君的评价往往会发生戏剧性的逆转。成吉思汗曾杀害了当时全球大约10%的人口，其屠戮之惨烈甚至显著降低了人类在地球上的碳足迹；然而今天的人们却乐于为其发掘诸多正面功绩，例如开辟通往中国的贸易通道、繁荣欧亚商道等。罗根指出，未来某一天，后人或许也会以这种历史相对主义的眼光来看待阿道夫·希特勒（Adolf Hitler）。布雷特·韦恩斯坦（Bret Weinstein）与乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）则认为，现代社会大量的影像和档案记录使得洗白希特勒变得极度困难。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 资源匮乏催生种族屠杀的演化机制 accDescr: 展示环境机遇耗尽、资源紧缩时，族群如何将扩张或清洗机制转化为战争与大屠杀。 subgraph S1["环境与承载力阶段"] A["早期扩张与增长机遇"] --> B["人口增长填满生态位"] B --> C["机遇耗尽产生严重资源匮乏 (Austerity)"] end subgraph S2["潜伏演化程序的触发"] C --> D{"寻找并锁定弱势群体"} D -->|"目标位于国境之外"| E["发动侵略战争夺取外部空间与资源"] D -->|"目标位于国境之内"| F["实施种族大屠杀与内部财富掠夺"] end ``` 韦恩斯坦随后小心翼翼地阐述了自己多年前为著名进化生物学家罗伯特·特里弗斯（Robert Trivers）撰写论文时的核心论点。他强调自己必须极为谨慎，以防言论被恶意曲解。他的核心观点是：希特勒固然是一个十恶不赦的魔鬼，但他是一个“理性的魔鬼”（rational monster）。虽然希特勒口中关于达尔文主义的宣讲错漏百出、混乱不堪，但他在行动层面上却高度符合演化逻辑——冷酷地最大化获取资源，用以壮大自身族群的繁衍。韦恩斯坦发出警告，如果我们天真地以为人类已经就“种族灭绝是邪恶的”达成共识、从而彻底根除了这种冲动，那将极其危险。这种灭绝冲动实际上深植于演化保留的潜伏程序中：当人口因先前的增长红利达到饱和，随后遭遇资源紧缩（Austerity）且无路可走时，群体本能就会寻找弱势人群；若对方在境外便发动战争，若对方在境内便演变成种族屠杀。 - 丹·卡林在 Hardcore History 中曾指出，成吉思汗屠杀了当时世界上约10%的人口，甚至在客观上缩减了人类整体的碳足迹。 - 韦恩斯坦指出，希特勒在意识形态上对达尔文主义的套用是支离破碎且完全错误的，但其行为却符合生物争夺生存资源的冰冷演化算法。 - 韦恩斯坦强调：“The tendency of people is to figure out who what other population is weak and if that population is across a border then there's some excuse for war and if the population is within the border then it's a genocide but the point is that is an ever-present danger for us.”（人们的倾向是去找出哪个族群处于弱势；如果那个族群在边境之外，就会找借口发动战争；如果那个族群在边境之内，那就是一场种族屠杀。关键在于，这对我们而言是一个永远存在的危险。） --- ### [02:22:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8567s) 审视邪恶：亲缘选择与演化资源的冷酷争夺针对韦恩斯坦的观点，彼得森立刻澄清两人的立场其实并无根本冲突。彼得森解释，自己此前在公开演讲中强调“希特勒比我们想象的还要邪恶”，本意同样是警告人们不要把希特勒轻率地塞进一个“他只是个疯子怪物”的标签盒子里而放弃深入反思。彼得森强调研究这种极端罪恶时必须“给予魔鬼应有的评价”（give the devil his due）——希特勒不仅绝非愚笨之辈，而且具备艺术才能、高超的组织动员手腕、极具煽动力的个人魅力，并且在执政初期创造了德国的经济奇迹。韦恩斯坦则指出两人之前分歧的微妙之处：彼得森曾论证希特勒在战局已定、走向败局时，非但没有暂停大屠杀全力投入前线作战，反而加剧了对犹太人的屠杀，这体现了纯粹追求毁灭的邪恶；但韦恩斯坦认为，从冷血的基因演化视角来看，希特勒一直在将有劳动能力的犹太人奴役在集中营中为德国军工服务（如奥斯威辛兼具劳教与灭绝双重属性）。彼得森随即向韦恩斯坦提出一个演化学上的尖锐疑问：生物学界通常认为提高亲缘适应度的范围局限于非常近的亲属，扩展到整个民族在生物学上是否过于牵强？在特定环境下，强行消除种族或族裔差异、追求同质化，是否是一种为了降低自身及后代被消灭概率的生存策略？韦恩斯坦认同这一策略确实存在，因为一个弱小但异质的族群未来可能成长壮大构成威胁。此外，韦恩斯坦批判了传统进化生物学的一个盲区：早期学者为了量化适应度（operationalize fitness），人为地将适应度局限在直系近亲层面，但在逻辑上，这种演化机制绝不会在近亲边界处戛然而止。希特勒掠夺边境内的犹太人、继而为了“生存空间”入侵东欧掠夺斯拉夫人资源，其本质就是通过消除基因较远的群体，为所谓的“雅利安人”腾出资源。基因本身不会思考，也无所谓谁优谁劣，但它们的演化表现就如同在拼命“消灭其他拼写方式的替代基因”。 - 彼得森警告绝对不能低估希特勒的能力：“It's very necessary when you're if you're dealing intelligently with a true monster that you give the devil his due.”（当你理性面对一个真正的恶魔时，给予魔鬼其应有的评价是极其必要的。） - 击退纳粹德国军工机器让苏联付出了极其惨烈的代价，仅正规军人死亡就高达1200万，平民死亡更是数以千万计。 - 韦恩斯坦澄清，所谓“雅利安人基因优越论”纯属无稽之谈，基因没有智力，但在自然选择中会自发运作以取代不同变异序列的等位基因。 --- ### [02:27:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=8867s) 潜伏的基因阴影、夏洛茨维尔冲突与“黑色真理” 彼得森总结韦恩斯坦的推导逻辑：之所以要层层剖析希特勒的理性演化逻辑，是为了警示当代人——希特勒所唤醒并施行的这套黑暗程序，依然潜伏在我们每个人的生物基因可能性之中。韦恩斯坦完全赞同这一结论，但他补充道，这并不意味着每个人成年后都会被其裹挟，许多人坚决拒绝接受这种召唤，但有相当一部分人体内的这套潜伏程序随时会被外界特定信号触发。韦恩斯坦认为这正是当前政局令人担忧的地方，例如唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）非常精明且犬儒地利用了这套潜伏程序为自己的竞选造势，精准迎合了某些渴望听到这种族群信号的选民。在谈到2017年夏洛茨维尔（Charlottesville）极右翼骚乱时，韦恩斯坦指出，特朗普并未像对待普通极端分子那样严厉谴责白人民族主义者，而白人民族主义媒体（如《每日风暴》Daily Stormer）事后更是分析并赞扬了特朗普的表态，庆幸特朗普坚持各打五十大板、声称“双方都有责任”，从而让极右翼免受单独抨击。彼得森对此分享了自己的切身感受。由于他在多伦多的一场言论自由研讨会刚被临时取消，他不得不面对加拿大主流媒体就夏洛茨维尔事件进行回应。彼得森深入剖析了“真理与语境”的复杂性：从统计学分布的客观事实来看，“政治光谱的两极极端群体中都存在令人发指的恶劣行径”这句话本身是完全真实的；然而，脱离时间与突发事件语境去使用这一事实，就会落入道德陷阱。彼得森借此提出了“黑色真理”（Black Truth）的概念——正如无害的欺骗被称为“善意的谎言”（White Lie）一样，以残忍、脱罪或伤害为目的而滥用事实，便构成了一种居心不良的“黑色真理”。 - 极右翼和白人民族主义媒体在夏洛茨维尔事件后对特朗普的发言给予极高评价，称其“双方都有责任”的论调实际上保护了民族主义阵营，并在结尾写下“上帝保佑特朗普”。 - 彼得森针对政治话语中的道德扭曲总结道：“A black truth is when you use the truth in a way that isn't truthful just like a white lie is when you use when you lie in a way that isn't harmful you can use the truth to wound and hurt and what that really means is that you've misused the truth and so it's actually a...” （所谓黑色真理，就是指你以一种并不求真的方式来利用事实；正如善意的谎言是指你以不造成伤害的方式说谎一样，你也完全可以用事实去中伤他人，而这本质上是对真理的滥用……） ### [02:30:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9003s) 特朗普的夏洛茨维尔表态与政治暗示 Bret Weinstein 和 Jordan Peterson 探讨了政治言论中的时机与表达艺术。Bret 认为特朗普在夏洛茨维尔（Charlottesville）事件上的核心失误在于“未能选对发表言论的时间和地点”。他指出，特朗普当时唯一该做的事情就是明确表态： > “I unequivocally denounce the white supremacist racism that emerged in Charlottesville.” —— Bret Weinstein Bret 强调，特朗普说完这句话后就应该闭嘴，等到两周后谈论整个政治格局（比如提及伯克利分校的冲突）时，再客观指出政治极端的两头都有令人不齿的分子。然而，在夏洛茨维尔惨剧发生的当周去各打五十大板，显然是极其不妥的。三人进一步探讨特朗普此举究竟是纯粹的政治拙劣还是故意为之。Joe Rogan 指出，特朗普对待新纳粹和白人至上主义者向来有一种心照不宣的“眨眼与默许”（wink and nod）。节目中检索了新纳粹网站《每日冲锋报》（The Daily Stormer）对特朗普当时言论的反应。极右翼在文章中甚至欢欣鼓舞地写道：特朗普没有攻击我们，只是呼吁国家团结，并称双方都有仇恨，这等于把 Antifa 定性为仇恨者。Joe 引用好友、喜剧演员 Alonzo Bodden 的名言总结这一现象：“并非所有特朗普支持者都是种族主义者，但所有种族主义者都是特朗普支持者。”这种暧昧不清或谴责不力的态度，给予了极右翼巨大的政治心理赋权。 ### [02:32:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9143s) 记者 Faith Goldy 解雇风波与媒体采访伦理随后话题转向了因谴责不力或与极端分子走得太近而引发的职场与公关海啸。Jordan Peterson 提到了加拿大保守派独立媒体 The Rebel Media 旗下的记者 Faith Goldy。Faith 因在夏洛茨维尔事件期间参与了一个与《每日冲锋报》关系密切的极右翼播客（Crypto）而遭到解雇，这一事件也直接导致 The Rebel Media 陷入内讧和解体危机。 Faith 原本被邀请参加一场关于言论自由的座谈会，这也让身为参与者的 Peterson 陷入了极大的伦理困境。Peterson 解释道，记者去采访新纳粹分子本身在新闻学上是可以成立的，关键在于你“如何”去对话： > “You don't allow them to masquerade as friendly innocent people you can't do that and so I would say she damned herself by insufficiently criticizing the villains.” —— Jordan Peterson Peterson 表示自己与儿子反复仔细收听了那期播客，得出的结论是 Faith 完全没有履行批判性记者的职责。整场对话过于友好、和缓，犹如在和“友善的邻居新纳粹”闲聊，她从头到尾没有提出哪怕一两个尖锐、致命的问题来戳穿对方的真实议程。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 记者采访极端分子的两种模式 accDescr: 对比传统尖锐质询与温和沉浸式采访在揭露极端思想时的不同路径 subgraph Direct["正面质询模式 (Peterson 观点)"] A1["接触极端群体"] --> B1["提出尖锐反问与反驳"] B1 --> C1["撕开伪善外衣，揭露真实议程"] end subgraph Embed["温和沉浸模式 (Rogan 观点)"] A2["融入极端群体"] --> B2["展现友好与不设防姿态"] B2 --> C2["对方彻底放松并自我暴露丑陋本质"] end ``` ### [02:34:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9265s) 卧底采访技巧与种族双重标准 Joe Rogan 对 Peterson 的严苛标准提出了不同看法。Joe 举了英国著名纪录片导演 Louis Theroux 为例：Theroux 在拍摄威斯特布路浸信会（Westboro Baptist Church）或山达基教（Scientology）时，从不与被访者进行激烈的正面对抗，而是采用极其礼貌、温和且人畜无害的英伦绅士风格长期与他们生活在一起。正是这种不带攻击性的态度，让那些狂热分子卸下防备，最终在镜头前原形毕露。 Joe 还提到了黑人脱口秀主持人 W. Kamau Bell 在 CNN 节目中采访三K党（KKK）成员的例子。Bell 同样没有大吵大闹，而是放松地与对方开玩笑，从而让观众无比清晰、赤裸地看清了三K党内心的荒谬与丑陋。然而，Joe 敏锐地指出这其中存在身份政治的双重标准： - **身份差异**：如果像 W. Kamau Bell 这样的黑人男性或当年的 Oprah Winfrey 去友好采访三K党，绝不会有人怀疑他们是“同情者”；但如果是白人记者（如 Faith Goldy）采取同样温和的采访策略，就会立刻被贴上同谋的标签。 - **采访功能**：沉浸式观察并呈现极端分子真实的自我认知，本身就是一种极具价值的公众沟通方式。社会需要提高对这类新闻报道的包容阈值，而不是一味要求记者当场进行言语决斗。 Peterson 承认温和引导确实有其价值，但他坚持认为记者绝不能放弃最基本的批判性警惕，哪怕是在友好的氛围中，也必须有一记致命的“毒蛇反噬”（snake bite）来揭示底线。 ### [02:38:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9509s) 极右翼陷阱与 Peterson 阻断激进化的努力对话由此延伸到更为复杂的思想版图治理上。Peterson 坦言，自己之所以经常被媒体抹黑为“极右翼”（far-right）或“另类右翼”（alt-right），正是因为他愿意去接触和对话那些社交网络偏向右翼、甚至让大众感到不安的群体。 Peterson 强调，当下的“反左翼阵营”（anti-left spectrum）非常混乱迷茫，存在迅速向极右翼滑落的巨大危险。许多年轻人仅仅是因为受够了主流文化中无休止的“隐性种族歧视”指责，就被推向了政治光谱的边缘。Peterson 认为自己的使命正是搭建一座缓冲桥梁： > “Look you can be anti radical left without falling all the way into the far right and here's how you might do it but that means I have to talk to them.” —— Jordan Peterson 他指出，如果想要挽救这些处于思想滑坡路径上的年轻人，向他们展示“既能反对激进左翼、又无需投奔极右翼”的健康道路，他就必须亲自走进这片舆论雷区与他们对话，哪怕这会让自己承受来自主流媒体的误解与指责。 ### [02:39:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9575s) 佩佩蛙模因、极左指控与幽默对缺乏幽默感者的瓦解对话继续探讨与特定群体对话时所面临的“株连式污名化”风险。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出，强硬极左派目前存在一个巨大的问题，就是对流行文化的过度定罪。他以网络上著名的“佩佩蛙”（Pepe the Frog）模因为例，分享了一段亲身经历：曾有人做了一张乔·罗根本人的佩佩蛙形象模因，罗根觉得好玩便随手转推，结果立刻有人留言指控他：“你刚刚承认了自己是个纳粹，因为你发了佩佩蛙。”罗根对此感到匪夷所思，直言网上几乎每一个名人都被恶搞成过佩佩蛙，这种乱扣帽子的行为本身正是当前社会矛盾的催化剂，会激起公众强烈的反弹与愤怒。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 佩佩蛙模因争议逻辑链 accDescription: 从幽默反讽到被意识形态机构定性为仇恨符号的过程机制 subgraph MemeContext ["网络模因与戏谑文化"] A["绝大多数网民使用佩佩蛙 / Kekistan"] --> B["防御性幽默与荒诞反讽"] B --> C["让缺乏幽默感的教条主义者陷入认知混乱"] end subgraph IdeologicalReaction ["极端政治审判与机构介入"] C --> D["极左与教条主义者指控其为纳粹 / 白人至上主义"] D --> E["SPLC 等机构定性为仇恨符号"] E --> F["中间理性思考空间被全面挤压清除"] end ``` 布雷特·韦恩斯坦（Bret Weinstein）提起乔·罗根此前用过的一个词——“防御性幽默”（defensive humor）。韦恩斯坦精准地剖析了佩佩蛙以及类似网络戏谑之所以具有如此强大杀伤力的核心原因。他指出，这类模因之所以极其有效，是因为它能让那些毫无幽默感的人彻底自乱阵脚，正如布雷特·韦恩斯坦所说：“这类模因的威力在于，它让那些没有幽默感的人自己把自己缠成死结，而这正是这些模因被大量创造出来的核心原因。”乔·罗根与乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）对此高度认同。罗根坦言，在讨论这只青蛙时人们甚至会产生某种心理恐惧，害怕自己说漏了什么不为人知的网络暗号而被扣上罪名，但现实中绝大多数网民只是用它来嘲讽那些不懂幽默、过度严肃的人；所谓的“克基斯坦”（Kekistan）亚文化群体，其本质绝大多数也纯粹是一种网络恶搞和幽默反讽。 - 乔·罗根提到自己因转发一张网友自制的“罗根版佩佩蛙”图片，被推特网友直接定性为纳粹分子。 - 乔丹·彼得森赞同韦恩斯坦的判断，认为戏谑与荒诞正是对抗教条化语境的有力工具。 --- ### [02:41:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9674s) 滑坡谬误与中间立场的被吞噬：从米老鼠到仇恨符号乔·罗根进一步分析了将网络模因上纲上线的荒谬性。他表示自己曾专门在 Google 上仔细搜寻过佩佩蛙的图片，确实存在极少数令人作呕的恶劣图例，包括身穿纳粹军服或反犹太人的极端内容，但网络本身是没有统一指挥的，绝大多数图片纯粹是搞笑和滑稽。罗根举出早期“米老鼠”（Mickey Mouse）动画作为对比：在当年的时代背景下，早期米老鼠动画中充斥着对黑人极其夸张、带有大嘴唇和涂黑脸（blackface）的刻板丑化，如果按照现在的定罪逻辑，任何人截个图都可以声称“米老鼠骨子里是个彻头彻尾的种族主义者，大家千万别去迪士尼乐园”。乔·罗根警告这种思维会导致可怕的滑坡谬误：“先是他们针对佩佩蛙，如果连一只卡通青蛙都是种族主义，你接下来会怀疑还有什么不是种族主义。”任何存在于世间的事物，只要有人想，都可以被制作成带有种族主义意味的卡通，但这绝不代表这个符号本身就是恶。然而，南方贫困法律中心（SPLC，Southern Poverty Law Center）却正式将佩佩蛙列为“仇恨符号”。罗根愤怒地批评这种做法让普通人退无可退，不仅把一件 99% 用于搞笑的事物扣上仇恨符号的帽子，甚至直接将其升级为纳粹和白人至上主义的图腾，这表现出建制机构完全丧失了理性。布雷特·韦恩斯坦深刻地总结了这种极端二元对立的危害。他指出，这种上纲上线的扣帽机制正在彻底抹杀理性讨论的余地，正如布雷特·韦恩斯坦所指出的：“他们正在榨干他们那荒谬透顶的视角与光谱另一端梦魇之间的所有中间空间，而关键在于，我们几乎所有人都生活在那个中间空间里。”乔·罗根随之附和，思想本身应当具备弹性与多样性，将特定极少数恶意人士的行为直接判定为整个符号或所有使用者的罪行，完全抹杀了中间理性的大多数。 - 早期米老鼠动画曾包含针对黑人的夸张丑化和涂黑脸形象，反映了当时的时代局限，但公众并未因此全盘将米老鼠与迪士尼定义为仇恨化身。 - 南方贫困法律中心（SPLC）将佩佩蛙归类为仇恨符号的举动，被罗根批评为脱离现实的非理性狂热。 --- ### [02:43:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9828s) 意识形态扔石头与播客终结乔·罗根感叹，今天整个社会居然还在为一只滑稽的青蛙争论不休，这赤裸裸地暴露了当下的公共话语在意识形态泥潭中陷得有多深。当前的政治讨论完全沦为极端左派与极端右派站在球场的两端相互扔石头，而绝大多数正常人其实都处在球场的中间地带。正如乔·罗根所总结的那样：“如果我们连最基本的讨论都无法进行，那一切真的毫无希望了。” 在沉重而发人深省的讨论之后，三人相视一笑，认为这恰好是一个极佳的收尾契机。乔·罗根向两位嘉宾表达了由衷的感谢，盛赞这次交流非常有趣、思想密集，并庆幸他们能聚在一起促成这场高强度的深度对谈。在节目的最后，罗根让两位学者再次向观众介绍自己的社交账号： - 乔丹·彼得森给出了自己的 Twitter 账号：`@jordanbpeterson`。 - 布雷特·韦恩斯坦确认自己的 Twitter 账号为：`@BretWeinstein`。罗根还在现场打趣韦恩斯坦兄弟的名字发音（Weinstein），开玩笑说布雷特和他的哥哥埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）可不是完全互换的。在一片欢笑和道谢声中，乔·罗根向全网观众道晚安，伴随着标志性的片尾音乐，第 1006 期《乔·罗根体验》正式落下帷幕。 ## Notable quotes > [01:45:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=6323s) You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it's too intense, then things destabilize. — Jordan Peterson > [01:30:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5420s) It just does not take account of what the human being is and what makes society function. — Bret Weinstein > [01:26:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=5199s) You actually technically cannot be both of those things at the same time. — Jordan Peterson > [02:38:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9509s) Look you can be anti radical left without falling all the way into the far right and here's how you might do it but that means I have to talk to them. — Jordan Peterson > [02:43:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI&t=9828s) 如果我们连最基本的讨论都无法进行，那一切真的毫无希望了。 — 乔·罗根 > 他们正在榨干他们那荒谬透顶的视角与光谱另一端梦魇之间的所有中间空间，而关键在于，我们几乎所有人都生活在那个中间空间里。 — 布雷特·韦恩斯坦 ## Mentioned Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Joe Rogan, Karl Marx, The Odyssey, Price's Law, Vilfredo Pareto, Che Guevara, Head Start Program, Mayo Clinic, Adam Ruins Everything, Dan Carlin, Hardcore History, Adolf Hitler, Robert Trivers, Donald Trump, The Daily Stormer, Faith Goldy, The Rebel Media, Louis Theroux, W. Kamau Bell, Oprah Winfrey, Alonzo Bodden, Antifa, Pepe the Frog, Kekistan, Southern Poverty Law Center, Mickey Mouse, Google, Uber, Apple, YouTube, Twitter, Eric Weinstein ## Video description Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and tenured professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. You can check out all Dr. Peterson's self-improvement writing programs at www.selfauthoring.com Bret Weinstein is a biology professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. Currently he is in the middle of an intense controversy that has been documented by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and several other mainstream media outlets. Sign up for a free crash course on Evolutionary Thinking at http://bretweinstein.net/early [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G59zsjM2UI)

Source quotes

[105:23] Jordan Peterson: You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it's too intense, then things destabilize. [90:20] Bret Weinstein: It just does not take account of what the human being is and what makes society function. [86:39] Jordan Peterson: You actually technically cannot be both of those things at the same time. [158:29] Jordan Peterson: Look you can be anti radical left without falling all the way into the far right and here's how you might do it but that means I have to talk to them. [163:48] 乔·罗根: 如果我们连最基本的讨论都无法进行，那一切真的毫无希望了。布雷特·韦恩斯坦: 他们正在榨干他们那荒谬透顶的视角与光谱另一端梦魇之间的所有中间空间，而关键在于，我们几乎所有人都生活在那个中间空间里。

Source quotes

[102:53] Jordan Peterson: You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it's too intense then things destabilize. [115:53] Bret Weinstein: Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do something really well... but what they're terrible at is telling you what you should want or what you should do. [16:11] Jordan Peterson: People think of conservatives or fascists as afraid of those who are different. They're not afraid; they're disgusted. And that's not the same thing, because you burn things you're disgusted by. [32:37] Bret Weinstein: It is not possible for male genes to gang up on female genes, because all of our genes spend half their time in male bodies and half their time in female bodies. [108:10] Jordan Peterson: The fundamental problem is that human beings in some sense are beasts of burden, and if they're not provided with a place where they can accept social and individual responsibility in an honourable manner, they degenerate and die. [112:17] Jordan Peterson: When you radically make things egalitarian you're gonna wipe out all your productive people and then you're gonna starve. [78:27] Jordan Peterson: Human beings needed to figure out how to act without dying before they could understand the nature of the world well enough to justify that. [10:38] Bret Weinstein: Evolution is an absolutely amoral process. It has produced the most marvelous features of human beings and the worst features, and we are in some sense obligated to pick and choose which features to honor and promote and which ones to tamp down.

