Jordan Peterson Advocates Sacrificial Values to Remedy Societal Breakdown

Jordan Peterson主张以奉献牺牲价值观挽救社会崩溃 现代社会的心理衰退和无性化源于极端个人主义、短期享乐以及色情内容，唯有通过自觉的自我牺牲、绝对的真诚以及传统的婚姻承诺才能得以逆转。 在这场广泛深入的访谈中，Jordan Peterson剖析了现代社会滑向疏离与个人主义的现状，主张建立如正式婚姻、公开誓言以及持续而坦诚的沟通等结构化承诺。他指出了随意性行为、色情内容和无阻力AI伴侣的弊端，警告称唾手可得的逃避方式会消磨人类的抱负并破坏真实的人际关系。Peterson进一步捍卫了传统道德等级和宗教叙事的客观本质，认为人类生来是为了迎接最大挑战而非贪图安逸。在整场讨论中，他强调了讲真话、在微小冲突升级前直面解决，以及将人生锚定于个人责任之上的极端重要性。 纯粹为了享乐而生活，并选择轻松逃避而非坦诚面对，会导致精神疾患和自我厌恶。 (0:00) 古典自由主义的个人主义依赖于共通的犹太-基督教道德根基；若缺乏这一基础，个人主义便会堕落为疏离与文化战争。 (1:49) 人的身份认同是嵌套在社会角色与形而上学承诺中的多层等级体系，这意味着心理健康是所有层面间的协调一致，而非单纯的内在状态。 (3:47) 心理测量学表明，过强的自我意识与负面情绪直接聚类，证明过度关注自我与痛苦在功能上别无二致。 (5:22) 在神经生物学层面，人类的积极情绪是通过在道德层级中追踪朝向既定目标的进展而产生的。 (8:41)

Clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson argues that modern societal malaise, alienation, and romantic breakdown stem from an unanchored liberal individualism that prioritizes instant gratification over enduring responsibility. He contends that psychological health and social cohesion require re-establishing nested social obligations, traditional marital commitments, and an orientation toward maximal challenge rather than comfort. The Collapse of Shared Moral Foundations (1:49) Peterson asserts that classical Western liberalism was never engineered to operate in a moral vacuum. Scottish Enlightenment thinkers constructed individualist political models under the tacit assumption that an underlying Judeo-Christian consensus would maintain ethical stability. With that substructure eroded, individualism has degenerated into alienation, social fragmentation, and escalating culture wars. Modern assumptions that human identity ends at the individual's skin misjudge human psychology, which Peterson describes as a nested hierarchy extending through marriage, family, community, and overarching metaphysical commitments. From a psychometric perspective, Peterson notes that statistical clustering of personality descriptors reveals a direct link between self-consciousness and negative emotional states such as anxiety, grief, and suffering. He argues that mental health is not an isolated, internal psychological state, but rather the functional harmony maintained across an individual's nested civic and familial layers. Hyper-focusing on self-interest undermines the social integration and voluntary sacrifice required for personal stability. The Realities of Mate Selection and Marriage (48:51) Examining modern romance, Peterson challenges the assumption of limitless dating options, arguing that most individuals realistically receive only a handful of viable opportunities to find a life partner. Drawing on his clinical work with Canadian law and consulting firms, he observes that high-achieving, high-earning women face severely compressed dating pools due to hypergamic preferences, noting empirical data that links high IQ in women with lower marriage rates. Because men are largely unmotivated by a female partner's financial status, high-powered women often struggle to find suitors who meet their comparative standards. Peterson rejects casual cohabitation, pointing to statistical evidence that moving in together before marriage correlates with higher, rather than lower, divorce rates. He claims that living together informally signals conditional commitment, communicating that either partner may depart if someone better appears. By contrast, Peterson advocates formal, lifelong marriage, arguing that multi-generational family development requires institutional, legal, and community scaffolding to endure the inevitable crises and emotional declines that occur over decades. Hedonism, Pornography, and Widespread Sexlessness (61:21) Peterson characterizes documented rises in global sexlessness—citing figures where approximately 30% of young Japanese adults remain virgins, alongside parallel trends in South Korea and Western nations—as a cultural disaster. In unconstrained, short-term mating environments, predatory men displaying 'Dark Triad' traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism) frequently exploit casual dynamics, which Peterson argues fosters widespread cynicism among women and drives them to withdraw from the dating market. Pornography compounds this withdrawal by removing biological friction from sexual gratification. Peterson warns that unlimited digital access eliminates the necessary desperation, shame, and ambition that historically motivated young men to build careers, exercise, and compete for partners. He cautions that emerging AI-driven synthetic companions will worsen this isolation by catering entirely to human weakness, offering simulated connection without demanding personal growth, confrontation, or mutual accommodation. Maximal Challenge and the Psychology of Purpose (126:06) Rejecting modern hedonism, Peterson insists that human beings are fundamentally wired for maximal challenge rather than comfort, passive pleasure, or baseline happiness. Because human neurobiology generates positive emotion primarily through tracking measurable progress toward a valued goal, individuals require an explicit moral hierarchy to experience hope and enthusiasm. To escape paralyzing habits or depression, he recommends behavioral humility grounded in the Matthew Principle: undertaking small, manageable responsibilities from one's present station to accumulate genuine competence, which he contrasts with unearned self-esteem. Peterson further contends that individuals cannot invent their own values arbitrarily, because sustainable behavioral patterns are constrained by reality. He highlights biblical narratives as foundational psychological maps: the story of Abraham models the answering of an adventurous call toward maturity through sacrifice, while the Christian passion narrative represents the highest moral value—the voluntary confrontation of tragedy and suffering rather than cowardly retreat. Peterson concludes that neither individual happiness nor social stability can survive on short-term gratification, invented personal values, or uncommitted relationships. While he offers voluntary self-sacrifice, rigorous relationship maintenance, and traditional institutional commitments as essential remedies for modern cynicism, his analysis leaves unresolved how secular moderns can broadly re-adopt these demanding moral frameworks without a shared, active religious consensus.

乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）在对话中指出，当代西方社会陷入了超个体主义与短期享乐主义的误区，剥离了人类繁荣所必需的道德基石与深层社会连结。他认为，真正的心理健康与生命意义并非来自于回避痛苦或即时满足，而是建立在自愿承担责任、维系具有牺牲精神的传统婚姻契约，以及将行动校准于崇高价值等级的框架之上。 自由个体主义的基石瓦解与层级认同 (1:49) 彼得森认为，西方古典自由主义从未被设计为可以完全孤立存在，苏格兰启蒙运动哲学家最初构建这一体系时，暗中假定了维系社会的犹太-基督教传统道德共识。当底层共同价值观崩溃后，个体主义便退化为严重的社会孤立、疏离感与文化冲突。他批评现代人将自我局限在“皮肤边界之内”的狭隘认知，强调人的认同本质上是一个多层次的嵌套结构：个体角色依次嵌套于配偶、家庭、邻里、公民乃至终极形而上信念之中。心理健康并不是大脑内部孤立的心理机制，而是这些层级之间达成的动态和谐。从心理测量学与大五人格研究来看，过度关注自我的“自我意识”在统计聚类上与焦虑、悲痛等高负面情绪高度重合，表明过度以自我为中心在功能上等同于心理痛苦；人类的健全必须依赖于深度的社会整合与自愿的自我牺牲。 现代择偶困境与传统婚姻的结构性保障 (38:33) 针对现代择偶文化，彼得森指出所谓“大海里有的是鱼”是一种统计幻觉，普通人一生中真正具有吸引力且适用的择偶机会极少（可能仅有大约五次）。同时，高成就、高智商女性在婚恋市场上面临严峻的筛选悖论：女性天生具有向上择偶（hypergamy）倾向以应对生育脆弱期，但男性的择偶偏好并不优先看重女性的收入或职业地位，导致高智商女性与婚姻概率呈现统计负相关。此外，在缺乏承诺的短期择偶市场中，“黑暗三角”（马基雅维利主义、自恋、反社会/精神病态与施虐倾向）特征的男性过度渗透，摧毁了两性信任并促使许多女性退出市场。彼得森坚决反对婚前同居试婚模式，引用统计数据指出婚前同居者的离婚率反而更高，且过往性伴侣数量直接与日后的出轨概率成正比，因为同居向彼此传递的是“在没有更好选择前暂且凑合”的不信任信号。相较于非正式的同居关系，正式婚姻通过法律、社群见证和神圣誓言建立起不可随意撤销的外部脚手架，能够跨越长达数十年的周期，支撑伴侣在激情消退和危机降临时依然履行养育后代的多代际责任。他建议伴侣每周保持约90分钟无干扰沟通，以清理潜伏的怨恨与背叛创伤。 色情泛滥、技术异化与无性社会的代价 (46:18) 彼得森对全球范围内性行为减少与无性社会的蔓延深感担忧，并举例指出日本和韩国30岁以下人群中有约30%从未有过性经验。他将色情制品定性为对人类动机机制的灾难性破坏：历史上男性的奋斗、健身及社会竞争很大程度上源于吸引异性的生物驱动，而如今一名13岁少年仅凭一部手机一天内能接触到的裸露影像，便超过了古代君王一生所见的总和。这种零门槛的即时多巴胺满足剥离了爱意、绝望、羞耻与恐惧等驱动人类成长的必要摩擦力，导致年轻男性丧失了提升现实能力的野心与勇气。与此同时，彼得森警告新兴的AI虚拟伴侣将使这一危机进一步恶化；这类技术迎合了人性中最软弱、最回避挑战的部分，虽免去了现实关系中的磨合与沟通需求，却以提供绝对顺从为代价彻底切断了个体与真实社会的连结。对于成瘾者，彼得森建议进行严格的行为干预：详尽列出该习惯造成的一切负面代价，并确立一个清晰且具有英雄气质的理想自我愿景来重构行为动力。 追求终极目标与自愿承担挑战的人性架构 (8:41) 彼得森指出，人类的神经生物学机制决定了积极情绪必须通过“向着有价值的目标迈进”来激发，因此人类天生需要生活在一种价值等级结构之中。在技术定义上，“上帝”即为这一价值等级的最顶端，指引着所有个别“善”的最终方向。他批判后现代主义将人际关系简化为权力斗争以及将生活还原为短期享乐的错误，认为人不是为了单纯的享乐、安逸或消费而生，而是为了承受“最大的挑战”而设计。缺乏宏大叙事与共同约束的个体主义必然陷入虚无与冲突，而人类真正的主导叙事是自愿的自我牺牲与迎难而上——这一模式在基督教的受难故事中达到了极致象征，即主动承担世间苦难与责任，而非在怯懦中退缩。面对身陷困顿、缺乏自律的边缘人群，彼得森强调要践行谦逊并运用“马太效应”的正向复利，从承认现状并在床边寻找一件自己“能够且愿意”解决的具体微小任务做起，通过不断积累真实的胜任力来建立真正的自信，从而在不断超越极限的上升轨迹中摆脱毁灭性的深渊。 本期访谈展现了彼得森将临床心理测量学、演化观点与传统神学叙事相结合的分析框架。然而，其论述中对于传统道德秩序的高度推崇、对婚姻与婚前禁欲等制度的绝对化维护，以及将古代宗教叙事等同于人类演化最优解的阐释，在世俗化与多元化加深的现代社会中，依然面临着经验有效性与普适性层面的持续争议。

## Background 本期内容由知名播客频道 The Diary Of A CEO（主持人为 Steven Bartlett）于 2025 年 1 月 13 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目邀请了多伦多大学前心理学教授、作家乔丹·彼得森（Jordan B. Peterson），围绕其新书《我们与神搏斗》（We Who Wrestle With God），深入探讨现代社会的过度个人主义、孤独与无性化危机，以及亲密关系、婚姻承诺与信仰背后的心理学机制。 ## TL;DR 彼得森深入剖析了现代社会中个体割裂、婚前试婚逻辑误区以及色情泛滥对亲密关系与男性进取心造成的深远摧残。他指出，真正的心理健康建立在家庭、社群与终极信念的多层嵌套结构之上，婚姻并非毫无风险的避难所，而是一场需要双方彻底坦诚、直面冲突并做出终身承诺的多代际探险。此外，彼得森结合自身面临的舆论攻伐与重病考验，论证了‘说真话’与‘自愿承担牺牲’对于抵抗精神虚无的不可替代性，呼吁人们从小事做起建立能力与自信，在迎击极致挑战中探寻超越自我的崇高意义。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话沉稳、凝重且极具哲思张力。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特以真诚且不带预设的提问推动讨论，彼得森则兼具严谨学者的冷峻剖析与神话讲述者的激情宣讲，频频给出直击痛处的尖锐警示。随着话题从现实层面的两性博弈步步深挖至濒死体验、信仰动摇与至亲离世，访谈展现出强烈的情绪起伏与生命厚度，既有令人警醒的严苛训诫，亦充满抚慰人心的温情与神圣救赎感。 ## Bulletin - [46:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2768s) 乔丹·彼得森指出，现代社会的无性化加剧与关系崩塌，主因是色情制品泛滥摧毁了现实择偶的渴望与紧迫感，同时短期择偶文化打破了女性对男性的信任。 - [49:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2943s) 统计数据击碎了试婚迷思：婚前同居的情侣婚后离婚率反而更高，婚前性伴侣数量越多出轨率越高，因为保留后路的同居思维根本无法模拟破釜沉舟的终生婚姻承诺。 - [27:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1638s) 面对冲突选择妥协与沉默往往是婚姻破裂的隐性元凶，一段走向崩溃的婚姻背后往往累积了近万次未曾爆发的摩擦，导致微小争端被积怨全面绑架。 - [01:31:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=5476s) 真正的自信源自突破限制的实际行动与真实能力，而非言语上的自我抚慰；个体应从床沿内省开始，挑出一件微小可行的事情着手改善，借助马太效应实现指数级成长。 ## Key takeaways - [03:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=227s) 人类身份绝非止步于肉体边界，而是嵌套在家庭、社区、国家乃至形而上学信仰中的多层结构，缺乏层层锚定是现代人孤独与精神危机的根源。 - [05:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=322s) 心理测量学表明‘过度自我关注’与‘负面情绪及痛苦’高度重叠；摆脱孤独的核心在于停止计较‘我想要什么’，转而践行利他与崇高价值。 - [23:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1391s) 当好人面对不公选择噤声妥协时，恶便乘虚而入；违心篡改言语对精神结构的侵蚀远甚于外界攻击带来的风浪。 - [25:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1507s) 敢于直言必须依托深思熟虑的战略布局与领地防守，在建立多元支撑和生存底气后再行出击，而非盲目充当殉道者。 - [28:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1726s) 每周固定拿出90分钟专心与伴侣深度交谈，能系统性扫清未解隔阂，筑牢安全感并唤醒极其脆弱的‘玩乐状态’。 - [36:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2164s) 停止寻找虚妄的‘对的人’，转而通过自我打理、能力提升与创造价值，让自己成长为他人渴望相伴的对象。 - [43:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2610s) 女性的高嫁（Hypergamy）心理与时间窗口造成了顶尖职场女性的择偶困局，智商与婚姻概率之间甚至呈现出显著的负相关。 - [01:01:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=3681s) 色情制品提供了廉价的生理代用品，剥离了求偶竞争与英雄式成就感，导致男性丧失现实拼搏动力并深陷空虚羞耻。 - [01:12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4328s) 拟真与可定制的AI女友是危险的诱惑陷阱，它丝毫不差地迎合了人性中最羸弱丑陋的一面，使人彻底丧失在真实关系中受挫与成长的契机。 - [01:13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4414s) 婚姻中新鲜感的枯竭并非对方受限，往往是个体想象力的匮乏；在深度契合的最优关系中，伴侣的人性深度是取之不尽的。 - [01:17:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4628s) 在即时享乐与长期投资之间寻求交响乐般的动态平衡，在每个当下将目光对齐至高目标，方能统摄眼前专注与永恒价值。 - [01:21:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4862s) 理性的审判（去粗取精）是探索真相的必备工具，草率且零成本的道德定罪则是关闭沟通大门的病态傲慢。 - [01:31:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=5476s) 自尊是一个病态的心理学伪概念，真正的自信完全构建于打破自我设限、经受客观检验的行为能力之上。 - [01:43:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6222s) 价值观无法脱离现实人为随意捏造，只有经过演化检验、具备长期丰盛可玩性的互动模式才能维系文明与个体生存。 - [01:54:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6879s) 理查德·道金斯混淆了‘性’与‘生殖’的本质；高投入的人类繁衍在本质上是跨越数十代的伦理传承与生存模式塑造。 - [01:57:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7053s) 后现代主义否定宏大叙事并将一切归于权力是自我毁灭的歧途；心甘情愿的自愿自我牺牲才是支撑心灵与文明的基石故事。 - [02:05:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7559s) 人天生是为了迎接极致挑战（maximal challenge）而设计的，追求肤浅的安逸与幸福本质上只是在逃避无意义的苦难。 - [02:12:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7948s) 依靠家庭与知己构建的‘分布式认同’与对死亡稀缺性的觉知，构成了创作者在极化网络舆论风暴中坚守初心的终极护城河。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=0s) 序幕：逃避冲突与现代人的困境 节目的开场集锦切入了一系列发人深省的警示：婚前同居往往会反常地提高日后婚姻破裂的概率，这一现象背后有着极为明确的心理机制；而色情内容的泛滥则成为当下亲密关系与性生活逐渐消亡的关键推手。乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）尖锐地指出，人类天生是为迎接“最大挑战”（maximal challenge）而设计的，但在当下社会，大众却普遍将自己视作消费与即时享乐的容器。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 即时享乐与人生冒险的心理对比 accDescr: 对比逃避痛苦的即时享乐路径与拥抱挑战的真实人生历险路径 subgraph EasyPath["即时享乐路线（现代陷阱）"] A["消费与色情"] --> B["轻松获得性满足"] B --> C["丧失渴望与紧迫感"] C --> D["回避冲突与妥协沉默"] D --> E["自我厌弃与精神虚无"] end subgraph AdventurePath["真实历险路线（成长之道）"] F["直面最大挑战"] --> G["接纳爱、羞耻、内疚与痛苦"] G --> H["勇敢表达真实想法"] H --> I["生命呈现宏大而值得沉醉的意义"] end ``` 通过色情内容获取生理发泄固然轻而易举，但其长远代价却是毁灭性的——人因此丧失了对真实生活与关系的渴望（desperation）。彼得森强调，人若想开启生命中真正的伟大历险，就必须经历爱、羞耻、内疚、痛苦与绝望的洗礼。当好人在邪恶滋长时选择明哲保身、吞下真话、一步步退却，其结果必然是对自己感到厌恶至极，而这种自我鄙弃是世上最糟糕的惩罚。人生的痛苦与灾难本就是这趟旅途不可或缺的组成部分，缺乏这些，生命便绝无荣耀可言。 ### [01:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=77s) 自由主义的裂痕与被割裂的个体 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）在访谈开始时分享道，彼得森的新书《我们与上帝摔跤》（*We Who Wrestle With God*）出版在一个极具共鸣的时刻，当下许多人虽不一定信奉某种拟人化具象的上帝，却都在与“终极意义”这一概念苦苦缠斗。社会的过度个人主义（individualism）正将人们引向迷茫，彼得森对此补充道，与其说是个人主义，不如用“割裂化”（fractionated）、疏离和孤立来描述更为贴切。 彼得森剖析了西方政治哲学的发展历程： - **苏格兰自由主义者的预设前提**：西方古典自由主义早期的开拓者深知，个体的自由与探索唯有建立在坚固的保守主义底座——即犹太-基督教传统构筑的共享价值观之上，整个体制方能稳固运转。 - **现代自由主义的根基动摇**：当代社会抽离了这一底层形而上学基石，导致过度放大的个人主义变得摇摇欲坠，而眼下激烈的分裂与“文化战争”正是这种根基崩解的外在表征。 ### [03:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=227s) 身份认同的多层架构与精神健康的本质 彼得森指出，现代自由主义最大的误区在于误解了“身份”（identity）的本质。身份绝非孤立地止步于个体的皮肤边界，而是一套自下而上的嵌套等级体系。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 个体身份的层级嵌套结构 accDescr: 展示从生物个体到形而上学神性信念的多层身份嵌套图 L5["形而上学追求与终极真理 (神 / 立国核心价值)"] L4["民族与国家公民 (Nation / State)"] L3["城市与社区成员 (City / Community)"] L2["家庭角色 (丈夫 / 妻子 / 父亲 / 母亲)"] L1["生物学个体 (Individual)"] L1 --> L2 L2 --> L3 L3 --> L4 L4 --> L5 ``` 真正的心理健康（mental health）绝非个人大脑内部独自揣摩的产物，而是上述各个层级之间达成的和谐共振。一旦抽离了家庭、社群与终极信仰的支撑，失去层层锚定的个体便如同在狂风暴雨的大海中独自漂泊，孤立无援。 ### [05:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=322s) 自我关注与痛苦的心理学重叠 从心理测量学（psychometrics）与人格统计学的专业视角切入，彼得森揭示了语言与人类心理机制的深刻联系。心理学家在分析人类性格词汇的聚类时发现： - 外向性常与社交、快乐及热情紧密相连； - 焦虑则必然与沮丧、幻灭、悲恸和疼痛等负面情绪捆绑在一起； - 人格的大五特质（情绪稳定性、外向性、宜人性、尽责性、开放性）构成了人类经验的维度。 尤为关键的发现是，“自我意识”（self-consciousness，对自我的过度关注与计较）在概念聚类上与“负面情绪”及“痛苦”高度重合，二者在心理测量学上几乎无法区分。这意味着：一个人越是将注意力死死锚定在自己身上，内心就会越发凄惨绝望。 即使是监狱中穷凶极恶、反社会的精神病态罪犯（psychopaths），最严厉的惩罚也依然是单独禁闭（solitary confinement），足见人类底层的社会连结属性是何等深刻。彼得森直言，衡量心理健康的核心标准根本不是个人认知体系内部是否自洽，而是现实中“是否有任何人喜欢你、是否有朋友、是否有爱你的人，以及更深层地——你是否愿意为他人做出牺牲”。这种牺牲的逻辑正是《旧约》故事的核心，也是婚姻的实质所在：在步入婚姻的那一刻，个体主动牺牲了与其他所有异性建立关系的潜在可能，将其全盘奉献给唯一的伴侣。 ### [08:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=521s) 破解利己困局：走向善与崇高的行动法则 当主持人追问，身处过度个人主义的现代社会，一个倍感孤独的人日常该如何打破这种囚徒困局时，彼得森给出了极具操作性的建议。 对于那些性格中宜人性低（disagreeable）、生性好胜且追求个人利益的人而言，若兼具外向特质，极易滑向自恋（narcissism）。自恋虽可能在短期单次博弈中占得便宜，但随着时间推移，它会逐渐疏远所有人，在长期跨期博弈中沦为必然破产的衰退策略。在现实世界中，唯有与他人紧密协作、朝向同一目标迈进，才能实现真正的成就。 彼得森开出的处方是转变行动的立足点： - **停止执迷于“我想要什么”**：不要整日殚精竭虑为个人私利设计策略，转而去思考“我能为身边的他人做些什么”。 - **践行宗教性取向（Religious Orientation）**：将注意力投向“何为真实与正确之事”。 虽然人类的认知存在局限，不可能完全参透至善的全部图景，但罕有人在犯下过错时会对此毫无知觉；人类的每一个行为都必须依托于对某种“善”或“向往之物”的设定才能展开。唯有把脚步迈向超越自我的价值与正道，个体才能走出孤独封闭的荒原。 ### [11:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=666s) 目标的嵌套结构与“至善”的定义 乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）指出，除非一个人已经坠入某种精神层面的“地狱”，否则在正常状态下，人类绝不会主动去让自己的生活变得更糟。人们总是在朝向某种更美好的事物迈进，这种向前的动力在神经生物学与心理学层面上是无可争辩的。人类的积极情绪系统负责追踪朝着目标迈进的进程；除了纯粹出于恐惧追求安全的动机外，让人感到振奋、渴望向前的积极情绪，本质上就是感知到自己正朝着所渴望的目标移动的副产物。 彼得森进一步阐述了目标之间复杂的“层层嵌套”（nesting）结构。最底层的近端目标可能是极微观的生理反应，例如在对话中展现出感兴趣的面部表情；这个微观目标嵌套在对当前谈话主题保持兴趣的愿望中，而这一愿望又嵌套在整个播客节目的录制之中；播客本身又嵌套在主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）的媒体事业与彼得森本人的著书立作之中；最终，这一切都被更宏大的世界观所包容。这种向上无限延伸的向善阶梯，正如同圣经中描绘的“雅各的天梯”（Jacob's Ladder），而在层级顶端的那种绝对的“好”，在所有实用意义上就是“神圣”（the Divine）。 面对巴特利特追问何为“神圣”，彼得森强调这并非宗派信仰的宣告，而是一个严谨的结构性定义：在“善”的层级结构中，神圣即是顶峰。然而圣经文本始终强调，终极的神圣是不可言喻（ineffable）、无法彻底定义的，因为它永远超越于人。当人们达成一个目标后，并不会就此停滞，而是会浮现出新的更高追求；机会与潜能的领域是无限的，顶峰随着你的接近而在不断后退。因此从技术层面上讲，上帝就是所有具体之“善”所共同指向的那个终极之善。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 目标的嵌套层级结构 accDescr: 展示从微观行为层层向上嵌套直至终极之善（神圣/上帝）的层级关系。 subgraph Macro["宏观层级：终极追求"] A["顶峰：终极之善 / 神圣（上帝）"] B["世界观与生命蓝图"] end subgraph Mid["中观层级：事业与载体"] C["长期事业（著书立作 / 播客项目）"] D["具体行动（进行一次深入对话）"] end subgraph Micro["微观层级：即时反应"] E["微观目标（展现出专注与感兴趣的神情）"] end E --> D D --> C C --> B B --> A ``` --- ### [15:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=921s) 人生内在的故事与自我投射：陀思妥耶夫斯基的阴影 巴特利特询问普通人心中是否清醒地意识到这种终极目标。彼得森回答，无论人们是否自觉，这个目标都是潜移默化存在的。正如卡尔·荣格（Carl Jung）等精神分析学家所坚持的，每个人都在无意识中“活出一段故事”（acts out a story）。有时这是一出悲剧，有时则是困在炼狱中的挣扎。人们往往极其不擅长描述自己，但这并不意味着他们缺乏内驱力；甚至有些人的心灵本身就是多个相互冲突的故事角逐的战场，从而陷入精神分裂般的撕裂状态。 巴特利特提到前一天有人告诉他，了解自我叙事的一个绝妙方式是回答“如果你是一个虚构角色，你会是谁”，借此能看清自己把自己视为英雄还是受害者。彼得森先是戏谑地回答“兔八哥”（Bugs Bunny），因为兔八哥是一个典型的捣蛋鬼/欺诈师（trickster）原型。随后他给出了严肃的答案：陀思妥耶夫斯基笔下的“白痴”与“拉斯柯尔尼科夫”（Raskolnikov）的结合体。 彼得森解释，《白痴》中的主角梅诗金公爵是一个“圣愚”（holy fool）形象——以一种非显而易见的方式践行着正义与善良，但这种举止在世人眼中极易被误解为天真、愚蠢、贪玩，甚至在某些时候被曲解为心怀叵测。这恰恰对应了彼得森在现实中所遭受的误解与舆论围攻。 --- ### [17:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1069s) 名誉围剿、制度攻伐与公众生活的残酷代价 在谈及外界对其名誉的攻击时，彼得森坦言这带来了巨大的精神压力。与安大略省心理学家学院（College of Psychologists of Ontario）之间长达十年的法律诉讼极其昂贵且毫无良知，耗费了数十万加元。学院试图彻底摧毁他的专业信誉，并在很大程度上左右了公众舆论：当监管机构对一名专业人士展开调查时，大众本能的推论必然是“受调查者道德败坏、行事不端”，而非“行业监管机构腐败无能”，因为在正常社会中后者才是极其罕见的。 此外，离开多伦多大学同样令他心痛。彼得森回顾道，虽然那所大学也有其问题，但整体运作良好，他极其热爱教授本科生与研究生，也深深热爱那些如今已然被迫中止的科学研究。 谈及媒体环境，彼得森表示日常的闲言碎语他早已不在意，但初期在公共舞台上面对某些极度病态、反社会人格（psychopathic）的记者时（尤其在英国媒体界），每一次交锋都像在掷骰子，险象环生；那样的恶意报道完全有能力彻底毁掉他与他的家庭，那种命悬一线的危机曾真实发生过三到五次甚至更多。不过与舆论场的腥风血雨形成鲜明对比的是，他在现实生活与日常社交中遇到的人，给予他的反馈绝大多数都极其积极而令人欣慰。 --- ### [20:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1239s) 逆境中的锚定：亲密关系、直言不讳与信心的跃迁 当巴特利特问及在狂风骤雨般的攻击中是否有抵御苦难的策略时，彼得森指出，真正的“锚”是他无比紧密的人际网络——稳固的家庭和知心朋友圈。尽管在风波中失去了一些边缘朋友，但核心圈子始终坚不可摧。彼得森强调这不能算作一种处心积虑的“策略”，因为他当初生儿育女只是因为单纯喜欢孩子，而他与妻子已相识整整52年，她始终是他最好的挚友。这种健全且扎根于社会的身份认同，构成了对抗外界恶意的基本盘。 如果说彼得森真有什么应对风暴的元策略（meta strategy），那就是：“毫无保留地说出自己心中的真实想法”（just say what I think）。这并非为了谋取个人私利，而是一场向未知世界敞开的冒险——说出真话，然后放手看世界将如何回应。 彼得森由此猛烈抨击了科学还原论者与经验主义者的傲慢。那些人声称人类可以抛弃“信念”（Faith）在世界上立足，在彼得森看来这纯属一派胡言（complete bloody rubbish）。人一生中做出的所有真正重大的决定，无一不是建立在信念之上的： - **婚姻的非理性与信心跃迁**：一个人在23岁决定结婚时，根本没有任何经验主义层面的充分证据。人在那个年纪一无所知，仅仅凭着对对方的爱意便许下一生的承诺；支撑这种决定的，完全是对未来的信心而非既定事实的算计。 ### [23:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1391s) 对真理的信仰：为什么沉默比公开发声带来更多痛苦 面对未知的生活，任何人都没有事先写好的剧本，你必须像对待所有真正重要的事情一样，纵身跃入未知之中。这种跨越本质上完全建立在“信仰”之上，而关键问题在于你信仰的究竟是什么。乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）指出，如果你下定决心只讲自己认为真实的话，那么你所信仰的就是真理——至少是你力所能及触碰到的那部分真理。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随即追问：如果当年彼得森没有公开站出来表达观点，而是继续安分地做一名临床心理医生，他所承受的痛苦难道不会比现在少得多吗？ 彼得森毫不犹豫地给出了否定回答。他斩钉截铁地表示，保持沉默意味着他必须咬紧牙关、硬生生把话咽回肚子里，而那种痛苦远比公开发声引来的攻击要可怕得多。“这不是我认为如此，而是我确信如此，百分之百确信。”彼得森强调，自己花了极长的时间去深入研究“恶”（evil）的本质，他非常清楚恶是如何滋生的——“当好人选择噤声不语时，恶便乘虚而入”（it arises when good men hold their tongue）。即便直言不讳会招致现实层面的打击与代价，但从长远和智者的视角来看，人生中最糟糕的下场莫过于“篡改你自己的言语”（to falsify your speech）。 - 信仰真理并非指掌握了终极绝对的现实，而是在个人认知边界内，拒绝违心地歪曲表达。 - 恶的滋生并非总依赖激进的破坏，更多时候始于良善之人面对不公时的集体沉默与退缩。 - 篡改言语、违心迎合会对一个人的精神结构造成根本性的内耗与腐蚀，其破坏力远胜外界的风浪。 ### [25:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1507s) 战略性防守与巩固阵地：不要把所有鸡蛋放在一个篮子里 当被问及“什么都不说”是否也算一种言论伪造时，彼得森给出了肯定的答复：“当你有话该说却选择沉默时，这绝对是一种伪造。”针对现实中许多普通人因为担心丢掉饭碗、无法养家糊口而不敢发声的困境，彼得森并未给出轻飘飘的道德说教，而是提出了一个直击痛处的尖锐命题：如果你的工作要求你靠撒谎才能保住，或许你真正该做的是换一份工作。因为如果父母每天在职场中违心迎合、假装成另一种人，他们实际上是在给自己的孩子树立一个软弱、虚伪的榜样，这种精神层面的毒害可能远比短期的财务动荡更具毁灭性。 然而，彼得森也明确反对愚蠢的殉道。他指出，表达真实想法必须建立在深思熟虑的战略考量之上。如果把说话变成一场瞬间摧毁生活且无法挽回的自杀式灾难，那就毫无智慧可言。当年他在多伦多大学因反对法案而陷入舆论风暴时，他早已拥有三处不同的收入来源。这绝非偶然的幸运，而是深思熟虑的防御布局。彼得森借用军事防御的隐喻强调：如果你发现自己处于完全不敢说话的境地，说明你没有妥善巩固自己的领地（fortify your territory），把致命的软肋直接暴露给了对手。一生都在防守中步步退缩、任由自己的生存空间不断萎缩，这种艰难只会让人精神耗竭，最终对自己感到厌恶。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 表达真实与战略阵地巩固模型 accDescr: 展示了在面对必须讲真话的困境时，建立多元支撑结构与步步退缩的两种不同路径及后果。 subgraph Defense ["领地防御与战略布局"] A["面临违心表达的压力"] --> B{"是否有独立的生存底气？"} B -- "单一依赖 / 软肋完全暴露" --> C["被迫咬紧牙关妥协"] B -- "多元支撑 / 阵地经过巩固" --> D["拥有自主性与还击空间"] end subgraph Outcomes ["不同选择的长远后果"] C --> E["步步退缩与自我萎缩"] E --> F["对自我产生厌恶 / 给下一代树立软弱榜样"] D --> G["承担言论代价但保全人格完整"] G --> H["有效抵御恶的蔓延"] end ``` - 彼得森在自身舆论危机爆发前，刻意确保自己拥有三项独立的经济来源，避免“把所有鸡蛋放在同一个篮子里”导致丧失话语自主权。 - 战略性思维要求一个人像身处战场的指挥官一样审视自己的脆弱点，评估为何自己不敢讲真话、究竟在何处受制于人。 - 盲目充当殉道者并不可取，真正的智者是在确立安全防线、具备承受力之后再主动出击，而不是被动退守直至退无可退。 ### [27:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1638s) 未发生的上万次争吵：一段婚姻是如何慢慢走向崩溃的 这种自我萎缩与言语压抑不仅发生在宏观职场中，更无孔不入地渗透在亲密关系里。彼得森提到，在其多年的临床心理咨询生涯中，这种现象在破裂的婚姻中屡见见鲜。他提出了一个令人深思的诊断：一段婚姻走向离婚，往往是因为其间存在着“一万场本该发生却没有发生的争吵”（10,000 fights that haven't been had）。 这个惊人的数字绝非随口虚构，而是一道残酷的数学算术题。彼得森解释道，假设夫妻俩的关系已经出现问题，他们每天大约会产生五次令人不适的隐性分歧或摩擦。一年下来，这种微小的摩擦就会积累到一千五百次；如果一段濒临崩溃的婚姻维持了近十年，那就正好累积了近一万次保持沉默、欲言又止的时刻。每一次选择咽下不满、逃避正面的沟通与冲突，未解决的怨气就会沉淀下来。当这种沉默累积到几千次之后，哪怕日后爆发一场再微不足道的小争执，背后其实都潜伏着过去积压的数千个幽灵。其结果是，双方更加害怕开口，彻底陷入恶性循环。彼得森借用神话隐喻指出，这就是典型的“因逃避命运而导致混沌巨龙再度复苏”（the reemergence of the Dragon of chaos as a consequence of fleeing from your fate）。 - 隐忍与压抑并不能换来长久的和平，每一次为了避免冲突而保持的沉默，都在为亲密关系的崩溃添砖加瓦。 - 未解决的矛盾具有强大的复合累积效应，使后续的任何正常沟通都被沉重的历史怨气所绑架。 - 逃避直面当下的现实摩擦，最终会唤醒潜藏在生活深渊中的毁灭性危机。 ### [28:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1726s) 每周90分钟倾听：消除阻碍并唤醒脆弱的“玩乐状态” 巴特利特深有感触地回应道，彼得森在上次谈话中提到的一个建议一直深深印在他的脑海里，他甚至经常把那段四分钟的音频转发给感情出现危机的朋友：每周必须拿出整整九十分钟，专心致志地坐下来与伴侣交谈。巴特利特笑称这确实“非常烦人”，但却极其关键，其核心在于专门创造一个不受打扰的安全场域，让伴侣能够毫无顾忌地倾诉最近观察到了什么、甚至直言为什么此刻讨厌你。 彼得森对这一建议的心理学逻辑进行了深入剖析。他指出，女性全心全意将自己托付给男性从来都不是一件容易的事，因为她们在这段关系中押上了巨大的筹码。要让女性放下防备，首要的前提条件是提供绝对的“和平与安全感”（peace and security）。在人际互动中，领地是否真正被扫清障碍，有一个极为灵敏的试金石——那就是“玩乐状态”（play）能否自然浮现。 彼得森强调，“玩乐”是一种极其脆弱且高级的动机状态，它对环境要求极为苛刻，几乎任何潜在的不信任、隐瞒或不适感都能轻而易举地将其彻底打碎。如果两个人之间横亘着未解的误解与隔阂，玩乐便绝不可能发生；取而代之的将是勉强应付与满心怨怼，浪漫的冒险体验也将荡然无存。伴侣之间要达到彼此同频（in sync）、心甘情愿投入的境界极其艰难，甚至一个人与自己的内心达成同频都绝非易事。因此，每周固定深谈、互通彼此的生活近况、彻底抚平不适与怀疑的源头，是维系健康关系的必修功课。 - 玩乐与幽默是亲密关系中最先因潜在冲突而熄灭的信号，也是检验彼此是否完全放松、互相信任的核心指标。 - 缺乏深度的对齐沟通，伴侣关系就会从充满生机的自愿同行，沦为充满敌意与不情愿的机械忍耐。 - 90分钟谈话的本质并非形式主义的时间限制，而是系统性清理关系中积攒的微小隔阂，重新筑牢安全感的基础。 ### [30:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1853s) 但丁的地狱与背叛深渊：如何直面核心冲突并明确共同目标 为了说明彻底解决伴侣争端有多么艰难，彼得森引用了但丁《神曲·地狱篇》（Dante's Inferno）中的经典意象。但丁将地狱描绘成一个层层递进的结构，而最深处、也是恶的极点并非烈火，而是被永冻之冰死死封印的撒旦，周围环绕着所有犯下背叛之罪的人。彼得森指出，直面婚姻中反复出现的顽疾，其痛苦程度丝毫不亚于“在不打麻药的情况下做外科手术”——这是一场深入无底深渊的旅程。 当你顺着夫妻冲突的旋涡一路深挖到最底层时，你往往会惊愕地发现，盘踞在底部的正是“背叛”。伴侣之所以无法信任你，可能源于你过去的某种越轨行为，也可能源于她在上一段感情中遭遇的背叛，甚至是她母亲或祖母经历过的创伤留下的阴影。要驱散底层盘踞的恶魔，首要前提是双方必须同时具备直面它的共同意愿，并为关系确立一个至高目标。 彼得森用“在上帝的天堂花园中永远玩耍”这一意象作为隐喻：所谓花园，本质上是在安全围墙之内的受控自然，墙壁象征着家庭的守护，花园象征着展现自身之美的生机，只有在这座有边界的乐园里，玩乐才得以发生。然而，很多人甚至不敢去思考自己究竟想要什么，因为一旦确立了清晰的高阶目标，失败的界限也会变得一清二楚。人们宁可让自己继续在失败中泥足深陷，也不愿直面自己正在失败的残酷证据。婚姻誓言的最深层含义，正是两个人达成共识，愿意克服这种内心的懦弱，在彼此坦诚与不断校准中，寻找那些偶尔出现的幸福片段并将其逐步放大。 - 但丁地狱的最底层是冰封的背叛者，揭示了亲密关系中最核心的死结往往深植于创伤性的背叛感与不信任。 - 设立清晰的关系目标需要极大的勇气，因为界定成功的同时也曝光了失败的可能；许多人宁愿忍受糟糕现状也不愿确立目标，本质是在逃避失败的实感。 - 解决深层争端无法一蹴而就，夫妻双方需要共同留心生活中偶发的同频与快乐时刻（例如一次愉快的散步或用餐），细致复盘其背后的积极因素并有意识地扩展其在生活中的比例。 ### [34:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2083s) 婚姻中的微小改善与爱的责任 婚姻生活中有一种非常实用的练习：多去留意那些彼此相处顺遂的时刻。当发现某段时间两人相处愉快时，双方可以坐下来复盘，商讨如何把这些做对了的事情在下周多做 10% 甚至只要多做 1%。通过这种滚雪球的方式，正向的互动就会逐渐扩展。此外，已婚的人都曾深爱过自己的伴侣，而这种爱是需要不断被主动记起并练习的。 乔丹·彼得森（Jordan B. Peterson）指出，最初坠入爱河往往是一种“被动降临”的情感恩赐，但要让爱情持久，你就必须主动将其承担为一种责任，并成为维系它的专家。当你某天觉得自己不再爱对方时，应该反思：“我曾经爱过，而且我具备爱的能力，那为什么现在不爱了？问题是不是出在我身上？”从审视自己的缺点入手，通常是最有效的路径。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 爱情从激情到责任的演进 accDescr: 描述爱情从最初被动降临的礼物，转变为需要主动承担的责任与技能的过程。 A["坠入爱河<br/>（被动获得的恩赐）"] --> B["激情褪去 / 面临现实考验"] B --> C["主动承担责任<br/>（成为维系关系的专家）"] C --> D["刻意回忆与练习爱意"] C --> E["捕捉良好互动并增加1%至10%"] C --> F["优先自省而非指责对方"] ``` --- ### [36:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2164s) 停止寻找“对的人”，转而让自己变得不可替代 许多人在亲密关系受挫时会归咎于“选错了人”或“彼此不合适”。彼得森直言，本质上“你和任何人都不可能真正完全契合”。许多人幻想着在这个世界上找到一个完美的另一半，但现实是：第一，你根本找不到；第二，即便真的存在那样一个完美的人，对方一旦看清你的真实模样，大概率只会吓得尖叫逃跑。 在巡回演讲期间，彼得森曾连续三天遇到观众提出同一个问题：“我该如何找到适合我的人？”直到第三晚，他意识到这个提问从根本上就彻底错了，是一个“致命的愚蠢问题”。真正正确的问题应当是：“我该如何学习为他人提供价值，从而让自己成为一个极具吸引力、人人渴望与之相伴的人？”一个人完全可以通过自我塑造，成为让别人排着队想要交往的对象。 --- ### [37:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2248s) 史蒂文的自我提升之路与严酷的“人生算术” 主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）分享了自己的经历。他今年 32 岁，但整个人生只约会过大概四次。18 岁时他几乎毫无吸引力，也没有去酒吧搭讪或刷约会软件，而是选择把精力集中在自己身上： - **财务积累**：打下坚实的财务基础，建立支撑他人和家庭的能力（彼得森强调这并非自恋，而是把自身生活打理整齐）。 - **身体素质**：坚持去健身房锻炼，保持强健体魄。 - **智识与心智**：深入学习认知自我，掌握应对现实世界的能力与技能。 直到 27 岁时，有人主动联系他，他便全力以赴规划了一场长达三天的约会（甚至细致到了 Excel 表格中），如今两人已稳定相伴六年。 彼得森借此展开了他常与咨询来访者一起计算的“残酷算术”： - 算术之所以令人抗拒，是因为结果往往无比凄凉。比如 15 年前彼得森曾计算过自己未来还能见父母多少次，答案仅剩大约 20 次。 - 在寻找伴侣这件事上同样如此：一个人一生中真正能够认真尝试的理想伴侣人选，即便你自身条件优异且非常幸运，满打满算也就大约 5 次机会。“海里的鱼很多”并不代表它们会自动游向你。 --- ### [40:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2439s) 现代女性的时间窗口与顶级职场精英的困境 对于女性而言，这种时间算术尤为严苛。如今在西方社会，30 岁及以下的女性中有一半尚未生育。然而，30 岁时已有三分之一的伴侣面临受孕困难（定义为备孕一年未果），而到了 35 岁，女性的生育能力更会出现悬崖式下跌。如果一位女性在 30 岁前尚未建立稳定的家庭关系，之后的环境就会变得极其艰难。 彼得森回忆起自己长达 10 年为加拿大顶尖咨询公司与律所提供心理咨询的经历。在律所中，普通律师很多，优秀律师也不少，但既懂业务又能为律所带来源源不断新客户的合伙人凤毛麟角，而其中一半是女性。这些女性通常兼具极高的颜值、极高的智商、极其拼搏的职业道德，从中学到法学院一路名列前茅，顺理成章被律所争抢并升至高位。 然而到了 30 岁左右，她们几乎都会陷入深刻的迷茫：“我每周工作 70 个小时，和一群竞争欲极强的男人厮杀，到底是为了什么？”彼得森直言，即使你在律所取得惊人成就，如果在上班路上不幸被公交车撞死，律所就像水面闭合一样迅速恢复如常，根本没有人在意。 --- ### [43:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2610s) 择偶阶梯、高嫁心理与男性的退缩 男性的竞争机制在很大程度上由“男性层级中的相对胜利”所驱动，而这恰恰是女性择偶时最看重的关键指标；相反，男性在择偶时几乎完全不在意女性在职场层级中的成就，甚至有时会产生反效果。 这就导致前述顶尖职场女性极易陷入深度孤独，形成难以打破的择偶困局： - **三重筛选导致候选人极其匮乏**：美貌直接震慑并吓退了 90% 的普通男性；极高的智商又筛掉了剩下 10% 中的 90%；再加上卓越的事业与丰厚的财富，敢于主动追求她们的男性寥寥无几。 - **高嫁（Hypergamy）心理**：女性在生育抚抚育期间必然面临生理上的脆弱期，因此本能地期望寻找一位比自己更强、能为关系带来实际增益与庇护的伴侣。当女性自身的综合能力极高时，她对“有帮助的伴侣”的标准就会水涨船高，导致可选对象基数剧烈缩减。统计数据显示，女性的智商与结婚概率之间存在显著的负相关。 - **男性的退缩并非单纯的软弱**：年轻男性对极具魅力的女性感到畏惧是极其现实的防御机制，因为对年轻男性而言，向这样优秀的女性表白，默认遭遇拒绝的概率几乎就是 100%。 ### [46:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2768s) 无性化社会的危机与短期择偶的阴暗面 史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）指出当前数据中一个引人注目的趋势：现代社会中的“无性化”（sexlessness）正在迅速加剧，人们发生性关系的频率越来越低。乔丹·彼得森（Jordan B Peterson）对此直言不讳地将其定性为“一场灾难”（a catastrophe）。当被问及导致这一局面的复杂成因时，彼得森指出，核心因素之一在于：在一个看似自由开放的择偶环境中，女性已经不再信任男性，而这种不信任完全在情理之中。 彼得森剖析了择偶市场中男性的分化：一部分男性倾向于长期承诺与伴侣关系，追求性与爱的结合；另一部分男性则信奉“今朝有酒今朝醉，反正明天都要死”的即时行乐主义，沉溺于短期关系。尽管部分女性也参与短期择偶，但由于女性在性行为不慎中所承担的生理和代价远高于男性，因此短期择偶群体中的主体始终是男性。人格心理学研究早已揭示了这类短期猎奇者的典型心理特质——他们高度契合“暗黑四人格”（Dark Tetrad）： - **马基雅维利主义（Machiavellianism）**：精通语言伪装与情感操纵； - **自恋（Narcissism）**：渴望攫取不劳而获的社会地位与崇拜； - **精神病态（Psychopathy）**：本质上是掠夺性的寄生虫； - **施虐倾向（Sadism）**：以践踏他人为乐。 彼得森尖锐地指出，当文化彻底放开择偶规则、让轻浮的短期寻欢成为社会主流时，实际上等同于“把所有女性拱手推入了精神病态者的利爪之中”。这不仅严重破坏了择偶市场的信任根基，更打破了基本的安全感。许多人抱有一种幼稚的幻想，以为能将性从所谓的“父权压迫”中彻底解放出来，变成一种毫无负担的娱乐。但性关系绝无可能变得简单——肉体亲密必然带来深层的情感纠葛，更不用提随之而来的意外怀孕、堕胎争议以及性传播疾病等沉重现实。那些鼓吹“性应当毫无负担”的人，要么极度无知，要么就是带着严重马基雅维利式的操纵企图。 --- ### [49:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2943s) 婚前试婚的逻辑谬误与婚前守贞的理想价值 在被问及是否认同“婚前不发生性行为”作为一种理念时，彼得森明确给出了肯定回答。针对这一传统观念为何能催生更稳固的伴侣关系和社会结构，彼得森从同居与试婚的误区展开了深入论述。现代人常主张“试婚”——先同居看看彼此合不合适，就像买车前先“试驾”一样。然而，现实统计数据彻底击碎了这种假设：**婚前同居的情侣在结婚后的离婚率反而更高**，并且婚前拥有的性伴侣数量越多，婚后出轨的概率就成正比上升。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 同居试婚与婚姻承诺的心理机制对比 accDescr: 对比试婚中留有后路的有条件接纳与婚姻中破釜沉舟的无条件承诺 subgraph Cohabitation["同居试婚模式（试驾思维）"] A["潜台词：'在更好的人出现前你先凑合'"] --> B["留有后路与有条件的接纳"] B --> C["缺乏不可逆的社会与法律锚点"] C --> D["遭遇危机易瓦解，离婚率反而上升"] end subgraph Marriage["婚姻承诺模式（破釜沉舟）"] E["誓言：'无论顺境逆境、风狂浪急'"] --> F["全方位筑垒（法律、社会、形而上）"] F --> G["消除退路，迫使双方共同化解矛盾"] G --> H["跨越数十年的多代际稳定结构"] end ``` 彼得森指出，过去的行为是预测未来行为最可靠的指标，有过大量伴侣的人自然更容易在未来继续更换伴侣。将择偶比作“试驾买车”本身就是一个完全错误的隐喻。同居生活绝不等于婚姻生活的演练，因为同居的本质是“保留后路”，而婚姻的核心特质是“终身性与永久性”。 同居向彼此传递的深层心理潜台词实际上相当残酷：“只要没有更好的选择出现，你就先凑合；与此同时，我也赋予你同样的权利。”彼得森感叹，以这种心照不宣的留后路心态作为基石，怎么可能构建起牢不可破的长期关系？ 谈及择偶与成家的难度，彼得森坦言：“人这一生中，再也没有什么事情比寻找伴侣和建立家庭更困难的了。”他分享了自己与妻子塔米（Tamie）的经历：他们从8岁起就相识并成为挚友，尽管青春期因发育节奏和学业年龄差一度疏远，但最终在27、28岁左右步入婚姻。回顾过往，彼得森由衷感慨，如果当年能更早结婚就更好了，因为晚婚意味着白白错失了本可以与她共同度过的宝贵光阴。 --- ### [52:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=3139s) 婚姻的本质：为什么仅有“相爱”是远远不够的？ 史蒂芬·巴特利特提出了现代年轻人普遍面临的困惑：自己与伴侣感情稳定，同样可以孕育抚养孩子，为什么非要走入传统婚姻？多签一张受政府和法律约束的纸究竟有何意义？难道在亲友见证下举办非法律性质的仪式不能达到相同的效果吗？ 彼得森对此给出了多维度的论证： 1. **遵循传统经验法则**：人生的通用准则应当是“遵循历代先人的经验路径，除非你有极其充分的反思和理由去推翻它”。对于像巴特利特这样极具开拓精神的企业家而言，生活已经充满了冒险与不确定性，在底层建立尽可能坚实的基石，不仅不会被束缚，反而能释放出探索未知世界的更大自由。 2. **多代际承诺与破釜沉舟**：孩子从来不是短暂的项目，而是一项连带孙辈的“多代际承诺”（multigenerational commitment）。要维持长达几十年的稳定，必须倾注全副武装的严肃态度。 3. **“爱”作为保障的虚妄性**：以为“只要有爱和幸福就足够维系关系”是一种极度幼稚的世界观。如果一段关系要跨越40年，其中必然会有长达数年彼此毫无幸福感、甚至在情绪上感知不到爱意的黑暗期。在风狂浪急的灭顶之灾面前，轻飘飘的情感承诺会瞬间崩塌。 4. **全方位的制度筑垒（Fortification）**：婚姻誓言之所以要在法律、社区以及形而上的宗教神圣维度面前确立，正是因为人无法完全看透并掌控自己内心的软弱与变数。人类需要借助外在的坚固框架来抵御深渊。 彼得森动情地谈到，在婚姻誓词中许下的“无论风狂浪急（come hell or high water）”，那些绝境是必然会降临的。他以自身为例证实了这一点：在过去的五年里，他和妻子双双遭遇了险些丧命的严重健康危机，病情凶险，生死悬于一线。如果当年他们没有正式结为夫妻，而是仅仅停留在随意的恋爱关系中，这段关系在残酷的磨难面前绝不可能支撑下来。正是全方位的严肃誓约，才让他们在风雨飘摇中始终坐在同一艘船上，共同渡过灭顶风浪。 ### [56:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=3401s) 直面深渊：婚姻是牢笼，还是对未知的逃避？ 当史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）试图梳理情感依恋、个人承诺与婚姻社会结构之间的复杂纠葛时，他向乔丹·彼得森坦承，自己在面对“承诺”这一问题时内心充满了抵触与挣扎。正当彼得森追问他到底在与什么博弈时，史蒂文脑海中闪过了一幅深刻的画面：他突然回忆起童年时看着父亲在婚姻关系中的状态，感觉父亲仿佛“身处监狱”。彼得森敏锐地抓住这一闪而过的记忆，指出这正是潜意识浮出水面的关键时刻——如果追随并凝视这些幻想与记忆碎片，它们就会像探照灯一样照亮通往内心“深渊”的下行之路。 彼得森指出，既然亲眼目睹了父亲在婚姻中被困的痛苦，史蒂文对婚姻产生戒备和警惕是极其自然的。但解决之道绝不是回避，而是要彻底探究这份困境的本质：父亲当年陷入绝境的真相到底是什么？有哪些确凿的证据？有多少成分源于父亲自身，又有多少源于母亲？他们各自做对了什么、做错了什么？这种创伤又是如何烙印在自己身上的？彼得森将这一内省过程比作一种“祈祷”——当你诚实地发问“我无法理解婚姻的根源究竟是什么”，答案往往就会以痛苦记忆的形式显现。很多人终其一生都在与伴侣无休止地争吵，其真实目的仅仅是为了逃避潜入内心深处去触碰那个令人恐惧的核心事实；然而，一旦有勇气探底，就能免去未来长达三十年的盲目内耗。 彼得森进一步阐述，世间本就不存在“无风险”的生存路径。人们常常自问“婚姻如何才能不是陷阱”，但反过来思考：不结婚是不是陷阱？孤独一人是不是陷阱？对维系人际关系的幻想本身是不是陷阱？到处都是陷阱，逃避婚姻绝不等于规避风险。因此，真正成熟的做法不是寻找无风险的避难所，而是与伴侣共同构建一个经过优化的关系形态。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 婚姻恐惧与自我审视的循环逻辑 accDescr: 展示从童年创伤记忆到直面内心深渊并最终建立优化关系的心理路径。 subgraph MemoryTrigger["潜意识的记忆触发"] A["婚姻承诺的迟疑"] --> B["闪现童年记忆：父亲在婚姻中如坐牢"] end subgraph DeepExploration["直面内心深渊"] B --> C["拷问创伤本质：父母各自的责任与对自身的影响"] C --> D{"面对还是逃避？"} D -- "逃避探底" --> E["长达数十年的无休止内耗与争吵"] D -- "彻底探底" --> F["破除对牢笼的非理性恐惧"] end subgraph Construction["重构健康关系"] F --> G["认清处处皆有风险：独身、不婚同样是陷阱"] G --> H["与伴侣共同制定优化契约：直面真相"] end ``` ### [01:00:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=3613s) 关系优化的基石：不惜一切代价坦诚相待 在理清风险的无处不在后，关键议题便转向如何主动构建一段健康长久的关系。彼得森强调，伴侣双方必须开诚布公地坐下来商讨：“我们在这里到底在做什么？我们共同追求的目标是什么？”他以自己与妻子塔米（Tammy）的婚姻为例分享道，从两人决定认真对待彼此关系的那一刻起，他们就立下了一个根本原则——“无论如何，我们都要对彼此讲真话”。 彼得森坦言，遵守这一承诺会带来彻底的人生转变，尽管这个过程极具挑战，甚至需要翻出潜藏在衣柜里的所有秘密与丑陋阴暗面。在这个原则上，他自愧不如妻子，称赞塔米在践行“讲真话”方面比他更加投入、更加出色。唯有建立在毫无保留的真实之上，婚姻才不再是彼此心怀鬼胎的囚牢，而成为共同抵御混乱的坚实同盟。 ### [01:01:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=3681s) 色情泛滥：轻松满足扼杀了婚姻的“绝望感”与英雄冒险 话题随后切入当代社会性关系衰退的另一个重大推手——色情制品。彼得森痛批色情内容是“一件彻头彻尾的可怕之物”，其核心危害在于其极端的高成瘾性与廉价的即时满足。在当今互联网时代，任何一个十三岁的男孩在一天之内所能见到的美丽裸体女性，竟然超过了历史上最伟大的帝王毕生所见的总和。这种前所未有的超常刺激带来了致命的连锁反应：性满足变得唾手可得。 彼得森尖锐地指出，性满足“本不应该如此容易得到”。在传统认知中，一个人要迈向婚姻并开启人生中真正的浪漫冒险，单凭所谓的“相爱”是远远不够的。他直言不讳地说：“如果你以为仅凭坠入爱河就能结婚，那你就是个白痴。”要让人有勇气踏入这一伴随终生的严肃承诺，你需要调动人性中所有的原始驱动力——爱、绝望、恐惧、羞耻与内疚，它们必须形成合力推着你前行。然而，色情制品提供了一条廉价的逃避通道：当生理冲动被毫无门槛地快速释放后，男人不再感到“绝望”，进而彻底丧失了在现实生活中追求女性的动力。 - 现代色情制品使性刺激变得廉价且泛滥，彻底破坏了人类繁衍与求偶的天然反馈机制。 - 真实的浪漫冒险不仅需要爱，更需要“爱与绝望”（love and desperation）的共同催化。 ### [01:03:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=3799s) 雄性竞争的终极动力与色情工业的历史演进 史蒂文提出，消费色情制品的人是否会因此丧失在现实中拼搏的动力，甚至连去健身房锻炼、追求职业成就的意愿都会随之衰退。彼得森对此给予了极其坚定的肯定。他反问道：男人所做的一切努力中，究竟有多少是为了给女性留下深刻印象？答案是——“几乎全部”。彼得森回忆起自己为顶级律师事务所提供咨询的经历：那些顶尖的男性律师极其在乎自己的年终奖金和业绩评估报告。当被问及原因时，他们直言钱已经足够多，金钱只是“记录胜负的积分表”。男人之所以在竞争激烈的行业中拼死厮杀想登顶，本质原因在于“女性向来从金字塔顶端挑选伴侣”（women peel from the top）。 彼得森梳理了性展示在现代媒介中的演进史： 1. **1920年代**：性意象的公共展示窗口开始艰难开启； 2. **《花花公子》（Playboy）与《阁楼》（Penthouse）**：推动了性展示的普及，后者更是引入了正面全裸展示； 3. **《好色客》（Hustler）**：撕下了前两者所有优雅和伪装的遮羞布，将色情拉入低俗、粗鄙的底层现实； 4. **互联网的诞生与繁荣**：早期那些无法在现实中与真实女性建立关系的工程师们，成了交换色情内容的主力。色情流量一度占据了互联网整体流量的约25%，可以说对色情交流的渴望直接催生和塑造了早期的互联网生态。 这种演进带来了毁灭性的社会后果。如今在三十岁以下的日本和韩国年轻人中，男女未曾发生过性关系的比例已经高达约30%，而西方社会的男女关系也在以同样的轨迹分崩离析。彼得森感叹，如果自己是一名年轻女性，审视当下充斥着网络色情的现实世界，也同样会对男女关系感到心灰意冷。 ### [01:06:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=3963s) 虚假的成就：色情为何让人深感空虚与绝望？ 史蒂文指出，团队在进行背景调研时发现，谷歌上关于色情制品搜索量最高的相关长尾词竟然是“我该如何戒掉色情”（how do I quit），甚至排名第三的搜索词也是类似内容。这种海量的求助搜索流露出一种无助的绝望感。彼得森解释了为什么色情并不能给人们带来持久的愉悦感：因为获取色情满足的过程“毫无英雄主义色彩可言，绝对不是什么值得骄傲的事情”。 彼得森提出一个深刻的假说：性本身或许在本质上必须是一种“成就”（accomplishment）。当性行为剥离了成就属性时，人就亵渎了性本身的内在精神——强奸是对性的极端亵渎，而色情则是通过虚构的满足来背叛这一精神。从生物学角度来看，生命的核心唯有生存与繁衍；当一个人用虚假的代用品完成看似繁衍的射精时，他实际上背叛了生命中最根本的东西。这种虚幻的胜利不仅背叛了真实的人际依恋，更背叛了人类探索未知的冒险精神，最终只会在当事人内心留下难以抹去的羞耻与空虚。 ### [01:07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4029s) 对色情内容的愤怒与监管困境：缺席的成年人与被冲击的童年 随着关于色情内容的探讨不断深入，主持人指出一个引人深思的现象：大量受众与播客观众在留言区表现出强烈的愤怒，他们不仅痛恨色情制品的存在，更痛恨它对自身生活与精神状态造成的蚕食。乔丹·彼得森毫不犹豫地支持这种情绪，连声强调“他们理应愤怒，甚至理应感到被冒犯”。当被问及若执掌世界大权是否会全面禁止色情制品时，彼得森展现了极具审慎态度的法理思考：任何依赖强制力而非自愿遵从的政策往往伴随着恶劣后果。尽管色情制品的传播理应受到严格限制，但如何从公共政策层面制定行之有效的边界是一个极度复杂的议题。彼得森直言：“我知道这是错的，但这并不代表我知道该如何在政策层面去解决它。” 彼得森深切理解年轻男女心中的愤慨与被背叛感，那是一种对长辈失职的质问——“成年人都去哪儿了？为什么没有人保护11岁的孩子免受网络内容的冲击？”为了阐释这种过早接触阴暗刺激的创伤，彼得森回忆起自己约11岁时的亲身经历：他偶然接触到了20世纪60年代旧金山海特-阿什伯里（Haight-Ashbury）地下漫画运动代表人物罗伯特·克拉姆（Robert Crumb）的作品。克拉姆虽然开创了图像小说的先河，但其笔下充斥着扭曲、病态而疯狂的想象空间。对于一个才11岁的孩子来说，那些极具冲击力的视觉符号一旦烙印在脑海中便终生难忘。 对比当下的数字时代，彼得森指出情况已急剧恶化：如今一个普通的11岁儿童只需轻点屏幕，就会被迫直面那些终其一生都无法磨灭的画面，而此时他们的大脑神经结构甚至尚未发育完全。现代社会甚至根本无法预估，在青春期荷尔蒙激荡、大脑经历剧烈重塑的关键阶段，每日灌输海量的色情制品究竟会对一个人的心智与人格造成多么深远且不可逆的摧残。 --- ### [01:09:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4195s) 摆脱短期享乐的处方：写下代价与重构英雄式人格 主持人提到，若统计当前听众的比例，可能有高达90%的人都在看色情内容，无数人也在搜索引擎上苦苦追寻戒断之道。对此，彼得森给出了极具操作性且直击心理机制的实践建议：拿出一张纸，详尽无遗地写下你认为色情内容正在对你造成的所有负面影响。不必纠结于某些猜测是否完全准确，关键在于穷尽每一个担忧与感知；紧接着，认真审视这份清单并自问：“这就是我想要的生活吗？”随后，在纸上清晰地写下你真正渴望的替代目标。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 克服短期享乐陷阱的心理认知回路 accDescr: 展示从列出代价、识别借口到树立英雄式男性理想的认知转变过程。 subgraph Cost ["剖析代价与渴望"] A["列出色情带来的所有潜在损害"] --> B["确立中远期的真实渴望"] end subgraph Trap ["击碎自我合理化"] C["即时快感诱惑"] --> D["出现轻浮念头: '管他呢' (What the hell)"] D --> E["自我合理化等同于滑向深渊 (Hell)"] end subgraph Ideal ["确立榜样与自尊"] E --> F["对视自我: 英雄式的男性气概"] F --> G["拒绝偷偷摸摸的次等快感"] end Cost --> Trap ``` 彼得森剖析道，任何享乐主义的追求在发生的当下都是极具奖赏效应的，其根本矛盾在于个体在中长期所必须支付的沉重代价。若缺乏清晰的中长期目标，单纯依靠意志力对抗即时快感注定会溃败。彼得森特别提醒人们警惕做坏事时脑海中冒出的合理化借口——“管他呢”（What the hell）： - “管他呢”（What the hell）中的“Hell”绝非虚词，它直指自我毁灭的精神地狱。 - 拒绝自毁行径的根本动力，在于你对自己理想人格的期许与承诺。 - 叩问灵魂的三重自省：“你想成为这样的人吗？”“你会希望儿子以这样的你为榜样吗？”“你所钦佩仰慕的英雄会以这种方式行事吗？” - 沉溺于色情与自慰绝非“英雄式男性气概”（heroic masculinity）的应有之义；其底色本质上是“偷偷摸摸的”（furtive）与“次等的”（second-rate），是任何清醒之人都不愿在阳光下承认的退化。 --- ### [01:12:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4328s) AI伴侣的危险诱惑：满足人性中最羸弱丑陋的一面 谈及此类不良行为在社会中的演变过程，彼得森生动地总结道：“这类事物最初总是轻手轻脚地潜入（creep），随后便演变成肆无忌惮的横冲直撞（rampage）。”对于年轻一代而言，无处不在的成人内容已经成为呼吸般自然的背景噪声，然而未来的技术发展还将带来更具破坏性的异化——配备人工智能、可随心定制的“色情女妖”（pornographic succubi）。 彼得森指出，当下的科技水平已经足以让一个在现实中极度孤独疏离的年轻男子，通过一个优质的AI聊天机器人获得远胜于他过往人生中任何现实人际交往的对话体验。随着技术迭代，很快就会出现高度拟真、全方位定制的二维虚拟女性——但它们绝非真实的女人，只是人类女性的拟像（simulacra）。 主持人顺着这个逻辑推演：在不久的将来，人们甚至可以设计自己的专属女友，她从不发脾气，不会要求每周90分钟的深度倾听与磨合，给予用户想要的一切。彼得森立刻打断并犀利指出其中的致命陷阱：这种AI产物绝非满足你的全部需求，而是“将你身上最恶劣、最软弱的那一部分渴望，丝毫不差地奉送给它”。当人性中最不堪、最缺乏韧性的弱点得到了全盘且无节制的顺从与迎合，个体将彻底丧失在真实关系中受挫、成长并获得救赎的可能，其精神世界的坍塌将比单纯的色情消费更加深重。 --- ### [01:13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4414s) 伴侣的新鲜感危机：是对方受限，还是你的想象力匮乏？ 顺着对即时快感的讨论，话题延伸至享乐与亲密关系中的关键要素——“新鲜感”（novelty）。主持人坦言，身边的许多男性朋友都对“终生只与同一个人相伴”感到恐惧与抗拒。彼得森结合自身经历，谈到了他与著名脱口秀主持人比尔·马赫（Bill Maher）的深入对话。比尔·马赫与彼得森同龄，依然独自生活在好莱坞式的享乐主义生活方式中，马赫曾坦承自己完全无法想象长期只和一个女人在一起，因为新鲜感对他而言至关重要。 面对这种论调，彼得森抛出了一个发人深省的反问：“限制你的，究竟是那个女人，还是你自己想象力的贫瘠与极限？”在彼得森看来，两性关系的本质探索远未被现代人穷尽： - 当两个人建立起一种最优化的深度关系时，伴侣内在的精神层次与人性深度是取之不尽、用之不竭的（inexhaustible）。 - 新鲜感在亲密关系中固然重要，但它应该以健康、富有生机的“游戏”（play）形式融入长期的互动中，而非靠不断更换肉体对象来维系。 - 恐惧长期承诺的人往往在脑海中编织了一幅阴暗灰暗的剧本：两人迅速衰老变丑，情感疏离，浪漫与性吸引力荡然无存，最终沦落为“在早餐桌前端着冰冷的煎蛋，隔着桌子恶狠狠地面面相觑长达40年”。 - 彼得森幽默而决绝地指出：那是一幅悲惨绝望的景象，而生活的主动权完全掌握在你自己手中——“那就别把日子过成那个鬼样子！” --- ### [01:15:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4547s) 抵御享乐诱惑的防线：疲惫时刻的原则、习惯与问责圈 主持人借由色情话题将讨论引向日常生活中的更广泛享乐主义陷阱。他坦白道，自己有时也会屈服于短视的冲动：例如在纽约的酒店房间里，即便明知第二天会后悔，依然在凌晨一点吃掉迷你吧里的曲奇饼干；或是毫无节制地刷TikTok短视频。这些失控的瞬间往往发生在他身心俱疲、处于“情绪残障”（emotionally disabled）的软弱时刻，此时坏习惯就像是一种拙劣的精神自我麻醉。主持人困惑地发问：哪怕在纸上清晰写下了自己不想成为的人，在最虚弱、最困难的当下，人究竟该如何坚守原则？ 彼得森指出，理清长期目标与写下警示确实大有裨益，但这只是第一步。要真正抵御脆弱时刻的滑落，个体必须仰仗三个支柱： - **反复的习惯训练（Practice）**：抵御诱惑是一种需要日复一日刻意练习的行为肌肉，绝非仅凭一时的道德感悟就能达成。 - **志同道合的同行者（Shared Aims）**：让自己置身于拥有相同追求、渴望向高处行走的群体之中，远离向下堕落的圈子。 - **刚性的问责机制（Accountability）**：依赖身边那些能够监督你、迫使你为自身言行承担后果的人，借助外部健康的社会约束弥补意志力的瞬时瓦解。 彼得森总结道，面对人性天然的惰性与软弱，单打独斗往往会走向崩溃，唯有将清晰的宏观愿景、持续的微观习惯以及外部严格的责任问责网络结合在一起，一个人才能在疲惫与诱惑并存的严酷时刻真正守住自己的底线。 ### [01:17:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4628s) 即时满足与长远投资的博弈：生活如同一场交响乐 彼得森指出，人类内心深处最艰难的一场战役，莫过于在“即时享乐”（Immediate Gratification）与“中长期投资”（Medium to Long-term Investment）之间的拉锯。当下快感的正确配比绝不是零，没有人愿意过一种苦行僧般的悲惨生活；但反过来，人也不能成为一个把所有快乐都推迟到“明天”的无趣苦工。真正的难点在于：你必须在所有的可能时间跨度上，同时优化自己的情绪体验与生存策略。更棘手的是，你根本不知道留给自己的时间跨度到底有多长——明天可能就是最后一天，正如奔赴战场的士兵总会像没有明天一样通宵狂欢，因为对他们而言，或许真的没有明天。 宗教的恒久教诲则要求人们“活在永恒的光照之下”，即无论做何抉择，都要在所能想象的最长远时间尺度上，做出全盘考量下的最佳行动。然而，这绝不等于要人拒绝眼前盘子里的那块甜点。彼得森强调，《圣经》文本明确指出神圣的意志是要赐予人“更丰盛的生命”（life more abundant），伊甸乐园的图景本身就包含了充满果实的世俗欢愉之园。这绝非苦行无乐，而是一种和谐的平衡。最佳的理解方式是将其比作音乐：在一首伟大的交响乐章中，每一个音符都在与整体的关联中找到了最恰当的位置，同时每一个音符本身又都具备独立的价值与美感。人生所需要的，正是这种在专注当下与顾及中长远未来之间的动态平衡。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 跨时间维度的最优化决策模型 accDescr: 展示将当下行动与多重时间及社会维度统一整合的决策架构 subgraph Aim["崇高目标 (Aim at the Highest)"] A["永恒维度的最高善 / 爱神"] end subgraph Balance["时空优化整合 (All Things Considered)"] B["此时此刻的体验 (Now)"] C["明日与下周 (Tomorrow / Next Week)"] D["未来数年与数十年 (5-10 Years)"] end subgraph Social["社会与关系网络"] E["个人身心"] F["伴侣与子女"] G["父母与社群"] end A --> Balance Balance --> Social B -.->|"和谐共鸣如同交响乐"| A ``` --- ### [01:19:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4752s) 登山宝训与多重身份的跨时间优化 彼得森提到自己在彼得森学院（Peterson Academy）开设了一门关于《登山宝训》（The Sermon on the Mount）的课程。作为记录中耶稣最长的一段直接言论，《登山宝训》构成了基督教伦理的核心准则。其核心指令极其明确：在每一个具体时刻，都将目光锚定在至高点（aim at what's highest）。这种心智模式需要持续刻意练习。换言之，在每个当下的瞬间，你都要调动起一种态度：“在全盘考虑的前提下，我现在要做的事情，不仅对此时此刻的我最好，而且也要对明天的我、下周的我、下个月的我、五年乃至十年后的我有效；同时，它还必须在我和妻子、孩子、父母以及整个社群的关系中保持最优。” 这种对整体身份在时间之轴上的全面优化，正是“爱上帝高于一切”在现实层面的行动投射。即便人在一开始并不确切知晓具体该如何完美执行，确立这个最高目标本身就足以指引方向。彼得森将这一逻辑直接投射到史蒂文的播客事业上，指出史蒂文能够取得如此巨大的商业与文化成功，正是因为他在潜意识里践行了这种追寻最高目标的原则。史蒂文坦言，当一名播客主持人面临着巨大的异化诱惑与外部压力，他和团队伙伴杰克（Jack）经常深入探讨，必须坚守一套不可妥协的底线原则，而无论选择何种原则，往往都伴随着巨大的代价。 --- ### [01:21:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4862s) 审判与定罪的区别：播客探索与病态新闻业的反差 当彼得森追问史蒂文坚守的具体原则时，史蒂文解释道：他在采访中努力不去“评判”（judge）嘉宾，不带先入为主的成见，而是保持纯粹的好奇心，去探求对方身上的答案与真相。彼得森随即对用词提出了精妙的哲学辨析：史蒂文所抗拒的其实不是“评判”，而是“定罪”（condemn）。人不可能也不应该放弃评判，因为在倾听的过程中，大脑必须随时去粗取精（separate wheat from chaff）、衡量轻重；真正的修养在于，在进行评估的同时，绝不进行草率的道德定罪，也不专横傲慢地认定自己现有的认知就是真理的全貌。 彼得森借此严厉批判了当下的“病态新闻业”（pathological journalists）。许多记者的唯一目的，就是以最微不足道的论据、最小的个人代价，用最耸人听闻的戏剧化手段来确立自己在道德上的优越感。这是一种虚伪的道德绑架。史蒂文深有感触地指出，尤其在当下的政治大选周期中，公众对播客的审视达到了前所未有的顶峰，狂风不断呼啸，外界总在指手画脚地命令“你不能采访这个人，你必须采访那个人”。在这种风暴中，主持人的生存法则就是保持清晰的信念，甚至像乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）那样——始终保持直面未知的勇气，持续提出看似愚钝却直击核心的问题。 - **审判（Judgment）与定罪（Condemnation）**：理性的审判是去粗取精的认知工具，而道德化的定罪则是关闭沟通大门、建立虚妄优越感的傲慢。 - **病态新闻业的本质**：以零成本的姿态抢占道德制高点，靠居高临下的断罪博取眼球。 --- ### [01:23:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=5024s) 恶龙与宝藏：罗根、马斯克与求索真理的宗教本质 针对乔·罗根在巨大舆论风暴中屹立不倒的现象，史蒂文好奇这是否源于罗根对人性有着超乎常人的信任。彼得森给出了完全不同的解读：罗根之所以强大，在于他“对其自身的无知抱有极大的信仰”（faith in his own ignorance）。罗根从不装作无所不知，他驱动自己去成为一个比现在更聪明的人，驱动他的是永不熄灭的好奇心。观众之所以被深深吸引，是因为大众在本质上渴望看到一场真正的“求索”（Quest）——就像猎犬咬住踪迹不放一样，追寻着通往真相的微弱线索。彼得森自己在舞台巡回演讲中同样践行这一法则，他每次登台都会抛出一个自己尚无确切答案的真实难题，与全场观众共同解谜。 彼得森进一步回忆起自己对埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的访谈。马斯克曾坦承自己在 13 岁左右经历过极其严重的生存存在主义危机，而他最终走出阴霾的唯一途径，正是确立了对真相、知识和理解力的无止境追寻。这种将追求真理视为内在固有价值（intrinsically valuable）的执念，正是宗教精神的真正起点。彼得森形象地比喻道，神话中“宝藏总是由恶龙守护”，这两者永远纠缠在一起；因此，当生活中出现张牙舞爪的恶龙（危机与困境）时，一个清醒的人应当立刻意识到：最珍贵的宝藏必然就藏在附近。 --- ### [01:25:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=5108s) 锚定最高目标与活在当下：获取无价的珍珠 彼得森将对话重新收拢回《登山宝训》的核心命题：将目光锁定在最远大的崇高目标上，假定他人身上同样寄宿着与神圣相连的固有价值，然后——将全身心的注意力毫无保留地倾注在眼前这一刻。这就是“至高无上的远大指向”与“高度集中的当下专注”的完美统摄。正是这种专注力造就了顶级播客的深度：当主持人的意志不再被浮躁杂念割裂，而是带着严谨的原则在当下竭尽全力求索时，听众就会自然而然地被卷入这场惊心动魄的精神冒险之中。 这最终解答了一开始提出的享乐主义与长期策略之间的冲突。人不需要在当下的快乐与未来的收益之间做二选一的悲观割裂；只要将当下的每一步都对齐于最长远的至善，就会存在一种最完美的统一解，其带来的生命丰盛程度远超任何短视的纵欲或僵死的苦行。彼得森用《新约》中基督的比喻作结：这种知行合一的生存状态，正是那颗值得富人变卖一切家当去换取的“重价的珍珠”（the pearl of great price），世间再无任何事物比它更加珍贵。 ### [01:27:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=5221s) 从微小之处起步：谦逊与马太效应 面对那些深陷享乐主义、极度缺乏自律且生活一团糟的人，单纯要求他们立刻着眼于长远目标往往是徒劳的。乔丹·彼得森指出，一个优秀的敏锐行为分析师在处理此类困境时，绝不会要求当事人一步登天，而是会引导其进行深度内省：坐到床沿上静静反思，审视生活中究竟有哪一件事是明显不对劲、而自己不仅“能够”改善且“愿意”去着手改善的。哪怕当事人的现状惨不忍睹——窝在母亲家里啃老、毫无恋爱关系、从事一份令人厌恶的糟糕工作——解决之道也只能是精准聚焦于其中某一个具体问题，并从中挑出一件微不足道的小事去着手修复。彼得森直言不讳地调侃：“为什么要从小事做起？因为看看当下的你，简直彻头彻尾一无是处！”如果能搞定大事自然最好，但过往的生活失败已经证明大问题无法一蹴而就，因此从微小之处起步绝非耻辱，而恰恰是宗教所强调的“谦逊”（Humility）。谦逊的反义词是傲慢与骄傲，它的真正本质正是承认自己的烂摊子并“从你当下的真实立足点出发”。在临床实践中，许多人迈出的第一步在旁人看来往往尴尬得可怜，但彼得森强调，“向上走总比向下堕落好”。 在这段成长过程中，发展并非线性的，而是遵循《圣经·新约》中基督所揭示的“马太效应”（The Matthew Principle）：“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。”彼得森解释，成功是呈指数级累积的，而失败同样如此。深渊与地狱的恐怖之处在于：一旦滑向堕落，坠落的速度就会越来越快；但只要开始向上迈进，前行的加速度也会越来越大。因此，无论第一步多么痛苦微小，都必须是切实可行且能带来成就感的行动。这就如同对待一个三岁的小孩：父亲既不能布置孩子两岁就能做到的无聊任务，也不能交给完全不可能做到的艰巨挑战，而是要设置一个“稍微超越当前能力、且大概率能成功”的目标。这种设定源于真正的爱——既爱孩子的现状，更爱他潜在的可能性；而一位好父亲，往往会更偏向于爱孩子“能够成为的模样”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 行为改变与马太效应机制 accDescr: 展示从承认现状、设定微小可行目标到指数级向上成长的正向循环 subgraph Step1 ["认知与谦逊"] A["坐在床沿内省<br/>承认生活现状的混乱"] --> B["秉持谦逊<br/>从自身当下立足点出发"] end subgraph Step2 ["微小目标设定"] B --> C["寻找一件能做且愿做的微小之事<br/>（类比对待三岁孩子的拉伸任务）"] end subgraph Step3 ["指数级累积"] C --> D["突破能力边界完成行动"] D --> E["马太效应启动<br/>获得正向反馈与加速度"] E --> F["向上攀登 Jacob's Ladder<br/>走向无上限的潜力实现"] end ``` ### [01:31:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=5476s) 自信源于能力：突破极限与真正自我的显现 针对史蒂文·巴特利特提出的“自信（Self-belief / Confidence）究竟从何而来”的疑问，彼得森从心理学机制做出了犀利的拆解。许多人误以为自信来自于语言上的自我安慰（即所谓的“自尊”Self-esteem），彼得森痛批自尊概念在某种意义上根本不存在，完全是一个病态的心理学伪概念。真正的自信只能建立在“真实能力”（Competence）之上，否则便会沦为荒谬的自恋。自信的建立过程，本质上是你在客观观察自己的行为：当一个人看到自己的朋友持续不断地做出微小进步时，通常会产生由衷的敬佩与赞赏；同理，一个人对自己建立信任和评价，也必须像观察别人那样，看到自己“实际采取了行动并超越了原先设定的界限”。 当你目睹自己打破限制时，内心深处便会浮现一种觉知：“原来我体内有一股能够超越自身极限的力量。”这种超越极限的力量，才是心理学意义上最本质的“真实自我”（True self）。在这一过程中，人们不仅认识到原本以为不可逾越的边界其实是自我设限，更会意识到自我潜力的上限是完全未知的。彼得森将这种无止境的向上超越比作圣经中的“雅各天梯”（Jacob's Ladder），亦是“天国”（Kingdom of God）的应许所在——堕落与苦难毫无底线，正如人尽皆知的深渊与地狱；但与之相对，生命向上成长的弧线同样没有天花板。 *(随后插播了由主持人史蒂文·巴特利特带来的 PerfectTed 抹茶粉赞助口播，提及该品牌在 Tesco、Holland & Barrett 以及线上销售并提供优惠)* - **自尊 vs. 自信**：不基于实际能力的言语自我抚慰属于病态自恋，而真正的自信必须由突破限制的实际行为构建而成。 - **超越限制的本质**：人类无法确定自我成长的最终极限；每一次对局限的跨越，都在激活并显现隐藏在体内的神圣“真实自我”。 ### [01:34:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=5674s) 年轻男性的宗教追寻：上帝作为“冒险之声” 当探讨当代年轻男性越来越趋向于宗教（如伊斯兰教等具有清晰规则与结构的传统宗教正在部分年轻群体中显著抬头）的社会现象时，巴特利特询问，那些身处泥潭、独自坐在床边感到迷茫的人，是否真的需要“宗教”。彼得森给出了肯定的回答。他指出，人类个体仅仅依靠自己短暂而有限的人生经验去摸索生存之道，成功概率近乎为零，现代世界的复杂性远远超出了单凭个人理智所能驾驭的范围。人们不仅需要社会、家庭和朋友的支撑，更需要承载千年智慧的传统故事与经典叙事。 彼得森结合自身的新作《与上帝摔跤的人》（*We Who Wrestle With God*）进一步阐明，理解宗教故事的意义能够从根本上重塑人的生命轨迹。以《旧约·创世记》中亚伯拉罕的故事为例，“上帝向亚伯拉罕显现并说话”这一神圣命题在心理与精神层面有着深刻的定义：上帝在亚伯拉罕面前显现，其本质就是“冒险之声”（The Voice of Adventure）。这种召唤代表着先祖的精神与慈爱父亲的意志。一位称职的父亲在面对儿子时，必然会用充满冒险与催人奋进的语调激励他：“走出去，去外面的世界做出一番作为！”这正是慈父催促孩童发掘自身无限潜力的呼唤。然而，顺从这种“冒险之声”去展开人生探索并非一路坦途，为了实现向前的自我蜕变，个体必然需要付出代价并作出主动的牺牲。 ### [01:37:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=5837s) 亚伯拉罕的原型与圣经故事的集体智慧 谈及个人成长与蜕变，乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）指出，当你踏上一段探险之旅，你就必须为此改变，放弃原先的不成熟，以把握崭新的机遇。每当一个崭新的可能性地平线开启，你就必须做出牺牲：“如果我要踏上这条路，我就无法再承担旧有的某些执念。”圣经中的亚伯兰（Abram）经历了如此彻底的剧变，以至于获得了全新的名字——亚伯拉罕（Abraham），意为“万国之父”。这一神话原型揭示的核心道德教训在于：一旦你顺应探险的精神并做出恰当的牺牲，你终将成为繁衍丰盛的“万国之父”。 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）由此分享了自己的心路历程：他出生在一个基督教家庭，18岁前深受母亲信仰的熏陶，但18岁时开始研读理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）等无神论作者的著作，转而成为一名坚定的无神论者，如今则处于不可知论的阶段。巴特利特的大脑中根植着实证主义的疑虑：圣经是否不过是几千年前一群人围坐在篝火旁随手编造的观点集合？如果真是这样，它与书架上随处可见的成功学励志书又有何本质区别？ 对此，彼得森断然否定了“这只是一家之言”的看法。圣经绝非单一个人的见解，而是历经数千年口传、整理、编纂与提炼的浩瀚产物。它是一个极其庞大的集体协作结晶，并且是由历史上最有文化素养、最智慧的群体之一——犹太民族——在漫长时间跨度中共同打磨而成的。面对巴特利特追问“为何我们要听从圣经而非苏格拉底等希腊哲学家的言论”，彼得森指出希腊哲学与基督教传统之间存在巨大的交集，西方文明正是希腊、耶路撒冷与罗马三者的融合，早期的基督徒在基督教神学与希腊哲学之间看到了深刻的对应与平行。 ### [01:40:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6007s) 故事对决科学假设：意义本能与启蒙运动的枯竭 巴特利特进一步切入人性的起源之争：我们究竟是遵循达尔文进化论从单细胞演化而来，还是如创世故事般由神骤然创造？