Original transcript

[0:00] getting bigger but the video part is [0:01] getting to a larger percentage 3 2 1 [0:07] gentlemen we're live here we go [0:10] Jordan Peterson Bret Weinstein how are [0:12] you guys doing very well thanks for [0:14] coming in to be here how excited to have [0:15] you in hey should be funny you're spiffy [0:17] you make us look very slubby what are [0:20] you doing what can I say man you know I [0:22] only brought a limited number of clothes [0:24] well good move you look great and good [0:28] to see you guys both of you and so whose [0:30] idea was that to do this first of all so [0:32] just uh I think it was I think it was [0:34] Brett's yeah I saw a tweet of Jordans [0:38] about or maybe it wasn't a tweet I did [0:40] see a YouTube clip that somebody tweeted [0:42] I don't know if it was you your [0:44] perspective on on Hitler and your [0:49] argument was that he was actually even [0:51] far worse than his reputation would lead [0:53] us to believe and it's funny it it [0:57] harkens back to my first evolutionary [1:00] project as an undergraduate I was [1:01] working with Bob Trevor's who's went the [1:04] leading evolutionary minds of the 20th [1:06] century he was I was lucky enough to [1:08] have him as an undergraduate advisor [1:09] pull this sucker right up to your face [1:11] because he's gonna turn sideways cause [1:12] we're looking at each other next to each [1:14] other yeah yeah okay so anyway I did a [1:18] project with Bob on analyzing the [1:22] Holocaust from an evolutionary [1:23] perspective I wanted to test the [1:25] question about whether you know at the [1:27] time it was it was commonplace for [1:30] people to say that Hitler was crazy and [1:32] there was something that bothered me [1:33] about that analysis I think there's [1:35] something actually dangerous that we [1:37] dismiss somebody like Hitler as crazy [1:39] before we understand actually what [1:41] they're up to so when I saw your your [1:44] video clip I thought it would be worth [1:46] having a discussion so that we could [1:48] figure out what perspective makes sense [1:51] that sounds like an awesome topic but [1:53] before we get to that I would really [1:54] like to know what's going on with you [1:56] because you're at the center of this [1:58] crazy controversy of Evergreen State [2:00] College you essentially left the area [2:04] you're suing the college now so where do [2:08] you stand now we have not yet filed suit [2:12] and in fact [2:12] I'll talk about what took place inside [2:15] the negotiation but we had our first [2:16] sit-down with the college yesterday and [2:20] this was a attempt to avert a suit but I [2:25] will say from where I sit as hard as [2:30] this is to believe it appears that the [2:32] college has learned nothing from this [2:34] episode and that it is doubling down on [2:37] the same foolish sets of beliefs and [2:40] assumptions that got it into trouble in [2:41] the first place so that that is not a [2:44] hopeful situation no and for anybody [2:46] that's not aware of what this whole [2:48] story is about you would either have to [2:49] go back to Bret's podcast that we did a [2:51] few months back or please just Google [2:53] Evergreen State University and Google [2:56] Bret and you will be blown away by the [2:58] incent it's social justice warrior gone [3:01] amuck the whole campus kids patrolling [3:05] the campus with baseball bats I mean the [3:08] whole thing is just completely bananas [3:10] the president of the university being [3:12] told by the children not to use his [3:15] hands when he's speaking because it's a [3:16] microaggression so he puts his hands [3:19] down the children start cheering and [3:20] laughing they don't realize they're [3:22] being played the whole thing is just [3:24] some crazy grand game by the children [3:28] and I'm calling them children I don't [3:29] give a [ __ ] how old they are to have [3:32] power over people I means essentially [3:34] what this is all boiled down to and you [3:35] really see it in that moment where they [3:37] tell him to put his hands down and he [3:39] does and they laugh and cheer and think [3:41] it's amazing well you know they're [3:43] educated to do that to some degree [3:45] because one of the tenants of the [3:46] post-modernism that they're being [3:48] spoon-fed is that there's no such [3:49] there's nothing but power that's the [3:52] only thing that mediates relationships [3:53] between people because there's no real [3:55] world everything's a social construct [3:58] and it's a landscape of conflict between [4:01] groups that's that's the postmodern [4:02] world and the only the only actual means [4:06] of expression is power that's what [4:08] that's why the post modernists make the [4:10] claim constantly that the patriarchy is [4:12] a corrupt institution because they look [4:14] at hierarchical organizations and [4:16] they're stratified obviously there's [4:17] people at the top and people at the [4:18] bottom the only reason that there are [4:20] people at the top is because they [4:21] dominate by power there's no there's no [4:24] philosophy of authority or competence [4:26] that's all gone and so and and if you're [4:29] cynical about that sort of thing and you [4:31] should be you might say that part of the [4:34] reason that the only thing that the post [4:35] modernists believe in his power is [4:37] because that helps them justify their [4:38] arbitrary use of it under any [4:39] circumstances whatsoever and I think [4:42] that's right [4:42] I think that's exactly what happened so [4:45] it's not surprising that that you see [4:47] this manifested in mob-like behavior of [4:49] the students it's right in accordance [4:51] with everything they're being taught so [4:54] well they're also being taught and this [4:56] sort of any means necessary [4:58] to to get over the establishment like [5:00] the establishment is this horrible [5:02] institution and they could justify [5:03] pretty much anything yeah this is what [5:05] like punch a Nazi who's a Nazi everybody [5:08] that doesn't agree with you [5:09] I mean it's essentially what's what's [5:11] being said ad nauseam in in social [5:15] justice warrior circles online in eec [5:18] I've seen punch of Nazi so many times I [5:20] mean but when it came down to [5:22] Charlottesville's there was very little [5:24] punching of Nazis you know the whole [5:26] thing was like it's all it's all very [5:27] insane we see real Nazis those are real [5:30] Nazis you know yeah go [ __ ] punch [5:33] them please [5:34] you know before we've also I think don't [5:36] even do that by the way right well I [5:38] think we've already figured out everyone [5:40] right from the right to the left [5:42] everyone's figured out that wherever the [5:44] Nazis went that was wrong [5:46] we all agreed on that we're not going [5:48] there anymore and so when someone pops [5:50] up and says well we should go there it's [5:51] like they're immediately identifiable [5:54] you can box them in and if you have any [5:55] sense like you know like many [5:57] conservatives did in the aftermath of [5:59] the Charlottesville they come out and [6:00] say well in case it needs to be said [6:02] again we're actually not allied with [6:04] those people yeah well that's one of [6:06] them that was the most disturbing thing [6:08] for many people about Donald Trump's [6:10] reaction to it that he didn't take a [6:11] hard stance against these white [6:13] supremacists showing up with tiki [6:14] torches walking to the street yelling [6:16] anti-semitic phrases or whatever I don't [6:19] know exactly what they're yelling I've [6:21] read a bunch of different things but the [6:22] whole thing was a is it a bomb in [6:24] ancient I mean it was a horrific thing [6:26] to watch and you know Donald Trump comes [6:29] out and says there was horrible behavior [6:31] on all sides yeah well I thought I [6:33] thought about that for a lot because I [6:35] got tangled up with that in a strange [6:37] way in Canada I was supposed [6:40] appear on a panel a panel discussing the [6:44] suppression of free speech on university [6:45] campuses which was then promptly [6:47] cancelled by the university that was [6:49] going to host it in the aftermath of [6:51] Charlottesville partly because one of [6:52] the panelists was going to be faith [6:54] Goldie who was the journalist that was [6:56] covering Charlottesville and got the [6:58] footage of the of the car and and the [7:00] damage but we we were targeted [7:06] immediately afterward with the Nazi [7:08] epithet and Ryerson cut shut down the [7:10] shut down the free speech panel so it's [7:13] coming up again and nobody does you were [7:15] targeted as Nazis yeah yeah yeah what [7:18] happened was this this this this this [7:21] person put up a Facebook page and used a [7:24] swastika with an O you know like a [7:27] circle with a line through it and said [7:29] no fascists no fascists at Ryerson [7:31] essentially but she used the swastika [7:33] and she got a bunch of people rallied [7:36] together to pressure the university [7:38] administration into counseling the event [7:40] which they promptly did and then they [7:42] had a celebration party the night of the [7:44] event and this is here something that [7:45] was really interesting so they got a [7:47] couple I think a couple of hundred [7:49] people out to the celebration at Ryerson [7:51] and they they were united under the [7:54] banner of the hammer and sickle and were [7:56] calling for revolution and what was so [7:58] interesting about that and I really mean [8:00] technically that it was interesting was [8:02] that the mainstream media said virtually [8:05] nothing about the fact that these let's [8:07] call them counter protesters I don't [8:09] know exactly how you'd term them had [8:11] come out under this murderous symbol and [8:12] that's made me think like I can't figure [8:15] out why the swastika is an immediate [8:19] identifier of a pathological personality [8:22] and the hammer and sickle isn't there's [8:24] actually a reason it isn't just [8:26] arbitrary and I think maybe it's [8:28] something like the Nazi is the guy who [8:31] knifes you in the alley and steals your [8:32] wallet and the communist is the [8:34] white-collar criminal who takes your [8:36] pension and you're actually more afraid [8:38] of the first person then the second [8:40] person because the damage they do is [8:41] more proximal and a meat and emotionally [8:43] recognizable but that's the second guy [8:46] who takes your pension for example he's [8:48] perhaps even more dangerous but there's [8:50] a there's a bloodiness about the Nazi [8:52] symbol and [8:54] immediate emotional impact that the [8:55] hammer and sickle just doesn't produce [8:56] and and some of that's because people [8:58] are badly educated historic events it is [9:00] pure ignorance I don't think it's just [9:02] ignorance no I think that the people [9:04] that are wearing those Che Guevara [9:06] t-shirts really understand the history [9:07] of Che Guevara or do you think he [9:09] represents this sexy South American [9:11] counter-protest character a guy who [9:14] stands up to the establishment as we [9:16] know it a guy was wearing a green beret [9:18] wearing a beret hiding in the jungle [9:20] fighting against the oppressive [9:23] dictatorship of America I mean that's [9:25] what that's what they're looking at when [9:26] they see what well the the fact that [9:29] historical ignorance plays a role in [9:31] this is absolutely certain and I think [9:33] the romanticization of people like Che [9:34] Guevara is exactly I think you nailed [9:36] that exactly but I do think there's a [9:38] deeper question here it's like I was [9:41] thinking in the aftermath of [9:42] Charlottesville many conservatives [9:43] immediately divorced themselves from the [9:45] Nazis ben shapiro was a good example [9:47] yeah and and it was very much [9:49] reminiscent of William F Buckley [9:50] divorcing himself from the John Birch [9:52] Society back in the 1960s the right-wing [9:55] seems it seems to be easier for the [9:57] right-wing to draw a line around the [9:58] Nazis and say no that's not us partly [10:01] because the right-wingers conservatives [10:02] are better at drawing boundaries but you [10:04] know let's say we wanted to draw a [10:06] boundary around the radical leftists [10:08] okay point to something well on the [10:11] right you say well you were a swastika [10:12] yeah you're out of the club man right on [10:13] the left well you believe what's the [10:16] smoking pistol you believe in equity [10:18] it's like that's that's a smoking pistol [10:20] as far as I'm concerned but it doesn't [10:22] have the same emotional punch as you [10:24] wore a swastika to the protest yeah you [10:26] believe in equity and you refuse to [10:28] define it that would be right right but [10:31] that's such a wait there's no punch in [10:33] that it's like well I'm not going to [10:34] associate with you because you believe [10:36] in equity it's like it's too complicated [10:37] hmm that's right [10:38] um I do want to back us up here though [10:40] because the I think we underrate the [10:44] danger of and I think Nazis are a red [10:48] herring there is something that actually [10:50] does threaten to reemerge and [10:52] Charlottesville is a version of it but I [10:56] think because we have a cartoon [10:57] understanding of what that protest was [11:01] actually about and how many people are [11:03] actually involved we don't really see [11:05] why this is a dangerous and [11:08] just issue and I think the answer is an [11:11] evolutionary one that hasn't been [11:14] spelled out and because it hasn't been [11:16] spelled out it's very hard to point to [11:18] I'd like to keep interrupting you but [11:20] just get this right up to your face it [11:21] sounds good to us but the people [11:22] listening online or is that better yeah [11:24] just when you turn to him just turn the [11:26] thing with you okay yeah just get it you [11:28] always keep it a fist from your face [11:29] that's the best uh sorry that's all [11:32] right so explain what you mean by this [11:34] so my point would be that what took [11:37] place in Germany in the 30s was a [11:41] particularly particularly visible well [11:48] documented example of a pattern that is [11:50] much more common in human history [11:52] and because this pattern emerges as a [11:55] result of certain features of the way [11:58] evolution functions in the context of [12:00] humans it is actually always a danger [12:03] that it will re-emerge and knowing what [12:05] to do about it is not so simple until [12:09] you've seen why it occurs and what it [12:12] means what I what I've been saying in [12:15] lectures I've given on this is that [12:18] tyranny is the end game of prosperity [12:21] and so there is a pattern in which you [12:23] will go through a period of prosperous [12:25] Ness in which it appears that that thing [12:27] is defeated once and for all there's no [12:29] reason for people to be going after each [12:31] other in this particular way and then at [12:33] the point that that pattern Peters out [12:35] it reimagined people don't expect it it [12:38] flies under a different flag or [12:39] something like that [12:40] and so I do think that looking at the [12:43] tiny number of people who were doing [12:45] what they were doing in Charlottesville [12:48] and saying well that's we all agree that [12:51] this is wrong misses the fact that [12:54] actually I think Trump is doing it [12:56] cynically but Trump was riding a wave [12:59] that there are there are ideas which are [13:01] not permissible from the environments in [13:04] which we all grew up that are going to [13:06] become permissible again if we are not [13:08] careful to recognize that that's that's [13:11] the nature of history I think I think [13:12] it's highly probable that that's going [13:14] to occur I mean part of the reason that [13:16] I landed in the political hot water that [13:19] I landed in last year was because [13:22] was increasingly aware that this process [13:24] of polarization was going to take place [13:25] and that the continual in my estimation [13:28] anyways the continual clawing of new [13:32] ground underneath a radical leftist [13:34] rubric especially in the universities is [13:36] is starting to produce an [13:38] extraordinarily dangerous counter [13:40] position and that was manifest at least [13:43] to some degree in charlottesville and so [13:45] I think you're right is that well I you [13:47] don't want to be complacent say well we [13:49] know who the Nazis are and we're not [13:50] going there and so the problem is solved [13:52] the problem isn't solved there's all [13:53] sorts of weird activity in the non [13:57] radical left space like on the other [14:00] side of the radical left whatever that [14:02] is and right now what it is is not [14:04] obvious you know it's it's the alt lab [14:06] all right that's part of it it's the [14:08] kickass danny's it's this peppy thing [14:10] it's it's some of its comedy some of its [14:12] satire some of its serious some of its [14:14] the inversion of identity politics which [14:17] is very dangerous and it's maybe the [14:19] most dangerous thing about [14:20] charlottesville is that there's [14:22] something there's something [14:23] extraordinarily dangerous about having [14:25] people revert to identification with [14:27] their racial identity it's really not a [14:30] good thing [14:30] well there's the reversion to their [14:33] racial identity there's basically an [14:35] outbreak of tribalism which explains [14:37] what's going on on the far right what's [14:39] going on on the left is a bit of a new [14:42] twist what you have is a coalition of [14:44] different tribal identities that aren't [14:46] large enough to marshal a force on their [14:49] own and so they're united and together [14:52] they are a formidable force but what's [14:55] going to happen is that something that's [14:57] an unstable [14:58] entity at the point that that force [15:00] gains power it's going to come apart [15:01] internal dynamics rip it up so it's not [15:05] actually a it's not capable of [15:10] restraining the version that recurs on [15:14] the right the version that does manifest [15:16] as as white nationalism that version is [15:20] stable because it does represent an [15:22] actual population that has an [15:25] evolutionary basis for remaining [15:27] cohesive and I should point out there is [15:29] a danger when you hear an evolutionary [15:32] biologist talk about evolutionary [15:34] patterns peep [15:35] often infer that if an evolutionary [15:37] biologist is saying that something is a [15:39] pattern that has evolved that that's [15:41] some kind of a defense and it is [15:42] absolutely not we call this the [15:43] naturalistic fallacy so evolution is an [15:46] absolutely amoral process it has [15:48] produced the most marvelous features of [15:51] human beings and the worst features and [15:52] we are in some sense obligated to pick [15:55] and choose which features to honor and [15:57] and promote and which ones to tamp down [15:59] something can have something can have [16:01] evolved as a virtue in some [16:03] circumstances and still be of the type [16:06] that if magnified beyond its proper [16:08] limits becomes pathological so let me [16:11] tell you something I learned about [16:12] Hitler which really I haven't recovered [16:14] from my shock from this so we've been [16:17] looking at the relationship between [16:18] political belief and personality okay [16:21] and your political belief is strongly [16:23] determined by your temperament so [16:24] liberal left types are high and trade [16:26] openness that's creativity and low in [16:28] conscientiousness but you can fragment [16:30] conscientiousness up into [16:31] industriousness and orderliness and the [16:33] real predictor for conservatism is an [16:35] orderliness not industriousness and you [16:38] might think well that's no surprise [16:38] right wingers are more orderly hence [16:41] Hitler's call for order let's say but [16:42] it's one thing to to posit that and [16:46] another thing to measure it and now it's [16:48] measurable and it appears that [16:50] orderliness is associated with [16:52] sensitivity to disgust and this is [16:55] actually a really big deal it's a really [16:57] big deal so there's a paper that was [16:58] published in PLoS ONE about three years [17:01] ago looking at the relationship between [17:02] the prevalence of infectious diseases [17:05] and authoritarian political attitudes [17:06] and they did a country-by-country and [17:09] then within countries by state or [17:11] province and the correlation between the [17:13] prevalence of infectious diseases and [17:15] authoritarian / right-wing political [17:17] beliefs at the local individual level [17:19] was 0.6 and so I want to take this apart [17:22] a little bit okay so the idea is that [17:25] this is part of what you might describe [17:28] as the extended behavioral immune system [17:30] and one of the problems with the [17:32] interactions between groups of human [17:33] beings in our evolutionary past was well [17:36] exactly what happened to the Native [17:37] Americans is you know they came out and [17:39] shook hands with the Spanish [17:40] conquistadors and then within a couple [17:42] of generations 90% of them were dead of [17:44] smallpox and measles and mumps and so [17:46] it's been a truism in our [17:49] they passed that if you meet a group of [17:51] isolated if you're a group of isolated [17:54] humans and you meet another group of [17:55] isolated humans and you trade pathogens [17:57] there's a real possibility that you and [17:59] everyone you know are going to be dead [18:01] in no time flat [18:02] and so we have a discussed mechanism [18:05] that that produces this implicit let's [18:09] call it racial racial and ethnic bias [18:11] that is part and parcel of the human [18:13] cognitive landscape but the problem with [18:15] that is that it's rooted in a discussed [18:16] mechanism that actually serve as a [18:18] protective function now when I was [18:20] sorting this out I was reading Hitler's [18:22] Table Talk and Hitler's Table Talk is a [18:24] very interesting book it's a book of his [18:27] spontaneous mealtime utterances from [18:29] 1939 to 1940 - and I went through with [18:33] this new knowledge because people think [18:35] of conservatives as a like or fascists [18:37] as afraid of those who are different [18:38] they're not afraid they're disgusted and [18:40] that's not the same thing because you [18:42] burn things you're disgusted by and so [18:45] it was terrifying to me to read it [18:46] because then I also thought oh well [18:48] disgust sensitivity is associated with [18:50] orderliness and you need order in a [18:52] society in order to maintain it and the [18:54] Germans are very orderly and that was [18:56] actually a canonical part of their [18:57] civilization and part of actually what [18:59] makes them great and powerful and that [19:01] just had to tilt a little farther than [19:03] necessary and all of a sudden everything [19:06] needed to be get cleaned and you know [19:08] Hitler talked about cleanliness all the [19:09] time and he actually meant that and so [19:11] this thing that's emerging you know you [19:13] talked about its biological basis its [19:15] evolutionary basis it is it's part of [19:17] this deeply rooted discussed system that [19:20] protects us from dangerous pathogens [19:22] that can manifest itself and does [19:23] manifest itself in the political realm [19:25] it's not good so he I don't know exactly [19:29] how to tease this apart but I agree with [19:32] your point about there's an actual [19:33] danger when populations meet like a [19:35] literal pathogen danger and that that is [19:38] liable to have produced a certain [19:39] instinctive fear of the other which [19:43] doesn't have to be limited to that one [19:45] thing but that's enough to generate a [19:46] selective force that would cause a [19:48] certain reluctance to meet but I want I [19:53] want to point out that at least in the [19:55] West and probably universally human [19:57] beings when they go to war tend to [20:00] dehumanize the other population [20:02] and you know so of course calling the [20:05] the other population subhuman Vermin [20:08] whatever it is that that human beings do [20:09] and my concern is that we are doing [20:11] exactly this with the Nazis or de facto [20:15] Nazis who are showing up on on our [20:19] screens at this point that what we are [20:21] doing is we are comforting ourselves by [20:23] saying well that's a small outbreak of [20:25] something that makes these people [20:26] subhuman and justifies punching them or [20:29] whatever and I'm you know I'm not [20:30] squeamish about there being a right to [20:33] violence when somebody is threatening a [20:36] way of life so it's not that but my [20:39] concern is that if you take the pathogen [20:42] model and you imagine that all those [20:44] folks who showed up in charlottesville [20:45] that that is a contagion and it needs to [20:48] be isolated then you will have the sense [20:50] that as long as you do that it's not [20:52] going to show up somewhere else whereas [20:54] what's I think the the actual hazard is [21:00] that that's actually a latent program [21:02] that has served populations in past [21:05] circumstances it's indefensible but it [21:07] has served populations and the [21:09] populations that we come from have it [21:11] therefore on reserve and when certain [21:13] characteristics show up in the [21:15] environment that program can emerge and [21:17] so my concern is that that's where we [21:19] are in right it can't be isolated as a [21:21] phenomena that's associated with the [21:23] other right in one of the things I've [21:24] done for decades is teach my students a [21:27] variant of that which is something like [21:29] because we I try to walk them through [21:31] understanding psychological [21:33] understanding of what happened in Nazi [21:34] Germany and in the more intense [21:36] situations like in places like in [21:38] Auschwitz so the question might be well [21:40] if you were in Germany than the 1930s [21:42] could you be a constant concentration [21:43] camp guard and the gut reaction to that [21:45] is no those people are unlike me and [21:47] that's the wrong response the right [21:49] response is those people were human and [21:52] I'm also human and so that means that [21:54] the Nazi is us that's what it means and [21:57] so that and who the hell wants to think [21:59] that and no one will think that and I [22:01] have thought that through because I [22:02] thought through for a variety of reasons [22:04] what the limits of my potential behavior [22:08] are and the limits of my potential and [22:10] maybe I'm more pathological than the [22:11] average person it's certainly possible [22:12] but I understand that the limits of my [22:15] potential behavior are [22:16] beyond the bounds of what people would [22:18] normally consider civilized and I think [22:20] that's characteristic of human beings in [22:21] general well so I mean you know looking [22:24] oh go ahead no I was gonna say I think [22:26] this is one of the things that really [22:27] highlights the importance of having [22:29] uncensored discussions because we've [22:31] we've already hit on so many hot topics [22:35] to the point where you have to like [22:37] really clarify your position and and [22:39] when you're talking about this sort of [22:41] latent program in in in human beings and [22:44] the necessity for it at one point in [22:46] time like all these things are very [22:48] taboo to discuss today and this is a [22:50] giant issue because what you guys are [22:52] doing is talking about things [22:54] objectively reasonably logically and and [22:58] clearly but when you get to these sort [23:01] of hysterical subjects that's that's [23:05] sort of forbidden today and there's a [23:06] giant issue with that because when you [23:09] have forbidden discussions you energize [23:12] those topics and the the topics grow in [23:15] the absence of discussion in the absence [23:17] of being picked apart and analyzing them [23:19] for what their core components are and [23:22] what are we talking about it from an [23:23] evolutionary perspective this is very [23:25] very important because these patterns [23:27] are really do see that and I think with [23:31] any one of us given the wrong [23:33] neighberhood the wrong parents the wrong [23:36] life we might have been one of those [23:38] [ __ ] with