彼得森坦言这是一个极为复杂的命题，但他为自己的新书《与神摔跤的人》（*We Who Wrestle With God*）设定了一条底线——绝不在缺乏科学依据的前提下对圣经故事妄下论断。他强调，将圣经故事贬低为“迷信的前科学理论大杂烩”是极其荒唐的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 认知世界的两种范式 accDescr: 对比科学还原主义与叙事故事在指导人类生存行动方面的本质差异。 subgraph Science["科学假设 / 唯物还原论"] A["事实与数据的集合"] --> B["描述物质构造"] B --> C["无法直接推导出行动价值"] end subgraph Narrative["故事叙事 / 意义本能"] D["价值与行动的框架"] --> E["过滤无限现实"] E --> F["指导长期协作与可持续生存"] end ``` 在彼得森看来，故事绝不等于科学假设。《指环王》不是科学假说，但这并不意味着它缺乏深刻的真理。面对人类祖先是否是变形虫的提问，彼得森幽默地回应：“在受精前你还只是个精子呢，单细胞演化并不是不可思议的事情。”人类最深层的本能其实是“追求意义的本能”（spirit of meaning）。巴特利特感叹自己从基督徒到铁杆无神论者、再到如今重新审视形而上学答案的心路演变，彼得森表示这正是当下整个时代的普遍转折点： - **启蒙运动的枯竭**：启蒙运动并非没有技术进步等巨大红利，但无神论科学家的唯物主义还原论（materialist reductionism）在知觉理论上存在根本错误——人类绝不是把世界看作一堆客观事实的集合，而是通过“故事”的镜头来理解世界的。 - **后现代主义的敏锐洞察**：尽管彼得森对后现代主义持严厉批评态度，但他承认后现代主义者看穿了一点：人类确实是依凭叙事结构来感知世界的。 - **叙事的凝聚力量**：正如尤瓦尔·赫拉利在《人类简史》中所言，将四散的猿类凝聚为文明共同体的正是故事；金钱、国家与法律等一切制度皆建立在虚构的故事之上。 ### [01:43:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6222s) 尼采的超人预言与自创价值观的局限 既然人类生存需要一套关于“自愿牺牲”（voluntary sacrifice）的价值故事，巴特利特提出质疑：这些价值观必须依附于宗教或神明吗？人们能否自立门户，由自己和朋友共同商定一套全新的原则与价值观？ 彼得森直接指出，这正是尼采在19世纪中叶宣告“上帝已死”时所做出的预设与警示： 1. **上帝之死的后果**：伴随神圣根基的崩塌，社会不可避免地坠入虚无主义、极权主义（正如陀思妥耶夫斯基关注的盲目享乐主义，以及20世纪苏联式的共产集权暴政）。 2. **尼采的解药**：人类必须创造自己的价值，从而成为“超人”（Übermensch）。 3. **不可行的现实考验**：彼得森直言：“去试试看吧，看看会发生什么。你根本无法创造自己的价值观，因为价值是真实存在的，绝非随心所欲或完全相对的。” 彼得森用“博弈景观”的比喻深入阐释了这一观点： - 理论上存在无限种可能的游戏模式，但人们愿意参与的游戏极少。 - 在这些游戏中，唯有极少数能够随着时间推移自我维持并不断优化。 - 这一潜在的互动模式景观，构成了部落认同与社会制度的核心原则。 “一场游戏是否具有可持续、丰盛的可玩性（sustainable abundant playability），绝非主观任意决定的。”彼得森以夫妻相处为例：如果你想和妻子和睦共处，她必须自愿进入你所玩的游戏模式；更严苛的是，这种相处模式必须在今天、明天、下周、明年都行之有效，并且还能顺利延伸到孩子、父母以及更广阔的社会群体中。因此，任何自造的狭隘规则只要无法应对多维度的动态平衡，就会迅速瓦解。 当巴特利特总结“人类为了生殖繁衍是否演化出了一套最适宜的价值与故事框架”，并追问“这些原则究竟是源于生理与生存环境的内在演化，还是源于上天的启示”时，彼得森坚定地给出了极具穿透力的结论：“不是‘二选一’，而是‘两者兼具’（Not or, and）。这其实是从两个不同的视角在审视同一个终极现实。” ### [01:47:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6429s) 阐释信仰之难与亚伯拉罕的冒险召唤 面对史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）关于价值观究竟是“从天而降”还是源于生物本能的追问，乔丹·皮特森（Jordan Peterson）坦言自己并非在信仰本身上挣扎，而是在苦恼如何将极其复杂的体系迅速且简明扼要地表达出来。皮特森解释说，他从未隐瞒自己的信念，在大学讲座、播客和著作中全景式铺开的内容，就是他信念的完整载体。当人们强求用一两句话回答如此宏大的问题时，答案往往只能退化为高度浓缩的象征符号——例如简单地回答“来自上帝”，但这立刻又会引出“何谓上帝”的哲学追问。 皮特森以《创世记》中亚伯拉罕（Abraham）的故事为例，阐释了古代神话对“至高之物”的具体定义。在亚伯拉罕的故事里，“上帝”正是那声召唤人走出舒适区、迈向未知荒野的“冒险之声”。亚伯拉罕选择将这种召唤置于生命中最崇高的位置，其最终结果是成为了“多国之父”（Father of Nations）。在生物学语境下，这构成了终极的繁殖成功（Reproductive Success）。皮特森指出，唤醒人类踏上英雄冒险历程的内在冲动，与女性在漫长演化中对配偶的筛选偏好之间存在着高度的一致性。这种机制既是环境塑造的，也是生理内嵌的——女性社会中关于何为有吸引力、有担当男性的永恒标准，早已固化为人类必须服从的客观限制。 ### [01:49:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6595s) 进化动力与神圣性的统一：物种的本性与上帝 巴特利特顺着演化论的思路抛出了一个发人深省的思想实验：从捕蝇草到他的法国斗牛犬巴勃罗（Pablo），不同物种为了生存繁衍都需要完全不同的行为法则，这是否意味着狗与人类拥有不同的“上帝”？如果“上帝”本质上只是一套驱动生存繁衍的演化动力，人类为何还要建立教堂、屈膝祈祷，而不是把自己视作被内置程序操控的生物机器人？ 皮特森对此给出了耐人寻味的回应。他指出，无论是将神圣法则看作从物质世界“自下而上”涌现而成的演化适应，还是看作从天国“自上而下”降临的至高诫命，其本质是在探讨同一个问题的两种不同视角。社会性哺乳动物之间能够彼此理解并建立情感连接，正是因为它们在最深层的本能或最高级的冲动上存在着共享的重叠。把“神圣法则”完全贬低为冰冷的机械动力，是对世界深度的一种窄化；当演化机制在意识中凝聚为崇高体验时，它在功能与心理现实上就已经具备了神圣性。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 演化现实与神圣维度的双重视角 accDescr: 展示自下而上的物质演化机制与自上而下的神圣法则如何统一指向客观生存模式 subgraph Perspectives["认知维度的两种视角"] TopDown["自上而下：神圣诫命与崇高象征<br/>（天国之声 / 信仰图景）"] BottomUp["自下而上：演化驱动与生物适应<br/>（生理本能 / 繁衍适应）"] end subgraph CorePattern["核心实在：永恒的行为法则"] Substrate["深度客观现实<br/>（跨越世代的生存与繁荣模式）"] end TopDown --> Substrate BottomUp --> Substrate ``` ### [01:51:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6716s) 诺亚的警觉与道德整合：本能何以升华为神圣预感 为了进一步厘清本能与神圣预感之间的界限，皮特森分析了诺亚方舟（Noah's Ark）的典故。在诺亚的故事中，上帝的声音表现为一种在危机酝酿时促使智者提前筹划的警觉本能。然而皮特森强调，单纯的底层情绪或焦虑并不等于神性指引，因为盲目的恐惧往往源自虚幻的臆想或病态的怯懦（例如懦夫的退缩）。只有当直觉生根于广阔的道德框架中时，它所揭示的危险才具有真实的预警价值。 圣经将诺亚描绘为“在他那个世代是个完全人”，这意味着诺亚不仅使当下的自我与未来的自我达成成熟的内在和睦，更将这种自我整合外延至对妻子、家庭以及整个社群的长期责任中。这种全方位平衡、根基扎实且仰望崇高理想的生存状态，使得诺亚内心的预感脱离了病态焦虑，转化为与至高法则同频的启示。皮特森强调，纯粹的唯物主义还原论无法解释这种秩序：只有当生理本能被置于至高的道德追求之下并与之和谐共鸣时，保全生命的本能才等同于聆听天启。 - **诺亚的多维平衡**：成熟个体的自我平衡不仅是当前欲望与未来利益的妥协，更是个人与家庭、宗族乃至城邦的同构整合。 - **恐惧的有效性前提**：未整合的恐惧是懦弱与病态；唯有经过最高伦理校准的敬畏，方能转化为在灭顶之灾来临前的方舟营建之功。 ### [01:54:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6879s) 性与生殖的本质区别：理查德·道金斯的盲点 随后，对话转向了关于演化生物学核心假说的深度辩论。针对巴特利特提出“道德框架是否仅仅源于DNA内置的繁衍冲动”的疑问，皮特森旗帜鲜明地反驳了生物学家理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）的还原论观点。皮特森尖锐地指出，道金斯犯下的重大错误在于混淆了“性”（Sex）与真正的“生殖”（Reproduction）。 人类属于极高投入的抚育物种（High Investment Reproducers），肉体的性交仅仅是繁衍进程中最微不足道的开端。真正的繁衍成功绝非仅仅生下一个活着的儿子或孙子，而是意味着你所践行的生存模式与道德范式能够在20代之后依然在子孙身上成功复刻并蓬勃发展，使后代能够凭借高尚的行为准则抵御一切现实挑战。亚伯拉罕之所以被称为“多国之父”，正是因为他作为英雄所确立的道德典范，为后嗣奠定了跨越永恒岁月的生存根基。因此，繁衍问题在本质上是一个极为深刻的伦理问题，远非生殖基因层面的交配行为所能涵盖。 ### [01:56:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6968s) 圣经是否只是进化的神话？皮特森眼中的终极实在 当巴特利特试图追问圣经是否“仅仅”（just）是古人试图理解自身演化动力并将其编撰成指导性神话的结果时，皮特森立刻打断并纠正了这一措辞。他要求坚决剔除“仅仅”二字，因为圣经的诞生不仅见证了人类意识从蒙昧中觉醒的全部历程，更层层递进地映射了不同深度的客观现实： 从最表层的个体心灵故事（Psyche），深化到心灵在人类社会中的博弈与规范，再进一步扩展到人类社会与大自然残酷环境的共处，直至最终触及那作为自然、社会与人类意识共同渊薮的基底实在（Substrate）。在谈话的尾声，巴特利特单刀直入地逼问皮特森内心的信仰底色：“你到底相信什么样的上帝？你相信那个‘住在天上的白胡子老头’（Man in the sky）吗？”皮特森意味深长地回应道，所谓的“天上之人”概念，远不像无神论者嘲讽的那样浅薄和原始。在这背后，隐藏着对于存在秩序更为深邃的形而上学洞察。 ### [01:57:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7053s) 后现代主义的致命缺陷与唯一的救赎故事 乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）指出，在已知的宇宙中，没有什么比人类的大脑更加复杂。因此，如果人类想要为“现实本身”寻找一个模型，声称现实具备某种类似于人类心灵（psyche）的结构，绝不是什么荒谬的主张，因为心智正是我们所知最复杂的造物。 随后彼得森剖析了后现代主义的盲区。后现代主义者敏锐地意识到“人类生活在一个故事之中”，却推导出了三个致命且错误的结论： 1. **否定宏大叙事（元叙事）**：后现代主义将自身定义为对元叙事的怀疑，宣称“不存在统一的故事”。彼得森直斥这是愚蠢的理论，因为没有统一的叙事，剩下的就只有无序的“多样性”；而在没有共同崇高叙事的前提下，“多样性与战争毫无区别”。 2. **享乐主义的自我满足**：以米歇尔·福柯（Michel Foucault）为代表的思想主张纵欲与即时满足。彼得森反驳称，这种模式极快就会走向自我毁灭——如果一切都只围绕你个人的任性冲动，别人根本不会愿意待在你身边，这是不可持续的游戏。 3. **将一切归结为权力**：受马克思主义影响，后现代主义认为万事万物皆是权力斗争。彼得森冷笑回应，相信权力至上往往是一种自暴自弃的招供：“去试试在家专制暴虐你的妻子，或者试着暴虐你自己，看看结果有多惨。” 彼得森强调，真正能够维系社会、保证心理稳定乃至构成世界基石的核心故事，是**自愿的自我牺牲（voluntary self-sacrifice）**——即心甘情愿地将自己奉献给更高层次的崇高目标。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 叙事模式对比 accDescr: 对比后现代主义的三种错误叙事与彼得森倡导的自愿自我牺牲叙事及其后果。 subgraph Postmodernism["后现代主义的歧途"] A["否定元叙事 / 唯多样性"] --> E["演变为无休止的冲突与战争"] B["享乐主义 / 自我纵欲"] --> F["迅速自我崩溃，无人愿与之为伴"] C["权力斗争 / 暴虐掌控"] --> G["导致人际毁灭与心理瓦解"] end subgraph TheTrueStory["真实的基石故事"] D["自愿自我牺牲<br/>（服务于更高目标）"] --> H["社会稳固、心理稳定、生命展开"] end ``` --- ### [02:00:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7210s) 基督的本质：直面苦难与神圣勇气的化身 当主持人追问彼得森究竟信仰怎样的“上帝”以及是否认为耶稣是上帝时，彼得森表示，声称“基督是先知与律法的化身”是极其深刻且确凿的真理。 为了阐释这一点，彼得森解析了“基督承担世人罪孽”的象征含义： - 承担世人的罪，意味着将世上所有的问题视作自己的问题并去全力解决。 - 在逻辑上，“以最极致方式解决人类所有问题的那种精神”，与“神圣（the Divine）”本身并无分别。 - 反向假说显然是荒谬的——没有人会相信，人类通过逃避艰难、恐怖的事物能够最好地适应生命。 彼得森指出，基督受难（The Passion）的核心模式，就是将自愿自我牺牲推向绝对极境：**自愿直面并接纳发生在你身上的任何厄运与挑战，无论那有多残酷**。畏缩与退避绝不可能是神圣的精神；相反，“无畏的勇气之灵（the spirit of unlimited courage）”，正是定义至高神圣价值的最佳起点。 --- ### [02:02:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7361s) 黑暗深渊中的信心动摇与绝望时刻 谈到信仰，主持人提及彼得森过去几年经历了极度沉重的打击与亲友的离去，询问他的信仰是否动摇过。彼得森毫不避讳地承认：“绝对动摇过，受到过剧烈的拷问。” 彼得森回忆起自己身处极度生理剧痛的长达三年时间，那是他人生中最黑暗的低谷： - 每一分钟都比以往经历过的任何一刻都要痛苦数倍。 - 妻子塔米（Tammy）身患绝症濒临死亡，女儿也饱受重病折磨，周遭的事业与生活在五十个不同的维度上同时崩塌。 - 因为严重的不适感，他根本无法坐下，无论寒冬腊月还是倾盆大雨，每天必须强迫自己徒步走 12 英里（约 19 公里），这种状态持续了数月之久。 然而彼得森坦言，最深的绝望还不是肉体的疼痛，而是自己沦为了周围所有深爱之人的沉重负担，并且眼看着情况只会越来越糟。彼得森感慨，这种绝望是极其合理的，正如基督在十字架上也曾发出“神为何离弃我”的绝望呼喊——若没有这一刻的极限考验，整个受难故事便无法令人信服。人只要活着，就注定会被推向承受能力的极限。 - 当主持人谈到自己宁愿自己死去也不愿看到伴侣离世时，彼得森深表认同：看着深爱的人受苦，往往比自己受苦更难承受。 - 尽管九死一生，彼得森仍怀抱感激：他和妻子最终都活了下来，家庭重新繁荣，生命的冒险正在继续铺展。 --- ### [02:05:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7559s) 人生不是为了追求安全与享乐，而是为了直面极致挑战 面对“生活是否公平”的发问，彼得森直言生活从来不是公平的，但他怀疑人类追求的本质根本不是“公平”或者“安逸”。现代社会流行将人定义为追求享乐、消费、色情、安全感或虚荣名利的生物，但彼得森在撰写《与神角力》（*We Who Wrestle With God*）时深刻认识到：**人天生是为了迎接极致挑战（maximal challenge）而塑造的**。 彼得森以流行文化和安德鲁·泰特（Andrew Tate）在年轻男性中的影响力为例进行了犀利的心理学剖析： - 年轻人宁愿崇拜一个有成就的恶棍（reprobate），也不愿做一个一事无成的窝囊废。 - 在戏剧中，反派往往比懦夫更具吸引力，因为反派至少在主动行动，在践行某种使命和追寻，甚至一个有坚定信念的反派依然有学习和转变的可能。 这种对挑战与意义的渴望，最终必须扎根于“真理”之中。彼得森提到，他在 1985 年研读索尔仁尼琴（Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn）与卡尔·荣格（Carl Jung）的著作时便悟出：极权主义国家完全是谎言构筑的恶果，“地狱就是谎言的统治领地”。击溃它的唯一方式就是**彻底停止说谎**： - 在个人生活中练习停下那些你明知不该做的事。 - 留意自己的言语，确保说出的话坚定有力、带来底气，而非让自己感到虚弱。 - 放下短期内控制和操弄权力的欲望，坚信“说真话带来的结果，绝对好过任何通过撒谎谋取的好处”。 彼得森总结道，当你像《圣经》中的亚伯拉罕那样直面挑战、全然践行真理时，你的生命就会像画卷一样无限向外延展、盛开，那是一种“让人难以招架的精彩（unbearably entertaining）”，而这才是生命真正的冒险所在。 ### [02:09:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7787s) 痛苦、崇高与幸福的真正含义 在谈到如詹姆斯·邦德（James Bond）般跌宕起伏的人生时，乔丹·皮特森指出，那种生活虽然充满折磨，却极具观赏性，也正是人们走进影院时渴望看到的戏剧张力。生命中的一切悲伤与灾难，或许本身就是不可或缺的组成部分，因为若没有这些至暗时刻的衬托，生命中便无所谓“辉煌与壮丽”（glorious）。当被问及为何谈到此处会如此动容时，皮特森情绪充沛地解释道，人生的跨度极其宽广，波峰与波谷之间的落差极其悬殊。当一个人在人生阶梯上不断向上攀登时，不仅没有抹平这种落差，反而对峰谷之间的万丈深渊有了更加深刻的洞察。 皮特森对大众常挂在嘴边的“追求幸福”提出了根本性的质疑。他认为成功与幸福绝非同一概念，人们甚至没有认真想过“幸福”究竟意味着什么。当一个人宣称自己想要快乐时，如果深入追问：难道这意味着你想像孩子一样一整天傻笑个不停？还是想要凌晨一点吃上一块小饼干带来的瞬间满足？在心理学和语义的技术层面，人们所谓的“渴望幸福”，其实本质上只是“不想遭受毫无意义的苦难”。斯蒂芬·巴特利特的播客节目之所以没有沦为平庸琐碎的泡沫，正是因为他没有将肤浅的快乐作为核心目标，而是在践行某种深植于人类经验中的原型模式（archetypal pattern）。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 追求幸福与避免苦难的心理分层 accDescr: 对比浅层幸福追求与深层人生意义的结构图 subgraph Surface["表面诉求与误解"] A["浅层欲求：宣称追求'幸福'"] --> B["即时满足（如夜半饼干的甜头）"] A --> C["持续狂喜（如孩童般终日大笑）"] end subgraph Reality["本质内核与深层动力"] D["真实底层诉求：避免无意义的苦难"] E["拥抱崇高体验：承载悲剧与灾难的张力"] F["践行原型模式：在风浪与探索中寻求意义"] end B -.-> D C -.-> D D --> E E --> F ``` ### [02:12:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7948s) 喧嚣中的锚点、分布式认同与向死而生 面对声名鹊起后外部环境的急剧变化，斯蒂芬·巴特利特分享了作为内容创作者的切身体会：在起步阶段无人问津，无需顾虑声誉；然而一旦影响力扩大，就会陷入两侧极端声浪的撕裂式拉扯。网络上的观众各执一词，有的催促他回归商业商业领袖访谈（“CEO都在哪里？这节目可叫CEO日记！”），有的强行要求他站队介入政治议题（如特朗普与哈里斯的纷争）。皮特森警示道，一旦一个创作者开始过度谨小慎微地捍卫名誉，他就会丧失冒险精神，节目就会立刻变得乏味可陈，走向失败。 要在狂乱的喧嚣中保持本心，核心在于寻找内在与外在的“锚”。巴特利特指出，抵御网络风暴的最强后盾，正是自己与妻子深厚稳固的感情，以及真诚的朋友圈子。皮特森将这种现象高度概括为“分布式认同”（distributed identity）——一个人并非孤立存在的原子，你与你的妻子、家人、挚友在本质上是不可分割的整体，这种关系提供了最真实的立足根基。此外，巴特利特提到“终有一死”的认知在心头赋予了他奇妙的力量。皮特森赞同并深化了这一观点：极度的稀缺性赋予了事物真正的价值，死亡的绝对存在，正是让一切现实变得真实、帮人剔除无聊杂质的终极试金石。 - 创作者一旦为了维护既有声誉而变得保守，就会彻底失去冒险的锐气，导致内容丧失吸引力。 - “分布式认同”构成了心理防御的坚实护城河，让个体免于被互联网虚幻且极化的舆论浪潮所吞噬。 - 在有限的生命资源（时间、注意力）约束下，意识到死亡的不可避免，能让人立刻识别出哪些批评无足轻重，哪些原则不可妥协。 ### [02:16:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=8200s) 追寻未知的答案与对话的艺术 谈及挑选对谈嘉宾的标准时，巴特利特坦言自己的唯一标尺就是纯粹的“好奇心”。他只邀请那些自己由衷渴望倾听其见解、能协助自己拼凑脑中知识拼图的人。例如，当他看到皮特森撰写了《我们与神搏斗》（*We Who Wrestle With God*）一书时，便萌生了深入探讨的渴望。在此处，皮特森顺势点出了一个关键渊源：“以色列”（Israel）这个名字在希伯来语中的本义正是“与神搏斗之人”，他们因此被称为神的选民，这一典故让巴特利特感到惊喜。巴特利特补充道，未来当自己成为父亲时，好奇心也会随之转向育儿之道，节目选题也将自然而然地伴随他的生命旅程而演进。 皮特森非常赞赏这种真诚探索的态度，并将此比作自己登台演讲时的精神状态。他强调自己的公开演讲从来不是一场精心编排的“表演”，而是一段真实的探索旅程： > “在走上讲台之前，我会给自己抛出一个真正想要知道答案、但目前尚未掌握的问题。然后我走上舞台，努力朝着答案迈进，观众便与我同行。我想去那里，他们也想一同前行，这是一场美妙的契约。” 在坦诚的对话与思辨中，问题与答案从来不是僵死固定的，它们会在探索者不断逼近的过程中持续生长和重塑。 ### [02:18:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=8304s) 痛失双亲的领悟：万物之短暂与亲情的凝聚 访谈转向了人生中沉重而无法回避的话题——丧亲之痛（grief）。巴特利特提及皮特森在短短六个月内相继失去了父母，并询问这段经历教给了他怎样的人生功课。皮特森神情凝重地总结道，最痛切的感悟莫过于：“世间万物消逝的速度，远比你想象的要快得多。”正因如此，人们绝不能将眼前拥有的一切视作理所当然。尽管没有人能把陪伴做到尽善尽美，但他感到欣慰的是，自己生前并未把父母的存在当成理所当然，整体上处理得还算体面妥善。 皮特森还回忆起当年目睹妻子一家经历丧母之痛的场景。面对母亲的离世，妻子与兄弟姐妹以及岳父并未陷入分崩离析，反而借由悲痛的契机在困境中紧密地依偎在一起。那种整个家庭共同面对创伤、彼此扶持的过程，宛如伤口在爱与陪伴中慢慢愈合。这段深刻的家庭记忆也成为他后来面对亲人离世时的重要精神参照，证明了苦难往往能凝聚起生命深处最牢固的羁绊。 ### [02:19:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=8367s) 哀伤中的转机与来自父亲的严苛功课 乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）谈到了在亲人离世后人际关系迎来的重构。在过去的一年里，彼得森的家庭接连承受沉重打击：他的妻子塔米（Tammy）失去了父亲，而彼得森自己的双亲（父亲与母亲）也在同一年相继离世。彼得森提到，塔米在失去父亲后，与哥哥之间建立起了远比以往深厚的关系。这并不是说哥哥替代了父亲的角色，而是在于他们之间原本就有未被充分挖掘的情感深度；当父亲离去，这种拓展兄妹联结的可能性便浮现了出来。彼得森自己也与哥哥、姐姐建立了更紧密的联系。他感慨道，即便是身处深切的哀伤与悲恸之中，也处处蕴藏着契机。 主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着长辈的话题询问彼得森：“你的父亲是否留给了你某项刻骨铭心的教诲？”彼得森不假思索地回答：“留心注意（Pay attention）。”他的父亲非常擅长这一点，并且把这项品质教授得极其深刻——在父亲面前，“心不在焉”绝不是个好主意。彼得森坦言，父亲并不是一个容易相处的人，他生性严厉、标准极高，甚至显得有些不近人情（unforgiving）。 彼得森随即对这种严苛展开了哲学与文化维度的反思：我们是否应该轻易原谅那些深爱着却没能发挥全部潜力的人？在当今文化中充斥着太多无条件的“宠溺”——比如对人说“宝贝，这没关系”、“我就喜欢你现在的样子”，但这种态度真的对吗？当主持人问及彼得森是否原谅了父亲时，彼得森释怀地表示，自己与父亲之间的分歧早在多年前就已化解。从十三岁到离家求学的那段时期，由于父亲患上了严重的家族遗传性抑郁症，整个人变得阴郁且难以捉摸，家中任何风吹草动都会引发极度剧烈的负面连锁反应，这让当年的彼得森感到十分困惑。但离家后不久，他便彻底理解了父亲当时的病痛与苦楚，那些昔日的隔阂在理解中自然消散，两人之间并没有留下未解的遗憾。 --- ### [02:22:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=8534s) 母亲的品格：好客与坚韧的母爱 谈到已故的母亲时，彼得森的语气中满溢着温情与敬意。他指出母亲最鲜明的特质是“极其热情好客（hospitable）”。在《旧约》故事中，好客是一项核心的美德（Cardinal virtue），而母亲总是能让每一个走进家门的人感到宾至如归。母亲离世的那一整天，彼得森都在沉浸在对她的追忆中。令他感到震撼的是：在认识并陪伴母亲整整 62 年的漫长岁月里，他的记忆库中竟然找不到哪怕一次关于母亲的负面回忆。 彼得森动情地回忆，母亲是一个彻彻底底的好人。她幽默风趣，彼得森总能把她逗得开怀大笑。虽然母亲性格和蔼随和、充满女性的柔美与包容，但她绝非溺爱软弱之人。彼得森特别强调，母亲身上有着强烈的保护本能，但她渴望帮助孩子走向独立自主的意愿，永远凌驾于过度保护的本能之上（Trumped that for sure）。这种“放手让孩子在风雨中磨砺成独立个体”的坚毅，构成了母亲人格中最伟大的底色。 --- ### [02:23:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=8631s) 被误解与被理解：引领他人的神圣特权 节目进入了收尾的经典传统环节：上一位做客的嘉宾在不知下一位身份的情况下，在日记本上为彼得森留下了一个问题：“你在哪方面感到自己被误解得最深？” 彼得森的回答出人意料地坦然。他平静地表示：“我并不觉得我被误解了。”在他看来，那些讨厌他的人主要分为两类： 1. **投射幻想的人**：把彼得森与自己脑海中虚构的仇恨靶子混为一谈。 2. **完全理解他的人**：他们其实听懂了彼得森在说什么，正是因为听懂了，他们极度厌恶并恐惧这套言论所蕴含的深层推论与道德要求。 彼得森坦言对这两种情况都完全接受，自己毫无怨言。更重要的是，那些愿意倾听他演讲和作品的人听懂了他，并且这种理解为大众的生活带来了切实的向好转变，这带给他难以言表的欣慰。彼得森向主持人巴特利特提到了美国海豹突击队退役军官乔科·威林克（Jocko Willink）的故事：乔科曾说自己年轻时原本极易走上歧途成为帮派头目或罪犯，因为他天生是个强悍的战士型角色；但参军后他发现，成为团队领袖、带领战友向积极的方向奋进，是这世上最美好、无可替代的事，这彻底扭转了他的一生。彼得森深感共鸣：能够运用影响力引领人们走向良善与崇高，是近乎具有“宗教神圣性”的体验。与这种看到无数人因自己而重获新生的巨大欣慰相比，外界无论必要或不必要的非议与误解，都显得微不足道、根本不值一提。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Public Perception vs Real-World Impact accDescr: Diagram illustrating how Peterson views his detractors versus the profound positive feedback loop with receptive listeners. subgraph Detractors ["反对者群体"] A["曲解/投射幻想"] B["完全听懂并敌视其推论"] end subgraph ReceptiveAudience ["受众群体与正向反馈"] C["倾听者深刻理解内容"] --> D["个人生活发生积极转变"] D --> E["带来无可比拟的欣慰与价值感"] end Detractors -.->|"细枝末节/不足挂齿"| E ``` 主持人深有感触地回应道，做播客也是一份共享的特权，他在彼得森的工作中以及海量听众的反馈中，反复目睹了彼得森给无数人生活带来的不可否认的积极转变。两人在真挚的致谢与互道珍重中结束了这场长谈。随后，主持人介绍了本节目的对话卡牌产品（The Conversation Cards Version 2），解释了卡牌背后收录每位往期嘉宾亲笔提问及扫码观看视频答案的设计细节。 ## Notable quotes > [23:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1391s) 当好人选择噤声不语时，恶便乘虚而入。 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [25:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1507s) 当你有话该说却选择沉默时，这绝对是一种伪造。 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [27:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=1638s) 一段婚姻走向离婚，往往是因为其间存在着‘一万场本该发生却没有发生的争吵’。 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [36:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2164s) 我该如何学习为他人提供价值，从而让自己成为一个极具吸引力、人人渴望与之相伴的人？ — 乔丹·彼得森 > [49:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=2943s) 人这一生中，再也没有什么事情比寻找伴侣和建立家庭更困难的了。 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [01:01:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=3681s) 如果你以为仅凭坠入爱河就能结婚，那你就是个白痴。 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [01:13:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=4414s) 限制你的，究竟是那个女人，还是你自己想象力的贫瘠与极限？ — 乔丹·彼得森 > [01:27:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=5221s) 为什么要从小事做起？因为看看当下的你，简直彻头彻尾一无是处！ — 乔丹·彼得森 > [01:43:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=6222s) 去试试看吧，看看会发生什么。你根本无法创造自己的价值观，因为价值是真实存在的，绝非随心所欲或完全相对的。 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [02:00:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7210s) 自愿直面并接纳发生在你身上的任何厄运与挑战，无论那有多残酷。 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [02:05:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=7559s) 人天生是为了迎接极致挑战（maximal challenge）而塑造的。 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [02:16:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=8200s) 在走上讲台之前，我会给自己抛出一个真正想要知道答案、但目前尚未掌握的问题。然后我走上舞台，努力朝着答案迈进，观众便与我同行。 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [02:23:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c&t=8631s) 我并不觉得我被误解了。 — 乔丹·彼得森 ## Mentioned 乔丹·彼得森 (Jordan B Peterson), 史蒂芬·巴特利特 (Steven Bartlett), 《我们与上帝摔跤》 (We Who Wrestle With God), 《人生十二法则》 (12 Rules for Life), 彼得森学院 (Peterson Academy), 多伦多大学 (University of Toronto), 安大略省心理学家学院 (College of Psychologists of Ontario), 陀思妥耶夫斯基 (Fyodor Dostoevsky), 梅诗金公爵 (Prince Myshkin), 《白痴》 (The Idiot), 但丁 (Dante), 《神曲·地狱篇》 (Dante's Inferno), 塔米·彼得森 (Tammy Peterson), 罗伯特·克拉姆 (Robert Crumb), 比尔·马赫 (Bill Maher), 《登山宝训》 (The Sermon on the Mount), 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 理查德·道金斯 (Richard Dawkins), 弗里德里希·尼采 (Friedrich Nietzsche), 亚伯拉罕 (Abraham), 诺亚 (Noah), 米歇尔·福柯 (Michel Foucault), 亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴 (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), 卡尔·荣格 (Carl Jung), 安德鲁·泰特 (Andrew Tate), 乔科·威林克 (Jocko Willink), PerfectTed ## Video description Dr Jordan Peterson is a world-renowned former Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, and co-founder of the online education platform Peterson Academy. He is the author of bestselling books such as, ‘12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos’ and ‘We Who Wrestle With God: Perceptions of the Divine’. 00:00 Intro 02:30 The World Has Become Fractionated 05:23 Where Do We Find Ourselves Without Community? 08:41 How Do We Address Individualism in a Self-Centered Society? 15:21 Do Many People Have a Clear Ultimate Aim? 16:17 What Movie Character Would Jordan Be? 18:00 Does It Bother You When People Attack Your Reputation? 20:39 What Do You Do When You Face Tough Times? 23:47 Why You Must Speak Your Mind 29:00 Why Spend 90 Minutes a Week Listening to Your Partner? 32:26 How Do You Resolve Years of Disputes? 37:39 How to Become a Person Others Want to Be Around 46:27 The Rise of Sexlessness 49:03 Why Does No Sex Before Marriage Lead to Better Outcomes? 52:19 The Purpose of Marriage vs Relationships 01:01:21 Is Porn a Bad Thing? 01:06:10 Why Doesn't Porn Feel Good to People? 01:10:06 The Effects of Pornography on You 01:12:35 AI Girlfriends 01:16:33 How to Overcome Weaknesses 01:21:14 Staying True to Your Principles 01:27:08 What to Say to People Struggling With Discipline 01:31:27 What Is Self-Belief? 01:34:47 Young Men on the Search for Religion 01:38:58 Was the Bible Just One Person's Opinion? 01:40:07 How Do You Believe We Got Here? 01:43:42 Should We Create Our Own Set of Rules? 01:46:46 Where Do Our Values Come From? 01:54:50 The Difference Between Sex and Reproduction 01:56:20 Is the Bible an Attempt to Understand Evolutionary Motivations? 01:57:18 What God Do You Believe In? 02:02:50 Has Your Belief in Religion Ever Been Shaken? 02:06:09 Life Isn't Fair, Is It? 02:12:28 Staying True to Who You Are 02:18:24 What Losing Someone Teaches You About Life 02:24:02 How Do You Feel Misunderstood? Follow Jordan: Instagram - https://bit.ly/3WeVNeS Twitter - https://bit.ly/429DFXn Website - https://bit.ly/4fNbWiF You can purchase Jordan’s book, ‘We Who Wrestle With God’, here: https://amzn.to/40dWer7 You can purchase the The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards: Second Edition, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: PerfectTed - https://www.perfectted.com with code DIARY40 for 40% off [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hik6OY-nk4c)

[23:11] 乔丹·彼得森: 当好人选择噤声不语时，恶便乘虚而入。 [25:07] 乔丹·彼得森: 当你有话该说却选择沉默时，这绝对是一种伪造。 [27:18] 乔丹·彼得森: 一段婚姻走向离婚，往往是因为其间存在着‘一万场本该发生却没有发生的争吵’。 [36:04] 乔丹·彼得森: 我该如何学习为他人提供价值，从而让自己成为一个极具吸引力、人人渴望与之相伴的人？ [49:03] 乔丹·彼得森: 人这一生中，再也没有什么事情比寻找伴侣和建立家庭更困难的了。 [61:21] 乔丹·彼得森: 如果你以为仅凭坠入爱河就能结婚，那你就是个白痴。 [73:34] 乔丹·彼得森: 限制你的，究竟是那个女人，还是你自己想象力的贫瘠与极限？ [87:01] 乔丹·彼得森: 为什么要从小事做起？因为看看当下的你，简直彻头彻尾一无是处！ [103:42] 乔丹·彼得森: 去试试看吧，看看会发生什么。你根本无法创造自己的价值观，因为价值是真实存在的，绝非随心所欲或完全相对的。 [120:10] 乔丹·彼得森: 自愿直面并接纳发生在你身上的任何厄运与挑战，无论那有多残酷。 [125:59] 乔丹·彼得森: 人天生是为了迎接极致挑战（maximal challenge）而塑造的。 [136:40] 乔丹·彼得森: 在走上讲台之前，我会给自己抛出一个真正想要知道答案、但目前尚未掌握的问题。然后我走上舞台，努力朝着答案迈进，观众便与我同行。 [143:51] 乔丹·彼得森: 我并不觉得我被误解了。

[3:47] Jordan Peterson: Your mental health isn't something you carry around in your head. It's the harmony that exists or doesn't exist between all those levels. [89:00] Jordan Peterson: Dante placed Satan at the bottom of hell... encased in ice and frozen... surrounded by those who betray... often it's the case that if you journey into an issue, spiral down to the bottom, you'll find betrayal. [38:33] Jordan Peterson: How many people do you get to try on in your life? Five. If you're lucky, if you're attractive and fortunate, you get five cracks at the bat. [46:18] Jordan Peterson: They're Machiavellian, which means they use language to manipulate. They're narcissistic, which means they want unearned social status. They're Psychopathic, which makes them predatory parasites, and they're sadistic. [52:08] Jordan Peterson: The general rule of thumb for life is that you should do what other people have done forever unless you have a really good reason not to. Don't deviate from the straight and narrow path. [70:06] Jordan Peterson: She'll give the worst part of you everything it wants. [74:03] Jordan Peterson: Well yeah, that's dismal. So you know, maybe don't do that. [81:00] Jordan Peterson: Treasures and dragons, they're always in the same place... If a dragon shows up, you can always ask yourself where the treasure is. [103:42] Jordan Peterson: Imagine there's a very large number of games that could be played... but there's a very small number of games that people want to play. Then there's even a smaller number of games that sustain themselves and improve as you play them. [107:19] Jordan Peterson: What do you mean by God? [111:54] Jordan Peterson: If you're secure in your foundation and properly oriented upward, then there's no difference between the voice of the Divine and the instinct that preserves you in times of trouble. [117:08] Jordan Peterson: Without a uniting narrative, there's nothing but war. [122:37] Jordan Peterson: Christ himself cries out in despair to God on the cross. The story wouldn't be believable without that. If you're going to live, you're going to be pushed past your limit. Jordan Peterson: As soon as you start worrying about your reputation as a podcaster, you're going to fail... because you're not interesting then. You'll stop taking risks. [138:13] Jordan Peterson: Things last way less long than you think, so you should be aware of that and not take things for granted.