the tiki torches in [23:40] charlotte i mean it's where human beings [23:41] like you said i think that is absolutely [23:44] critical to discuss well and it's also [23:46] there's there's another thing going on [23:48] right now i've been trying to [23:50] characterize the state of the [23:53] sociological and psychological landscape [23:55] that we all inhabit right now and i [23:58] think we're in a position of radical [24:00] instability and things in the future [24:02] could be way better than they are right [24:03] now radically and they could be way [24:05] worse than they are and small decisions [24:08] are going small to small decisions that [24:10] people make are going to have outsized [24:12] effects well they make them like look at [24:14] what happened with this guy in [24:15] Charlottesville you know this was I mean [24:17] I know he was surrounded by a coterie of [24:20] deplorable --zz let's say but it was one [24:22] guy who decided to do something [24:24] murderous and that shifted the whole [24:25] political landscape and and and so what [24:28] I see happening right now is the [24:30] we're surrounded by these interactions [24:32] between people that are positive [24:33] feedback loops you know and a positive [24:36] feedback loop occurs when if you do [24:38] something then it makes whatever caused [24:40] that occur even in a greater way and the [24:42] polarization is like that so I say [24:44] something left like and you say [24:46] something right like and that annoys me [24:48] so I get more left and it annoys you and [24:50] you get more right and all of a sudden [24:51] were at each other's throats and that's [24:53] happening everywhere right it's very [24:54] unstable and what what's to be hoped for [24:57] is that we can pull back from that and [25:00] discuss it we can say look you know [25:02] under a circumstance a I could have been [25:04] a communist Inquisitor or Nazi prison [25:06] guard I need to know that and then I [25:09] need to know what were the situations [25:11] that made that likely and then I need to [25:12] know how should I conduct myself so [25:14] that's less possible and the only way we [25:16] can figure that out is to have the kind [25:17] of conversations that we're having right [25:19] now it's like and this isn't them I've [25:21] been taken to task by some of my friends [25:23] for example for using the social justice [25:25] warrior terminology because they've said [25:27] to me well you know you're you're you're [25:29] participating in this process of [25:31] demonization and and polarization and I [25:33] think well yeah I can understand that [25:35] although I'm also like radically [25:38] concerned about the fact that the [25:39] universities for example are completely [25:41] taken over by radical Marxists [25:43] essentially and that they're driving [25:45] this polarization and it isn't obvious [25:47] to me how to have a discussion about [25:49] that without participating in the [25:52] process of polarization it's something [25:53] I've been trying to figure out for the [25:55] whole last year you know and I've made [25:57] I've been emphasizing the role of [25:59] personal responsibility instead of [26:01] ideological identification right get it [26:03] into your head that you have the [26:04] capacity for great evil and stop [26:07] targeting stop assuming that that's [26:10] something that's manifesting itself only [26:11] in the people that you disagree with [26:13] politically take responsibility for that [26:15] and try to put your life together I [26:17] don't see an alternative to that but [26:18] it's been very difficult to to to avoid [26:23] to do that and simultaneously to avoid [26:26] becoming a participant in this process [26:28] of polarization and it's a very [26:29] dangerous process it's what destabilized [26:31] Germany in the 1920s and 30s right it [26:34] was this ping-ponging back and forth [26:36] between the radical left and the radical [26:38] right and your point bread that the [26:40] radical right actually is more powerful [26:41] once they get organized is a really good [26:43] one [26:43] because there's no fractionation it's [26:45] more stable you bet and they have all [26:48] the guns that's another thing to think [26:49] about certainly in this country the [26:52] right is much better armed and that's [26:54] very frightening [26:55] that's a tariff terrifying thought that [26:58] you know I mean we've we've heard this [26:59] many times recently about the Trump [27:02] administration about if he's impeached [27:04] that there will be some sort of a civil [27:07] war [27:07] I believe Roger stone said that like [27:09] this thought is so terrifying that we [27:12] literally cannot do anything to stop [27:16] some sort of physical confrontation with [27:19] weapons if we disagree ideologically [27:22] that it's going to happen well first of [27:26] all there's a lot we can do and sure [27:27] fact you know one of the other things [27:29] about about the evolutionary toolkit is [27:31] that I believe we have exactly the tools [27:33] for navigating this puzzle they're built [27:36] into us also in addition to this latent [27:38] program but we are now in a very [27:41] dangerous situation because for example [27:44] if Google and other of these online [27:47] goliaths start deploying algorithms that [27:51] decide what we get to talk about and see [27:53] then we cannot use the very tools that [27:57] are necessary in order to escape and [27:59] avoid something like civil war which [28:01] frankly communication and debate [28:03] analyzing all the components of this [28:06] issue completely objectively yeah I'm [28:09] taking the risks that are necessary with [28:11] that and some of the risks are that if [28:13] we have free and open communication that [28:15] some percentage of that communication is [28:17] going to be reprehensible and deplorable [28:19] but yes but that but that the [28:21] consequences of suppressing that are so [28:23] much more dangerous than the [28:24] consequences of allowing it that they're [28:26] not in the same universe yes we empower [28:28] us those terrible ideas by making them [28:31] I mean electronically taboo yeah and [28:34] then point is they're going to fester [28:35] whereas if we just if we discussed them [28:38] we can defuse the ones that are terrible [28:40] we can spot the opportunities that we [28:42] don't know we have and we can we can [28:44] move forward rather than descend into [28:46] civil war which frankly looks more this [28:49] issue with with Google and YouTube let's [28:51] say and these are the gigantic internet [28:53] companies you know it isn't a matter of [28:55] if they're going to produce autumn [28:57] BOTS that do pre perceptual censorship [29:00] they are doing that well 16 wet sad [29:03] explained well he tweeted the other day [29:07] that and I knew this was in the workings [29:09] because I've been looking at what [29:11] YouTube and Google are planning with [29:12] regards to their artificial intelligence [29:14] censors let's say you know they want to [29:17] get to the point where the the the [29:20] appalling video is not even put up so [29:23] what happened I hope I've got this [29:25] exactly right but God was in the process [29:29] you upload a video and then you publish [29:30] it and so once you upload it YouTube has [29:32] access to it and they have access to its [29:34] content and they informed him that it [29:36] would be d monetized before he published [29:38] it is right here we put it up on the [29:40] board there you go YouTube thinks that [29:42] my pointing to astounding hypocrisy is [29:44] to triggering there is nothing [29:46] objectionable object objectionable in my [29:48] clip unbelievable yeah and that one was [29:51] a manual review so I'm wrong about that [29:53] although how in the world they decided [29:56] that they were going to manually review [29:57] God's video is also I mean how many [29:59] videos are going up on YouTube what the [30:01] hell why are they manually reviewing his [30:03] and I mean God said is not a radical [30:06] right now that's the thing I mean he's [30:07] an evolutionary biologist and that makes [30:10] him a radical now it does because he's a [30:12] bunch of questioning what's happening [30:15] and by questioning what's happening you [30:18] instantaneously get lumped into this [30:20] right-wing hate group well he's also [30:22] making the claim that human beings have [30:24] an intrinsic nature and so now there's a [30:26] new buzz phrase that goes along with [30:27] that and so that's that you're a [30:30] biological essentialist [30:31] and you see so if you're a radical [30:33] postmodern neo-marxist your theory is [30:35] human beings can be anything that I want [30:38] to make them into it's a core doctrine [30:40] of the theory and it's part of what [30:41] makes it intensely totalitarian because [30:44] then human beings are just putty for the [30:46] molding and that's part of the the [30:48] motivation will drive for claiming the [30:49] radical constructionist claim there's no [30:51] biological essence well why do you make [30:53] that claim well because we want to free [30:55] people from prejudice and tyranny it's [30:57] like no that's not why you make that [30:58] claim you make that claim because you [31:01] want to justify your claim that there's [31:02] absolutely nothing wrong with making [31:04] over humanity in the in an image of your [31:06] ideology and and and that's that would [31:09] that that was a well documented [31:11] intellectual argument that that that [31:13] wove through what happened in communist [31:15] Russia for example because the claim [31:16] they're explicitly was you wipe out the [31:18] past there's no real biological identity [31:21] you can mold the human of the future in [31:23] the image of your perfectionistic [31:25] ideology and and the the Russians [31:28] actually sidelined themselves [31:30] effectively with respect to evolutionary [31:33] theory that basically they were so [31:35] backward on a biological front that as [31:37] they were deploying this this very [31:40] broken ideological toolkit they were [31:44] wrecking their ability to think about [31:46] about how biology works and so what [31:50] you're pointing to you about [31:50] evolutionary biologists it's not just [31:52] that we question the content of [31:55] evolutionary biology is absolutely the [31:59] opposite of politically correct yes yes [32:01] because nobody tells the biota what's [32:04] right and what's wrong the biota does [32:06] what it does and those of us who look at [32:08] it and attempt to understand what those [32:11] patterns are can't help but be deeply [32:15] politically incorrect almost all the [32:17] time and so the idea that the truth of [32:21] biology is actually going to become [32:23] unexpressable and we're gonna move ahead [32:25] we're just gonna we're gonna we're gonna [32:28] sideline it so that we can move ahead [32:30] with this ideological stuff I mean that [32:32] is ecology is racist and sexist you well [32:37] if I might biology and we're gonna have [32:42] to go back here in order to collect a [32:43] tool but biology does create entities [32:48] that have the potential for racism in [32:52] them in our genomes we carry the [32:54] potential for racism for Darwinian [32:56] reasons sexism is a little different [33:00] right it is so I'm about to become very [33:03] politically incorrect oh yeah I know oh [33:07] it is not possible for male genes to [33:13] gang up on female genes because all of [33:16] our genes spend half their time in male [33:19] bodies and half their time in female [33:21] bodies which does not mean that [33:22] civilization is fair with respect to sex [33:24] and gender [33:25] it does mean that there's no biological [33:27] basis for the evolution of a patriarchal [33:31] force that subordinates women because [33:33] whatever the patriarchy does those who [33:36] are part of the patriarchy become female [33:39] in the next iteration and they suffer [33:40] the consequences of it this is not the [33:43] case with race unfortunately this is not [33:45] a good thing but it is a true thing in a [33:49] Darwinian sense one population can gang [33:52] up on another population and it has [33:54] happened again and again it explains all [33:56] of the worst chapters in human history [33:58] and so in some sense what I'm getting at [34:01] is that you want to understand that [34:03] process and once you understand what [34:05] your genes are actually up to and you [34:08] understand that your genes their [34:09] objectives in the universe are not [34:12] defensible what your genes want cannot [34:14] be defended in in rational terms then we [34:18] become free to do something else [34:20] to recognize that our genes are up to [34:21] things that we don't have any reason to [34:24] honor and we can we can basically take [34:28] them out of the control position but if [34:29] we imagine that what our genes are up to [34:33] must be all right and therefore it can't [34:35] include anything like racism then we're [34:37] just stuck then we don't have the tools [34:39] to to diffuse racism so one of the [34:43] things that happened when I made my [34:45] video so a year ago complaining about [34:48] Bill c16 in Canada and that was the one [34:51] that instantiated transgender rights one [34:53] of the things I was pointing to right [34:54] like my comments have nothing to do with [34:56] transgender rights but one of the things [34:58] I was pointing to that was that Canada [35:00] had built into the law a social [35:01] constructionist version of human [35:03] identity and that's actually the case so [35:05] for example now in Canada here's a [35:08] proposition which now has the force of [35:10] law there is no causal connection [35:13] between biological sex gender identity [35:16] gender expression and sexual proclivity [35:19] technically it's illegal to make a claim [35:22] that those things are causally linked [35:24] and the the causal link claim is a [35:26] biological claim and not only is it a [35:28] biological claim it's a factual claim [35:30] those four levels are so tightly linked [35:32] causally that there's hardly any [35:34] exceptions there are exceptions so [35:37] because every almost everyone who's [35:39] biological sex ismail considers [35:41] themselves male manifests themselves as [35:44] male and his heterosexual so they're [35:46] linked and the reason they're linked is [35:48] while there's biological and cultural [35:49] reasons but it's now in Canada the [35:52] proposition that they're independent is [35:55] now law and I was pointing that saying [35:57] we don't want to do that you don't [35:58] understand you've built social [36:00] constructionism into the law that means [36:01] that now it's illegal to be a biologist [36:04] well then everybody said oh no no no [36:06] that's not happening it's like don't kid [36:09] yourself [36:09] when you put things in the law things [36:11] happen and we were accused not only of [36:13] being Nazis and that was part of the [36:15] reason that the this this talk was shut [36:18] down but also of being biological [36:21] essentialists and biological [36:23] essentialism is the new buzzword for for [36:25] nazi essentially so i have to go please [36:28] do I want I want to correct you it's not [36:31] that it's illegal to be a biologist it's [36:32] just illegal to be any good at it is [36:38] there is there concern that putting [36:42] biology as fact may it will get in the [36:47] way of civilization because we're [36:50] supposed to be moving past all of these [36:52] issues we're supposed to be moving past [36:55] these things as we evolve we're supposed [36:57] to be looking people as being free to [36:59] choose whatever gender they like free to [37:02] choose whatever sexual orientation they [37:04] like free to express themselves in any [37:06] way and that by defining them by purely [37:08] biological terms we're essentially [37:11] relying on the meat wagon to lead us [37:14] through civilization rather than the [37:15] mind that's great that you did a very [37:17] good job of outlining the credible case [37:20] against biological essentialism and [37:22] because it can deteriorate into [37:24] something like eugenics there's a real [37:26] danger like a political danger on the [37:28] side of a biological determinant is a [37:30] danger in denying it as well because [37:32] then we can't use our rational minds to [37:35] truly mitigate whatever issues that we [37:38] would have with our biological urges and [37:41] that that's the irony of this yes [37:42] actually there is no there is an [37:45] argument to be made that we need freedom [37:47] from our biology yes and we have the [37:51] to do it most creatures wouldn't but the [37:53] human beings are constructed we [37:55] absolutely have the ability to be [37:56] rational about these things and decide [37:58] which things we want to bring into the [38:01] future but we can't do it if we don't [38:03] discuss these things in Reister well a [38:04] subset of males are are biologically [38:08] hyper aggressive you can identify them [38:10] at 2 years of age and they're the kids [38:12] if you put a bunch of 2 euros together [38:13] there's a small subset they're almost [38:14] all males about 5% of males who will [38:17] kick hit bite and steal ok so that's [38:21] their biological programming let's say [38:23] but the vast majority of them are [38:24] socialized by the time they're four [38:27] years old so that they're amazed yeah [38:29] sure absolutely [38:30] I mean it is yeah absolutely yeah and [38:33] the thing about about boys like that is [38:35] that if you socialize them properly it's [38:37] quite a bit of work because they're very [38:39] calm about it my son was like that and [38:41] if you socialize them properly then they [38:44] can become unbelievably useful their [38:46] courageous their forthright their their [38:48] you know they're they're they're not [38:49] going to back down from a challenge [38:51] there's all sorts of massive utility in [38:53] that and that's this proper interplay [38:55] between the biological circuitry and the [38:57] socialization but you know and with [39:00] James de Maura's memo you know he was [39:02] he's been accused of taking a biological [39:05] essentialist route which is not true one [39:07] of the things James said is look there's [39:10] credible evidence that there are [39:12] biologically mediated differences [39:14] between men and women at the level of [39:15] temperament and interest that are [39:17] actually large and profound and I would [39:19] say the science on that is sufficiently [39:23] settled so that someone can come out and [39:25] say that's scientifically credible now [39:28] that doesn't mean it's right because the [39:29] scientists could be wrong but what you [39:31] can't say is that what James d'amour [39:33] said was scientifically uninformed it [39:35] was scientifically informed but he also [39:37] said look let's make the assumption I'm [39:40] paraphrasing slightly but let's make the [39:42] assumption that we want to as a society [39:44] we want to extract maximum useful [39:47] economic value from talented people so [39:50] one of the things we want to do is if [39:51] some of those people are women and some [39:53] of them are men we want to understand [39:54] the actual differences between women and [39:56] men so that we can set up the workplace [39:58] so that both women and men can [40:00] contribute to the maximum economically [40:02] so that they can benefit as individuals [40:04] and every [40:04] can benefit socially so you can use the [40:07] biological so I mean for example one of [40:10] the thing here's here's a biological [40:11] problem on average women are more [40:14] agreeable than men and I think that's [40:16] because agreeable people are they're [40:18] self-sacrificing and I think as a woman [40:20] you need to be wired to be [40:21] self-sacrificing or you won't be able to [40:23] tolerate taking care of infants that's [40:25] my sense of it okay now there's some [40:27] problems with that it's like let's say [40:28] that a huge part of female wiring is is [40:31] tilted in the direction of the necessity [40:33] of self-sacrifice for infant care okay [40:36] that doesn't equip women very well for [40:38] dealing with with aggressive met because [40:39] of aggressive men and infants are not [40:41] the same creatures so women play a pay a [40:44] price being optimized to some degree for [40:48] infant care they pay a price that [40:49] they're less what would you call [40:52] prepared that's one way of thinking [40:53] about it indeed with dealing with hyper [40:56] aggressive and competitive men well one [40:58] of the consequences of that is that [41:00] agreeable people don't make as much [41:01] money and the reason for that is to make [41:04] money you actually have to be [41:05] disagreeable because you have to go to [41:06] your boss and say give me some bloody [41:08] money or something you don't like will [41:10] happen to you you have to I'll leave you [41:12] have to be able to fight for an idea - [41:14] yeah but so there's something that this [41:17] is a perfect test case so biologically [41:20] speaking there's a very good reason for [41:23] certain kinds of wisdom to be biased in [41:25] the direction of manifesting in females [41:28] females because they have the capacity [41:31] to have fewer offspring in a lifetime [41:33] than males are obligated as you say to [41:39] to care in a particular way and the fact [41:41] that care in human beings take so many [41:44] years has resulted in menopause emerging [41:46] and menopause essentially when a woman [41:49] is done producing new offspring her [41:51] interests in her evolutionary interest [41:55] which in this case I think are honorable [41:57] becomes synonymous with the lineage the [42:00] population because her offspring will [42:02] either do well or do poorly based on the [42:05] population that they're in so women have [42:07] a kind of farsightedness about lineage [42:10] and I don't think it has anything to do [42:11] with human women actually this is a [42:13] trait that we can see in females of [42:16] other species [42:18] so it's an ancient thing whereas males [42:20] are high variance that is to say a male [42:24] can have many offspring in a lifetime [42:26] many males have no offspring in a [42:27] lifetime and that high variance means [42:29] that to the extent that there's wisdom [42:31] that surrounds risk-taking that has [42:33] traveled historically along the male [42:36] path now in modern times there's no [42:39] reason that we can't look at these two [42:41] kinds of wisdom and democratize them [42:43] both right the fact is there's no reason [42:46] if you're born female that you can't [42:48] tune into what has historically been [42:50] male biased wisdom and take advantage of [42:53] that and we should be encouraging this [42:55] there's no reason that people have to [42:57] continue with problem is is that we [42:58] can't actually have a reasonable [43:00] discussion about it because you know the [43:02] discussion is often forestalled by the [43:04] claim that while men and women are [43:05] exactly the same it's like it's that's [43:07] not a helpful discussion and you know [43:09] with the agreeableness issue I don't [43:10] know exactly what should be done about [43:12] that but one of the consequences of it [43:14] is is that there's many reasons why why [43:17] the pay there's pay differential between [43:19] men and women and the issue itself is [43:21] very complex but we do know that [43:22] agreeable people overall make less money [43:25] in the same positions and it's because [43:26] they don't negotiate on their own behalf [43:28] very well now it's conceivable that you [43:30] could have an intelligent public policy [43:32] or corporate policy discussion about [43:34] what to do about that like maybe maybe [43:36] the rule is something like you review [43:40] male salaries once a year and female [43:42] salaries every eight months or something [43:44] like that you know and I'm not saying [43:45] that's a good idea I'm not saying that [43:47] I'm saying that if you if you take the [43:50] facts on the ground into account there [43:52] are ways that you might be able to use [43:53] them so that you could and I'm not going [43:55] to say level the playing field because I [43:57] think that's an appalling phrase but [43:58] maximize the possibility of economic [44:01] contribution across the genders which is [44:03] obviously in everyone's best interest [44:05] but we're not gonna do that when when [44:07] someone like James d'amour comes out and [44:09] he's no scientist you know well he has [44:11] some scientific training but that wasn't [44:12] his primary field of expertise he came [44:15] out and did a pretty credible job of [44:16] summarizing the literature he did it [44:18] because he had been subject to mandatory [44:21] diversity training and was asked to [44:24] produce a response he didn't do it so it [44:26] would go viral within the company and [44:27] become public and because he expressed [44:29] his opinion let's say imperfectly [44:32] he got fired it's like that's not good [44:34] man that's not that's not a good pathway [44:36] well it also wasn't good that his stuff [44:39] was being republished without citations [44:41] people were we're publishing it without [44:44] the scientific papers that were sort of [44:47] affirming what some of the things that [44:49] he was saying I couldn't make heads or [44:50] tails of it until I saw his original [44:52] version yeah and that goes back to the [44:55] the point I was making earlier about [44:56] this being this is an unstable time [44:59] where people's individual ethical [45:01] choices in some circumstances will have [45:03] effects far beyond the local it's like [45:06] those journalists who jumped on the [45:08] story did it either badly you know [45:12] because they were incompetent or they [45:14] did it maliciously right and that and [45:16] and so now we could say let's say things [45:19] go really badly in the next year well [45:22] then each of those journalists might be [45:24] able to sit at home and say hey I played [45:26] a causal role in bringing about this [45:29] state of murderous collapse because of [45:32] my little ethical my ethical lapse when [45:34] I was covering the James d'amore memo [45:35] you know because of my own laziness and [45:38] ideological rigidity I was willing to [45:40] play fast and loose with the truth and [45:42] now I've played a major causal role and [45:43] you know pushing everything towards a [45:45] state of chaos it's like people have [45:47] better be on their toes because we're in [45:49] a situation that's radically unstable [45:51] and so it's time it's it's a really good [45:54] time for everybody to be very careful [45:55] about what they write and say and about [45:57] their motives for for tarring and [46:00] feathering the opposition that's another [46:01] way of another thing that we have to be [46:03] very careful about it's just very [46:05] bizarre how quick people are to call [46:07] someone a racist today I mean I've never [46:09] seen anything like it in all my years [46:11] it's it's a strange time you know I got [46:15] into it yesterday just I got bored and I [46:17] started trolling with Pepe the Frog I [46:19] started putting up the Frog like with [46:21] rainbows saying this seems like a frog [46:23] that's really into gay rights like [46:25] here's a frog that holding a lemon with [46:27] a tart face like this is a frog that ate [46:30] a lemon and he's reacting to it like how [46:32] is this all racist like how is this like [46:34] anyone it's not like all these people [46:36] that are creating this frog are [46:38] coordinating anyone can make a meme with [46:41] the Frog and like a lot of the original [46:43] feels good man cart [46:46] that the guy created they those are [46:48] applicable to their silly a lot of them [46:50] are really silly well I think a lot of [46:51] it was an intentional troll yes so I [46:54] read a story about kekaa Stan you know I [46:58] was looking into it trying to figure out [46:59] if it was really you know the menace to [47:02] humanity that everybody claims it is and [47:04] the story was preposterous it was a you [47:07] know it's a magical place where we're [47:10] anti-semites and Jews and atheists and [47:13] religious people live in harmony which [47:16] is like that's hard to even parse it's [47:18] designed to cause your mind to throw an [47:21] error yeah well that is what though so I [47:24] I think this is an excellent thing to [47:26] talk about because I've been because [47:27] I've been let's say identified under [47:30] many circumstances now with the all [47:32] right I've been doing every bit of [47:34] investigation I can into its many [47:37] manifestations it's a very confusing [47:38] place it's certainly not an organized [47:41] place and exactly what it is is by no [47:43] means obvious and the cast an issue is a [47:45] good case in point because mostly that's [47:47] that's like a satirical realm where [47:51] where where I don't know what it is it's [47:55] late so its defensive humor in some [47:57] sense let me give you an example I gave [47:59] my father a kick-ass Danny Flagg about [48:01] three weeks ago and three weeks ago and [48:03] do that well because he's been following [48:06] what's happening to me online you know [48:07] and well and a lot and I got associated [48:10] with the frog in in a major way and it's [48:13] a crazy story I won't go into it but I [48:15] wore a frog hat on one of my videos that [48:17] an Indian Carver a Native American [48:19] Carver had given me and he had told me [48:21] that the Frog was in their culture a [48:23] harbinger of environmental instability [48:26] because if the waters polluted at all [48:28] the frogs died first so the Frog is the [48:30] the Frog is the creature in their [48:32] mythology that warns the society that [48:35] things are out of kilter [48:36] it's the canary in the coal the canary [48:38] in the coal mine so I wore this Frog hat [48:39] and I made this video about things being [48:42] unstable and I had been identified with [48:44] Kermit because my voice sort of sounds [48:46] like Kermit the Frog and it actually [48:47] does so I've been making jokes about [48:49] that and so then I made this video with [48:51] this frog hat and the frog that my [48:53] Carver friend made actually had red lips [48:55] and then I made the video and as soon as [48:57] I posted it people said that's Pepe and [48:59] I just about fainted literally because [49:01] it never occurred to me that that was a [49:03] connection [49:03] so anyways I've been tangled in with [49:05] this frog thing in this most absolutely [49:07] insane and surreal manner but I've been [49:10] so and that got me into the cast [49:12] anything and a lot of the people that [49:14] I'm trying to address online are young [49:16] men who are pushed I would say in a [49:19] right-leaning direction by the movement [49:22] of the radical left alienating and then [49:24] they're thinking well I'm certainly not [49:25] that right well then what am I [49:27] well maybe I'm the opposite of that well [49:29] is the opposite of the radical left the [49:31] alt-right or is there a better opposite [49:33] is there a different opposite that [49:35] people could flee to and that's what [49:36] well partly that's what I'm trying to [49:38] figure out but what does it have to be [49:39] opposite couldn't just be different well [49:42] that's the opposition is a real issue [49:44] with people right like what you were [49:46] talking about before when people just [49:48] ramped up their positions and get more [49:49] ideologically based and they're doing it [49:51] as a reaction to the other side instead [49:54] of just being who they are instead of [49:56] having some sort of a personal [49:57] sovereignty they are literally reacting [50:00] to the opposite side and changing who [50:02] they yes okay so what I've been trying [50:03] to do with my videos and and and and I [50:06] think this is part of the reason that [50:07] they've become so popular I'm in fact [50:09] I'm certain of it is that I've been [50:11] trying to agitate for the adoption of [50:14] that personal responsibility as an [50:15] alternative to political ideology it's [50:17] like get your act together have a vision [50:21] straighten out your life say what you [50:24] think you know stay away from the [50:26] ideological idiocy xand simplicity and [50:28] oversimplifications and try to put [50:30] yourself together because I think that I [50:31] do believe at the most fundamental level [50:34] and I think this is the remarkable [50:37] realization of Western civilization is [50:39] that the well-developed individual is [50:41] the antidote to the tyranny of society [50:44] and biology I think that's our great [50:47] discovery in the West it's not like [50:48] other cultures haven't had that idea in [50:51] nascent form but it's been hyper [50:52] developed in the West and I think it's [50:54] right and so we abandon that that that [50:58] pathway of divine individuality and [51:00] revert to ideological identification of [51:02] race or sex we're going to tear each [51:04] other to apart and I think part of the [51:06] reason we're motivated to do that show [51:07] is because many people don't want to [51:10] bear the responsibility of developing [51:11] themselves as individual [51:13] so they'll they'll shuffle off the [51:14] responsibility and if that means that [51:16] you know we're dancing in the streets [51:18] because everything's on fire that'll be [51:20] just fine and that's another thing [51:22] that's adding to the terrible danger [51:23] that we're in right now so I think [51:26] you're right and I think that personal [51:27] auditing program that you you're a part [51:30] of is gigantic and people look at it as [51:32] being separate from all these issues [51:34] that we're dealing with culturally but I [51:36] don't think it is I think you're [51:37] absolutely right and I think that there [51:40] is a real lack of struggle and [51:43] understanding of struggle with a lot of [51:45] people today not stress acerra ly [51:47] struggle financially but I mean like um [51:49] physical struggle spiritual struggle [51:51] understanding that you have to overcome [51:55] difficult issues to really understand [51:58] the true potential of your mind and your [52:00] body you have to not only overcome them [52:03] but you have to seek them out [52:04] voluntarily and-and-and what would you [52:06] say exalt in the fact that they exist [52:08] right yes and that's part of burying the [52:10] burden of being it's like being is a [52:12] tragic State human being is a tragic [52:15] state so you can shrink from that but if [52:17] you shrink from that the suffering [52:18] increases and intensifies and you become [52:21] resentful and malevolent yes [52:22] the alternative is to move forward [52:24] courageously that's the dragon motif [52:26] right that's the hero myth essentially [52:28] and that is the pathway forward as far [52:30] as I'm concerned well I think it also [52:31] has implications you know you're talking [52:33] about it at the level of what is best [52:36] for the individual but we also have a [52:38] problem which is that these collectivist [52:40] movements whether they are you know [52:42] white nationalists on the right or [52:44] social justice warriors on the left they [52:48] cannot see forward and what is missing [52:51] is that actually the mechanism that [52:53] allows us to discover new ways involves [52:57] individuals who are capable of thinking [52:59] independently and if you have multiple [53:02] individuals who think independently [53:03] about related matters then they can pool [53:07] that stuff but if what we do is we force [53:09] everybody to sign up for the same things [53:11] that we all agree are true there's no [53:14] way of discovering what we don't yet [53:16] know because every great idea starts [53:18] with a minority of one so we have to [53:20] have the freedom to be the only person [53:23] who believes something and then to [53:24] compel others that it's some [53:26] we're in the right neighborhood and for [53:27] others to pick up that mantle and so by [53:29] said board meeting that's exactly why I [53:31] you know I mean free speech has become [53:34] an India logical issue and increasingly [53:35] identified with but with the right and [53:37] which is horrible it's horrifying [53:39] but the the right justification for free [53:41] speech is what you just laid out which [53:43] is that in order for like the collective [53:46] is is a group of what's already known by [53:49] definition we inhabit the collective and [53:51] that's what's already known what we [53:52] could agree on but the problem with that [53:54] is that what we can agree on what's [53:55] already known isn't sufficient means we [53:58] still have problems so people have to be [54:00] out at the fringes on the border between [54:02] chaos and order where they discover new [54:04] things and communicate it back to the [54:05] collective free speech does that that's [54:08] the mechanism this is this is also a [54:10] deep evolutionary truth which is that [54:14] all of the innovations that allow [54:15] whether we're talking about one creature [54:17] learning to do some new trick that gives [54:19] rise to a bunch of species that do the [54:21] same trick or whether we're talking [54:22] about populations discovering a new way [54:25] to live on earth all of these things [54:29] proceed from the fringe right the people [54:32] at the Center for whom things are [54:34] working best aren't going to be the ones [54:35] to innovate the new way it's people for [54:37] whom things are not quite working that [54:39] are going to innovate new ways and that [54:41] that's also true for a population of [54:43] frogs or Birds or plants or whatever the [54:45] ones that are not well situated are the [54:48] ones where an experiment can pay off yes [54:50] why hands icing cake psychologist wrote [54:52] a good book called genius and he was [54:54] interested in what predicted high levels [54:56] of creative success and some of its what [54:58] you'd expect IQ is one of them and [55:00] creative temperament is another but [55:02] losing a parent before the age of 10 was [55:05] a nice predictor and you know people [55:07] think about creativity as if it's all [55:08] sweetness and light it's like no bloody [55:10] way man if you're gonna be creative it's [55:12] because you're tormented by a problem [55:14] right and so if you're not in a position [55:16] to be tormented by a problem you're not [55:17] gonna put in the time and effort and [55:19] take the risk necessarily necessary to [55:21] be creative so but you know I'm I've [55:24] been trying to understand the [55:26] evolutionary landscape out of which our [55:28] most fundamental religious convictions [55:30] emerge and the idea that it is by [55:32] definition the individual that innovates [55:35] and that by definition therefore it's [55:37] the individual that's the savior of the [55:39] collec [55:40] I mean it's hard to it's hard to imagine [55:42] how you could find a biological [55:44] Restatement of an essential Christian [55:46] presupposition that was more mapped one [55:48] to one than that now you could say well [55:50] that's not unique to Christianity I see [55:52] the same thing in the Judea in the [55:53] Jewish antithesis between the prophetic [55:57] tradition the prophet and the tradition [55:59] because the Prophet is always the lone [56:01] voice right that comes out it happens [56:04] over and over in the Old Testament a [56:05] lone voice comes out and challenges the [56:07] king and says look you know you're [56:09] you're a blind tyrant and nature is [56:11] moving away from us and preparing her [56:13] revenge and you better watch the hell [56:14] out because you're violating the [56:16] intrinsic moral norms and you're gonna [56:18] pay for it that happens over and over [56:19] and maybe there are 50 of them and the [56:22] one that gets recorded is the one that [56:23] happened to be closest to right because [56:25] that's the population that gets through [56:27] the bottleneck and so you know what we [56:29] have is sort of evolution authoring [56:32] these texts in a way yes well that's [56:36] that's not to claim that I'm very what [56:39] would you call that that's something I [56:42] believe to be fundamentally true and I [56:44] mean I've started I started see because [56:46] I'm interested in this idea of [56:47] strengthening the individually that's [56:49] and when I when I wrote my first book [56:51] maps of meaning it was about ideological [56:53] conflict and it was about whether or not [56:56] there was any alternative to ideological [56:57] conflict because you could make a case [56:59] that there isn't there's right and [57:00] there's left and there's a war right but [57:03] there is a third way and I think that is [57:04] the way of the heroic individual and I [57:06] mean that technically and that that [57:09] involves the development of individual [57:11] characters so that you can say what it [57:13] is that you think that you can [57:15] articulate your experience properly and [57:17] that you can bring what it is that's [57:19] unique to you into the collective [57:21] landscape and that's what updates the [57:22] collective landscape it's absolutely [57:24] vital and so I started doing these [57:27] biblical lectures I have done 12 of them [57:29] now walking through Genesis and what I'm [57:31] trying to do because I believe that the [57:32] Bible is the documentation of the [57:34] emergence of the idea of the divine [57:36] individual that's essentially what it is [57:37] and we we have a very uneasy [57:40] relationship with that collection of [57:42] texts now because they we read them as [57:45] if they're making claims about the [57:47] objective nature of the world and those [57:48] claims seem to be false from a [57:50] scientific perspective I don't believe [57:52] that those are the claims that [57:53] made to begin with so I think it's a [57:54] non-starter but I've been trying to [57:56] lecture about the stories in Genesis for [57:58] example in a manner that makes them [58:00] accessible to people who are well to [58:03] Athey who a theist let's say and many [58:05] many atheists have been responding very [58:07] positively to them I have people in my [58:08] youtube comments now that are calling [58:10] themselves Christian atheists because [58:12] they can understand they understand what [58:15] it is I'm describing this idea that's [58:18] emerged in the West that consciousness [58:20] is the mediator between chaos and order [58:23] and the and the and that generating the [58:26] phenomena that generates experience and [58:28] that and that you can think about that [58:30] as as a divine category of existence and [58:34] I've been trying to delineate how how [58:39] the biblical stories lay out the pathway [58:42] by which the divine individual should [58:44] manifest him or herself in time because [58:47] that is what it is and I and I I've been [58:51] studying for example the Abrahamic [58:53] stories which I didn't know well and the [58:55] Abrahamic stories are really interesting [58:57] I mean Abraham is called by God and when [59:00] Abraham is called by God he's old he's [59:02] like one of these guys who's 40 years [59:03] old and his stayed in his mother's [59:05] basement that's that's Abraham it's a [59:08] little late for Abraham to be getting [59:09] the hell out there in the world and God [59:10] basically says to him leave your family [59:13] and your friends and your place of [59:14] comfort and journey into the land of the [59:15] stranger that's the call to adventure [59:17] and so Abraham does that now he's chosen [59:19] by God you think well everything goes [59:21] well for Abraham that isn't what happens [59:22] at all [59:23] the first thing he encounters is a [59:24] famine and to escape that he flees into [59:27] the tyranny of Egypt where they try to [59:28] steal his wife [59:29] it's like beware of being called by God [59:32] you know you'd think it'd be all [59:33] sweetness and light after that it's not [59:35] that at all it's a very realistic story [59:37] it's like get the hell out of where [59:39] you're safe into what you don't know [59:41] what are you gonna find there well your [59:43] fortune no you're gonna find the [59:44] catastrophes of life but if you keep [59:48] yourself morally oriented and you make [59:49] the right sacrifices which is the the [59:51] Abrahamic story to a tee then you can [59:54] transcend the catastrophe of being and [59:57] prevail [59:58] I mean it's who the hell doesn't want to [60:01] hear that so we're treading kind of [60:05] close to the [60:07] the argument she got into was Sam Harris [60:08] about the nature of truth and and since [60:11] I heard that I've been sort of itching [60:14] to have this conversation with you [60:15] because I think there's a a way of [60:18] viewing this that will actually perhaps [60:22] reconcile the two points of view but [60:24] there's a bitter pill that comes along [60:26] with it so here's here's my argument we [60:32] tend to think of intellect has evolved [60:35] as having evolved because knowing what's [60:38] true gives you an advantage but there's [60:41] actually nothing that says the literal [60:42] truth is where advantage lies and so I [60:45] have a category that I call literally [60:48] false metaphorically true these are [60:50] ideas that aren't true in the factual [60:52] sense but they are true enough that if [60:55] you behave as if they were true you come [60:57] out ahead of where you would be if you [60:59] behaved according to the fact that [61:01] they're not true so let me give you a [61:02] couple of trivial examples that won't be [61:04] controversial porcupines can throw their [61:08] quills not true however if you live near [61:13] porcupines and you imagine that [61:15] porcupines can throw their quills you'll [61:17] give them some space if you don't you [61:21] may realize and that they can throw [61:22] other quills get really close to one and [61:24] it may wheel around and nail you with a [61:25] porcupine quill which can be extremely [61:27] dangerous because they are [61:29] microscopically designed to move in from [61:31] where they puncture you over time and [61:33] they can puncture a vital organ or you [61:35] can get an infection so the person who [61:37] believes that a porcupine can throw [61:39] their quills has an advantage that isn't [61:41] predicated on the fact that this is [61:42] actually a literal truth right another [61:46] one might be people say everything [61:49] happens for a reason right well unless [61:52] you're talking about physics as the [61:53] reason everything doesn't happen for a [61:55] reason however if you are the kind of [61:57] person who believes that everything [61:59] happens for a reason and then some [62:01] terrible tragedy befalls you you may be [62:04] on the lookout well what's the reason [62:05] that this happened maybe it's supposed [62:07] to open some opportunity and you won't [62:08] miss that opportunity the way somebody [62:10] who was preoccupied with their [62:11] misfortune would so literal falseness [62:15] but metaphorical truth is actually I [62:19] would argue the category [62:20] under which religious truth evolves [62:24] now the problem the bitter pill that I [62:27] mentioned is that I've heard you say [62:30] that the truths that are captured in the [62:32] the religious version of things are [62:35] basically like you know there's an [62:38] individual truth and then there's a [62:40] truth of your family and there's the [62:42] truth of the population that you're [62:43] living in and these things are all [62:44] encoded in these these doctrines which [62:47] is true and you would expect it to be [62:48] because the doctrines are carried along [62:50] in the population [62:51] the problem is what I hear you arguing [62:55] when you tell me if I have it wrong is [62:57] that we should therefore expect the [63:01] encoded metaphorical truths in these [63:04] religious traditions to be morally right [63:08] but there's nothing that actually says [63:10] it will be morally right because there [63:12] are metaphorical truths that might in [63:14] fact be reprehensible but nonetheless [63:16] effective and so what I would argue the [63:21] overarching point here would be that [63:24] you're right that the documents that [63:27] contain these descriptions of things are [63:29] full of things that are true in some [63:31] sense that is not literal scientific [63:33] truth nor was that their their purpose [63:36] what isn't true is that those things are [63:39] inherently up-to-date and see I would [63:43] okay I mean first of all the first thing [63:46] about that is that a discussion like [63:48] that and this is also what happened with [63:50] Sam Harris takes me to the very limits [63:52] of my intellectual ability and so even [63:54] in discussing it I'm going to make all [63:56] sorts of mistakes because because it's [63:58] treacherous territory but I would say my [64:02] understanding of the great myths has [64:05] that observation built into it so one of [64:08] the archetypes is that of the of the [64:10] tyrannical father which is the archetype [64:12] by the way that possesses the minds of [64:14] people who accuse Western society of [64:16] being patriarchal they're possessed by a [64:18] singular archetype and that's the [64:19] archetype of the tyrannical father they [64:21] don't see that there's a tyrannical [64:23] father and a wise king because there is [64:25] that's that's you can't even point that [64:28] out but anyways in the in the old in in [64:33] some of our oldest or [64:34] there's a representation of the dead [64:36] past so let me give you an example that [64:40] everyone knows about the story of [64:42] Pinocchio is the story of the [64:44] individualization of Pinocchio he starts [64:46] out as a puppet he's a marionette [64:47] he's a wooden head he's a liar and he's [64:50] pulled by forces that he does not [64:52] understand right ok so but he has a good [64:55] father [64:55] that's Geppetto and so he's got a good [64:57] and Geppetto wishes that he becomes a [64:59] real individual and so and he knows that [65:02] that's an impossible wish he wishes on a [65:04] star that his son could become an actual [65:06] individual knowing full well that that's [65:07] unlikely and impossible so Geppetto is a [65:09] good king so but the story is also about [65:11] Geppetto because what happens is that [65:13] when Geppetto loses Pinocchio loses his [65:16] son which way you could think about as [65:17] the act of dynamic attentive force of [65:20] youth then he ends up stultified in the [65:22] belly of a whale which is a symbol of [65:24] chaos at the bottom of the ocean and [65:26] then Pinocchio has to rescue him so I [65:28] would say there is an instantiation of [65:31] evolutionarily accumulated wisdom in the [65:34] great stories of the past but they're [65:36] still dead and it requires the Union [65:39] this is why in Christian theology the [65:42] the Godhead has a tripartite structure [65:45] this is part of the reason there's God [65:46] the Father but the father's dead the [65:49] father was right a hundred years ago a [65:51] thousand years ago and is still partly [65:52] right but he's dead he can't participate [65:54] in the updating of the process so you [65:57] need an active force now the active [65:59] force is the same thing that generated [66:01] those stories across time right so it's [66:03] it's the same thing except it's also [66:06] alive in the present and so your moral [66:08] duty and this is another thing that [66:09] happens and in Pinocchio is to rescue [66:11] your dead father from the belly of the [66:13] whale and that's partly what I'm trying [66:15] to do with these biblical lectures [66:16] because your objection is correct [66:18] the reason it's correct is because even [66:21] if the solution was correct the [66:23] landscape has changed and it's changed [66:26] incremental iorry in a revolutionary way [66:28] we don't know and so those old truths [66:30] are at best partial and at worst blind [66:33] but that doesn't mean you can just say [66:36] like like Mao did during the Cultural [66:37] Revolution well let's just destroy the [66:39] past it's like no that would be like [66:42] saying well you don't need a body [66:43] anymore because your body is the [66:44] collected wisdom of the evolutionary [66:46] process across three and a half [66:48] billion years I absolutely agree because [66:50] the stories are not literal it's [66:52] impossible to know whether they well not [66:54] impossible but very difficult to know [66:55] whether or not the truth that is [66:57] contained metaphorically is still [66:59] relevant if it's been inverted and it's [67:00] now absolutely false or so Carl Jung [67:04] talked about this a lot and and one of [67:06] the things he said was that your moral [67:08] duty is to realize the archetype in the [67:10] in the confines of your own life and so [67:12] you say well there's an archetype of [67:14] perfection that pervades the West and [67:17] for that for the sake of argument I'm [67:19] going to call that Christ the Christ [67:20] image it's something like that that's [67:22] the archetypal image now we have a story [67:24] about what Christ's historical life was [67:27] like well well well you can't have that [67:30] life because you would have had to be in [67:33] the Middle East 2,000 years ago that's [67:35] not your life but what you can do is [67:37] take the archetypal and you can manifest [67:39] it was within the confines of your own [67:41] life and what that does is force you to [67:44] undergo the difficult process of [67:46] updating the ancient wisdom and you [67:48] don't just forego it you can't or you [67:50] can but you'll pay a massive price and [67:52] part of that will be social [67:53] disintegration because it's it's the the [67:56] past is alive enough so that those of us [67:59] who inhabit its corpse aren't clawing [68:02] each other to death while we're feeding [68:04] right that's the critical issue now it's [68:06] not alive enough because the bloody [68:08] thing could fall apart at any moment and [68:09] we need to be awake and alert in order [68:11] to keep it updated and maintained well [68:13] not only that but they're the greatest [68:16] hazards to us in the present are only [68:18] partially going to be dealt with in [68:20] these texts and that's that's my biggest [68:22] concern is that you know if we take you [68:25] know Dawkins dismissing religion as mind [68:28] virus this is very dangerous because it [68:31] neglects the truth that you're talking [68:32] about and it prevents us from getting to [68:34] a conversation in which we can talk [68:36] about the fact that religious texts [68:39] religions are not mind viruses they are [68:42] adaptations to past environments they do [68:45] contain a kind of truth that isn't [68:46] necessarily literal and is in general [68:48] not literal but none of them no ancient [68:53] religion is up-to-date for Google's [68:56] algorithms being the hazard to [68:58] civilization that it probably is we need [69:01] to [69:01] figure out how to navigate where the [69:03] ancestral wisdom is simply not up to the [69:06] current okay so let me modify that [69:08] slightly because I think it's true and [69:11] not true the stories are erroneous in [69:14] detail and right in pattern so for [69:17] example there's an idea that one of the [69:19] things that the mythological hero does [69:21] is stand up against the tyranny of the [69:23] state now you don't have to specify the [69:25] nature of the tyranny of the state in [69:27] order for that to be a truth that's [69:29] applicable across different context I [69:31] would say what's happened with the great [69:33] religious myths is that they've they [69:35] operate at a level of abstraction such [69:38] that the the abstract entities are [69:41] applicable in every single environment [69:42] I'll give you an example of that it is [69:45] extremely useful to represent the [69:48] phenomenology of your experience as a [69:51] domain of chaos and order that works in [69:54] every single environment for every [69:56] person and so the domain of order I can [69:58] describe it technically you're in the [70:00] domain of order when your actions [70:02] produce the result you desire and you're [70:05] in the domain of chaos when they don't [70:06] and then and then I could say well your [70:09] task is to straddle the border between [70:12] those two domains because you don't [70:13] always want to be where everything that [70:14] you're doing is working because you [70:16] don't learn anything and you don't want [70:18] to be where nothing you're doing is [70:19] working because it's overwhelming you [70:21] want to be stable and dynamic at the [70:23] same point and the Daoists do that very [70:26] nicely because they have a chaos order [70:27] conceptualization of the of the [70:29] phenomenological landscape and their [70:31] claim is the the point of maximum proper [70:35] being is right at the center of the [70:36] border between chaos and order and I [70:38] think that's true across contexts so I [70:41] don't think that truth ages some of them [70:44] don't but the question really is one of [70:47] at what point is there so much legacy [70:49] code that the taking the package is is [70:55] more harmful than it is beneficial and [70:58] at what point are you know if god were [71:01] writing today I'm pretty convinced the [71:03] first commandment would be thou shalt [71:05] not enrich uranium it would make sense [71:07] as the number one commandment it's not [71:09] there because uranium wasn't a concept [71:12] at the point that the thing was written [71:14] nor was the hazard of enriching it [71:15] obvious and so the fact that it isn't [71:19] mentioned tends to de-emphasize it as a [71:21] risk and so I guess the question is is [71:25] it possible I mean is it possible that [71:28] by recognizing that these traditions [71:32] carry huge amounts of ancestral wisdom [71:35] forward but that that wisdom is certain [71:38] to be so incomplete that it doesn't [71:41] address modern questions that we can be [71:45] liberated to move forward and to honor [71:48] those traditions for bringing us here [71:50] but to recognize that we actually have [71:52] to move forward with something more [71:54] potent and up to date which is not not [71:56] easy because you can't just take the [71:58] scientific truth of the moment and [72:01] implement a lot of it isn't even right [72:03] it's yeah it's also not that easy to [72:05] rewrite a fairy tale you know and I'm [72:07] some of these fairy tales that people [72:09] are trying to rewrite in modern times [72:11] are perhaps fifteen thousand years old [72:12] and people think well we can just update [72:14] that so that the modern version will be [72:16] better it turns out that that's very [72:17] very difficult and there's another I'm [72:19] gonna play devil's advocate against my [72:21] own position here no because I say well [72:23] the religious texts encode profound and [72:26] evolutionarily determined truths that [72:28] are universal okay which religious texts [72:31] right well because you might say well [72:34] all of them but then that means that [72:36] obscures the important differences [72:38] between the traditions and I'm by no [72:40] means certain that all of them do you [72:43] know so I'm going to stick my neck way [72:45] the hell out because why not it isn't [72:47] obvious to me that Islam does because I [72:50] it's very difficult for me to see that [72:52] the totalizing nature of Islam doesn't [72:55] make it unique among religions so now [72:58] good so well there's that out on the [73:00] tape if you don't mind [73:01] but isn't the issue using the word truth [73:04] because we can say true we could use [73:06] tradition and wisdom and we're okay but [73:08] as soon as we start saying truth then [73:10] then we run into problems I mean and [73:12] even when you're talking about [73:13] porcupines well you talk about what [73:16] would you say metaphorical truth versus [73:18] look it's not true it's real simple just [73:20] don't go near the porcupine teach the [73:22] kid to not go near the porcupine because [73:24] porcupine quills are dangerous they get [73:26] stuck in you they're really dangerous [73:27] can they throw it out you know they [73:29] cannot but just stay clear of them [73:31] because you don't want them to somehow [73:33] another get in touch with your body [73:34] there's no truth in that they can throw [73:37] their quills at you you benefit from [73:39] being particularly aware of the dangers [73:42] of their quills but if you tell a kid [73:45] that they can throw their quills and so [73:47] therefore the kid stays clear of them [73:49] here's a faulty assumption in his head [73:51] you're lying to them for their own [73:53] protection and I was not good I wouldn't [73:55] do it I think the same thing could be [73:57] said of everything happens for a reason [73:59] well here's the problem we don't know if [74:01] everything happens for a reason maybe [74:03] when you die you go to some auditing [74:05] room and they go well you know it's all [74:07] just a part of some gigantic algorithm [74:09] that you're impossible it's impossible [74:11] for you to understand due to your [74:12] limited processing power of the human [74:14] brain you're dealing with some simian [74:17] sort of complex geometry that's really [74:21] just design to keep your body move you [74:22] can keep you alive and spread your [74:23] genetics so that you can eventually [74:24] evolve to the point when you're a god [74:26] well first of all I I have kids I would [74:30] write on them that a porcupine I'm sure [74:31] he's wills but how do I use the word [74:33] truth though ah because well the [74:35] question is why do people tell you that [74:37] a porcupine can throw its quills I don't [74:39] think they do oh they do well if they do [74:41] they don't know any better right or [74:43] they're liars right and so all I'm [74:44] saying is that actually that is likely [74:46] to be the product of selection in other [74:50] words that those people who had encoded [74:52] that they do throw their quills have an [74:55] advantage it's not the way I wouldn't do [74:57] it and for exactly the reason that you [74:58] point out which is if you give a child [75:01] the wrong model of a porcupine I don't [75:04] know whether a porcupine is liable to be [75:06] the Gateway to some more important [75:08] question but if it were [75:10] you've just steered the kid wrong well [75:12] something here's part of the problem and [75:14] this is part of but and this is a really [75:15] big problem there's two things I guess [75:17] that were brought up by what you [75:19] described and the first is the [75:20] terminology of truth now [75:22] Harris's claim with regards to my [75:24] utilization of truth was that I was [75:26] absconded with the definition of truth [75:28] and in false matter but he was wrong [75:30] because the idea of truth is much older [75:32] than the idea of objective truth and the [75:34] original notion of truth wasn't [75:36] objective true it was like the arrow [75:38] flies straight and true right it meant [75:42] something like [75:43] reliably reliably on its way to the [75:45] appropriate destination something like [75:47] that and when Christ said I am the truth [75:49] in the way what I can't remember either [75:51] yes yes the truth he was talking about [75:54] wasn't an objective truth so Sam's idea [75:56] that I had somehow you know taken the [75:59] idea of truth that was actually [76:01] objective all along and done something [76:02] crooked with it is just wrong it's wrong [76:05] well there's no truth can have multiple [76:07] definitions well that maybe there was [76:09] that that's the issue and that's exactly [76:11] what we're what we're trying to get out [76:12] here is like there's to me there's two [76:15] kinds of truth and and they may be they [76:18] may be commensurate you may be able to [76:20] stack them on top of one another but now [76:21] and then they dissociate and this is [76:23] actually what what what Brett was [76:25] referring to as well so so and this is [76:29] where it gets so complicated that I can [76:30] barely manage it there's a there's the [76:33] truth that manifests itself in the [76:35] manner in which you act and there's the [76:38] truth that manifests itself as a [76:40] representation of the objective world [76:41] and sometimes both those truths are [76:44] stacked on top of each other and [76:45] sometimes they're not so like I could [76:47] give you a piece of wisdom that would [76:49] work well if you acted it out that [76:51] carried within it an inaccurate [76:53] representation of part of the objective [76:55] world and you could say well maybe [76:57] that's actually the case with the [76:58] biblical stories because if you read [76:59] them as science they don't read well so [77:03] let's take malaria as a good example [77:05] malaria the root of the word is mal area [77:09] bad air right malaria is not transmitted [77:12] by bad air to transmitted by mosquitoes [77:14] that live in places where you might [77:15] think the air is bad so the point is [77:17] it's part of the way there yeah that's a [77:20] good one and that also gets see there's [77:22] another weird distinction here and that [77:25] I was trying to draw with Sam but that's [77:26] a really tricky one and we ordered in [77:28] because we started to talk about [77:30] pragmatism but there's also something [77:32] like the truth of a description and the [77:34] truth of a tool and my sense is that [77:37] people's fundamental truths are too [77:39] alike we use them to function properly [77:42] in the world and you could say well a [77:44] sharp axe is more true than a dull axe [77:47] and actually you can use the word true [77:49] in that sense that actually isn't [77:51] appropriate appropriate use of the word [77:53] there there are tool truths and there [77:56] are [77:56] objective fact truth now and in the [78:00] optimal circumstance those map on to [78:02] each other but we're not smart enough [78:03] often to make the map on to each other [78:05] because we just don't know enough and [78:07] there are lots of truths that we have [78:08] that portray the objective world [78:10] improperly that are still true is this [78:12] problem using the term true when [78:15] sometimes you should use the term fact [78:16] like yes one plus one is two that is a [78:20] fact one plus one is two is also true [78:22] you throw some water on a match that is [78:25] and it will go out that's a fact [78:27] yes well as I see it at least there is [78:31] this overarching truth the one that sam [78:33] harris was pointing to the one i think [78:35] you're pointing to also and the one i [78:37] i'm imagining we all subscribe to sure [78:40] right there is the testable truth that [78:42] reveals itself in the laboratory were in [78:44] a careful experiment in the field and [78:45] that really is the top level truth but [78:48] then there are the truths you can't [78:49] speak yet so let's take the word filth [78:53] from from the old testament okay [78:57] filth means [ __ ] right you're not [78:59] supposed to [ __ ] in camp because god [79:02] finds it offensive now the problem is [79:05] the germ theory of disease doesn't come [79:07] about for thousands of years after that [79:09] truth was written that truth keeps you [79:13] from infecting people long before you [79:15] can ever explain that there are microbes [79:17] that grow in human [ __ ] that are a [79:19] particular danger to your population so [79:21] the point is would you rather be held [79:24] back to the place where you can actually [79:26] describe the literal underpinnings of [79:29] what's going on or do you want to be [79:30] liberated to say something that actually [79:32] results in an improvement in health [79:35] before you know literally thousands of [79:38] years before anybody had any idea that [79:40] it was microbes at the root of this yes [79:42] no need to figure out so an elaboration [79:44] of that would be something like human [79:46] beings needed to figure out how to act [79:48] without dying before they could [79:49] understand the nature of the world well [79:51] enough to justify that right and [79:52] somebody might be crazy now that we do [79:55] have the germ theory of disease to to [79:58] amplify that original crude version of [80:01] the truth or that crude approximation of [80:04] what you need to believe in order to [80:05] behave safely there's no reason for that [80:09] truth [80:10] to be promoted in fact you don't hear [80:12] people describing this part of the Old [80:15] Testament relevant right and this is [80:18] probably all why dietary restrictions [80:20] were in the Old Testament as well [80:21] shellfish red tide eating pigs [80:24] trichinosis there's a lot of a lot of [80:26] issues that go along with that yeah well [80:28] there is some intermingling perhaps of [80:30] hygienic concerns with also the desire [80:32] for the groups to distinguish themselves [80:34] from other groups right because you can [80:36] you can unite your group quite tightly [80:38] by dietary restrictions so um back to [80:41] your point about terminology you know we [80:43] could we could do something like fact [80:46] and wisdom you know you say truth that's [80:49] the overarching category and then that [80:50] divides into fact and wisdom and what [80:52] you want optimally is you want the facts [80:54] and the wisdom to be one not one to one [80:57] but often they're not and if you find [80:59] wisdom where the facts aren't laid right [81:01] out you don't just get to throw away the [81:03] wisdom which is what I think happens in [81:05] the case of people like Dawkins and [81:06] Harris and Harris makes another [81:07] sleight-of-hand move which I don't like [81:09] which is that he thinks so let's say [81:12] except for just a second the wisdom fact [81:15] distinction he would say well the fact [81:17] is the thing and the wisdom is a second [81:19] order derivation of that you can ground [81:21] the wisdom in the fact and I don't [81:22] believe that and I don't think that he [81:24] has he I don't think that he has any [81:26] real justification for that claim and [81:28] this is something by grounding the [81:31] wisdom in the fact he thinks if you know [81:32] the facts clearly enough you'll know how [81:34] to act well that's not necessarily true [81:36] well there's ways to act with that are [81:39] within your best interest and then [81:41] there's ways to act that are within the [81:42] interest of all the people around you've [81:44] been might not serve you that well well [81:47] this diction is where ethics come right [81:49] or right where the consequences are [81:50] delayed yes some number of generations [81:53] sure thing like yes well that's a big [81:54] problem and right so so Sam acts as if [81:58] the process of mac mapping facts onto [82:00] action is simple if we just got the [82:02] facts right but but it's the weakest [82:05] part of his argument and we never ever [82:06] got to that for a variety of reasons but [82:08] part of the reason it's weak is okay [82:10] well there's like an infinite number of [82:12] facts man which so let's say you're [82:15] standing in front of a field and you're [82:16] looking at the field the field does not [82:18] tell you how to walk through it there's [82:21] a million ways through the field and [82:23] matter how many facts about the field [82:25] you aggregate you're not going to be [82:26] able to determine the appropriate path [82:28] by aggregating those facts so it's [82:30] that's and that that's a problem that I [82:32] don't think Sam is willing to take [82:34] seriously and well I think there are two [82:38] problems tangled up here one of them is [82:41] there's a question of re is one [82:44] individual supposed to have all of the [82:46] facts and navigate based on on that sort [82:49] of the rationality community version of [82:51] things or does you know the practical [82:55] truth is we can't all be experts in [82:56] everything and so we have to go along [82:58] with you know guides to our behavior [83:00] that are approximate and that that's [83:02] inherent and then there's a question [83:04] about civilization civilization should [83:07] be guided by our best understanding of [83:09] what's actually true but with an [83:11] understanding that we don't have a [83:13] complete map of a lot of stuff and so I [83:16] think what you're pointing at is that [83:18] there is wisdom that has been handed to [83:20] us that is not such that we can just [83:23] simply say oh here's the nugget at the [83:24] center of it and we need to preserve [83:26] that thing because we don't necessarily [83:27] know what it's doing yeah which is you [83:30] know that's this is dangerous because [83:32] some of what it's doing may not be [83:34] acceptable well and think about let's [83:36] look at the wisdom end of things for a [83:38] minute you talk you've alluded a little [83:39] earlier to like iterations and and and [83:42] about the fact that things are iterated [83:44] across time and that's something that [83:45] works now might fail dreadfully in a [83:47] month or two months so so here's here's [83:50] what something has to be like to be wise [83:52] let's say well first of all let's say it [83:56] would be good if as it was in accordance [83:57] with the facts but we'll leave that [83:58] aside for now it has to work if you [84:02] operate according to the wisdom [84:03] principle whatever it is it has to work [84:06] in the world but then it has to work in [84:08] a world that allows you to maintain your [84:10] relationships with people in the world [84:12] right so it's all of a sudden this [84:14] wisdom thing is something that's not [84:15] only constrained by let's call it [84:17] objective reality but it's constrained [84:19] by the necessity of a social contract a [84:21] functional social contract so you're [84:24] only able to you're only allowed to put [84:27] forward actions in the world that would [84:29] be of benefit to you if they [84:30] simultaneously don't undermine the [84:32] structure within which you live okay and [84:34] then there's a game theory element to [84:36] that which is [84:37] if it's wise then it works in the world [84:39] so that'd be the constraint of objective [84:41] reality but then it works for you now [84:43] and the you that'll be in a week and the [84:46] you that'll be in a month and it works [84:48] for you and your family and it works for [84:50] you and your family and society and it [84:51] works in a way that those things all [84:53] line up to be iterated across time and [84:55] so this this is actually they're all so [84:58] the solution is for and I'd really like [84:59] to hear what you think about this I [85:01] think this is the solution to the [85:03] postmodern conundrum because the post [85:05] modernists bless their heart so we'll [85:07] give the devil his due [85:08] say well the problem is there's an [85:10] infinite number of interpretations of a [85:12] finite set of facts and the right [85:15] response to that is oh oh that's true [85:19] that's true that's not good and that's [85:21] why the postmodern to say well you can't [85:23] agree on a canonical interpretation of a [85:25] great piece of literature because the [85:26] number of potential interpretations are [85:28] infinite and so then they say well why [85:30] should we settle on any one [85:31] interpretation then why should we [85:32] privilege one over another and then they [85:34] say well that's all power games and so [85:36] that's our you got to take that [85:38] seriously but what they missed and this [85:40] is a big deal it's a big deal I think is [85:42] this idea of ethical constraint it's [85:45] like yes there's a landscape of [85:46] potentially infinite interpretations but [85:48] hardly any of them will work in the real [85:50] world and hardly any of them will work [85:53] in the real world in a way that doesn't [85:54] get you killed by other people or doom [85:56] you because of your own stupidity to [85:59] failure across time and so the landscape [86:02] of interpretation is almost infinite but [86:04] the landscape of applicable [86:06] interpretation functional interpretation [86:09] is unbelievably constrained and I think [86:11] that constraint system is what we regard [86:13] as ethics it's something like that well [86:15] at some level stories continue through [86:18] time for a reason you know good stories [86:21] continue for a long you know the Odyssey [86:23] is with us for some reason and we so [86:25] there is a scientific reason or a [86:27] scientifically [86:28] investigative reason why the Odyssey has [86:31] been durable we may not know it but it's [86:33] a in principle it's a question you could [86:35] investigate so I guess yeah at the end [86:39] of the day the problem with the [86:40] postmodernist is that they have a point [86:41] the point is perception gets in the way [86:44] of anything we wish to do objectively [86:46] but that point only takes you so far and [86:49] that's why they turned to Marx's [86:51] as far as I can tell because what [86:52] happens with the postmodernist as they [86:54] say oh there's an infinite number of [86:56] interpretations and then the human part [86:58] of them goes okay well what am I [87:01] supposed to do next then since there's [87:04] an infinite number of choices and the [87:06] postmodernist says well my theory can't [87:07] account for that and then they say well [87:09] back to Marxism and so that's why I [87:11] think there's this unholy alliance [87:12] between the post modernists and the [87:14] neo-marxists is because post-modernism [87:16] is a is a dead end from the perspective [87:19] of applicable wisdom it leaves you [87:21] bereft and nihilistic and that's not [87:23] good because people can't exist without [87:25] a purpose and so they sneak the Marxism [87:27] through the back door and and jump into [87:30] this power landscape for the reasons [87:32] that we discussed earlier you really [87:34] think that it's because of an infinite [87:35] number of possibilities interpretating [87:37] things because I've always felt that it [87:38] was really just a response to capitalism [87:40] they feel that capitalism is a very [87:42] negative aspect of our culture and [87:44] society and that there's got to be some [87:46] sort of an alternative Marxism is a [87:48] clearly defined alternative that other [87:50] people have subscribed to in the past [87:51] you could point to it it's a structure [87:54] that's already already set up and it's [87:56] romanticized [87:57] and I think they adopt it for that [87:59] reason because it has a socialist [88:00] aspects attached to it and they looked [88:02] at socialism as it's some sort of a [88:04] thing that regards equality and you know [88:08] it's some sort of an egalitarian [88:09] approach well it's okay so we'd have to [88:13] take two things apart we'd have to take [88:15] Marxism slash neo-marxist Marxism and [88:18] post-modernism apart so we could do that [88:20] historically and I would say that [88:23] although there is a reason for [88:24] post-modernism which is the reason we [88:26] just discussed that the the landscape [88:28] the infinite landscape of interpretation [88:30] problem it's a real problem if you look [88:33] at it historically post-modernism [88:34] actually grew out of Marxism and so what [88:38] what happened is that the Marxists laid [88:41] out their their their theory about the [88:44] human social environment being composed [88:47] of a power struggle between the [88:49] privileged and the underprivileged right [88:51] the rich and the poor and in its initial [88:53] phases and that's a story that's [88:55] partially true and it's got a lot of [88:57] motive power like the motive power is [89:00] the romantic motive power that you just [89:01] described I get to be on the side of the [89:03] oppressed I get to be a war [89:04] for what's right there's the resentment [89:07] element which is that son-of-a-bitch has [89:08] more than me so let's cut them off at [89:10] the knees which manifested itself [89:12] brutally in the Soviet Union and then [89:14] there's the ideological totality issue [89:16] which gives people a sense of security [89:18] that took a vicious hit by it by the [89:21] late 1960s because the murderous nosov [89:23] Marxism had been clearly laid out as a [89:24] doctrine and that opened the door to [89:27] this move by by mostly French [89:29] intellectuals to to develop the [89:32] postmodern philosophy which has these [89:34] advantages which we described but but [89:36] also to use that as a screening tactic [89:39] for allowing Marxism to transform into [89:41] identity politics and so it like it's [89:44] hard to disentangle all the motivations [89:46] that are going on in there but there's [89:47] something about it that's that's truly [89:49] intellectually pathological because you [89:52] don't get to be a postmodernist and a [89:54] Marxist you actually technically cannot [89:57] be both of those things at the same time [89:58] and the fact that most people are both [90:01] of those things at the same time raises [90:04] the specter of just exactly what their [90:06] motivation is and then I would say it's [90:08] this resentment driven anti capitalism [90:11] there's reasons to criticize capitalism [90:13] obviously but it's this underground [90:15] resentment driven anti capitalism that I [90:17] think is one of the fundamental [90:19] motivators well if I can if I can add a [90:21] couple things the risk of alienating my [90:24] last few friends so here's the thing [90:30] what's up with with Marxism is a there's [90:34] a lot in marx critique of capitalism [90:36] that's actually right and so that kind [90:39] of gets you through the door once you [90:40] start looking at the analysis and then [90:42] there's the prescription which is toxic [90:45] but it's not obvious why it's toxic in [90:49] other words it's a pretty good story [90:50] that doesn't happen to function and so [90:53] people gravitate to it because the story [90:56] is moderately compelling it's not game [90:59] theoretically functional or stable or [91:02] viable and it does descend into this [91:04] kind of you know inevitable grave [91:06] violence and so we know that now [91:09] historically it's not just a theoretical [91:11] issue we've now seen enough of it to [91:13] know that there's a fact but nonetheless [91:14] the fact that there are people telling [91:16] the story to [91:18] kids who don't yet know what to do with [91:21] something that sounds like it might be [91:23] true is very dangerous if you don't mind [91:26] break it down as to why it goes bad well [91:29] I mean it's sort of a tired critique but [91:32] I happen to think it's about right which [91:33] is that it just does not take account of [91:36] what the human being is and what makes [91:40] society function spoken like a true [91:43] fascist well I think it might be related [91:53] back to ok so let's go back to the idea [91:56] that Marx had something to say ok and we [91:58] could clarify that a little bit so [92:00] here's a problem this is the problem [92:02] that it seems to emerge as the function [92:04] of some really fundamental force that we [92:06] don't quite understand and that's this [92:09] phenomena that I've been referring to as [92:11] the Pareto distribution ok so here's the [92:14] here's the situation if you look at any [92:17] creative endeavor that human beings [92:19] engage in so that would be an endeavor [92:20] where there's variability and individual [92:23] production it doesn't matter what it is [92:24] here's what happens people compete to [92:27] produce whatever that is and almost [92:30] everybody produces zero they lose [92:32] completely a small minority are a tiny [92:37] bit successful and a hyper minority are [92:39] insanely successful and so the Pareto [92:43] distribution for and the Pareto [92:44] distribution is is the what geometric [92:47] graph representation of that phenomena [92:50] and so here's how it manifests itself if [92:54] you have ten thousand people a hundred [92:57] of them have half the money so the rule [92:59] is the square root of the number of [93:01] people under consideration have half of [93:03] whatever it is that's under [93:04] consideration so this works everywhere [93:06] so if you took a hundred classical [93:08] composers ten of them produce half the [93:10] music that's played and then if you take [93:12] the ten composers and you take a [93:14] thousand of their songs thirty of those [93:17] songs which is the square root of a [93:18] thousand roughly speaking are played [93:20] fifty percent of the time and so there's [93:23] this underlying natural law which is [93:26] it's expressed as the Matthieu principle [93:28] which is from a New Testament statement [93:29] the statement is [93:31] those who have everything more will be [93:33] given and from those who have nothing [93:35] everything will be taken it's a vicious [93:37] statement but it's it's actually here's [93:39] one of those places where it's actually [93:40] empirically true this happens everywhere [93:42] and so what Marx observed was that [93:45] capital tended to accumulate in the [93:46] hands of fewer and fewer people