[0:00] we know the couples have lived together [0:01] before the marriage actually increases [0:03] the probability that the relationship [0:04] will fail and the reason for that is [0:06] very straightforward and talking of [0:07] things that risk harming relationships [0:09] subject we've never spoke about before [0:10] is oh yeah and that's a huge reason sex [0:13] has disappeared people need to stop [0:15] doing that Jordan Peterson the [0:17] psychology Professor people love or love [0:19] to hate he's undeniably one of the [0:21] greatest intellectual phenomenons on the [0:23] planet and many view him as the ultimate [0:25] Father Figure welcome back Mr Peterson [0:27] we're built for maximal Challenge and [0:29] that isn't the way we view ourselves in [0:30] the modern world we view ourselves as [0:32] built for consumption and pleasure for [0:34] example watching pornography but what [0:36] are the downstream consequences of that [0:37] well first of all it's easy to get what [0:39] sexual gratification but does it matter [0:41] oh it's a catastrophe you're not [0:42] desperate anymore and if you're going to [0:44] have the true adventure of your life [0:45] you're going to need love shame guilt [0:47] desperation and pain like it's hard but [0:49] now people take the easy Road like [0:51] avoiding Conflict for example and I [0:53] spent a lot of time studying evil it [0:55] arises when good men hold their tongue [0:58] now you may suffer some consequences of [1:00] speaking but retreating one step at a [1:03] time defensively that it makes you sick [1:04] of yourself there's nothing worse that [1:06] can happen to you you want your life to [1:08] be unbearably entertaining and maybe all [1:10] the sorrow and catastrophe has to be [1:12] part of it because otherwise [1:14] there's there's nothing about it that's [1:17] glorious this has always blown my mind a [1:19] little bit 53% of you that listen to the [1:22] show regularly haven't yet subscribed to [1:24] the show so could I ask you for a favor [1:26] before we start if you like the show and [1:28] you like what we do here and you want to [1:29] support us the free simple way that you [1:31] can do just that is by hitting the [1:32] Subscribe button and my commitment to [1:34] you is if you do that then I'll do [1:36] everything in my power me and my team to [1:37] make sure that this show is better for [1:39] you every single week we'll listen to [1:41] your feedback we'll find the guests that [1:42] you want me to speak to and we'll [1:44] continue to do what we do thank you so [1:49] much your book comes at a really [1:51] interesting time in my life personally [1:53] your book is called we who wrestle with [1:56] God and it's my belief and suspicion [1:59] that there's a lot of people wrestling [2:00] with God at the moment and when I say [2:01] the word God I don't necessarily mean [2:03] some man in the sky with a beard what I [2:05] really mean is a greater meaning a [2:09] greater sense of meaning um the world [2:12] feels like and you speak to this in the [2:13] book that it's gotten more and more [2:15] individualistic and there's consequence [2:16] to that fractionated is another way of [2:19] thinking about it right because you can [2:20] think about it as individualistic and [2:22] that's a positive spin so to speak but [2:27] alienated isolated and fractionated is [2:30] the what would you say is the [2:32] accompaniment to that see I think I [2:34] think I think the case is is that the [2:37] liberal [2:39] experiment in individualism only works [2:42] when the conservative Foundation is in [2:46] place right if you aggregate people [2:50] together and they share enough [2:52] fundamental values especially of a [2:54] particular sort then you can concentrate [2:58] on the individual and individual freedom [3:01] but there's a lot of preconditions for [3:03] that and you know the Scottish liberals [3:07] so the ones who really established [3:09] Western liberalism as a philosophical [3:12] and political movement they knew that [3:15] you know it [3:16] was individual [3:18] liberty judeo-christian substructure and [3:22] that was an assumption now the problem [3:25] with modern liberalism is that that [3:27] underlying Foundation has become [3:31] extremely shaky and everyone feels it [3:35] that's what the culture wars about [3:37] fundamentally and that fact is [3:40] invalidating the fractionated liberal [3:44] experiment partly see it's partly [3:47] because we have the wrong conception of [3:49] identity fundamentally identity is a [3:52] hierarchical structure [3:55] so we kind of think that you end at your [3:58] boundaries as an IND individual but you [4:00] don't [4:01] because well you're probably not not [4:05] going to want to be alone so then let's [4:08] say you're married okay so [4:10] now your identity as a husband that's a [4:14] social identity and then you're you have [4:16] an identity as a father that's a social [4:19] identity then you have an identity as a [4:22] member of your community and a member of [4:23] your city and a member of your state and [4:25] a member of your nation and [4:28] then you're involved in a metaphysical [4:32] Endeavor that constitutes the foundation [4:35] for the nation let's say that's would be [4:38] one nation under God that's one way of [4:40] thinking about it or you could think [4:41] about it as the self-evident truths that [4:43] underly the state your identity exists [4:46] at all those levels and then your mental [4:48] health isn't something you carry around [4:50] in your head it's the harmony that [4:54] exists or doesn't exist between all [4:56] those levels and that isn't how liberal [5:00] individualists think about identity at [5:02] all and that's because they were for a [5:05] long time fortunate enough so all those [5:07] other strata were in place so where do [5:10] we find ourselves now if we don't have [5:12] that hierarchy and we aren't held in [5:14] place by all those layers and sort of [5:16] Social and I guess family [5:19] identities a drift in a storm [5:22] alone so look here's here's an [5:25] interesting fact [5:28] so Psych ologists who are statistically [5:31] minded they're called psychometricians [5:33] they're psychologists who are obsessed [5:35] research psychologists who are obsessed [5:36] with measurement and concept [5:40] definition spent a lot of time [5:43] aggregating Concepts these were in some [5:47] ways what they were doing was equivalent [5:49] to the development of early large [5:50] language models so psychologists were at [5:53] the Forefront of [5:55] that on the statistical side [6:00] words that we use to describe people [6:02] Clump [6:03] together so for example if you're [6:06] extroverted you're social and you're [6:09] happy you're [6:10] enthusiastic okay so those Clump [6:12] together if [6:14] you're anxious you're also you also tend [6:17] to be frustrated disappointed grief [6:19] stricken and in pain all the negative [6:22] emotions [6:24] Clump words associated with your empathy [6:27] aggregate words associated with your [6:30] dutifulness Aggregate and so do words [6:32] associated with creativity those are the [6:35] five fundamental dimensions of [6:38] temperament one of the words that clumps [6:41] with negative emotion is [6:43] self-consciousness which means that [6:45] self-consciousness is so tightly [6:47] associated with suffering that they're [6:49] not conceptually [6:52] distinguishable which means literally [6:55] the more you think about yourself the [6:58] more miserable you [7:00] are and it it it makes sense when you [7:04] understand how social people are we're [7:07] so [7:08] social that you can take the most [7:10] antisocial human beings imaginable so [7:13] Psychopathic [7:15] criminals and you can punish them by [7:17] putting them in solitary confinement [7:20] that's how social human beings are and [7:22] so your mental health is way more [7:25] dependent on your nesting within a [7:27] social structure than than on your say [7:31] the internal coherence of your belief [7:33] systems in fact I think it's hardly at [7:35] all dependent on the internal [7:37] consistency of your coherence of your [7:40] belief systems it's more like does [7:42] anyone like you do you have any friends [7:45] do you have anyone that loves you or [7:47] more or maybe even more profoundly are [7:51] there people for whom you make [7:54] sacrifices right that's a very that's [7:57] it's relevant to the topic of this book [7:59] obviously because the relationship with [8:01] the Divine in the stories that I'm [8:04] detailing in this book most of them are [8:05] Old Testament Stories the relationship [8:07] with the Divine is a sacrificial [8:10] relationship the Divine is that to which [8:14] sacrifice is directed well if you get [8:16] married it's a [8:18] sacrificial offering because you [8:21] sacrifice your potential relationship [8:24] with all other women to that [8:27] woman what does one dra an individual [8:29] level if they find themselves in such a [8:31] society where individualism has taken [8:33] hold um and they can't necessarily [8:35] easily change the society are there [8:38] daytoday week to week choices that I'm [8:40] making that are pushing me away from [8:43] that meaning and purpose and sort of uh [8:46] Collective I guess sense of [8:48] responsibility like the individual [8:50] listening to this now that completely [8:51] agrees with you finds himself as being a [8:52] lonely person and goes what do I do [8:54] about this Jordan well one of the things [8:57] you do with disagreeable people who are [9:00] more inclined by temperament to be [9:02] competitive and attain victory for [9:04] themselves is one of the exercises you [9:06] can do with disagreeable people if [9:08] you're a disagreeable extrovert you tend [9:10] to be narcissistic and the problem with [9:12] that technically is that you alienate [9:15] people and the problem with that is [9:17] while you're [9:29] no doubt learned this more as you become [9:32] successful it's like you need a team and [9:35] right and the more and the more tightly [9:37] knit it is and the more you're all [9:38] working in the same direction the better [9:41] everything works well you it's not [9:43] useful to be a narcissist because maybe [9:46] you get what you want right now this [9:48] time but as a propagating strategy [9:51] across time it's a degenerating game [9:54] okay so what do you do well instead of [9:57] thinking about what you want or even [9:59] thinking about how to strategize in [10:01] relationship to your goals you might [10:04] think about what you could do to for [10:06] other people or you could think about [10:09] what you would do if you only did what [10:11] was true and right those are very [10:14] different orientations right and the [10:16] religious orientation fundamentally is [10:19] the orientation towards what is true and [10:21] right and you might say well I don't [10:23] know what's true and right it's like [10:26] yeah kind of because our knowledge is [10:29] bounded and we're ignorant so do we [10:34] understand the nature of the highest [10:36] good well no but it's a very rare person [10:41] who doesn't know some of the time when [10:43] they're doing something [10:45] wrong and it's also a non-existent [10:48] person who doesn't have some concept of [10:50] the good because you can't act without a [10:54] concept of the good because you act [10:57] towards a goal you deem desirable so [11:02] that's up I mean unless you're trying to [11:04] make your life worse and people do do [11:06] that from time to time but believe that [11:08] as an exception I mean you have [11:11] to you have to have descended into Hell [11:14] in a way before you're in a situation [11:17] where you're actively working to make [11:18] your own life worse that can happen but [11:21] assuming that [11:23] you're relatively well embedded in the [11:26] realm of the normal then you're moving [11:30] towards something better always because [11:33] otherwise there's no motivation we we [11:34] know this technically this isn't even [11:36] disputable [11:38] so the positive emotion systems that [11:41] make you enthusiastic so that fill you [11:44] with the desire to move towards a [11:47] goal independent of fear say you know [11:50] because you could move towards a safety [11:51] goal because you're afraid but imagine [11:53] you're trying to accomplish something [11:55] you have a goal the positive emotion [11:58] systems operate to track progress to the [12:01] goal positive emotion is a consequence [12:05] of evidence of movement towards the [12:06] desired goal okay so now you have a [12:10] proximal goal you know like our proximal [12:13] goal right now might be just to like in [12:15] the most micro level possible might be [12:19] to display facial signs of interest in [12:23] the conversation right it's very micro [12:25] goal but then that's nested in our [12:27] desire to have an interest in [12:30] conversation on the topic we're having [12:32] right now and then inside the podcast as [12:36] a whole and then as part of the podcast [12:38] Enterprise that you're involved in as [12:40] part of the book Enterprise let's say [12:42] that I'm involved in that's nested [12:44] inside our view of the world right so [12:47] you see there there are nestings of the [12:51] good that have no upper limit that's [12:54] Jacob's Ladder by the way and at the top [12:57] of that is the good [13:00] itself which is the Divine for all [13:03] intents and purposes Divine what do you [13:05] mean by that that's a [13:07] definition that that's what I mean is [13:10] that in the hierarchy of what's [13:14] good the Divine is the peak the top okay [13:19] right now you don't know what that [13:21] is that's also an insistence in the [13:23] biblical texts by the way in the final [13:26] analysis the Divine is ineffable it's [13:28] not [13:29] definable and it's beyond you and that's [13:32] partly because it's there's a practical [13:34] reason for that even you know this as [13:37] well as you move towards a goal let's [13:39] say you attain a goal okay now you've [13:41] accomplished well are you done it's like [13:43] no a new potential goal emerges a new [13:47] Pinnacle and then maybe you'll [13:49] accomplish that but then a new one [13:51] exists and so you could say that the the [13:54] domain of the the domain of opportunity [13:57] is [13:57] Limitless right because the thing that's [14:00] at the Pinnacle recedes as you approach [14:02] it and that's a you could say that's a [14:06] technical definition of God which is [14:08] accurate that is a technical definition [14:10] of God God is the good towards which all [14:13] Goods [14:14] Point these are definitions again [14:17] remember they're not proclamations of [14:19] Faith they're definitions so we [14:22] obviously all believe that all good [14:25] things share something in common because [14:28] otherwise we wouldn't have the category [14:30] good and then we all believe that there [14:32] are rank orders of good because [14:35] otherwise everything good would be [14:36] equally worth pursuing No One Believes [14:39] that so there's a rank order well if [14:41] there's a rank orders towards some end [14:43] or some Pinnacle you can also think [14:45] about it as a [14:47] foundation depends on which metaphorical [14:49] landscape you want to [14:51] inhabit then the question becomes well [14:53] how do you characterize that which is [14:57] the ultimate aim that which is is and [14:59] should be the ultimate aim well the [15:02] the stories on which our culture is [15:05] predicated characterize that in story do [15:08] you think many people have an ultimate [15:10] aim in their mind they they do whether [15:13] they know it or not how what do you mean [15:15] by that so like the average person [15:16] listening to this now do they are they [15:18] conscious at all of what they're no but [15:20] it's implicit okay one of the things the [15:24] psychoanalytic thinkers insisted on Carl [15:27] Young in particular was that everybody [15:29] acts out a [15:31] story sometimes it's a tragic story [15:33] sometimes it's the story of hell like [15:35] you're trapped in a story one way or [15:38] another now do you know the Contours of [15:41] your [15:42] story not necessarily I mean people are [15:45] often very bad at describing themselves [15:48] they don't know what they're up to that [15:50] doesn't mean they're not up to something [15:52] and you could also think about them as [15:54] the Battleground between Waring stories [15:56] that also happens that just means [15:58] they're [15:59] fractionated in their psyche you know [16:02] they're being pulled in many directions [16:04] at the same time someone said to me [16:05] actually yesterday they said an [16:06] interesting way to understand your self [16:08] narrative or your self story is to [16:10] answer the question if you were a [16:12] character a fictional character who [16:14] would you be and in that you figure out [16:16] whether you have this sort of heroized [16:18] story or if you're a victim so I ask you [16:20] that question yeah right absolutely [16:22] which fictional character would you [16:27] be bugs bud [16:31] bu Bugs Bunny's a trickster [16:34] character right [16:36] so yeah more serious [16:41] answer do you ever read the idiot [16:45] no yeah well I'm probably half idiot and [16:48] half rol [16:49] nikov that's another way of looking at [16:52] it why' you say that [17:00] the um character of the idiot in dov's [17:03] novel is a holy fool it's a strange [17:07] combination a person who's doing things [17:12] right in a manner that's I suppose not [17:15] obvious that [17:18] looks that can easily be confused [17:25] with naivity or foolishness [17:29] playfulness even I [17:31] suppose is that how you characterize [17:33] yourself someone that's doing things [17:34] right but in a way that others perceive [17:36] as foolishness or naivity or or even [17:39] malevolence at [17:41] times you know I mean that's partly why [17:44] people have gone after my [17:46] reputation does it does it ever bother [17:49] you people going after your reputation [17:52] or them P sure I mean sometimes it's [17:54] like it's been very distressing very [17:57] distressing the battles I've had with [17:59] the College of psychologists in Ontario [18:01] those are no joke it's very very [18:05] stressful and [18:08] unconscionable so expensive hundreds of [18:11] thousands of dollars years it's been 10 [18:14] years of legal battles um calumny in the [18:19] Press they're they're attempting to [18:23] undermine my professional credibility [18:25] with some degree of success you know [18:27] because when you're professional profal [18:29] College goes after [18:30] you people have to make a choice it's [18:33] either the professional colleg is [18:34] corrupt and wrong or the individual [18:36] being targeted is corrupt and wrong it's [18:38] way easier to draw the second conclusion [18:40] and under most circumstances in a valid [18:43] State that's the correct [18:45] conclusion so and it was very stressful [18:48] to find myself embattled at the [18:51] university University of Toronto I liked [18:53] working there that place had its [18:55] problems but it was pretty functional [18:57] and and I likeed being there I I I [19:00] enjoyed my career as a professor I had [19:04] great relationships with the [19:05] undergraduates and my graduate students [19:07] I love doing my research which has also [19:10] disappeared um [19:12] so [19:14] now those are the [19:17] serious disputes that I've had [19:20] reputationally let's say um there's a [19:24] lot of casual reputation savaging that I [19:27] don't really care about from journalists [19:29] and so forth although sometimes that's [19:31] been pretty brutal because whenever that [19:34] happened [19:35] especially when things just started to [19:38] be developing around me let's say on the [19:40] public [19:42] stage when it when I encountered a [19:44] particularly Psychopathic journalist [19:47] which happened quite often particularly [19:48] in the UK um it was completely a toss up [19:53] which way it was going to go like it [19:55] could have just finished me and my [19:57] family that that was definitely the case [19:59] three or four five times maybe more than [20:01] that so yes it's very bothersome now now [20:06] and really for a long [20:08] time all of that takes place within a [20:11] much broader context all the [20:12] interactions I have with people in my [20:15] actual life are ridiculously positive [20:19] and what would you say positive and [20:23] gratifying you know so that's a form of [20:26] suffering in a way and everybody goes [20:28] through suffering and because you've [20:30] been through that have you been able to [20:32] develop a a strategy or a some kind of [20:36] anchoring that helps you when the wind [20:38] blows like that well yeah oh definitely [20:42] I [20:43] mean uh I had very strong [20:48] relationships when all of this started [20:50] to develop around me and that's just [20:53] become more the case a very tightly knit [20:56] family and a very tightly knit group of [21:00] friends now I lost some more peripheral [21:03] friends [21:04] but you know that's unfortunate but s so [21:08] there's that now is that a strategy um [21:13] well it's not exactly a