and he [93:48] said that's a flaw of the capitalist [93:50] system that's wrong it's not a flaw of [93:53] the capitalist system it is a feature of [93:55] every single system of production that [93:57] we know of no matter who set it up and [93:59] how it operates and so and then now we [94:01] have a problem because what happens is [94:03] as soon as you set up a domain of [94:06] production and you need to because you [94:07] need things to be produced then you [94:09] instantly produce a competition and the [94:12] spoils go disproportionately to a tiny [94:14] percentage of people so then the quiz [94:17] yeah so then well so what well so the [94:19] rest of the people starve or the system [94:21] becomes unstable because everybody's mad [94:23] it's like that's a big problem ok so how [94:25] do human beings fix that well the first [94:27] thing we did was diversify the number of [94:29] productive games so you don't get to be [94:32] NBA basketball star but you know you can [94:34] run a podcast it's a completely [94:36] different competitive landscape so we [94:38] can fractionate the the production [94:40] landscape and then people who aren't [94:42] successful in one domain might be [94:44] successful in others [94:45] that's create human creativity we're [94:46] really good at that but the problem with [94:49] that is you can still get a positive [94:50] correlation among the successful people [94:52] you know so because you're so successful [94:55] for example with your podcast in your [94:57] YouTube videos your connection network [94:59] is insane insanely powerful right so you [95:02] still have this tendency for what's [95:05] useful and good to be what distributed [95:10] let's call it inequitably and it's it's [95:13] it's got the power of a physical law in [95:15] fact there are people they call [95:16] themselves econo physicists no one knows [95:18] that there's a field econo physicists [95:20] econo physics and they use the same [95:23] mathematical equations that that [95:26] represent the propagation of molecules [95:29] into a gas molecules into a vacuum to [95:31] describe the manner in which money [95:32] distributes itself in an economy [95:34] ok so Marx pointed to a fundamental [95:36] issue but he said well that's a fault [95:39] with capitalism it's like no it isn't [95:40] it's something way more pernicious than [95:42] that and it's it's something like well [95:44] when one good thing [95:45] Institute makes you a little more [95:46] powerful and attractive and so that [95:49] fractionally increases the possibility [95:51] that another good thing will happen to [95:52] you and then that spirals out of control [95:55] and you get people who have well they [95:57] have all the money or they have all the [95:59] podcast downloads you're in that [96:00] position you know what is it 1.2 billion [96:04] like what the hell but it's to those who [96:08] have more and it's not because there's [96:10] something oppressive about you it's [96:11] because you you rode the wave of the [96:14] Pareto distribution in it and it threw [96:16] you way that way the hell up into the [96:18] stratosphere and we don't know what to [96:19] do about that like should you be sharing [96:22] your podcast views with the with the [96:24] oppressed and downtrodden [96:25] I mean you've well you've got a few [96:26] billion you could spread the damn things [96:28] around it's not fair that you're the [96:30] only one that's being listened to you [96:31] know it's the same argument and it's a [96:33] compelling argument because why the hell [96:35] should you have all that power if you [96:37] call it power you could call it [96:38] authority or competence this is not a [96:40] different argument because no one's [96:41] asking anyone to download anything in [96:44] specific no ones no one's compelling [96:46] anyone to download anything specific you [96:48] could download whatever you want and if [96:49] you put more effort in more time and [96:51] more focus into your work whatever it [96:53] would be whether it's a podcast or your [96:55] YouTube videos or whatever if people [96:57] enjoy it they gravitate towards it and [96:59] then over time it exponentially [97:02] increases the amount of people that are [97:04] exposed to well this is why I think that [97:06] the and this is the other problem with [97:08] the Marxist perspective is that and the [97:10] post modernists in particular like they [97:12] conflate power competence and authority [97:16] unfairly now your point it's sort of the [97:19] point of free marketers you're saying [97:20] well look all I'm doing is offering a [97:21] product I'm not compelling anyone it's a [97:24] quality product or at least as far as [97:26] the market is concerned it is if it [97:28] turns out that everyone wants that well [97:29] what's wrong with that and I'm not [97:31] disagreeing with that argument in the [97:33] least but but it's the problem is it [97:36] doesn't it doesn't fix the problem like [97:39] the problem with money let's say the [97:40] problem is is that if you let a monetary [97:42] system run all the money ends up in the [97:44] hands of a very few number of people and [97:47] you're saying this is also with any sort [97:49] of creative it any creative endeavor man [97:51] now what is wrong like I think the real [97:53] issue would be to maximize potential [97:56] output or maximize the amount of [97:58] successful people [97:59] you have to figure out what's don't [98:01] concentrate on what people are doing [98:03] right [98:04] concentrate on what people are doing [98:05] wrong like what why what are the people [98:08] doing wrong that are failing whether in [98:10] any crew that's why we put together just [98:13] to be one at all that's partly why we [98:15] put together the Future authoring [98:17] program because we are trying to figure [98:18] out what made people successful and one [98:20] of the things that makes people [98:22] successful is they specify a target and [98:24] then aim at it right because if you're [98:27] all over the place [98:27] in a relatively functional society like [98:31] ours we know what predicts success IQ [98:33] and conscientiousness are the biggest [98:35] predictors of success now there's a [98:37] genetic lottery thing going on there [98:39] that's kind of rough but it does say [98:41] that smart people who work hard are [98:42] disproportionately likely to succeed and [98:44] then you might also say well you want to [98:47] remove the impediments from people who [98:48] have those capabilities so that they can [98:50] move forward and one one of the [98:52] predictors of success as well is to [98:54] decide what your success is going to be [98:56] and then work hard in that direction and [98:58] that actually works so I think that is a [99:00] very useful thing to do and that's well [99:02] like I said that's partly why we've been [99:04] working in that direction so but it [99:07] there's other problems that it doesn't [99:08] still still doesn't solve like one of [99:10] them is if you don't have any money it's [99:14] really hard to get some like once you [99:17] have some it's not so hard to get some [99:18] more all right but if you're at zero [99:20] Jesus man you're in this you're in the [99:23] reverse situation mm-hmm you're poor you [99:26] don't have anything no one wants to talk [99:27] to you you can't get out of it because [99:29] you're too poor to get out of it you [99:31] know you're penalized by the economic [99:33] system because you can't even afford to [99:34] start playing the game you're stuck at [99:36] zero you're stuck at zero and you can't [99:38] get out and the revolutionary types you [99:41] know they go to the people who are stuck [99:42] at zero and they say hey you're stuck at [99:44] zero why don't you burn the whole [99:45] goddamn thing to the ground right [99:47] because maybe in the next iteration you [99:48] won't be stuck at zero and for young men [99:51] that's a hell of a call right because [99:53] they're already let's call them [99:55] expendable [99:56] biologically and that makes them more [99:58] adventurous and risk-taking if someone [99:59] says and maybe that's why they wear the [100:01] Che Guevara t-shirt it's like hey I'm [100:03] stuck at zero well I'd rather be with [100:05] the romantic who's burning the whole [100:06] thing to the ground than to just you [100:08] know to stay locked in my immobile [100:10] position right but that's [100:12] was where massive amounts of creativity [100:15] come from because of that struggle [100:16] massive amounts of innovation massive [100:19] amounts of people who have visions [100:20] because you're not living off of some [100:23] sort of trust fund you know you you have [100:26] real risk in real danger and you have a [100:29] real concern about your future where [100:31] someone who has no concerns whatsoever [100:33] and their future is carved in stone they [100:36] could do whatever they want buy a new [100:37] Ferrari every year that they're not [100:40] gonna have nearly the amount of [100:41] motivation as the poor person yeah.well [100:42] that may be why family fortunes tend to [100:45] only last three generations yes and you [100:47] know you're saying well why don't you [100:49] take a look at the advantages of zero [100:51] and one of the advantages is there is [100:53] that you're driven by brute necessity [100:55] and that can really be motivating and [100:57] that's I think why why first the [100:59] children of first generation immigrants [101:01] often do so well yes you know they're [101:03] driven by necessity and it's risk so yes [101:07] agreed however I would still say you [101:10] know the zero issue is there are levels [101:12] of absolute privation that are so [101:14] intense yes [101:15] that all the goodwill in the world won't [101:17] get you out of zero right if you're [101:19] living in a third-world country in some [101:21] very small village with no way out [101:23] whatsoever that is the zero of zero [101:26] right Tanzania on the on the river [101:29] people getting eaten by crocodiles in [101:31] your village you're [ __ ] [101:32] yes zero is like a magnet yeah just hold [101:35] yeah it's a black hole having a little [101:37] very little maybe that motivational [101:39] state actually generative right there's [101:42] a difference and then what's really [101:43] bizarre is those people in that village [101:45] might be happier than the people who [101:48] live in a gated community in Beverly [101:50] Hills well I wanted to I wanted to come [101:52] back to this your point about about [101:54] whether we should be concentrating on [101:55] what you're doing right versus what [101:56] you're doing wrong both of those will [101:59] work and you should actually be doing [102:00] both of them simultaneously you'll [102:02] you'll maximize faster but the real [102:05] problem is that the system in which we [102:07] concentrate on what you're doing right [102:10] and what you're doing wrong and [102:11] supposedly you get paid for some [102:14] integration of those things is that we [102:18] don't we don't understand what we are [102:20] wired to produce evolutionarily right we [102:23] think we all operate they [102:26] the idea that we're pursuing some state [102:28] of happiness or satisfaction and you [102:31] know we we think we know what's going to [102:33] get it for us and maybe it's inventing [102:35] something and then then you'll be happy [102:37] but it's a trap the fact is what we are [102:42] wired to do is to discover opportunities [102:45] and then when we discover an opportunity [102:47] it benefits the population that we come [102:49] from and we turn that discovery into our [102:53] more mouths to feed or more consumption [102:55] and we restore the state of privation [102:57] right we restore the state in which [103:00] people don't have enough and so if you [103:02] really wanted to fix this problem if you [103:05] wanted to address the problems that [103:07] communism thinks its solving but fails [103:09] too you have to engineer around this [103:13] this feature of human beings where we [103:16] pursue new opportunities and as soon as [103:18] we find a new opportunity instead of [103:20] figuring out a way to stabilize the [103:22] benefits so that it results in a stable [103:24] sense of satisfaction for example we [103:27] fall all over ourselves to turn it into [103:29] more of the same because of course [103:31] that's how we got here can you give me [103:32] example which mean buzz I'm sure so [103:35] let's look at something like the let's [103:41] imagine an ancient farmer ancient farmer [103:46] has a piece of land and that piece of [103:47] land will support a certain number of [103:49] people with the level of technology that [103:52] the farmer is utilizing somehow the [103:54] farmer ends up either thinking of or [103:56] discovering by watching somebody else a [103:59] wheel now that farmer has a technology [104:02] that allows him or however many people [104:05] are working that farm to produce that [104:07] much more food with no more labor [104:09] because the wheel allows you to [104:11] transport more for example at one time [104:13] so now that same piece of land can [104:16] support more people because it can be [104:17] more efficiently farmed that could be [104:20] stabilized as a kind of success in other [104:25] words that you could turn the extra the [104:28] surplus into a kind of persistent luxury [104:33] yeah a luxury but I mean I don't even [104:35] luxury is a little bit too trivial [104:37] sounding you could turn it into a space [104:39] where you [104:39] use that to to investigate important [104:42] stuff or you could turn it into more [104:45] mouths to feed in which case as soon as [104:47] you've produced those extra mouths that [104:49] are now consuming the output of that [104:51] farm now the level of you know fear of [104:56] starvation is right back where it was [104:57] mm-hmm and so so so that's more money [105:01] more problems yeah essentially I mean [105:03] you know well it used to be that we [105:05] produced more people now we produce a [105:07] greater quest for consumption right but [105:11] if we were smart what we would do is we [105:12] would think about the problem of how to [105:14] take the gains that come from not being [105:18] bumped up at the limits of a system and [105:21] turn them into what we value all right [105:23] we've we've done some of that I mean [105:25] because so we've done some of that [105:28] because as what do they say a rising [105:34] tide lifts all ships and there's [105:35] certainly some truth in that the overall [105:37] standard of living has gone up so [105:38] stupendously since 1895 that it's an [105:41] absolute miracle so we've done some of [105:43] that [105:44] so there's another issue back to Marx [105:47] let's say there's another issue that we [105:49] have we can't contend with and one of [105:52] those might be well imagine that in [105:55] order for society to progress you have [105:56] to allow the individual to compete in a [105:58] relatively untrammeled space so that [106:01] they can innovate and then imagine that [106:03] one of the consequences of that [106:04] innovation is that you get these preeto [106:06] distributions developing because the [106:08] innovator or the one who's second in [106:10] line to the innovator whatever ends up [106:12] with them with the bulk of the spoils so [106:15] you might say there's a cost to be paid [106:17] in inequality for innovation and then [106:22] you could also say well too much [106:23] inequality destabilizes things which [106:25] seems to be quite quite clear so there's [106:28] room for an intelligent conversation [106:30] about that right because the lefties say [106:32] Oh too much inequality and they need to [106:35] be listened to because the evidence is [106:36] quite clear if you let the inequality [106:38] ramp up enough the whole system [106:40] destabilizes because the people at the [106:41] bottom think [ __ ] it we'll just we'll [106:44] just flip the system upside down right [106:45] no one wants that [106:46] like right-wing conservatives don't want [106:49] that so because you could make a [106:50] Republican argument say don't let the [106:52] inequality in your neighborhood [106:53] out of hand because the crime rate will [106:55] skyrocket and the empirical evidence on [106:57] that is overwhelmingly strong inequality [107:00] drives crime now you can say you can [107:02] argue about why but the fact that it [107:03] does is that's not disputable so we can [107:06] have an intelligent discussion between [107:07] the left and the right and the [107:08] discussion would go something like this [107:10] you need innovation you pay for [107:12] innovation with inequality but you need [107:15] to bind inequality because if it's too [107:16] intense then things destabilize it's [107:18] like okay we could agree on that we've [107:20] got the parameters set now we have to [107:22] now we have to start thinking very [107:23] carefully through how to do the [107:25] redistribution issue and we don't know [107:26] how to do that so you might say well we [107:28] have a guaranteed annual income for [107:30] people which i think is a horrible [107:31] solution by the way but it addresses the [107:33] right problem the problem is is that [107:35] we're hyper productive but the spoils go [107:38] to those at the top and some of those [107:40] resources need to be funneled down to [107:43] the people who have zero so that they [107:45] have an opportunity to at least get to [107:46] the point where they can innovate and so [107:48] the bloody whole bloody thing doesn't [107:49] wobble and fall and we could we and I [107:52] would say in some sense that's what the [107:53] political discussion is about but we [107:56] we've we've skittered off into these [107:58] radical oversimplifications which is [108:00] something like well if if you have more [108:02] than another person you're an oppressor [108:04] and you're evil and if you have less [108:06] it's because you're virtuous and [108:08] victimized and that's just a non-starter [108:10] so you think that there's a real problem [108:12] with like something like a universal [108:14] basic income [108:16] well I think the idea that the solution [108:19] is a basic income is not a good idea [108:21] because I think the problem is deeper [108:22] than that I I don't think the [108:24] fundamental problem is that people don't [108:25] have enough money I think the [108:27] fundamental problem is that human beings [108:30] in some sense are beasts of burden and [108:32] if they're not given if they're not [108:34] provided with a place where they can [108:36] accept social responsibility social and [108:38] individual responsibility in an [108:40] honourable manner they degenerate and [108:42] die but that's the opiate crisis in West [108:45] right now like men need men who are men [108:49] don't need money they need function and [108:52] we've got a problem one of the problems [108:54] is for example here here's an ugly stat [108:56] I think I told you this once before it's [108:59] illegal to induct anyone into the Armed [109:01] Forces if they have an IQ of less than [109:02] 83 and the reason for that is the you [109:06] know the armed force [109:07] despite having every reason to draw the [109:09] contradictory conclusion has decided [109:13] that there isn't a single thing that you [109:14] can be trained to do in the military if [109:16] you have an IQ of less than 83 that [109:17] isn't positively counterproductive [109:19] that's ten percent of the population and [109:22] we're producing a culture that's very [109:26] cognitively complex like what the hell [109:28] are you gonna do if you can't use a [109:29] computer like if you can use a computer [109:32] you're at least in the game if you can [109:33] really use one you're hyper powerful if [109:35] you're not literate enough to use a [109:37] computer you're at zero ten percent of [109:41] the population the Conservatives say [109:42] well there's a job for everyone if they [109:44] just worked hard enough it's like ah no [109:46] and increasingly no and the Liberals say [109:49] well everyone's basically the same and [109:51] you can train anyone to do anything it's [109:52] like no you can't yeah I want to go back [109:56] to the inequality point here because if [109:58] you look at this biologically actually I [110:00] think it gave reveals a lot why are we I [110:03] mean we know from from careful study [110:07] that people are motivated by the degree [110:11] of inequality more than they are the the [110:14] absolute level of well-being that they [110:16] have and there's a very good it's tragic [110:18] but a very good evolutionary reason for [110:20] this which is if you are working on some [110:23] piece of land and your neighbor has the [110:25] adjacent piece of land and they're doing [110:27] twice as well as you it's because they [110:30] know something you don't right and so [110:32] becoming focused on what they're doing [110:34] that you're not doing is a rational [110:37] thing to spend your time on so you can [110:39] figure out what it is that they know [110:40] that you don't in the modern environment [110:42] this is a catastrophe because who are [110:45] your neighbors well you've got some box [110:47] sitting on the wall of your living room [110:49] that has a totally artificial portrait [110:51] of other people who may be much [110:53] wealthier than you and it's broadcasting [110:56] in as if you're looking in their window [110:57] right in the adjacent house and so you [110:59] think you you being triggered to think [111:01] that you're doing something wrong that [111:02] you might fix when in fact the solution [111:04] may not be first of all the person on [111:07] the other side of that screen may not be [111:09] for real but even if they are they're [111:12] not living in the same environment as [111:14] you the technology is interfacing with [111:16] with our brains badly but so we have [111:20] of the perception of massive inequality [111:23] economically we do have massive [111:24] inequality you're arguing that the [111:26] solution to this involves some sort of [111:28] massive redistribution but nonetheless [111:33] redistribution is wildly unpopular for [111:36] various reasons and so what we've got [111:38] now is a situation this is speculative [111:43] but what's really happening is that [111:45] austerity is being used as a threat to [111:48] keep people who would otherwise rebel [111:50] against the inequality in line and my [111:53] fear about this is that this is exactly [111:55] the conditions that are going to trigger [111:57] that tribal population against [112:03] population mayhem that we were talking [112:05] about at the beginning of this [112:06] conversation that when people have the [112:09] sense that the the bursts of growth that [112:12] they were experiencing is now over the [112:14] natural response is to turn on those who [112:17] are not as powerful and take their stuff [112:18] that this is a totally indefensible but [112:22] nonetheless biological pattern of [112:24] history and that if we want to avoid [112:26] that we have to stop sending the signals [112:29] that trigger us to imagine that we've [112:31] just run to the limit of the opportunity [112:35] that we had discovered and it is now [112:36] time to look and see who can't defend [112:38] their positions how are we sending these [112:40] signals well by basically failing to [112:45] provide enough well-being that people's [112:48] perception of the inequality is reduced [112:51] to a tolerable level [112:53] well the argument for universal basic [112:55] income certainly certainly a strong one [112:58] and I you know it's also it's also a [113:00] good argument for equality of [113:01] opportunity right because people are [113:03] people are actually not as resentful [113:06] about the success of others as you might [113:09] expect they're resentful about it if [113:11] they feel that the game is fixed mmm but [113:13] they're also willing to consider the [113:15] game long term so lots of people will [113:17] say look like I'm stuck in not zero I'm [113:19] stuck at one but my kids might make it [113:21] to four and that's good enough and [113:23] that's being the American dream right [113:25] and that's and that's a really high [113:26] power antidote to inequality it's like [113:29] well yeah there's some inequality we [113:31] need it to keep the generative mechanism [113:33] going but the [113:34] is fair and you can play it too and [113:36] there's some reasonable probability that [113:38] either you or someone you love will be [113:39] successful so that so it has to be a [113:42] straight game and that's why ethics is [113:44] so important to keep this landscape [113:46] stable people can't play crooked games [113:48] and the rich shouldn't be fixing the [113:50] game if they want to hold on to their [113:51] money and the problem is is that some of [113:54] them although not all some of them are [113:56] fixing the game and no one's happy about [113:59] that and no wonder you know and and I [114:02] guess that was evidenced to some degree [114:04] by the 2008 collapse because it seemed [114:06] and and I'm just as uninformed as the [114:11] next person so I'm I'm what I'm capable [114:14] of commenting on this it seems from the [114:16] outside that the rich disproportionately [114:19] benefited from the restabilization of [114:22] the economic system and people are not [114:24] happy about that and they shouldn't be [114:26] happy about that because it indicates [114:27] that there's something fundamentally [114:28] rotten about the game so you could say [114:31] well maybe people can tolerate necessary [114:33] inequality if the game isn't raped and [114:34] so that's why everybody has to act in a [114:36] manner that indicates that the game [114:38] isn't rigged and that means they can't [114:40] rig it that's really what it means so [114:42] and so we're also being driven into this [114:45] inequality corner by I would say by the [114:47] post modernists and the neo-marxists [114:49] because they say this is the pernicious [114:52] thing they say well the reason that some [114:54] people have more than others is because [114:56] every hierarchy is based on arbitrary [114:58] power and they're all oppressors and the [115:01] reason they have the money is because [115:03] they stole it from you and there's some [115:06] truth in that because there are some [115:08] criminals but when you get to the point [115:10] where you fail to distinguish the [115:11] productive people from the criminals [115:13] which is exactly what happened in the [115:15] 1920s in the Soviet Union [115:16] you better bloody well won't watch out [115:18] because when you radically make things [115:21] egalitarian you're gonna wipe out all [115:23] your productive people and then you're [115:25] gonna starve and so that's that's one of [115:28] the doomed end scenarios that awaits us [115:31] if this idiot process of polarization [115:33] continues and what I find reprehensible [115:35] about the universities and you're [115:37] tangled up right up to your neck in this [115:39] is that the universities are actively [115:42] agitating to produce people who believe [115:44] that all inequality is due to oppression [115:47] and power [115:48] and that's just well first of all it's [115:50] technically wrong but why is that so you [115:53] guys both operate in that system so well [115:57] here's the problem no as far as I know [116:01] nobody has properly studied the question [116:03] of what fraction of the economy is [116:06] actually crooked rent-seeking right not [116:10] productive and I fear that the answer to [116:13] that question is that it's an awful [116:15] large fraction of the economy not [116:17] because of some conspiracy but because [116:21] opportunity is finite but con games [116:24] aren't and so anybody who can find a [116:27] mechanism for transferring wealth from [116:29] somebody else for doing nothing finds [116:31] that mechanism and that thing is is that [116:33] were present whereas discovering the [116:36] next big thing that's actually [116:37] productive is you know something that [116:39] goes along and fits and starts and so if [116:41] we were I mean really you've described [116:44] it very well we've got a battle between [116:47] two caricatures of what's true right [116:51] Arthur [116:52] either the market is wonderful and it's [116:53] producing great stuff with very little [116:56] corruption or everything that makes [116:59] people unequal is the