strategy because [21:16] I didn't design it towards an end it was [21:18] more like an end in itself right I mean [21:20] I had kids not as a strategic move but [21:23] because I like kids so and I [21:25] particularly like my kids so [21:29] that's not a strategy and I really have [21:31] a great relationship with my wife and [21:33] like I've known her for 52 years it's a [21:35] very long time and uh she's definitely [21:39] my best friend and probably has been for [21:42] 52 years and so that's really helpful [21:46] that that and that refers back to this [21:50] issue of identity that we were [21:51] discussing you know my identity is well [21:55] structured in in the social sense [21:59] and then in terms of strategy yeah I [22:02] mean I have a meta strategy I suppose I [22:06] just say what I [22:07] think right now is that a [22:11] strategy it depends on how you define [22:13] strategy it's not a strategy that's [22:15] designed to serve my ends not not in a [22:19] individualistic [22:21] way so I'm just trying to see what [22:24] happens if I say what I think that's a [22:27] way of navigating in the world right [22:29] it's an adventurous way of navigating in [22:31] the world because you don't know what's [22:33] going to happen you have to let go of [22:35] that and then there's a element of faith [22:39] in that right there's faith in [22:40] everything you do you know the the [22:43] empiricist types the scientific [22:44] reductionists they say well you can move [22:47] forward in the world without faith [22:48] that's complete bloody rubbish there [22:50] isn't anything you ever do that's [22:52] important that you don't do in light of [22:54] Faith it's like if you get married you [22:57] do that on the basis of the evidence do [23:00] you what bloody evidence do you have [23:02] you're 23 years old you don't know a [23:05] damn thing you know maybe you're in love [23:07] with the person that you want to marry [23:09] but you have no evidence whatsoever [23:11] about how your life is going to go none [23:14] you have to LEAP into the unknown like [23:17] you do with everything that's important [23:19] that's all Faith predicated now the [23:22] question is Faith in what well if you [23:25] decide that you're just going to say [23:27] what you think [23:29] then you have faith in the [23:31] truth at least in so far as you have [23:33] access to the truth is it true to say [23:35] that if you hadn't have said what you [23:37] think publicly then you would have [23:39] experienced less suffering than you have [23:42] no really I don't think so so if you had [23:45] said if you had stayed in your practice [23:47] you know as a clinicaly because I would [23:49] have had to not I would have had to bite [23:51] my tongue and you think that's more I [23:54] know it it's not a matter of thinking I [23:55] know it I know it [23:58] uh absolutely 100% I spent a lot of time [24:02] studying evil a lot of time and I know [24:08] how it arises it arises when good men [24:11] hold their tongue you don't want that [24:13] there's nothing worse that can happen to [24:15] you now you may suffer some consequences [24:17] of [24:18] speaking for sure but all things [24:23] considered which is the right attitude [24:25] if you're wise [24:28] there's nothing worse that can happen to [24:29] you than to falsify your [24:32] speech is saying nothing a form of [24:34] falsifying spee it is when you have [24:36] something to say yeah definitely because [24:39] there's a lot of people probably [24:40] listening now that have a lot they want [24:42] to say yeah but if they say it they're [24:43] going to lose their job or they're [24:45] there's going to be immediate [24:46] consequences which might mean they can't [24:47] feed their family yeah it might mean [24:50] that but it also might mean that if they [24:53] bite their tongue and pretend to be [24:55] something other than they are they'll be [24:57] a weak model for [24:59] children and you know is that better [25:02] than having some Financial [25:04] instability Maybe here's a counter [25:07] proposition if your job requires you to [25:10] lie maybe you should find another [25:13] job now look I also understand that [25:16] there are strategic considerations in [25:19] such a decision there's no sense [25:21] martyring yourself stupidly and if [25:23] you're going [25:25] to say what you believe to be the case [25:28] then you need to put yourself in a [25:29] position where doing so won't be [25:33] instantly catastrophic in a way you [25:35] can't fix because that's not a good [25:38] that's not [25:40] wise now when things blew up around me I [25:44] had three sources of [25:46] income that wasn't [25:49] accidental now you know people say well [25:51] you are fortunate it's like [25:54] yeah and careful mhm so I didn't want [25:58] have all my eggs in one basket and that [26:00] turned out well I knew that it's like [26:03] you have no autonomy if you have all [26:05] your eggs in one basket so if you're [26:07] going to think strategically if you're [26:09] going to think like someone who's at war [26:12] let's say then you don't leave your you [26:15] don't leave [26:16] a mortal flank [26:19] exposed and so if you know here's a rule [26:23] if you find yourself in a position where [26:24] you're unable to speak you haven't [26:27] fortified your territory [26:30] properly right so then you have to think [26:32] about that it's like you think okay why [26:34] can't I say what I believe to be the [26:36] case where am I [26:37] vulnerable and you can say well that's [26:40] inevitable it's like no it's not it's [26:42] not [26:43] inevitable that doesn't mean it isn't [26:45] difficult to to fortify and to put [26:48] yourself in a position [26:50] where you're on the offense successfully [26:54] that's hard but retreating One Step at a [26:58] Time defensively for your whole life and [27:01] shrinking while you do it that's also [27:03] not very that's also difficult it's just [27:06] the kind of difficult that wears you [27:09] down and makes you sick of [27:12] yourself that's not a good that's not a [27:15] good plan that's a bad [27:18] plan and did you see this when you were [27:20] in your clinical practice did you see it [27:22] in people oh constantly how does it show [27:25] up on the surface what are the words [27:27] that they say to articulate that this [27:29] sort of slow diminishing retraction oh [27:31] you see that in people's marriages all [27:32] the time when marriages [27:34] deteriorate a marriage ends in divorce [27:37] when there's 10,000 fights that haven't [27:39] been [27:41] had and I really I'm I'm not just [27:44] guessing at that number it's like let's [27:46] say your marriage isn't going very well [27:48] and so you have [27:50] five [27:52] uncomfortable quasi disputes a day mhm [27:55] just to pick a number maybe it's 50 [27:57] maybe it's three whatever five will do [28:01] well that's 1500 a year okay now you [28:04] just aggregate that [28:06] over let's say the 10 years it takes [28:08] your marriage to [28:10] collapse well you've got something [28:13] approximating 10,000 fights you didn't [28:16] have that's 10,000 times you remain [28:18] silent when you had something to say and [28:21] they all Aggregate and then every time [28:24] once you've collected the first [28:26] 5,000 then every time you have a dispute [28:29] all 5,000 are lurking behind that [28:32] dispute and the fact of their existence [28:35] makes it much less likely that you'll [28:37] say what you have to say that's the [28:39] reemergence of the Dragon of chaos as a [28:42] consequence of fleeing from your fate [28:46] that's exactly right last time we spoke [28:48] you said something which stayed with me [28:49] and I've actually forwarded it to a few [28:50] of my friends on this particular subject [28:52] you said to me you're going to have to [28:54] sit and spend 90 minutes a week speaking [28:57] to your partner yeah so annoying it's so [28:59] annoying it's so annoying but it's so [29:02] important and so many of my friends that [29:04] are in have relationship difficulties I [29:06] send them just a little four minute clip [29:07] I have on my phone of you saying that [29:10] because the 90 minute no it might be 95 [29:12] minutes it might be 85 minutes but the [29:14] concept of you need to sit down and [29:18] create a space where she or he or [29:20] whatever can tell you what they've [29:23] noticed why they don't like you exactly [29:25] yeah yeah yeah well it's especially I [29:27] think [29:29] I don't think that you can really [29:32] establish the kind of relationship with [29:34] a woman that you want with anything in [29:38] the [29:38] road like it's hard for women to give [29:41] themselves to men and no wonder it's [29:43] amazing they ever do it they have a lot [29:45] on the [29:47] line what are the preconditions for that [29:51] offering [29:53] uh peace and [29:56] security you can tell if if it's if the [30:01] territory is being cleared because play [30:05] emerges right right play emerges and [30:08] play is a very fragile motivational [30:12] state it can be disrupted by almost [30:14] anything so if there are impediments to [30:19] understanding play will not arise and [30:20] then you don't have the romantic [30:22] adventure that you want it's [30:25] grudging right you don't have a [30:28] voluntary partner and that's a very hard [30:30] thing to attain right that full [30:32] voluntary partnership that means that [30:34] you're in sync with each other MH you [30:36] can't expect that to be easy you can't [30:38] even be in sync with yourself like it's [30:41] hard and you need to keep each other up [30:44] to date you need to know what's going on [30:47] you need to iron out the sources of [30:49] discomfort or distrust and that there's [30:53] a lot of Dante's Inferno what's that [30:57] that well Dante's [30:59] Inferno is a characterization of Hell by [31:04] by Dante by it's one of the most famous [31:07] poems ever written and it's it's you [31:10] could think about it as what you have to [31:13] do to get to the bottom of things so [31:15] let's say that you have a dispute with [31:17] your wife and it's a recurring [31:20] dispute right it's an issue you have an [31:23] issue well do you want to address the [31:25] issue it's like do you want want to do [31:28] surgery without anesthetic like it's the [31:30] same question addressing an issue is a [31:34] journey into the [31:36] abyss Dante placed Satan at the bottom [31:39] of hell right so that's the figure of [31:42] malevolence itself encased in ice and [31:45] Frozen so immobile surrounded by those [31:48] who betray that's the lowest level of [31:51] hell why well it's often the case that [31:54] if you journey into an issue spiral down [31:57] to the bottom you'll find [32:00] betrayal right cuz maybe your partner [32:02] doesn't trust you because she was [32:04] betrayed highly probable highly probable [32:07] or her grandmother was betrayed like you [32:11] know there's bad blood between men and [32:13] women can you have a solve for that so [32:14] if I'm in a situation where my partner [32:16] doesn't trust me because she was [32:17] betrayed whether it's something I did or [32:19] whatever how do you ever get rid of the [32:21] devil at the bottom of the Spiral well [32:23] you have to you have to find out that [32:25] it's there okay that's a hard question [32:29] you both have to want [32:31] to that's the first thing because that's [32:33] the setting of the aim what do we [32:37] want we want to play Forever in God's [32:40] Heavenly Garden how about that that's a [32:42] metaphorical representation right but [32:45] that's a wall Garden that's the human [32:48] environment the walls are the walls of [32:51] your house the garden is [32:54] nature displaying itself in its beauty [32:58] within boundaries that's a place that [33:00] play can take place that's what you want [33:03] you got to think about it what do you [33:06] want okay so now we might ask what do [33:08] you mean want okay if you were taking [33:12] care of yourself and you could have what [33:14] was good for you what would that be now [33:17] that's a hard question right you're [33:18] going to have to think about that for a [33:20] long time what would satisfy something [33:23] as someone as miserable and resentful [33:25] and useless as me [33:28] right if I could have it now people will [33:31] they don't even want [33:33] to address that issue be because part of [33:36] the problem with making your aim clear [33:40] is you know when you're failing and [33:42] people would rather keep the evidence of [33:44] their failure obscured from themselves [33:46] even if it meant continued failure but [33:49] now let's say you decide not to do that [33:51] you're going to think okay I'm going to [33:53] aim high I'm going to take care of [33:55] myself okay now your wife's on Lord with [33:59] that now that's a hell of that's a [34:00] that's really what the marital vow is in [34:02] the final analysis most deeply is that [34:05] willingness to participate in that [34:07] game now you have to tell each other the [34:10] truth what the hell do you want well she [34:13] doesn't know and neither do you not [34:15] really so you got to start digging [34:18] finding out and you and noticing it's [34:21] like now and then you'll see that you're [34:22] happy with each other and maybe it'll [34:24] happen kind of randomly you'll be out in [34:26] some I don't know maybe you're at a [34:28] restaurant or you're gone for a walk or [34:30] who knows and you'll notice oh this is [34:32] going well it's like oh yeah this is [34:34] going well what are we doing right could [34:38] we take that little episode and could we [34:40] start to expand it you know because one [34:43] of the things you can do in our marriage [34:44] is you can notice when things are going [34:46] well and then you can have a chat with [34:48] each other and say look I don't know [34:49] what we did during this period of time [34:52] but let's see if we can figure it out [34:54] see if we could do like 10% more of that [34:56] next week or one % more and then just [35:00] make that expand you can do that too by [35:04] you know hypothetically at some point if [35:06] you're married at some point you were in [35:08] love with your wife you can remember [35:12] that you have to remember that you have [35:14] to practice remembering that you have to [35:18] practice bringing it to mind and [35:20] occupying that because when you first [35:22] fall in love it kind of happens to you [35:25] right that's a gift but you have to in [35:29] order for that to last you have [35:32] to become an expert at you have to [35:36] become an expert at it you have to take [35:39] it on as a responsibility it's offered [35:41] as a gift but then you have to take it [35:43] on as a responsibility then you have to [35:45] practice it's like oh yes I love this [35:47] person and if you don't at the moment [35:48] you have to think well I did and I could [35:53] so why don't I is it [35:55] me that's probably it's [35:58] you might be them too but you might as [36:01] well start with you I mean you got lots [36:02] of flaws you could start with those what [36:04] if you just made a bad decision as in [36:07] like the person you picked you think [36:09] they're not [36:10] compatible well you stand a tough one a [36:14] because you're not really compatible [36:16] with anyone you know people think well [36:18] I'll find the right person it's like [36:20] first of all no you won't second if you [36:22] found the right person and they ever saw [36:24] you they just run away screaming so it's [36:28] just the whole conceptual scheme is [36:30] wrong I when I was on tour there was one [36:35] three-day period where the same question [36:38] emerged from the audience because I do a [36:40] Q&A three nights in a row how do I find [36:43] the person that's right for me and I I [36:47] tried answering it and by the third [36:49] night I thought oh I know why I can't [36:51] answer this question it's because it's a [36:53] stupid question it's badly formulated [36:56] like profoundly badly formulated fatally [37:00] badly formulated it's not the right [37:02] question the right question [37:04] is how could I learn to offer something [37:08] to someone else that would make me [37:10] eminently desirable that's a way [37:12] different question like it's so they're [37:15] not even in the same conceptual universe [37:18] and it's the right question because you [37:21] can build yourself into a person that [37:24] people would line up to be with how [37:28] how well have you done [37:31] it to some well you told me not you're [37:34] very successful right you you're [37:36] increasingly successful your book warns [37:38] against narcissism Jordan so yeah [37:40] there's there's a difference between [37:41] narcissism and giving the devil is Du [37:44] you've look okay let let's pull back a [37:47] little bit what have you done right I [37:51] have focused on myself for a long time [37:54] and okay what does that mean it means I [37:57] fortified myself financially okay so [37:59] that I'm I'm you know I can support [38:01] others I can support a family so that's [38:03] not exactly focusing on yourself right [38:06] okay that's focusing on getting your act [38:08] together and I'm being very picky about [38:10] the words because focus on yourself that [38:13] has a [38:15] narcissistic connotation but that that [38:17] isn't what you're talking about you said [38:19] you fortified yourself financially okay [38:21] so now you're you you you you have [38:24] Foundation under your feet financially [38:26] okay okay good what else [38:28] I go to the gym so I'm strong physically [38:30] strong okay um which is useful um I've [38:33] learned a lot okay a lot of learning [38:36] about myself about how I show up in the [38:38] world right so you're trying to learn [38:40] yes I've learned skills so well so [38:41] there's three things that are pretty [38:43] good yeah you've got a firm Financial [38:45] Foundation you've you're work you're [38:48] you're maintaining yourself physically [38:50] or even improving yourself and you're [38:52] doing the same thing say spiritually and [38:54] and intellectually okay well that [38:57] attract a fair number of people just [38:59] those three right and maybe you're [39:02] increasing the probability that will [39:04] attract the sort of person that you [39:05] would like to attract that is very much [39:07] the story of my life like I think don't [39:08] think people realize this but I've [39:09] actually been on I think four dates in [39:11] my entire life I'm 32 and I took this [39:14] really counter sort of seems [39:16] counterintuitive approach to myself [39:19] which was as an 18-year-old I basically [39:20] couldn't attract anybody I was also not [39:22] on dating apps I wasn't doing so my for [39:25] 10 years I basically focused on myself [39:27] and you know 27 years old someone [39:31] messaged me and I went on it and this is [39:34] how I am like if I'm going to go on a [39:36] date it's going to be I'm going to go [39:38] all in it was a three-day date that I [39:40] planned in an Excel document I've been [39:42] with that person for six years so I feel [39:44] like I didn't date I didn't go to bars [39:46] and try and like you know that's worth [39:48] taking apart I'm I like I like to do [39:51] arithmetic with my clients like people [39:53] hate arithmetic and it's no wonder [39:55] because it's so sad aage so I'll give [39:59] you an example so 15 years [40:01] ago I counted the number of times I [40:04] would see my [40:05] parents it's like 20 times so then I [40:09] knew [40:10] that right 20 isn't very [40:13] many right how many people do you get to [40:15] try on in your [40:18] life five if you're lucky if you're [40:22] attractive and fortunate you get five [40:26] cracks at the p [40:28] five isn't very many and people think [40:30] well it's a there's plenty of fish in [40:32] the sea it's like that doesn't mean [40:34] they're going to swarm around you buddy [40:37] right it's and maybe it's even worse for [40:39] women because their time frame is is [40:42] very short you know like if a woman [40:44] isn't in a [40:46] relationship family relationship by 30 [40:49] then it's starting to get pretty damn [40:52] rough and that's almost independent of [40:55] how attractive she is it's like you [40:57] don't have much time better get yourself [41:00] prepared when you say pretty damn rough [41:02] what you mean well to find a mate or to [41:05] have a child or both both well we know [41:07] now that at the present time in the west [41:10] half of women 30 and younger don't have [41:13] a [41:13] child okay now we also know that couples [41:17] 30 one in three couples at 30 already [41:20] have trouble conceiving and that [41:23] definition of trouble is one year of [41:25] attempt with no success okay so [41:28] fertility goes off a cliff at 35 so 30 [41:32] you're pushing your luck at 30 at 35 you [41:35] are seriously pushing your luck I worked [41:38] for 10 years with a strata of the [41:42] highest achieving women likely in Canada [41:45] I had as part of my clinical practice [41:49] a offering that we made to consulting [41:52] firms and law firms and the offer was [41:55] send us your best people [41:58] and we'll work for them but the [42:01] consequence of that is that they'll be [42:02] even more productive so in the typical [42:04] Law Firm for example there's people who [42:08] don't do well then there's people who [42:09] are good lawyers then there are people [42:11] who are good lawyers that bring in [42:13] business there's like none of them [42:15] they're super valuable and if a law firm [42:18] has someone like that they want to keep [42:20] them and they're often women half the [42:23] time let's say um and those were the [42:26] women I worked with a bunch of men too [42:28] but all concentrated on the women here [42:29] those were the women I was working with [42:32] and they [42:34] were generally extremely attractive [42:37] extremely intelligent very hardworking [42:40] and very focused on Career Development [42:43] and they were they' done very well in [42:45] junior high school and high school then [42:47] they you know aced college and their [42:51] lsats and then when they were articling [42:54] the firms snapped them up quickly and [42:56] then they rocketed up towards [42:57] partnership and then then they were 30 [42:59] and they all thought what the hell am I [43:01] doing working 70 hours a week with a [43:03] bunch of insanely competitive [43:06] men right and that is the question it's [43:09] like what are you doing [43:11] exactly and then even if you're [43:14] radically successful let's say in your [43:15] law school career if you get run over by [43:18] a bus on the way to [43:21] work the waters just close over you at [43:23] the firm and the firm continues on it's [43:26] not like anyone [43:28] cares not really so now I'm I'm not [43:33] saying that people shouldn't pursue a [43:35] career I'm not saying that but I would [43:37] say even in my case and I'm male so that [43:40] makes a big difference because men are [43:42] also oriented towards status competition [43:46] victory in a way that women just aren't [43:48] not at least not in the career domain [43:50] and the reason for that it's very [43:53] straightforward and the the thing that [43:56] makes men [43:57] by default most attractive to women is [44:01] their comparative success in the [44:03] hierarchy of men it's a walloping [44:05] predictor and it's irrelevant to men [44:09] like men don't care at all whether women [44:11] are successful in their career it's not [44:13] a determinant of their attractiveness in [44:15] fact it's [44:17] often the [44:19] contrary well these women that I'm [44:21] talking about they were often alone why [44:25] well they're beautiful so that like [44:27] intimidated 90% of men right there [44:30] they're smart so that's another 90% of [44:33] the remaining 10% they're accomplished [44:36] and [44:36] Wealthy well like first of all who's [44:39] going to approach them and second who [44:41] are they going to accept because women [44:42] are hypergamous right is that does that [44:44] mean that men are insecure [44:46] and sort of emasculated by a strong [44:49] successful woman [44:52] sure yeah well but there's reason for [44:55] that like [44:58] it's not weakness on the part of men [45:01] exactly it's the desire of the woman to [45:03] find someone who brings a benefit to the [45:06] relationship and why well she because a [45:10] woman will make herself vulnerable when [45:11] she has a child and so she's looking for [45:14] a man who be helpful compared to [45:17] her okay so if the woman is like full of [45:21] ability well then her standards for a [45:24] guy who's going to be helpful get very [45:26] high and that's hard on her because it [45:28] decreases the pool of available [45:31] candidates [45:32] radically so like there's a negative [45:34] relationship between IQ and women and [45:36] the probability of being [45:38] married so it's harsh now is it are men [45:42] intimidated well yes obviously are men [45:47] intimidated by beautiful women well you [45:49] can answer [45:50] that especially if you're young why the [45:53] probability that any given beautiful [45:55] woman is going to reject you when you're [45:57] a young man is like it's basically 100% [46:02] now it's not exactly 100% And there are [46:04] exceptions but the default response is [46:08] rejection and beautiful women get hit [46:11] on you know a fair bit some of the it's [46:15] interesting because there's a bunch of [46:16] stats which I find quite interesting one [46:18] of them is that sexlessness is increas [46:20] is increasing people having less and [46:22] less yeah that's fascinating it's that's [46:25] fascinating does it matter [46:27] oh it's a catastrophe and and why are we [46:30] having less sex what is the complex web [46:33] of factors that have brought us to this [46:34] place I know something like well one of [46:36] them I would say is that me in a in a [46:41] free and easy mating environment women [46:44] don't trust men and no wonder well here [46:48] here here's a terrible thing to know [46:53] so imagine that there are men who are [46:56] oriented towards short-term [46:57] relationships and there are men who are [46:58] oriented towards long-term relationships [47:00] committed relationships right okay so [47:03] that would be the men who want love long [47:05] with sex let's say love and commitment [47:07] then there's the party today because [47:09] we're all dead tomorrow sort of guys and [47:12] there's some women like that too [47:13] although few are women because they pay [47:15] a much higher price for sexual [47:16] impropriety so the pool of short-term [47:20] maters has more men in it okay what do [47:22] they like well the personality Studies [47:24] have already been done they're aelan [47:27] which means they use their language to [47:29] manipulate they're narcissistic which [47:31] means they want unearned social status [47:33] they're Psychopathic which makes them [47:36] predatory parasites and they're sadistic [47:39] okay so now you open up the mating [47:41] market so that shortterm deanes are [47:44] acceptable you throw all the women into [47:46] the hands of the [47:48] Psychopaths well that's a bad strategy [47:51] and it's no wonder that it decimates the [47:53] mating Market because women are thinking [47:55] well are those men trustworthy and the [47:57] answer is [47:58] no and sex is costly like we have this [48:03] immature delusion that we can free sex [48:06] from like the grip of the oppressive [48:08] patriarchy let's say it's like no you [48:10] can't obviously you can't there's it [48:15] emotional entanglements are an [48:17] inevitable consequence of intimate [48:20] physical relationships there's that then [48:22] there's the issue of abortion and [48:24] pregnancy that actually con dutes a [48:27] problem and then there's sexually [48:29] transmitted disease and that's just like [48:32] the first of a very long list of [48:34] potential problems with sex so there's [48:38] no simple sexual landscape and there are [48:40] diluted people who think they're there [48:43] is a simple landscape and that there [48:45] should be but most they tilt hard in the [48:47] psychopathic Direction because they're [48:49] manipulative do you believe in no sex [48:51] before marriage as a [48:53] concept as an ideal yeah [48:57] yeah yeah that's [48:59] right and and why would that result in [49:03] better relationships and a better [49:05] Society more broadly well here's one way [49:07] of looking at it so let's say you take [49:10] the alternative approach okay um you're [49:13] going to try your partner on for size so [49:16] you live together well first of all we [49:18] know that couples who live together are [49:19] more likely to get divorced rather than [49:21] less we know that the probability of [49:25] cheating is [49:27] proportionate to the number of Partners [49:29] before the marriage or the committed [49:31] relationship well well partly that's [49:34] just self-evidence like the best [49:35] predictor of future behavior is past [49:37] Behavior right so if you had a lot of [49:40] Partners you're the sort of person who's [49:42] likely to have a lot of Partners and [49:44] then the there's also a conceptual [49:46] problem it's like is are you shopping [49:49] for a car it's like you're going to take [49:51] it out for a test drive and see how it [49:53] goes okay that's not the right [49:57] metaphor and [49:59] then here's another problem I'm going to [50:02] see what it's like to be married by [50:04] living with this person it's like no [50:05] you're not because you don't know what [50:08] it's like to be married until you're [50:10] married whatever you're doing when you [50:13] live together that's not a model for [50:16] what you're going to do when you're [50:17] married because being married is [50:19] different it's permanent so you're [50:22] saying don't live together before you [50:24] well I know the stats on living together [50:26] it's like you live with someone and and [50:27] then you marry them you're more likely [50:29] to get divorced it doesn't work like the [50:31] the the theory was you try it out and if [50:35] it works you go ahead with it yeah yeah [50:37] well the theory was wrong because that [50:38] isn't that isn't what happens it [50:41] actually increases the probability that [50:43] the relationship will fail it's also [50:44] partly you got to ask yourself what the [50:46] message is I know what the message is [50:48] when you live with someone it's pretty [50:51] straightforward you'll do unless someone [50:54] better comes along and I'll Grant you [50:56] the same opportunity but Jesus that [50:59] that's a hell of a foundation for a mar [51:01] for a like long-term relationship so you [51:03] saying go go from single to married and [51:06] living together straight away without [51:08] the like Tri on period Well I don't know [51:10] exactly what the trial period should be [51:12] I mean people have [51:13] dated and I'm also not saying that this [51:16] is simple it's not simp why would it be [51:18] simple it's not there isn't anything [51:21] more difficult that you do in your [51:22] entire life than find a partner and [51:24] establish a family it's like it's going [51:26] to hard how to do it optimally well I [51:29] can tell you in my own experience you [51:31] know like I I've known my wife since she [51:35] was eight and we were friends good [51:38] friends and we kind of departed from [51:41] each other during adolescence um I was a [51:45] year younger than everyone in my class [51:48] and she matured faster women do anyways [51:50] and so that kind of split us apart and [51:53] we didn't get married till I think we [51:55] were about 27 something like that 28 but [51:59] it would have been better to do it [52:00] earlier so get married Al you yeah it's [52:03] just time I didn't have with [52:05] her what case would you make to me for [52:08] marriage versus because I'm I'll be [52:10] honest I'm wrestling with marriage not [52:11] just God um I'm trying to understand [52:13] what the what the point of marriage is [52:14] versus the relationship we have now is [52:17] but I can have children in the [52:18] relationship I have now [52:22] yeah the general rule of thumb for life [52:24] is that you should do what other people [52:26] have done forever unless you have a [52:29] really good reason not to don't deviate [52:31] from the straight narrow path like you [52:34] are already deviating in all sorts of [52:35] ways you're very entrepreneurial MH [52:38] right so your life has a variety of [52:40] adventurous Pathways you're going to [52:41] want [52:42] to put Firm Foundation wherever you can [52:46] that'll actually free you up to do more [52:48] adventurous [52:50] things children are a multigenerational [52:54] commitment because it's children and [52:55] grandchildren [52:56] and so the the marriage is a signifier [52:59] of that and in order to stay with [53:02] someone optimally over the longest [53:04] period of time possible it has to be [53:06] serious and for something to be serious [53:09] you have to throw everything at it you [53:11] know and you might say well love is [53:12] enough it's [53:14] like that's a very naive view of the [53:17] world because there'll be [53:19] times because that's kind of like saying [53:21] well as long as we love each other and [53:22] we're happy we'll be together it's like [53:24] well if you're talking 40 years there's [53:27] going to be plenty of years in there [53:28] where you're not happy and you probably [53:30] don't love each other so what then [53:34] you're going to just is it just going to [53:35] dissolve or are you going to say we're [53:38] in this you know come hell or high water [53:40] which is the vow come hell or high and [53:42] hell in high water they're coming and [53:46] then you got to ask yourself you know is [53:47] this the person you want in the boat [53:49] with you when hell and high water come [53:52] and that's not going to be fun that's [53:55] for sure you want to do it alone or you [53:58] think that when everything falls apart [54:00] around you you're going to be in a [54:01] better position to find someone better I [54:03] don't think so it's a long and then you [54:06] know you you take the marital vow in a [54:08] religious sense and you do it in front [54:10] of a community right so it's it [54:12] signifies commitment and you need that [54:15] because like you think you can maintain [54:17] all that commitment on your own maybe [54:20] you can I doubt it generally people [54:22] can't like no one we need to fortify [54:25] ourselves in all sorts of ways to get [54:27] through the things in life that are most [54:30] difficult but the traditional marriage [54:32] agreement one that's a legal agreement [54:34] yeah does it need to be can can I not [54:36] take my partner have a wedding in front [54:38] of our friends and family sign a [54:40] contract maybe even do it in a sort of [54:42] relig religious context without having [54:44] it to be a Rel like a legal document [54:47] that the government are involved in well [54:50] you could but is it not the same bond to [54:55] you there you're talking about a [54:57] multitude of different bonds right [54:59] fundamentally right you're the the one [55:02] that you're prioritizing is the bond [55:03] that's voluntary and predicated on what [55:07] the love of the moment I mean we want to [55:09] be precise here right that so I think [55:12] that's a reasonably reasonable way of [55:14] conceptualizing it and it is a romantic [55:16] view that that should Prevail and it's a [55:18] romantic view that that should be [55:19] sufficient I don't think it there's it's [55:23] often the case that it doesn't Prevail [55:25] and it's generally the the case that [55:26] it's not sufficient and so then you [55:28] might say well maybe you want to add a [55:29] legal element to that and you want to [55:31] add a metaphysical element to it because [55:33] those are all fortifications MH and [55:37] they're indications even to yourself [55:39] that you're serious it's not like we [55:41] understand ourselves you know like [55:44] people are just as mysterious to [55:45] themselves as someone else is mysterious [55:47] to them you go ask yourself it's like [55:50] okay well [55:51] what [55:53] processes what do I have to put in place [55:55] to sure that [55:57] I'm doing the right thing well when [56:01] you're embarking on something difficult [56:03] like marriage then you better have [56:07] everything necessary in place if you and [56:09] Tammy hadn't got married yeah and you [56:12] were just in a relationship like I am [56:14] with my [56:15] partner how do you think your life would [56:17] be different and do you think you I [56:19] don't think it would have lasted you [56:20] don't think your life would have lasted [56:22] oh well relation that's that that's [56:25] undoubtedly true [56:26] I mean both of us just about died in the [56:28] last 5 years and I don't mean by a [56:30] little bit I mean like it [56:32] was touch and go for a long time [56:38] so it was a good thing everything was in [56:41] place through that I mean the the waters [56:44] were pretty high for the last three [56:47] years four years socially professionally [56:52] physically the what are you wrestling [56:55] with exactly like in this issue you know [56:58] I mean you're it seems like you're [56:59] trying to sort out the relationship [57:01] between the emotional attachment and the [57:03] personal attachment and the social [57:05] structures that say surround marriage [57:08] it's it's complicated because even any [57:09] answer I might give you is if you go [57:12] down that spiral you might find [57:14] something at the bottom of it that's not [57:15] what I'm saying so what I mean by that [57:17] is definitely just as you asked that [57:19] question I just got a glimpse of I just [57:20] had a bit of a flash toct my issues with [57:23] commitment and how I watched okay so [57:25] what you fantasy no I just I just [57:27] remember recalling feeling like my dad [57:29] was in prison when he was in in his [57:31] relationship so I think that's still so [57:33] now I can tell you what to do with that [57:35] so you bring those images to mind right [57:38] so you've got this question in mind you [57:40] just you just found out something you [57:42] said that there's something at the [57:44] bottom of this okay now if you watch [57:46] your fantasies they'll shed light on [57:49] this descent into the abyss so to speak [57:52] now you had a flash of memory okay that [57:54] memory is associated with all sorts of [57:56] things you can bring that to mind and [57:59] let it play itself out right and it'll [58:01] explore the Contours of the problem that [58:04] you're now you put your finger on a very [58:06] important problem you said that you saw [58:07] in your father someone who's trapped in [58:09] his marriage yeah well it's no bloody [58:11] wonder you're leery of that right so now [58:13] you okay so now the question would be [58:16] what was the nature of that entrapment [58:18] what evidence did you have that that was [58:20] in fact the case how much of that was [58:22] him how much of that was her and what is [58:25] it that they did wrong and right you [58:27] need to know all of that and you need to [58:29] know how it affected you that's a great [58:32] obser see that's so cool because that [58:33] very frequently happens to people when [58:35] they ask a question that's like a [58:37] revelation so you ask a question that's [58:41] like a prayer the question is is there [58:44] something at the bottom of my the [58:46] trouble I'm having conceptualizing [58:49] marriage okay now you want to know [58:53] that's the first precondition okay then [58:54] you'll get memory images like that and [58:57] then people shy away it's like I don't [58:58] want to go there it's like yeah that's [59:00] for sure you bloody well don't want to [59:02] go there but you do because if it's [59:05] there you will go there right it'll [59:08] plague you and it'll plague your life [59:11] it'll it'll show its head continually in [59:14] your relationship or you can get to the [59:16] bottom of it which is people will fight [59:18] their whole life with their partner to [59:20] avoid getting to the bottom of something [59:22] that's how terrifying it is to get to [59:24] the bottom of something right [59:26] but if you do get to the bottom of it [59:28] then you don't have to fight for 30 [59:30] years so that's very much worthwhile and [59:33] it'll Enlighten you as [59:36] well you know because you're you have a [59:38] real issue it's like how can marriage [59:40] not be a trap Yeah well yeah right [59:43] definitely that's a very good question [59:45] and and an important one how can [59:47] marriage be a trap how can not being [59:50] married be a trap how can being alone [59:53] being a trap be a trap how can being [59:55] deluded Ed about what holds people [59:57] together be a trap there's traps [59:59] everywhere man there's traps everywhere [60:02] and so there's no risk-free mo pathway [60:06] forward there's just risk everywhere [60:09] okay so that's a really useful thing to [60:11] know then the question would shift to [60:13] something like well if I wanted to [60:14] construct a relationship that had that [60:17] was [60:18] optimized that's what you have to ask [60:20] yourself it's like and your and your and [60:23] your partner it's like what we doing [60:26] here what do we want Tammy and I decided [60:28] for example when we first got married we [60:31] I well I mentioned this to her right [60:33] away when we decided that we were going [60:35] to take things seriously it was like [60:38] we're going to tell each other the [60:41] truth so that was part of the vision [60:44] like no matter what no matter what yeah [60:47] no matter what she's been very good at [60:49] that I would say better than me I've [60:51] been good at it but she's been really [60:53] quite remarkably good at it she really [60:56] threw herself into it and I mean [60:58] that's that causes an complete [61:01] transformation but there's plenty of [61:03] skeletons in the closet to be revealed [61:06] God that's for sure talking of things [61:09] that risk harming relationships one of [61:12] the things I wanted to