result of [117:00] corruption both of these things are [117:02] wrong right markets are marvelous [117:05] engines for figuring out how to do [117:08] something really well they're brilliant [117:10] at this right and so people who see that [117:12] fall in love with it understandably [117:14] because they're so good at it but what [117:16] they're terrible at is telling you what [117:17] you should want or what you should do [117:20] right if people tell markets here's what [117:23] we would like to accomplish and then the [117:25] markets tell us well how do we [117:26] accomplish that best that would be a [117:28] very viable system that would not result [117:31] in massive rent-seeking [117:33] resulting in everybody feeling that all [117:35] of their misfortunes are the result of a [117:36] rigged game which is so massively rigged [117:38] that when they check they see yes that [117:40] is actually a large large to large [117:43] extent what we're suffering from but [117:45] they want to throw the baby out with the [117:46] bathwater and so they want to throw out [117:48] markets entirely which you know it would [117:50] be a terrible mistake it's a it's a [117:57] you asked you why this has happened in [118:00] the universities and like that I think [118:02] it's one of these runaway positive [118:04] feedback processes [118:05] you know the universities start to tilt [118:07] hard to the left in the 60s and that [118:09] just went out of control and now we're [118:12] at the point where that's the dominant [118:14] force and why is probably another [118:18] manifestation of one of these preeto [118:20] principles it was like well at some [118:22] point there's enough left he's hired so [118:24] that the probability that they're only [118:26] going to hire people equally as left or [118:28] greater starts to reach 100% and then [118:31] you iterate that across a couple of [118:32] generations and you get no conservatives [118:34] which is more or less the situation say [118:36] in the humanities and most of the social [118:38] sciences and it sort of looks like a [118:40] conspiracy but it doesn't mean that [118:42] anyone is actually planning it although [118:44] there are conscious attempts also to [118:45] silence conservative voices let's say [118:47] and then that's also driven by this [118:49] postmodern ethos no neo-marxist ethos I [118:53] would say that says that all of the [118:54] right the moral right is on the side of [118:56] the left you know and so it's the [118:58] combination of those two things there's [119:00] more things I think I often often think [119:02] comically that if you paid sociology [119:05] professors three times as much the [119:08] probability that they would be [119:10] anti-capitalist would decline [119:11] precipitously like I think a lot of it's [119:13] driven because there's a lot of smart [119:15] people in academia and they're underpaid [119:17] relative to their intelligence hmm so [119:20] and that doesn't make them happy so they [119:22] get bitter and resentful about that and [119:24] they think well there's these goddamn [119:25] bankers who are hauling in 20 million [119:27] dollars a year and Here I am hardly [119:30] struggling but here I am struggling [119:32] comparatively and that's the issue is [119:34] comparatively on a hundred thousand [119:36] dollars a year one hundred and twenty [119:38] thousand dollars a year you know I look [119:40] at that and I think well whatever it [119:42] doesn't matter but there's a like my [119:45] colleagues are often angry with me [119:46] because I do work with the business [119:48] school you know and I also have a [119:50] business are not anti-capitalist in the [119:52] least [119:53] but I it's just dumbfounding to me [119:56] because they'll come up to me and say [119:57] well are you so sure that you should be [119:58] working with the business school and I [120:00] think what bloody planet are you from - [120:02] positive question like that's all [120:04] businessmen are evil it's like really [120:06] that's the level of your sophistication [120:08] this is really an argument [120:10] that's been presented to you that [120:11] businessmen are evil well they don't [120:13] come out and say that but they certainly [120:15] questioned my motivations for example in [120:17] informing ties with the Business School [120:19] like what do they say about it they say [120:21] exactly that they questioned my ethics [120:23] about forming ties with the business [120:25] school so many but they don't give you [120:27] any reasons your supposed the reason [120:29] supposed to be self evident Joe you know [120:32] so let's give this argument it's do I [120:34] mean I don't buy this argument but but [120:37] nonetheless let's let's not let's not [120:39] caricature yes that's good in an [120:43] absolutely free market which is not what [120:45] we have but we have something that tends [120:47] in that direction in an absolutely free [120:50] market if you compete two individuals [120:53] one of whom is completely amoral will [120:56] embrace any opportunity if it makes a [120:58] profit no matter what it is and the [121:00] other individual has some limit to what [121:01] they will do well then there's no [121:04] question who wins if we give this [121:05] experiment long enough period the [121:08] individual who will do anything will [121:10] out-compete the individual with moral [121:12] limits because it's depend on what the [121:14] game is though because now you'll find [121:15] out that you have no moral limits then [121:18] they're going to remove themselves from [121:20] your market unfortunately not and no [121:22] here's the I know it seems like that and [121:24] in any given round that's true okay but [121:27] to the extent that what you're saying is [121:30] to the extent that people police their [121:34] purchasing and they will you know they [121:35] will stop using uber if uber is [121:37] ethically compromised for example well [121:41] then the point is well what's the game [121:42] the game is to figure out which things [121:45] are being monitored and not do any of [121:47] the unethical things that are being [121:49] monitored but to do all of the unethical [121:51] things that aren't being monitored and [121:52] so the individual who is perceiving [121:54] which things they can get away with has [121:57] an advantage and a Psychopaths advantage [121:59] well I don't even want to call it the [122:01] psychopath advantage right what this is [122:04] is that a market will train you to do [122:07] this if it is unregulated and the best [122:09] that the ethically that the ethically [122:12] restrained person can do is compete dead [122:16] even they have no way of getting ahead [122:18] because the person that is completely [122:20] free the the amoral business actor [122:24] has the ability to do anything that the [122:26] constrained actor has does this depend [122:28] entirely upon what the battlefield is [122:30] not really there's there's sort of one [122:33] exception and that exception is people [122:35] who have done something that has [122:38] suddenly put them in a powerful position [122:41] right so like tech people write tech [122:45] people who have skyrocketed as a result [122:47] of having innovated the next big thing [122:49] have not been through the markets [122:52] training them to discover the the [122:55] landscape of what isn't being monitored [122:57] that you can make a profit that's one of [122:59] the fascinating things about tech people [123:01] in general is that these gigantic tech [123:02] corporations almost all lean left [123:04] well the gigantic tech corporations lean [123:07] left that's true on the other hand I [123:09] mean I hate to say it but think about [123:11] how Google started right don't don't be [123:14] evil right I think they actually meant [123:16] that right right and the thing is don't [123:19] be evil is what it sounds like when you [123:21] haven't been trained by the market to [123:23] have to do whatever you have to do to [123:25] beat your competition you've just come [123:26] up with the great search engine and [123:28] suddenly you're on top of the world but [123:31] over time what happens that entity is [123:35] now exposed to competition from a bunch [123:38] of other entities that increasingly will [123:40] find an advantage in being freer to do [123:44] questionable stuff and so what it does [123:46] is it forces an entity like Google to [123:49] evolve in the direction of a morality so [123:52] now don't kind of hang with China Google [123:55] yeah Google wanted to expand into China [123:57] and so you know they had to make a deal [123:59] with the devil so to speak right and [124:02] they had accept censorship they will [124:04] find ways to rationalize everything [124:06] because to not rationalize that which [124:08] their competitors can avail themselves [124:10] of would be to perish and study issues [124:12] was there was all sorts of fake Google [124:14] going on just like they have fake Apple [124:16] stores in China they don't have the same [124:19] sort of copyright laws that we have and [124:20] you can essentially plagiarize anything [124:23] you want when Brett you you also said [124:26] that I shouldn't make a straw man of the [124:27] anti business argument of my peers and [124:29] there's another way that I shouldn't [124:31] make a straw man of it like despite the [124:34] fact that I'm not anti-capitalist I [124:35] don't believe that every entity [124:37] is a business either and one of the [124:39] things that has happened to universities [124:41] that has actually they pathologized in a [124:43] number of dimensions but they've also [124:45] pathologized along the business [124:47] dimension as the administrators have [124:49] become increasingly trained or drawn [124:51] from the ranks of business managers [124:53] because a university is actually not a [124:55] business it's a like a church isn't a [124:57] business there are organizations that [124:59] aren't businesses that you can't just [125:01] cram into the free market structure [125:03] willy-nilly and so my colleagues also [125:05] object to the to the transformation of [125:08] the university into a business entity [125:10] run by profit seeking MBAs and they [125:12] should object to that because that's not [125:14] what the institution is for so there are [125:17] reasons for them to be skeptical say of [125:19] my association with the business school [125:21] that aren't merely a reflection of a [125:23] simplistic anti-capitalist ideology oh [125:25] there are lots of there are lots of [125:27] things that are not they have no [125:30] immunity to contact with the market [125:32] right what has happened to the [125:34] university system is that markets have [125:36] pushed it in all kinds of directions [125:37] that are not healthy for the mission of [125:39] the Academy and this is also true you [125:42] know journalism isn't well done in a [125:44] market either right journalism done in a [125:46] market ends up telling you what you want [125:48] to hear not what you need to know [125:49] so anyway markets are wonderful but [125:53] there's certain things they shouldn't be [125:54] allowed to touch and there are certain [125:56] things that they shouldn't do like tell [125:57] us what to want right they're not [125:59] there's no magic principle by which a [126:01] market knows what's healthy and what you [126:04] know you might crayon that also then [126:06] brings us back to another part of the [126:08] conservative liberal left dilemma which [126:13] is well you know to direct the market [126:18] means to impose the heavy hand of the [126:20] state and its potential pathologies on [126:22] the market but to leave it alone [126:24] completely means that it wanders [126:27] randomly through through an [126:29] indeterminate landscape and and I guess [126:31] part of the issue there too is it's sort [126:33] of like well how do we how do we how do [126:37] we properly balance for foresight and [126:40] planning which you'd think would have [126:41] some role in in the construction of [126:43] large-scale states it's like well what [126:45] do we want the landscape to look like [126:47] how do we balance that with the sort of [126:49] comprehensive computer [126:51] that the market allows and of course the [126:54] answer to that is we have political [126:55] discussions about it all the time that [126:56] are untrammeled so that we can adjust [126:58] the ratio between those two things as [127:00] necessary so again that's a that's a [127:03] REIT that's a argument on the side of [127:05] free speech yeah I mean you know really [127:07] it couldn't be more important the real [127:08] answer is that both failures are [127:11] frightening right I mean you really [127:13] don't want a state nannying you and over [127:17] regulating the market and taking the [127:19] magic out of it and you don't want the [127:21] completely unregulated landscape where [127:23] the market you know starts probing the [127:25] minds of your children and figuring out [127:27] how to sell them things that they don't [127:29] have any ability to resist right you [127:31] need to figure out what that path is and [127:34] it's not easy but you can't do it in a [127:37] landscape where you can't talk about the [127:38] questions and this brings us the [127:39] censorship doesn't it because this is a [127:41] real issue with the marketplace of free [127:42] ideas when you're talking about whether [127:45] it's Google or YouTube or whoever might [127:49] be imposing their own morality and their [127:51] own ideas on what you should and should [127:53] not be able to discuss and what should [127:55] and should not be monetized you're [127:57] essentially imposing these limits these [128:01] look I've read once and it's a very good [128:03] point that freedom breeds inequality [128:06] because you're free to put as much [128:08] effort as you'd like into something and [128:11] you're gonna get in equal results and [128:13] that if you are truly free in a free [128:16] world some people are gonna do far [128:17] better than others and just based on [128:19] their own input just based on their [128:21] effort just based on the the amount of [128:23] focus and dedication they have it is [128:25] very in equal you know I I know many [128:28] people that are far more dedicated than [128:30] other people that I know and they do [128:32] better [128:32] yeah well that's that that's well but [128:34] rest by the empirical literature yes [128:36] well I mentioned earlier that the two [128:38] best predictors of long-term success are [128:40] intelligence and conscientiousness and [128:42] what intelligence is probably something [128:45] like the number of credible operations [128:47] that you can manifest in a given period [128:49] of time it's something like speed now [128:52] it's not only that but it speeds a big [128:53] part of it so if what you're doing is [128:55] working and you can do it faster that [128:58] works better okay that's pretty damn [128:59] straightforward and the next thing is [129:02] well conscientiousness well [129:04] conscientiousness would [129:05] be something like how many of those [129:07] cycles of effort are devoted to that [129:09] specific task and it turns out that if [129:12] there's a relationship between the [129:13] effort and task success more effort is [129:16] better but and so I can give you some [129:18] indication of the power of that so if [129:20] you have good measures of [129:21] conscientiousness and IQ you can predict [129:24] someone's success in the competitive [129:25] landscape with a correlation of about [129:27] 0.6 and what that would mean is imagine [129:30] that you tried to pick people you just [129:32] said randomly you're going to be a [129:34] success in the top half of the [129:36] successful people say and you're gonna [129:38] be in the bottom half you'd have a fifty [129:40] four fifty percent chance of do of [129:42] making that selection correctly if you [129:44] did it randomly if you did it informed [129:47] by the results of a good cognitive test [129:49] and a conscientious test you'd be right [129:51] eighty-five percent of the time so you [129:53] can say with 85 percent accurately [129:55] accuracy which of two people would be [129:58] more likely to be in the top fifty [129:59] percent so it's a whopping effect and [130:02] it's actually some validation for the [130:04] essential integrity of our system [130:06] because we hope given that it's [130:07] essentially an open meritocracy that [130:09] smarter hard-working people would do [130:12] better and they do now other factors [130:14] apply corruption for example lots of [130:16] factors apply I mean for one thing [130:18] wrapped up in IQ is a big question which [130:21] is how much of the differences in IQ [130:24] that exists is democratized law that is [130:27] to say how much of this is the result of [130:30] environments that aren't enriching or [130:32] there's lead in the water or who knows [130:34] what not enough vitamins right my my [130:37] sense actually my intuition based on [130:39] what I know biologically is that a huge [130:41] fraction maybe all of it but a huge [130:43] fraction of differences in IQ is [130:46] actually could be generalized and that's [130:50] part of equal opportunity it's not an [130:52] easy opportunity Tessa mystic about that [130:55] and that's partly because I mean maybe [130:58] because I spent a lot of because I'm [131:00] interested in the amelioration of [131:02] differences you know so for example [131:03] that's why I built this future authoring [131:05] program it's like hey if we can figure [131:07] out how to make people more effective [131:08] well let's do it so I scoured the [131:11] literature on on IQ enhancement and it's [131:14] bloody dismal man when it's rough it's [131:17] very very difficult to put two [131:19] a cognitive training program like some [131:21] things have worked in a major way like [131:24] the fact that people aren't starving has [131:26] wiped out has moved the bottom of the IQ [131:28] distribution way up over the last [131:30] hundred years that's been like a [131:32] walloping success but a lot of the [131:34] things that we hoped would work like [131:35] head starts a good example of that [131:37] you know Head Start was part of the [131:39] American war on poverty and the idea was [131:41] you'd give you know deprived deprived [131:44] kids leg up early before they hit school [131:47] and start training them cognitively [131:50] earlier and the hope was that you'd get [131:53] a pre dough thing going where they'd be [131:54] a little smarter in kindergarten and [131:57] then they'd do a little better in grade [131:58] one and that would make them do even [131:59] more better in grade two more better do [132:02] better than grade two but what happened [132:05] what happened was that the kids who went [132:07] through Head Start actually did get a [132:09] cognitive jump on their competitors but [132:11] all the other kids caught up by grade [132:13] six and by grade six there was [132:14] absolutely no effect whatsoever of the [132:16] training program left now Head Start did [132:19] have a couple of benefits one was fewer [132:21] teenage pregnancies and fewer dropouts [132:23] but that was probably because the kids [132:26] who got into Head Start were either [132:28] socialized better or that some fraction [132:31] of them were removed from for some time [132:33] from extremely toxic environments just [132:36] well they happen to be at headstart [132:37] but it didn't produce the cognitive [132:39] improvements that everyone right and [132:41] left were equally hoping for yeah but [132:43] this is this is in some sense it's a [132:47] very much an uncontrolled experiment [132:49] right because a head start starts late [132:52] yep and B it doesn't insulate you from [132:54] all of the stuff that comes along with [132:56] oh yeah yeah growing up in in the [132:59] deprived neighborhood and so absolutely [133:01] now also I really don't know what the [133:03] truth is of of human IQ and there there [133:09] are some results that suggest some [133:11] things that are not hopeful on the other [133:12] hand some of them just simply run afoul [133:14] with [133:16] the biological realities of intelligence [133:19] well here's a good example of of the [133:22] lack of malleability I mean there's a [133:24] couple of things the first is that we [133:25] may have already we may already be at a [133:27] point of diminishing returns in terms of [133:29] eliminating individual differences in IQ [133:33] because everyone has central heating [133:35] everyone has air-conditioning everyone [133:37] has enough food everyone has access to [133:38] the an infinite pool of information so [133:41] you can say even if you're in a deprived [133:43] environment but you're smart though [133:45] intellectual landscape is wide open to [133:47] you now I'm not saying that's the case [133:48] but you can make a case for that but the [133:51] more dismal end of the of the biological [133:53] research and IQ shows things like if you [133:56] take identical twins at birth and you [133:58] put them in adopted out families that [134:01] the IQ of the adopted out twins is much [134:04] clearer there it's much closer aid to [134:06] the original biological parents than to [134:08] the adoptive parents and be almost [134:10] perfectly correlated with one another [134:11] and that correlation increases as the [134:14] separated twins age so let's say you had [134:17] a twin you were both adopted out at [134:19] Birth we test your IQs at four they're [134:22] fairly close they're closer to your [134:24] biological parents than your adoptive [134:25] parents but then we test you every year [134:27] until you're 60 by the time you're sixty [134:30] no matter how long you've been separated [134:31] as as a identical twin your IQ score is [134:35] so much like you're twins IQ score that [134:38] it's as if the same person was being [134:39] tested twice and that's a really [134:42] complicated one because you think well [134:44] as twins travel through the environment [134:46] and accrue different experiences their [134:49] IQs should diverge like obviously that's [134:53] not what happens well so there are a lot [134:56] of places to critique that for one thing [134:58] there aren't very many identical twins [135:00] raised apart it's a small sample this is [135:03] definitely true those identical twins [135:05] raised apart carry with them whatever [135:08] effects there were from before they were [135:11] born for sure the same and so if they [135:15] you know if they've been damaged by an [135:17] environment that was unhealthy for their [135:19] when she was pregnant then they would [135:21] carry that through and it would show up [135:22] as as a similar IQ later in life so that [135:26] one really wants to see that this is [135:28] true on the positive side not just the [135:29] negative side so anyway there's I'm not [135:32] saying that there's nothing to it I'm [135:33] really saying I think we don't know it's [135:35] very early in this but what I can say [135:37] and I think you know a couple of the [135:39] things that we've settled on in this [135:40] conversation already are that a an [135:45] environment in which we can say anything [135:47] that we can advance any argument and [135:50] test it it doesn't mean that that [135:51] argument is protected but that any [135:52] argument can be advanced and then [135:54] challenged that that is inherent to [135:56] navigating and the other thing that I [135:58] think we would agree on is that equality [136:00] of opportunity is nothing but good right [136:04] a fair game with equality of opportunity [136:06] fair game with equality of opportunity [136:08] and I guess one thing I would add I [136:10] don't know if we would agree on this but [136:11] you were talking about the fact that [136:14] forget which thing exactly but but that [136:17] a system based on merit produces [136:20] inequality because people will freedom [136:22] yeah that freedom produces inequality [136:24] that's not necessarily a bad thing but [136:26] it doesn't mean that we are obligated to [136:29] ride it all the way down right the fact [136:32] is we could make people safe to fail [136:35] right so that you are encouraged to [136:38] attempt to do something highly valuable [136:40] and if you if it doesn't work out then [136:44] the point is you're not homeless this [136:47] would be the the argument for something [136:50] like universal basic income [136:51] thank you your needs are taking care of [136:53] your food your shelter and now you're [136:55] free to pursue any ideas that you might [136:57] have that you would ordinarily be [136:59] saddled down by your issues with food [137:02] and well there there are some evidence [137:04] of that actually happening yeah I'm in [137:06] Canada now these are multi variable [137:09] problems and so I'm not claiming that [137:11] this is true but it's suggestive the [137:14] rate of entrepreneurial activity in [137:16] Canada is actually higher than in the [137:18] United States and one reason for that [137:20] appears to be the fact that if you're [137:24] 2527 let's say and you have a family you [137:27] can quit your job and start a startup [137:29] and you don't lose your health care mmm [137:31] right and so now [137:33] you know the issue of universal [137:35] healthcare is obviously a very thorny [137:37] one and it's not like the Canadian [137:38] system works perfectly but it doesn't [137:40] work too badly and we've been able to [137:42] manage it for about 50 years you know we [137:44] have there's there's artificial scarcity [137:47] in the system and the delay times are [137:49] longer than they would be if you flew to [137:51] the Mayo Clinic and bought your health [137:53] care like I would say that at the high [137:55] end the American healthcare system is [137:56] better than the Canadian healthcare [137:58] system but I would say at the middle and [138:01] at the low end the Canadian healthcare [138:03] system is clearly preferable and it's [138:05] also cheaper which is quite interesting [138:07] because you would expect especially if [138:09] you're a free-market type that you know [138:11] I know the healthcare system in the u.s. [138:13] is not precisely free-market but it is [138:15] more so than it is in Canada yet [138:16] Americans pay a substantially higher [138:18] proportion of their overall devote a [138:22] higher proportion of their overall GDP [138:24] to personal health care the Canadians do [138:25] and and the stats are similar if you [138:27] look at other you know quasi socialized [138:30] medical there's a great piece on that by [138:33] Adam ruins everything have you ever seen [138:35] that television show it's really [138:36] interesting he breaks down pretty much a [138:39] lot of different subjects but Bakke [138:41] breaks down the American healthcare [138:43] system to pretty much where it went [138:45] wrong and I just encourage anybody to go [138:47] watch it because it just shows how they [138:49] elevated the price of all sorts of [138:51] different things just sort of make up [138:53] for you know a lack of profits and it's [138:55] really it's a really fascinating little [138:57] piece we are already almost three hours [139:01] into this so we haven't talked about [139:03] Hitler oh we kind of we kind of did it [139:07] kind of have but let me just do you want [139:10] to lay out your argument about Hitler [139:11] and then I'll respond to it and I don't [139:14] know if I do want to I mean I think I [139:18] actually think that I should stop [139:20] because I'm kind of at the limits of I'm [139:22] at the point where the probability that [139:24] I will say something stupid is starting [139:26] to increase and I would rather not [139:28] because just saying the things that I'm [139:30] trying to say that aren't stupid is [139:31] dangerous enough yes this isn't the [139:33] topic where you want to make that [139:34] connection yes boy is there a more [139:37] charged subject it's funny that it's [139:40] charged because as you point out we're [139:42] pretty much all in agreement about it [139:44] right [139:44] I mean you find someone who's not and [139:47] they're instantly ostracized from [139:48] society right anybody who has an [139:51] argument about Genghis Khan I mean [139:53] there's a really fascinating take on [139:56] this by Dan Carlin from hardcore history [139:57] he's talking about the amount of time [139:59] that has passed since a horrible [140:01] atrocity and that there are people that [140:03] will argue that Genghis Khan who killed [140:05] 10 percent of the world's population [140:06] changed things so badly that it [140:09] literally lowered the carbon footprint [140:11] of the human race while he was alive [140:13] killed some untold number of millions of [140:16] people and was responsible for their [140:18] deaths people look to him and they find [140:21] all sorts of positive things to [140:23] attribute to his reign opening up trade [140:25] with China opening up trade routes [140:27] although all these different things that [140:29] people have attributed to him and that [140:31] someday someone may do the same thing [140:35] about Adolf Hitler right now well it's [140:38] impossible he he certainly made that job [140:42] very difficult with all of the [140:43] documentation yes especially the films [140:46] but but let's just say the argument that [140:50] I want to level I want to be really [140:52] careful to do this so that it can't be [140:54] misinterpreted by anybody I'm gonna [140:56] enjoy watching this if I'm cornered okay [141:06] so my argument from all those years ago [141:08] in my my paper that I was did for Bob [141:12] Trivers that I mentioned at the [141:13] beginning was that Hitler was a monster [141:17] as we all know but he was a rational [141:20] monster that the program that he [141:23] deployed was not what he said mind you [141:26] what he said was wrong in many places [141:28] especially where it gets near Darwinism [141:31] it's just all tangled and broken but [141:34] what he did was rational from the point [141:38] of view of increasing the amount of [141:42] resource that was dedicated to producing [141:48] members of his population and so my [141:51] point is this is the danger that we are [141:54] in if we allow ourselves to imagine [141:58] and that Jenna Seidel impulses are more [142:04] or less gone from the world because [142:05] we've all assumed we've all agree that [142:07] they're a bad thing and the point is [142:09] that they exist in a latent program and [142:12] at a point when you have austerity as a [142:16] result of usually a an opportunity that [142:21] has run its course and has resulted in [142:23] the population growing to fill that [142:25] opportunity and suddenly there's nowhere [142:26] to go because the opportunity has all [142:28] been absorbed the tendency of people is [142:31] to figure out who what other population [142:34] is weak and if that population is across [142:36] a border then there's some excuse for [142:39] war and if the population is within the [142:40] border then it's a genocide but the [142:42] point is that is an ever-present danger [142:44] for us okay so I want to clarify one [142:47] thing I'm sure because this argument was [142:49] sort of phrased as we have a [142:51] disagreement about Hitler and I would [142:53] like to point out that I don't actually [142:54] disagree with anything that you just [142:56] said okay if I remain relatively silent [142:59] I don't want to be seen I don't want it [143:02] to be seen that the fact that I'm [143:04] disagreeing with you means or that there [143:06] is a disagreement means that it's a [143:07] disagreement about any of that [143:09] I think the disagreement was something [143:10] like I said that Hitler was even more [143:12] evil than we thought he was and you I [143:15] think correct me if I'm wrong you're [143:18] pointing out the danger of assuming that [143:20] you can put Hitler in a he was just a [143:23] monster box and don't think about it [143:25] anymore and I would say I agree [143:27] absolutely with that I mean [143:28] I've studied Hitler a lot and there's a [143:31] bunch of things that you can't say about [143:33] him you can't say he was stupid right [143:36] you can't say he was without artistic [143:38] talent you can't say that he was a poor [143:41] organizer you can't say that he wasn't [143:43] charismatic you can't say that he did [143:45] wonders freako Germany's economy in the [143:48] first part of his reign and and and so [143:52] it's very necessary when you're if [143:54] you're dealing intelligently with a true [143:57] monster that you give the devil his due [143:59] yeah so I think the thing that I saw in [144:03] your video was your argument was that as [144:06] he was losing instead of [144:08] putting the genocide on pause and [144:13] winning and winning the warning that [144:15] hehe ratcheted it up the jam yeah I [144:18] don't know if it would really be I don't [144:19] think it's necessarily fair to say that [144:21] it was him that did that although I [144:23] think he had a hand in it it does appear [144:25] to me that that's what happened right [144:27] and my point would simply be and again [144:30] there [144:31] I couldn't possibly be less sympathetic [144:34] with the individual my point is simply [144:37] that from an evolutionary point of view [144:39] if your objective is coldly to increase [144:42] the number of genomes that are spelled [144:43] the same way that yours are on earth [144:45] that a he did enslave those Jews who [144:50] were most fit to work in service of the [144:53] German war machine right that's what [144:56] those camps are not all of the camps [144:57] were work camps but you know ouch wits [145:00] for example was both a work camp and a [145:02] death camp and so there was this [145:05] tendency to enslave and so let me ask [145:09] you a question if you have this because [145:10] you know I think you have to make a [145:13] pretty tenuous biological argument to [145:15] say that there's evolutionary utility in [145:17] increasing the number of your kinsmen [145:19] but unless they're very close but but [145:22] here's a slight variation of that you [145:23] tell me what you think about this is it [145:26] reasonable to presume that a decent [145:29] survival strategy is to homogenize your [145:32] environment with regards to under some [145:34] conditions to homogenizer your [145:36] environment with regards to racial or [145:38] ethnic differences to decrease the [145:40] probability that you and yours are going [145:42] to be killed oh yeah again no defense of [145:46] this yes you are right that okay extent [145:48] that there's another population that's [145:49] distinct that that population even if it [145:52] is small and as little power now might [145:55] not be small and have little power later [145:56] and so undoubtedly that program is there [145:59] - okay okay but I would say that the the [146:02] tendency to believe that evolution only [146:04] functions at the level of kin when [146:07] you're talking about [146:08] very close relatives I believe is an [146:10] error that only the result of the fact [146:12] that evolutionists early on wished to [146:14] operationalize fitness and it's very [146:18] hard to operationalize Fitness across [146:20] population level DIF [146:22] and so they built a definition that is [146:25] about immediate kin but there's no [146:27] logical reason to imagine that that [146:30] Peters out at the edge okay so okay so [146:34] all I'm arguing is that what Hitler did [146:37] was go after a population inside his [146:42] border that was more distantly related [146:44] to the people who were his constituents [146:47] and then he went obviously after Eastern [146:50] Europe and sought the future of Germany [146:52] in Russia and it took 12 million [146:56] Russians to turn around the German war [146:59] machine I mean those are military deaths [147:01] there were vastly more civilian deaths [147:02] but but the point is he did not succeed [147:06] in doing what he set out to do but he [147:09] also didn't fail in the sense that he [147:12] took a bunch of resources that belonged [147:15] to a population that was more distantly [147:17] related and he got rid of those people [147:20] and by getting rid of them increased the [147:23] amount of resource that was available to [147:25] Aryans this has nothing to do genes are [147:29] not interested in figuring out which [147:32] genes are superior all of the language [147:34] about German superiority is nonsense [147:37] however genes are very interested I mean [147:41] they're obviously genes they don't think [147:42] but they act as if they are interested [147:45] in replacing alternative spellings okay [147:47] and so part of the reason that you're [147:48] walking through this just so that this [147:50] the track of this remains self-evident [147:53] is to caution people against to alert [147:57] people to the fact that the sorts of [147:59] programs that Hitler both ran and [148:02] elicited from people are lurking in our [148:06] let's say in our genome in our in our [148:08] set of biological possibilities and we [148:10] have to be very awake to that fact on an [148:12] ongoing basis they are lurking in our [148:14] genomes which does not mean that we as [148:17] adults have this as a possibility many [148:19] people will not go along with this other [148:22] people have it lurking to be triggered [148:24] and I think you know what worries me is [148:26] that Trump I think very cynically [148:28] utilized this lurking program in order [148:31] to to gain office that he played upon [148:35] the fact that certain people were [148:36] to hear those noises and what he said [148:39] about Charlottesville you know again he [148:43] did not he did not go after the white [148:47] nationalists the way did you see the [148:49] white nationalist response do you see [148:50] those [148:51] yeah the Daler storm had is that what [148:53] it's called I think what one of the one [148:55] of the white nationalist papers had a [148:56] breakdown of what Trump did and that [148:59] essentially at the end they were saying [149:00] he didn't go after us he didn't target [149:02] us this was very good he was very clear [149:04] that it was all sides and that he never [149:07] once targeted us didn't say anything bad [149:09] about us [149:09] senator then they said god bless Trump [149:11] at the end of it there's a real tricky [149:13] issue there about truth you know because [149:15] I was because my free speech the free [149:20] speech panel that I was a part of was [149:21] cancelled I had to make comments in the [149:24] Canadian media about Charlottesville and [149:26] so I really had to think about what [149:28] Trump said because the the fact that [149:32] there is reprehensible behavior on both [149:35] sides of the extremes of the [149:36] distribution is true however truth is a [149:40] tricky thing because you have to take [149:42] the temporal context into account you [149:45] know because I would say you can imagine [149:47] that there are white lies and black [149:48] truths a black truth is when you use the [149:51] truth in a way that isn't truthful just [149:53] like a white lie is when you use when [149:56] you lie in a way that isn't harmful you [149:58] can use the truth to wound and hurt and [150:00] what that really means is that you've [150:01] misused the truth and so it's actually a [150:03] complex form of lie but what what what [150:06] Trump did wrong this is independent of [150:09] whether or not he was actually engaging [150:10] in manipulation or deceit was he failed [150:13] to specify the time and the place for [150:15] the utterance because what he should [150:17] have come out and done was said I [150:19] unequivocally denounce the white [150:24] supremacist racism that emerged in [150:27] Charlottesville yes and then he should [150:28] have shut up and then two weeks later he [150:30] could have said well would we look at [150:33] the political landscape as a whole [150:35] perhaps commenting on Berkeley he could [150:37] have said it's pretty obvious that there [150:39] are reprehensible individuals acting out [150:41] at both ends of the extreme but the [150:44] Charlottesville week wasn't the week to [150:46] make that point so and you know [150:50] what why he did that well it could be [150:52] just ineptness because it was a very [150:54] tricky week to exactly get things right [150:57] I don't think so I think actually we can [150:59] look at the what he did during the [151:02] election and I think we should expect [151:04] that he would do exactly what he did [151:05] well fair enough that I think there's [151:07] there's a wink and a nod to them always [151:10] with neo-nazis and whites president Pau [151:12] Donald Trump's response at daily yeah [151:14] see see if he could see the actual does [151:17] it show the actual text of what they [151:18] were wrote because quote from the editor [151:20] here right there I use didn't mention [151:26] anything to do with us reporters were [151:28] screaming at him in the white [151:29] nationalism he just walked out of the [151:30] room huh right there's there was an [151:34] actual article that they wrote on one of [151:37] those websites Trump's comments were [151:39] good he didn't attack that's it didn't [151:41] attack us just said the nation should [151:42] come together nothing specific against [151:44] us he said that we need to study why [151:46] people get so angry and implied that [151:48] there was hate dot on both sides [151:50] exclamation point so he implied that the [151:52] antiva are haters mm-hmm I mean so that [151:55] energized them in a way and there's no [151:59] secret that they support him you know my [152:02] friend Alonzo Bodden is a very funny [152:03] quote he's a comedian he goes not all [152:05] Trump supporters are racist but all [152:07] racists are traitors it's a it's a great [152:10] quote and he that's there's political [152:13] power in that whether or not Trump is a [152:16] racist or whether it's the wink and the [152:17] nod to that side that is the only weaken [152:21] the nod that they're getting I mean yeah [152:23] or even or even insufficient [152:25] denunciation which was kind of what did [152:27] and there's a Canadian journalist named [152:29] faith Goldie who got fired from rebel [152:31] media for being being accused of being [152:36] too cozy with daily stormer type she did [152:38] a podcast with with crypto and I [152:41] listened to the podcast very carefully [152:42] she was actually one of the people that [152:44] was supposed to be a panelist on this [152:45] free speech talk so that put us in a [152:47] real bind but well what happened in the [152:50] podcast well what happened was in my [152:53] estimation was that she didn't properly [152:57] fulfill her role as critical journalists [153:00] she was it was sort of like a discussion [153:02] with your friendly neighbor [153:04] neo-nazi and what I mean by that is she [153:06] didn't ally herself [153:08] la la hers Alai herself with any of the [153:12] purported aims of the neo-nazi people [153:14] she was talking to but I think she [153:16] failed to criticize them sufficiently [153:20] she didn't ask the tough questions you [153:22] know now and and that and that that was [153:26] a that was well it was a fatal error I [153:29] mean she got fired from rebel media and [153:31] and it's gonna have terrible [153:33] repercussions for her although she may [153:34] land on her feet but rebel media is very [153:36] conservative as well right certainly by [153:38] Canadian stand yes yeah yeah that's [153:40] right no rebel media did like imploded [153:43] in the aftermath of Charlottesville [153:45] because of what faith Goldie did with [153:47] with the daily it wasn't even the daily [153:51] stormer it was a group called crypto but [153:53] they're they're associated with the [153:55] daily stormer so she went on there which [153:57] I think you could make you could make a [154:00] case that that's okay as a journalist [154:02] you can go talk to neo-nazis but the [154:03] question is how do you talk to them and [154:06] the answer to that is you point out [154:09] their agenda [154:11] you don't allow them to masquerade as [154:13] friendly as friendly innocent people you [154:17] can't do that and so I would say she [154:20] danced she dammed herself by [154:21] insufficiently criticizing the villains [154:24] it was something like that [154:25] you uh familiar you I'm sure you are [154:27] familiar with Louie through no I'm not [154:29] every through the documentary and II [154:31] know him from England fascinating guy [154:33] fantastic like one of the best and one [154:36] of the things that he's done is well [154:38] he's interviewed a ton of different [154:40] people but one of the great ones that he [154:42] did was the Westboro Baptist Church and [154:44] he sort of embedded himself with them [154:46] and was very congenial and very like [154:50] kind and unthreatening and stayed with [154:54] them for long periods of time like weeks [154:56] on end and got them to eventually like [155:00] expose who they were and and understand [155:04] from like the point of view of an [155:07] insider and in a sense without [155:09] necessarily condemning them but with [155:11] just constantly asking questions but [155:13] being very very polite about it not like [155:16] a bunch [155:17] not like a lot of serious like [155:20] confrontational criticism rather but a [155:22] very friendly sort of polite British way [155:26] of discussing thing and he's [155:28] particularly good at embedding himself [155:30] he did it with Scientology he's done it [155:32] with a bunch of different groups he [155:34] embeds himself and just sort right so [155:36] there's so there's a justification for [155:38] attempting that sort of thing clearance [155:40] yes but and I really had to think this [155:42] through because well what happened with [155:44] our talk was it was so Hall of Mirrors [155:47] like it was like it was a talk about [155:49] free speech talks being shut down on [155:51] campus that was shut down by a campus [155:54] and it was a panel of people who purport [155:58] to support free speech who knocked [156:00] someone off the panel because of [156:01] something well not precisely that she [156:04] said but it's close enough to make right [156:06] irony rather palpable it is so I I had [156:09] to go through what happened with faith [156:11] very carefully to figure out what the [156:13] right ethical pathway was you know but I [156:15] listened to the podcast very carefully I [156:18] listened to with my son and we talked [156:19] about a lot and our conclusion was that [156:21] she had failed - she had failed - she [156:27] didn't ask enough tough questions one [156:30] would have done it even maybe - would [156:32] have done it for sure but it was that [156:34] the discussion was too cordial hmm and [156:37] it could have even been cordial to your [156:39] point because maybe that would have led [156:41] to more discussions yeah but it should [156:42] have been cordial with one snake bite [156:44] you know that was not required to make [156:47] that snake bite I mean well depends what [156:49] you mean by required well but my thought [156:51] is like to find out what these people [156:52] really want and really like we're really [156:55] trying to achieve sometimes you don't [156:57] have to be confrontational with them you [156:59] just gotta allow them to be comfortable [157:00] look and kamau Bell did that really [157:02] great on a CNN show with the KKK he sort [157:05] of just allowed them to be themselves [157:07] and they became more and more [157:09] comfortable with him the more time they [157:10] spent with him to the point where [157:11] they're actually joking around with him [157:13] but you got to see that the ugliness was [157:16] so obvious and evident and without him [157:18] confronting them on it without him [157:20] yelling and arguing you got to see it [157:22] from him just being friendly and joking [157:24] around with them now nobody would ever [157:26] accuse a black man like kamau Bell [157:29] with being [157:30] a sympathizer with the KKK he was in [157:33] this inarguable position like no one no [157:35] one could accuse him of it this woman [157:38] I'm assuming is white that's where the [157:40] problem lies what if she was problems [157:42] yeah she was a black woman in the very [157:44] same situation like Oprah was in the [157:46] past like Oprah interviewed the KKK in [157:49] the past and she was never accused of [157:52] being like somehow or another a [157:54] sympathetic person to them right and [157:56] somehow we we have to raise the [157:59] threshold of offense there's there are [158:02] lots of ways to contribute to the [158:04] conversation one of them may be to embed [158:06] yourself and actually allow the world to [158:09] see yes people who are doing something [158:11] abhorrent in the in the way that they [158:13] see themselves so you can understand it [158:15] right being there asking questions right [158:17] you don't necessarily have to be cute [158:19] what are you to change them I'm being [158:21] critical to them I mean just getting in [158:22] arguments with them I mean they might be [158:24] able to see something from that from [158:26] their response to like rational [158:28] discussion about their issues [158:29] this brings us down a whole other rabbit [158:31] hole which maybe we could talk about at [158:33] some point in the future because this is [158:35] a really interesting topic you know like [158:36] part of the reason that I've been [158:38] accused of being on the far-right say or [158:41] on the alt-right is because I've talked [158:43] to people talk with people who perhaps [158:45] have are closer [158:47] what would you say have an association [158:49] network that might be more closely [158:51] allied with that than people are [158:53] comfortable with but my attitude has [158:55] been to it's and and I don't want to [158:57] talk about this in much detail because [158:58] it's really complicated but the the anti [159:02] left spectrum let's say is very confused [159:06] and it could easily tilt very rapidly [159:09] into the hard right anti left which is [159:12] the danger that that you are describing [159:14] and partly what I'm hoping is that I can [159:16] talk to people who might conceivably be [159:19] on that developmental pathway because [159:21] they're they're tired of being accused [159:22] of implicit racism let's say and say [159:25] look you can be anti radical left [159:28] without falling all the way into the to [159:31] the far right and here's how you might [159:33] do it but that means I have to talk to [159:35] them and then if I talk to them that [159:36] means I risk association with them and [159:38] that risks being tainted it's a very [159:40] tricky line to walk well it's also one [159:43] of the [159:44] one of the big problems with this hard [159:46] stance of the of the left of the hard [159:49] left like this Pepe the Frog thing like [159:52] that anybody I mean one of the things [159:53] that I tweeted was some guy that called [159:55] me you just admitted you're a Nazi [159:57] because you I posted a meme that someone [160:00] had created of me as Pepe the Frog that [160:02] apparently these Pepe the Frog of [160:04] everybody and so I put this guy was like [160:06] well you just admitted you're a Nazi and [160:07] I'm like see this is a part of the [160:09] problem and this creates a massive [160:11] blowback people getting angry because [160:14] that frog for the most part is used [160:15] humorously and yeah actually you use the [160:18] phrase defensive humor yeah and it [160:22] really is and I think I mean this is I [160:24] didn't mean to interrupt your joke but [160:26] no please there's there's something [160:27] about the idea that the effectiveness of [160:30] this meme is that it tangles people with [160:33] no sense of humor in knots and that's a [160:37] huge part of why those things are [160:38] generated that's why it's nicely that's [160:40] exactly right yeah yeah yeah I mean I'm [160:44] fearing that I'm saying something about [160:46] this frog and that there's gonna be [160:48] something that's gonna emerge that I [160:50] should know about that somehow I'm [160:51] admitting something but all I'm saying [160:53] is what I see is a lot of people using [160:55] it to taunt people yes can't figure out [160:58] I think that's the vast majority of it I [161:00] do believe that and I think the same [161:02] thing about the keka Stanny types is [161:04] that that's almost all humour yeah and [161:06] there's some massive problem with [161:08] pushing back against that and calling [161:10] those people Nazis and racists and [161:12] especially when they're just using humor [161:14] and especially when it's very clear if [161:16] you look at all the memes online and I [161:18] went thoroughly through Google to find [161:20] them there are some abhorrent ones there [161:22] are some horrible ones there are some [161:23] ones that are with Nazi uniforms there's [161:26] some some anti Jew ones there's some [161:29] horrific ones most of them are not that [161:31] most of them the vast majority of them [161:34] are humorous and if and again these [161:37] people are not coordinating so if one [161:38] person decides to make a Mickey Mouse [161:40] racist meme which by the way a lot of [161:44] the early Mickey Mouse cartoons you [161:45] could just take a screenshot and they're [161:48] [ __ ] tremendously racist right [161:50] because dealing with the side of the [161:51] times I mean images of black people that [161:54] work extremely cartoonish you know giant [161:57] lid [161:57] black faces the whole deal or a horribly [162:00] racist you could say Mickey Mouse's [162:02] [ __ ] racist don't go to Disneyland no [162:04] one's saying that right but they could [162:06] and this is a slippery slope [162:08] you start with the Frog you know and you [162:11] know first they came for Pepe and I [162:12] didn't say any yeah well if the Frog is [162:14] racist you start entering what isn't [162:15] racist cartoon frog but you can make [162:19] some cartoon about everything that has [162:21] ever existed and make that racist it [162:24] doesn't mean that the Frog is racist [162:26] this is where it's crazy it's like what [162:28] percentage of people are making the Frog [162:30] racist and then for the Southern Poverty [162:32] Law Center to say that this is a symbol [162:34] of hate now this frog well well guess [162:36] what you just back these [ __ ] people [162:38] up against the wall and you sure their [162:40] offense is because now they're realizing [162:41] oh well these people are mad they're [162:44] they're crate not just mad like angry [162:46] but mad like insane like you're not [162:48] looking at this thing rationally at all [162:50] you're saying that a frog where 99% of [162:53] the memes or just humorous or silly now [162:56] the Frog is a hate symbol not only a [162:58] hate symbol but Nazi know a supremacist [163:02] I mean you're they're just drying up all [163:05] of the space between their preposterous [163:08] perspective and the nightmare at the [163:11] other end of the spectrum and the point [163:12] is almost all of us live in that [163:14] intermediate space so yeah it's almost [163:17] all thoughts live in that intermediate [163:19] space right there's a variability of all [163:22] thoughts you know there's there's [163:24] flexibility of all ideas and when you're [163:27] talking about something with it words [163:29] extremely humorous you're talking about [163:31] a humorous frog I mean goddamn need to [163:34] call that all hate when sometimes it's [163:36] hate and some by who by what are the [163:38] [ __ ] people are that did that hateful [163:41] thing those are the people that are [163:43] hateful not the other ones that are [163:45] using that frog for humor I mean this is [163:48] the fact that this is an argument at all [163:50] just shows how lost we are in these [163:53] ideological arguments is left versus [163:55] right extreme end of the spectrum on one [163:59] end of the field throwing rocks at the [164:00] far end of the field [164:02] yeah it's most of us are in the middle [164:03] somewhere it's hopeless yeah if we [164:06] cannot have discussions a lot of nog [164:08] I mean Jesus Christ well that's a nice [164:15] conclusion yeah it might be it might be [164:18] listen this was a lot of fun as always [164:20] in right and I'm glad you guys came up [164:22] with this idea and I'm glad we had the [164:24] time to do it yeah Jordan Peterson what [164:30] is your Twitter handle again Jordan [164:32] Pederson yep and Brett weinstein right [164:35] weinstein on twitter once tied up at [164:38] saying weinstein it doesn't make you're [164:40] not interchangeable [164:41] sorry sorta sorta alright but thank you [164:45] guys really appreciate it a lot of fun [164:46] yep goodnight again bye everybody [164:50] [Music]