ask you about [61:13] subject we've never spoke about before [61:15] but it ties into the themes of [61:16] relationships marriage and um and sex is [61:20] pornography and generally oh another [61:23] reason that sex has disappeared yeah [61:26] right right you talk about headism in [61:27] your book um we who wrestle with God [61:31] pornography is this a bad thing is a [61:34] terrible thing yeah it's a terrible [61:37] thing everything about it is terrible [61:41] really well first of all it's addictive [61:44] and no wonder I mean any 13-year-old [61:48] boy can now look at more [61:51] beautiful naked women in one day [61:56] than the greatest King who ever lived [61:58] managed in his whole [62:02] life right so it's like wow that's not [62:06] and talk me through the downstream [62:08] consequences of such a possibility easy [62:10] it's easy yeah it's easy to get what [62:14] sexual gratification that's not good [62:17] it's not supposed to be easy and it's [62:20] easy [62:21] so how desperate do you have to be to [62:24] get married [62:26] not desperate at all it's like yeah [62:27] right what do you know you don't know [62:29] anything I'm married just because I'm in [62:31] love you're an idiot God to to to to put [62:36] you in a position [62:38] where you're going to have the romantic [62:41] adventure of your life the true romantic [62:43] adventure of your life you're going to [62:45] need love and Desperation buddy you're [62:48] going to need everything working on your [62:49] side love desperation Terror shame guilt [62:53] everything working for you and so you [62:57] take the easy [62:58] Road pornography sure you're not [63:01] desperate [63:03] anymore so people that consume [63:05] pornography do you think they're less [63:06] motivated to attack life and to well [63:09] they're definitely less motivated to [63:10] pursue sexual relationships with women [63:14] by way of that are they then less likely [63:15] to then want to go to the gym or have a [63:17] career definitely it's an interesting [63:19] idea how much how much of what men do do [63:22] they do to impress women a lot like yeah [63:24] like all of it [63:26] all of it I mean the status battles that [63:28] men back to the law firms for example so [63:31] the the men I worked with they're very [63:33] concerned with their bonuses and their [63:35] and their you know their end of the year [63:38] performance reports why well part of it [63:41] was the money most of them had lots of [63:42] money it's like I'd asked them they say [63:44] well that's the money is how we keep [63:46] score well what does that mean well it's [63:49] money is the way that men in those [63:50] competitive Enterprises say they they [63:53] compare themselves to one another and [63:54] why do they want to be at the top cuz [63:56] women peel from the top so men are [64:01] trying to impress women all the time and [64:02] they'll do it in positive ways and in [64:04] pathological ways the window for sexual [64:07] representation started to open in the [64:08] 1920s let's say but it really got going [64:11] with Playboy then Penthouse came out [64:14] right after that and Penthouse was like [64:16] full frontal nudity display and then [64:19] Hustler came out and Hustler was sort of [64:22] well whatever Penthouse didn't show you [64:25] Hustler will show and it got pretty low [64:28] brow like it was a rough low class [64:31] magazine it didn't it just shed all the [64:33] pretentions that Playboy and Penthouse [64:35] had and then the net came along it's [64:40] like all those Engineers who couldn't [64:44] establish a relationship with an actual [64:46] woman exchanging pornography what 25% of [64:50] internet traffic something like that [64:53] that desire to exchange pornography was [64:56] that what created the [64:58] net [65:00] yeah was a huge part of it what's that [65:04] done well as you pointed out I think 30% [65:08] now of Japanese men and women under 30 [65:11] are virgins it's about the same in Korea [65:15] relationships between men and women are [65:16] falling apart in the in the rest of the [65:18] West in the same sort of [65:22] way now can you attribute that to [65:25] pornography [65:26] certainly part like if I was a young [65:28] woman and I was looking at the [65:29] pornography World online I'd think yeah [65:33] maybe not one of the interesting things [65:36] we noticed when we're doing some [65:37] research on this was what the top Google [65:39] search around this subject matter is how [65:42] do I quit and I think like the third one [65:44] is how do I quit and and that it's in [65:46] such high quantity of people searching [65:49] Google for how to quit pornography that [65:52] it feels desperate like it feels [65:54] desperate well why wouldn't it it be [65:56] addictive like and why doesn't [65:58] pornography feel good to people that's a [66:00] good question that's a good question [66:03] well there's nothing heroic about it [66:05] that's for sure it's like it's it's [66:06] obviously nothing to be proud of that's [66:10] a different issue than whether or not [66:11] it's wrong right it's certainly not an [66:14] accomplishment yeah I mean I don't think [66:16] anyone would disagree about that it's [66:17] not an accomplishment well maybe sex is [66:21] supposed to be an [66:22] accomplishment maybe you violate the [66:24] spirit of sex uality itself when it's [66:26] not an accomplishment you certainly do [66:27] that if you rape mhm [66:31] right so is it an [66:33] accomplishment [66:35] probably so what if your accomplishment [66:37] is false well then are what are you [66:41] betraying well if it's associated with [66:44] sex maybe you're betraying the most [66:47] fundamental possible thing certainly [66:50] Poss like what there's life and sex [66:53] that's pretty much that right [66:56] you're alive and you reproduce from a [66:58] biological perspective and so you're [67:01] violating the spirit of what you're [67:04] maybe you're violating the spirit of [67:05] relationship maybe you're violating the [67:07] spirit of Adventure the spirit of [67:09] Romance the spirit of reproduction the [67:12] spirit of [67:13] Life [67:15] likely it's it's so interesting that [67:17] people seem to be a lot of people seem [67:20] to be angry at it they they seem to be [67:23] angry with what it's done to should [67:24] angry they should be angry even on an [67:26] individual level people seem in the [67:27] comment section of these episodes that [67:28] we've done about the subject matter [67:30] people seem to be angry about its [67:32] existence and what it's done to them [67:34] they should be angry they should be [67:36] outraged it's outrageous it's outrageous [67:39] would you ban it if you were in charge [67:41] of the [67:47] world I don't know how to answer that I [67:50] think any policy that policies that [67:52] require Force rather than voluntary [67:54] compliance are generally bad [67:57] policies there are restrictions that [68:00] should be placed on its [68:03] distribution but I would have to spend a [68:05] lot of time thinking through what those [68:07] were from a policy [68:09] perspective I think it's wrong no I [68:12] don't think I know it's wrong that [68:15] doesn't mean I know how that should be [68:17] dealt with at the level of policy it's [68:20] complicated I do understand why young [68:23] men and young women are angry about it [68:25] it's like where are the adults where are [68:28] the adults where have they gone they're [68:29] not protecting like 11-year-old kids [68:31] from what you can see on the [68:34] net you know I remember when I was a kid [68:37] I I I got a hold of some of these [68:39] underground comics from the 1960s and a [68:42] lot of the underground com comic artists [68:45] were they are pretty pathological [68:47] creatures like Robert crumb's a good [68:49] example Crum led a pretty good life for [68:52] someone as demented as he is and there's [68:56] a very famous documentary made about the [68:58] crumb brothers and Robert crumb was the [69:00] establisher he was one of the people who [69:02] established the genre of graphic novel [69:05] really back in the 60s in heid Ashbury [69:07] in San Francisco and his imagination [69:11] goes places that you don't want to you [69:14] don't want to be along for the ride [69:16] seriously like seriously and I read some [69:21] of that material when I was like 11 you [69:23] know I never forgot it it was shocking [69:26] as hell and like typical 11-year-old now [69:29] it's [69:30] like there are things that he is going [69:33] to see that he'll never forget it's not [69:36] good and the brain is still forming at [69:38] that age isn't it so it's oh definitely [69:41] interesting way to shock the bra well we [69:42] also don't know well that's right we [69:44] have no idea whatsoever what a diet of [69:48] pornography exposure does to somebody [69:50] who's you know making their way through [69:53] puberty what would you say to the those [69:55] individuals then that have been Googling [69:56] that like how to quit because I imagine [69:58] if we thought about percentages I'd say [70:01] what 90% of people that are listening [70:03] right now watch pornography at least I [70:05] don't know what the numbers are but but [70:06] it's a lot of lot of people it's the [70:08] vast majority write down write down what [70:09] it's doing to you write down what it's [70:11] doing to write down every exhaustively [70:14] everything you think it might be doing [70:15] to you write it down everything don't [70:17] don't worry about whether you're right [70:19] or not like maybe it's not doing some of [70:22] the things you think it might be doing [70:24] but make an exhaustive list [70:26] then start thinking through is like is [70:27] that what you want is that what you want [70:30] and then write down what you want [70:32] instead that'll help because if you're [70:34] going to [70:36] look any hedonistic Endeavor is [70:41] rewarding in the moment obviously the [70:44] problem is is the price you pay for it [70:46] in the medium to long run right that's [70:48] the problem it's the contradiction [70:49] between those two things that's the [70:51] problem okay now if you want to quit [70:53] doing something that's gratifying in the [70:55] short term you need to know why right [70:59] because otherwise you won't have the [71:00] willpower you won't have [71:03] the the part of you that thinks well [71:05] what the hell will win what the hell [71:08] which is what people think when they do [71:10] something they shouldn't do and they [71:12] should notice what they say to [71:13] themselves when when they're making that [71:15] rationalization because what the hell [71:17] refers to [71:18] hell and you the reason to stop doing [71:22] things that are self-destructive is [71:23] because they're self destructive I mean [71:26] is that the sort of person you want to [71:28] be is that the model you'd like to have [71:30] for your son for example is that the way [71:35] you would imagine that someone you [71:36] admire would act these are good [71:39] questions to ask [71:41] yourself no are you the sort of person [71:43] that is acting out a pattern that you [71:46] think is admirable I don't think [71:47] pornography masturbation fits into the [71:51] ideal of heroic [71:54] masculinity I don't think anybody thinks [71:56] that it's there's something furtive [71:58] about it and second rate obviously like [72:01] OB it's ridiculous in a sense that we [72:04] even have to have this discussion [72:05] because [72:06] obviously well these things creep in [72:08] don't they to society and they [72:10] become first they creep then they [72:12] Rampage we almost can't remember a time [72:14] if you're a young person when there [72:15] wasn't pornography you you definitely [72:17] can't remember you open up an app and [72:19] you get absolutely 100% oh and it's [72:21] going to get way worse wait till there [72:23] are AI equipped adjustable [72:27] pornographic succu by then we're really [72:30] going to have fun cuz we're already at a [72:32] at the point now where with a decent [72:36] chatbot a really alienated young man can [72:39] have a better conversation with a decent [72:41] chatbot than with anybody he's ever [72:43] talked to in his entire [72:46] life right now they're going to get a [72:48] lot smarter and soon they're going to [72:50] have like well you can all there's [72:51] already Services of this sort available [72:54] they'll be fully [72:56] fleshed out two-dimensional women [72:59] they're not women simulacra of [73:02] women right so yeah it's interesting [73:05] because with my head in design your own [73:08] girlfriend she w't call she give you she [73:10] don't argue with you she won't do the 90 [73:11] minutes a week yeah right right she'll [73:14] give you everything you want but that's [73:16] not true she'll give the worst part of [73:18] you everything it wants Jesus that's not [73:22] good the worst weakest part of you will [73:24] get get exactly what it wants that's not [73:27] good that's Ser that's seriously not [73:30] good I mean that's what pornography is [73:32] kind of doing right definitely yeah well [73:34] and there's an edge to it too right [73:36] because one of [73:39] the pleasure is enhanced by [73:43] novelty right so so that that brings up [73:46] an issue with regards to marriage you [73:49] know I talked to Bill Maher Bill's [73:53] alone and he's my age [73:55] you know and that's painful but he said [73:58] to me you know in his Hollywood [74:01] hedonistic manner that he really [74:03] couldn't imagine being with the same [74:04] woman you know for any length of time [74:06] it's a novelty issue it's like [74:08] well are you restricted by the woman or [74:11] are you restricted by the limits of your [74:13] own [74:14] imagination this is an important [74:16] question like I would [74:20] say if you establish the optimized [74:24] relationship with someone you they're [74:28] inexhaustible that doesn't mean novelty [74:30] isn't important it's important that's [74:33] part of [74:35] play so yeah a lot of people struggle [74:37] with that got a lot of friends that [74:38] struggle with this idea of being with [74:39] the same person forever um the same [74:42] person the problem well but that's [74:45] really no look I I understand like I [74:48] know that novelty enhances pleasure so [74:50] the question is how do you keep your [74:53] relationship alive that means novel you [74:56] play it's interesting because actually [74:59] what I actually think is happening there [75:00] is it's not that they are miserable with [75:04] the same person forever it's actually [75:06] the thought that's kind of what I said [75:08] the thought of being with the same [75:09] that's part that trap yeah well okay so [75:12] that's very good observation because [75:14] what see because that thought is going [75:16] to have a story attached to it the story [75:18] is going to be something like well I'm [75:20] with this person we both become [75:23] unattractive quite rapidly we get [75:25] alienated from one another there's no [75:28] sexual dynamism or romance or excitement [75:31] and then we just sit you know and eat [75:32] like cold eggs while looking at each [75:34] other harshly over the table at [75:36] breakfast for 40 years yeah well yeah [75:39] that's [75:40] dismal so you know maybe don't do that [75:45] yeah yeah there's an element of control [75:47] to it on this point of headism as well I [75:49] was thinking because we're talk about [75:50] pornography but there's many types of [75:51] headism in my life whether it's you know [75:54] eating the [75:55] the cookie this is a I don't actually do [75:57] this but it's a metaphor of eating the [75:59] cookie from the mini bar in my hotel [76:01] room here in New York at 1:00 a.m. in [76:03] the morning when I know tomorrow I'm [76:05] going to regret it there's all these [76:06] forms of headism like scrolling on Tik [76:09] Tok or whatever it might be and headism [76:12] shows up in my life in these little [76:14] uncontrolled like oh gosh [ __ ] made a [76:17] mistake of course and it sometimes shows [76:19] up when I'm disabled in some way [76:21] emotionally disabled and so it's almost [76:24] it feels like it's a form of medicine [76:27] now I I could write down on this page [76:29] who I want to be I could say I don't [76:30] want to be the person eats the cookie I [76:31] don't want to be on Tik Tok I don't want [76:33] to watch pornography all those kinds of [76:34] things but then staving off that moment [76:37] where you know you're you're weakened in [76:40] some way and I use that word maybe [76:42] you're weakened in some way by something [76:44] tired or [76:45] whatever sticking to those principles [76:48] when in that moment when it's hard is [76:50] that just again a case of just being [76:52] clear on what I want in the long ter [76:53] well that helps it helps practice helps [76:56] um surrounding yourself with people who [76:59] have the same aim and that keep [77:01] you um responsible MH accountable that [77:06] helps oh yeah you need all of that [77:08] because that battle the battle between [77:10] immediate gratification and medium to [77:12] long-term investment that's a real [77:14] battle you know like the the right [77:16] amount of pleasure in the moment isn't [77:19] zero yeah okay I want to live a life of [77:21] misery so well right right and you can't [77:23] you don't want to be the joy grind for [77:26] whom everything is [77:28] tomorrow yeah right it's very hard to [77:31] because what you're trying to do is [77:32] you're trying to optimize emotion and [77:35] strategy over all time frames and you [77:38] don't know how long that time frame is [77:40] well that that's also a problem exactly [77:42] exactly might have one day left or right [77:44] so I don't need to well we also know you [77:46] know when people are say off to a battle [77:50] in Wartime they party like there's no [77:53] tomorrow well [77:55] because maybe there isn't so [77:58] definitely the the religious insistence [78:00] is that you should live in the light of [78:04] Eternity right is that you should [78:06] attempt to conduct yourself in a manner [78:08] that is best All Things Considered over [78:11] the longest possible conceivable span of [78:14] time now does that mean don't have the [78:20] desert no no because no it doesn't mean [78:23] that because look in the biblical text [78:26] for example there is an insistence that [78:29] uh the spirit of the Divine wants the [78:32] provision of life more abundant that's [78:34] the language the the idea of a fruitful [78:37] Garden an Earthly Garden of delights [78:40] even that's part and parcel of a vision [78:42] of paradise it's not joyless it's it's [78:46] harmoniously balanced I think best way [78:49] to think about it is likely musically [78:51] you know in in a musical piece that's [78:53] great every know has its place every [78:56] note has its proper place in [78:58] relationship to the whole right but [79:00] every note is also worthwhile well [79:02] that's what you want is you want to [79:04] balance your concentration on the [79:07] present with your apprehension of the [79:10] medium to long run so I'll give you an [79:12] example that so I did I did a course for [79:14] Peterson Academy called It's On The [79:17] Sermon on the Mount And The Sermon on [79:19] the Mount is the longest record we have [79:22] of Christ's Direct utterances let's say [79:26] and it constitutes the core of Christian [79:30] ethics it's a set of instructions and [79:33] the instructions are very [79:34] specific so essentially the instruction [79:38] is to aim at every moment at what's [79:42] highest okay so this something you have [79:44] to practice okay so the idea is that at [79:48] each moment you're bringing to Bear a [79:50] certain attitude and the attitude is I'm [79:52] going to do what's best [79:57] okay all things considered for me now [80:01] for me now in a way that works tomorrow [80:03] for me now in a way that works tomorrow [80:05] and next week and next month and next [80:07] year and five years from now and 10 [80:09] years from now in relationship to my [80:11] wife in relationship to my kids to my [80:14] parents to my community right it's that [80:16] whole identity you're optimizing that [80:19] now you might not know how but that's [80:21] your aim okay so that's that's the [80:25] injunction to put the love of God above [80:28] all else to aim at what's highest now [80:31] you don't exactly know how to do that [80:32] but that doesn't matter you can specify [80:34] your aim right now no doubt you do [80:38] something like that with your [80:40] podcast right that's why it's successful [80:42] yeah okay you agree with that yeah why [80:45] because it's it's difficult isn't it [80:47] there's just immense pressure when [80:49] you're a podcaster um to aim at [80:51] something else and you have to me and [80:54] Jack talk about this a lot you have to [80:55] have like a certain set of principles [80:56] that are unnegotiable but whatever [80:58] principles you choose and believe in [81:00] they come at a great cost okay what are [81:02] the principles so see this is worth [81:04] delving into because You' be very [81:05] successful as aast one of my principles [81:07] is I will I try not to judge the people [81:10] I'm speaking to and I try not to come in [81:13] with um preconceptions I take them as I [81:16] meet them I I try not to I'm in such of [81:21] genuine curiosity in them or some kind [81:23] of answer or truth [81:25] right so there's a surch in it yeah it's [81:27] that's a quest so you know an adventure [81:30] story is a quest did I answer that [81:31] question yeah yeah yeah there there's [81:34] only one thing I would take issue with [81:35] you said that you don't judge see I [81:38] would say probably you don't condemn you [81:41] have to judge because you have to listen [81:42] and you have to separate wheat from [81:44] chaff you have to evaluate but you can [81:46] do that without careless condemn [81:49] condemnation or a priori what would you [81:52] say like a tyrannical is insistence that [81:55] what you know now is sufficient okay [81:58] exactly yeah yeah you want to not people [82:01] say I'm not judgmental it's like that's [82:03] not a virtue you want to be you want to [82:05] use judgment all the time but that's not [82:09] to con like I could judge you so I don't [82:11] ever have to listen to you about [82:13] anything yeah judgment might happen in [82:15] my head but it's then about how I treat [82:17] the person based on that judgment I [82:19] don't want to treat them based I don't [82:20] want to have some like higher um [82:23] egotistical values I'm I'm correct and [82:25] that yeah yeah that's that's right [82:27] that's exactly it that's a hypocritical [82:30] moralizing it's the moralizing it's like [82:32] I think I'm better than you because [82:33] that's exactly exactly that's right you [82:35] don't want to you definitely don't want [82:36] to do that in the podcast journalists [82:38] the pathological journalists they that's [82:39] all they do all they're doing is [82:42] establishing moral [82:43] superiority on the flimsiest possible [82:45] grounds at the least possible cost in [82:47] the most spectacular way yeah it's [82:50] really not it's hard being a podcaster [82:51] especially in this particular moment [82:53] where there's been such a [82:54] focus on podcasting because of what's [82:56] happened in this election cycle yeah you [82:58] really have to be clear on what you [83:00] believe in because the winds are going [83:01] to blow like that the world is going to [83:04] try and sway you they're going to say [83:05] you can't speak to this person you have [83:06] to speak to this person don't do that [83:08] don't do this this is wrong and you go [83:09] okay so how do I weather such a storm [83:11] when when I know the storm is coming I [83:13] have to look to Rogan to go yeah look at [83:14] what you know Rogan The Arc of Rogan and [83:18] if I'm if I'm also a podcaster just keep [83:20] asking stupid [83:22] questions yeah well that but you know [83:25] that is that Quest that and and what [83:28] people want in a discussion is a quest [83:30] they want to see blood hounds on the [83:33] trail towards some truth that's what [83:35] they're after they want to participate [83:37] in that same with the public lectures I [83:39] do I'm always trying to answer a [83:41] question I don't know what the answer is [83:42] when I go on stage it's a real question [83:44] do you think Joe has Joe Rogan I've [83:46] never actually met him but do you think [83:47] he's just has great faith in humans and [83:51] there because there's obviously been a [83:53] lot of pressure on on him so how he [83:55] survived that is he just has faith in [83:58] who he is he has faith in his own [84:00] ignorance okay and that those watching [84:03] which is a lot of people watching Rogan [84:05] will understand yeah yeah yeah yeah [84:09] Joe's on a quest he's trying to be [84:11] smarter than he is that's what Joe does [84:14] it's curiosity that's driving him this [84:16] is what musk said too about himself and [84:19] he said that's to me when I interviewed [84:20] him he said that was how he reconciled [84:23] he had a terrible existential crisis [84:24] when he was like 13 you know and he [84:28] reconciled that essentially with the [84:30] quest he decided that he could just [84:31] pursue truth pursue knowledge pursue [84:35] understanding and that that would that's [84:37] meaningful intrinsically and valuable [84:40] intrinsically and that's the beginnings [84:42] of a religious orientation or more than [84:44] the beginnings even because the quest is [84:46] a religious Pursuit it's pursuit of the [84:49] truth it's pursuit of the treasure that [84:50] the dragon guards right and so treasures [84:55] and Dragons they're always in the same [84:56] place it's very annoying it's a good [84:59] thing to know though because if a dragon [85:00] shows up you can always ask yourself [85:03] where the treasure is might be close [85:07] it's [85:08] there so okay so back to The Sermon on [85:11] the Mount because we're talking about [85:13] orientation so aim [85:16] up assume that other people have the [85:19] same value as you do and that that value [85:21] is associated with whatever is divine [85:24] and and then concentrate on the moment [85:26] mhm right so it's the the most distant [85:31] possible upward aim with the most [85:33] intense possible concentration on the [85:35] moment right you're good at [85:38] that that's what that's I can't say [85:42] that's what's made you successful but [85:44] it's certainly part of it [85:45] because you pay attention see that's [85:48] that's what paying attention means [85:50] because you want your your your intent [85:55] to be focused because otherwise your [85:57] attention is fragmented so you want your [86:00] attention to be focused now your [86:01] attention is focused on something now we [86:03] we we pulled it apart a little bit you [86:06] said that you're you know you have these [86:08] principles and that you're trying to [86:10] learn and so your attention is pretty [86:11] focused and then you bring all that to [86:13] bear in the moment right and then people [86:15] find that compelling because they're on [86:17] they're they're along for the ride [86:19] they're long for the adventure and that [86:21] is Meaningful it's the essence of [86:22] meaningful and so so so what we were [86:26] trying to address was the relationship [86:28] between Hedonism and and say intelligent [86:31] long-term pro-social strategy you can [86:34] you want the both you want you want [86:37] there's a [86:39] optimized solution that delivers both [86:42] far better than any other solution this [86:45] is the pearl of great price that Christ [86:47] speaks about that anyone wise and [86:50] Wealthy would sell everything they own [86:52] to purchase there isn't anything better [86:55] than that for the for the person [86:57] listening right now that is struggling [86:59] with this concept of like we talked [87:01] about headism discipline like they're [87:03] just so far from it because there's a [87:05] scale of people that are you know able [87:07] to stay focused on the long term for the [87:10] people at the very other end of the [87:11] scale who just look at their lives and [87:13] go I just I hear what he's [87:16] saying for some reason it's not working [87:18] like I can't get out of this situation y [87:20] you meet maybe you can't start on the [87:23] porn side then you know like my this [87:26] is how a good behavior analyst [87:30] approaches problems of that sort it's [87:33] like [87:35] okay is there something in your life [87:37] that you know is not right that you [87:43] could improve that you would [87:46] improve any step [87:49] whatsoever well generally you can just [87:52] ask yourself that question it's like [87:53] it's a contemplative exercise sit on the [87:56] edge of your bed and think okay where is [87:59] my life off-kilter [88:02] is so then then you have a variety of [88:06] ideas about how yeah okay okay I'm on my [88:09] mom's bed I'm me I've got no [88:10] relationship my job's crap I hate it [88:12] okay then I'd say zero in on one of [88:14] those yeah and find some small thing [88:17] that you could fix that you would fix [88:19] why a small thing well because look at [88:22] you you're completely godamn useless you [88:24] you better find something small that you [88:25] can do now if you can find a big thing [88:28] good but obviously you haven't been able [88:29] to CU all these problems exist so [88:33] see one of the emphasis in the religious [88:37] realm let's say is humility one of the [88:39] things that's emphasized well what's [88:41] humility what's the opposite of Pride [88:43] well humility is starting where you [88:46] are that's what humility is and it's [88:49] annoying because you know like if your [88:51] life is a mess then you have to see that [88:54] you're the person in that mess then you [88:56] have to understand that your [88:59] first attempt to redress the mess might [89:02] not be something you're particularly [89:04] proud of you know I mean I saw this Lots [89:06] in my clinical practice where people [89:08] would the first steps they had to take [89:10] to put things in order were pretty [89:12] embarrassing it's like really that's all [89:14] I can [89:14] do hey man uphill is better than [89:18] downhill and there's a Doctrine in the [89:22] gospels that Christ puts forward which [89:24] is very interesting he says uh it's the [89:26] Matthew principle it's called to those [89:28] who have everything more will be given [89:31] from those who have nothing everything [89:32] will be [89:33] taken okay so it it lays out a view of [89:36] the world [89:38] progress regression that's one model [89:41] here's another one [89:43] progress [89:45] regression this is the right model so [89:48] even if you have to start small you [89:51] incre you ACR success in um [89:54] exponentially you acre defeat [89:56] exponentially too that's the abyss that [90:00] is hell you start going downhill you go [90:03] downhill faster and faster start going [90:06] uphill you go uphill faster and faster [90:08] so even if you have to start small or [90:10] even painfully small which is highly [90:12] probable especially if you're trying to [90:14] tackle something that's really plagued [90:16] you doesn't really matter house [90:19] small take I would say take the step [90:22] that you can take that you will take [90:24] that actually feels like some [90:26] accomplishment imagine you're dealing [90:27] with a three-year-old kid and you want [90:29] to encourage him okay you want to set [90:32] him a task that he you don't want him to [90:34] say Dad I could do that when I was [90:37] two right but you don't want to set him [90:40] a task that there's not a chance he'll [90:43] manage you want to set him a task that [90:45] will stretch him Beyond where he is that [90:47] has a reasonable probability of success [90:51] right why why stretch him from where he [90:53] is well because you want to grow I mean [90:56] look if you love a child you love the [91:00] child for who he is and who he could be [91:02] and you want [91:03] to indicate your love for both of [91:08] those I think if you're a father you [91:10] tilt even more towards love for who the [91:13] child could be what is self-belief in [91:16] this context because people people [91:17] everyone's looking so many people are in [91:19] search of two words I think that's three [91:22] words but self-belief and confidence [91:23] idence yeah and in this context of that [91:27] small task how is that building my [91:29] self-belief or confidence yeah because [91:32] you watch yourself do it and that does [91:34] work to well well look if you see [91:37] someone a friend who is continually [91:40] incrementally improving you're going to [91:44] well maybe you'll be jealous and [91:45] resentful and bitter and miserable and [91:46] try to undermine them but assuming [91:48] you're not like completely encapsulated [91:50] by dark Forces you'll think oh that's [91:54] admirable well you you see the same [91:57] thing in yourself you have to [92:01] act you have to develop an opinion of [92:04] yourself the same way you would develop [92:06] an opinion of someone else so now and [92:09] I'm not hypothesizing about this by the [92:11] way we know this clinically if I want to [92:14] truly help you build your [92:17] confidence rather than [92:19] merely readjusting the words you say [92:22] about yourself which which would be [92:24] something like self-esteem which is [92:26] something that doesn't even exist by the [92:28] way it's just a pathological concept [92:30] altogether you want confidence okay more [92:34] to the point you want the confidence [92:36] that's based in competence otherwise [92:38] it's narcissistic okay so how do you [92:41] develop that well you watch yourself [92:44] exceed your [92:45] limits and then you think oh look at [92:47] that there's something in me that can [92:49] exceed my limits that's your true self [92:52] that's a good way of thinking about it [92:54] and in doing so you actually realize [92:55] that limits exist and you imposed one on [92:57] yourself in the first place well you [92:59] that's one of the things you can realize [93:00] certainly that that also you don't [93:03] exactly know where the limits are it's [93:05] like oh I exceeded that it's like okay [93:07] well now what what's the upward limit to [93:10] exceed what's the upward Arc of [93:13] exceeding limits that's Jacob's lad I [93:16] would say this is the promise of the [93:18] kingdom of God that's one way of [93:20] thinking about it there's no upward [93:22] limit there's no limit how bad things [93:24] can get no one would deny that who has [93:28] any [93:29] sense so that means in a way that hell [93:33] exists you can find your way there with [93:35] no problem in terms of energy there are [93:38] so many reasons why I'm a big matcha fan [93:40] if you don't already know by now and so [93:41] much so that I actually invested in the [93:43] UK's leading matcha company called [93:45] perfect Ted and one of my favorite [93:46] perfect Ted products is these delicious [93:49] matcha pouches that come in every flavor [93:51] from salted caramel to Peach flavor to [93:54] mint flavor to Berry flavor one of my [93:56] favorites is this vanilla flavor which [93:58] I'm going to make in just two seconds [94:01] you just take this mixer here get a [94:03] little bit of the powder pop it on top [94:05] of the shaker like that put the lid [94:10] on shake shake [94:15] shake delicious if you haven't tried [94:17] this yet you can find perfect Ted at [94:19] Tesco and Holland Barrett stores or [94:21] online where you can get 40% off with my [94:23] code [94:24] diary 40 head to perfect.com and put in [94:27] code diary 40 to try this delicious [94:29] multi-flavored match now highly [94:31] recommend and if you do it please tag me [94:33] send me a message online it's [94:34] interesting what's going on with young [94:35] men in particular at the moment because [94:37] it does appear and I don't have the [94:39] stats on this in front of me but it does [94:41] appear that young men are more and more [94:43] in search of some type of religion yeah [94:47] definitely I think I think Islam I think [94:49] I read Islam's On The Rise amongst young [94:51] men or it's the the dominant religion [94:53] that young men are being drawn to but in [94:55] the context of what we've described that [94:57] person who sat on the edge of their bed [94:59] do they need religion and I'm being [95:01] intentional not to say God I'm saying [95:04] religion well it's these are hard things [95:06] to do on your own right I mean you only [95:10] have the span of your life and the [95:12] probability that you can figure out how [95:15] to live merely as a consequence of [95:17] Consulting your own limited experience [95:19] is zero it's too complicated so the [95:22] religion might be your societ it might [95:24] be your friends your family in in this [95:26] context is that's part of it that that [95:27] would be the more structured part the [95:29] more traditional part you need the [95:31] traditional [95:34] stories that's why I wrote this book is [95:36] to indicate well at least in part well [95:39] what the stories are and also what what [95:41] they mean it's not only that it's not [95:44] only what they mean it's how knowing [95:46] what they mean changes your life so for [95:49] example in the story of [95:51] Abraham God comes to AB Abraham okay [95:55] now questions emerge from that [95:58] statement what do you mean God and how [96:01] does he come to Abraham what the hell [96:03] does that mean well the story lays that [96:05] out the god that comes to Abraham is the [96:08] voice of [96:09] Adventure it's a [96:12] definition this is a good thing to [96:14] know God is the voice of [96:17] Adventure okay so now think let's think [96:19] about this a little bit so the god [96:22] that's the voice of Adventure is the god [96:24] of the forefathers of Abraham the father [96:26] he's a patriarchal Spirit okay if you're [96:29] a good father you speak with the voice [96:32] of Adventure to your [96:33] sons obviously you know you're [96:36] encouraging them it's like get the hell [96:38] out there you know make something of [96:40] yourself why do you do that because you [96:43] have this little kid and you think get [96:45] at it man let's see what you can be and [96:49] so that's that voice of the benevolent [96:51] father and that's the spirit of the [96:52] ancestors and behind that there's the [96:55] god who's the voice of Adventure if you [96:57] pursue the spirit of [96:59] Adventure there will be things you have [97:02] to give [97:02] up right you know that I mean you know [97:05] you you're taking steps we'd even stay [97:08] that steps forward in your life what do [97:10] you mean forward what do you mean steps [97:13] well there are Little Adventures you [97:14] have that transform you and transform [97:17] your circumstances okay you have that [97:21] adventure and you have to change [97:24] as a consequence of it you have to give [97:26] up your immaturity so that you can take [97:28] advantage of this new [97:31] opportunity okay and that changes you [97:33] now you're a slightly different person [97:35] now A New Horizon of opportunity opens [97:37] up you have to make a sacrifice it's [97:39] like okay looks like if I'm going to do [97:42] this I can no longer afford this well [97:47] Abraham changes so dramatically that he [97:49] gets a new name he starts as Abraham and [97:53] he ends is Abraham Abraham is the father [97:55] of Nations so what's the moral if you [97:59] pursue the spirit of Adventure and make [98:01] the proper sacrifices you become the [98:03] father of [98:05] Nations right that's [98:08] true there's a really interesting I I [98:10] grew up as religious until I was 18 I [98:13] say religious because terms difficult to [98:16] Define to me but um my my mother's was [98:18] believed in God she was Christian my [98:20] father's Christian and at about 18 I [98:22] started reading of Richard Dawkins books [98:24] and other people's books and I got to [98:26] this place where I think I was atheist [98:28] by the definition of I didn't think [98:29] there was necessarily a God and now I [98:31] find myself in this place of being [98:32] agnostic now when I think about the [98:34] Bible as a compass or as a as a guide [98:38] the the part of my brain that's like [98:40] rooted in this like I need evidence for [98:42] everything goes is this just a book that [98:44] a bunch of men wrote thousands of years [98:46] ago when they were sat around a campfire [98:48] or whatever and if if it is then it's [98:50] just one person's opinion as much as any [98:53] as much much as any self-help book on a [98:54] shelf is one person's opinion well okay [98:57] let's take that claim apart I mean yes [98:59] it is stories that people came up with [99:01] thousands of years ago but no definitely [99:04] not one person's opinion definitely 100% [99:06] not because these stories have been [99:09] transmitted over Millennia and organized [99:13] and edited and transformed by a very [99:15] large number of people so it's at [99:18] minimum it's a massive Collective effort [99:21] and it's a collective under effort [99:22] undertak by arguably the most literate [99:25] and intelligent people there are and [99:28] that'd be the Jews why would I listen to [99:30] the Bible more than I'd listen to [99:31] something Socrates wrote or any [99:33] philosopher oh there's a huge overlap [99:35] between the the Greco the Greek [99:37] philosophical tradition and and the [99:39] Christian tradition I [99:41] mean Western culture is the amalgamation [99:45] of Greece Jerusalem and Rome so and the [99:49] early Christians saw tremendous [99:51] parallels between Christian Theology and [99:54] Greek philosophy where do you think we [99:57] we come from you know you've got the [99:58] like Darwinism evolutionary theory of [100:00] we've evolved Etc then there's the more [100:02] religious view that you know if you [100:04] really think about the the first [100:06] testament and um the early Testament and [100:09] the stories of the you know [100:11] creation people think you know maybe we [100:13] were just popped out of nowhere but [100:15] where do where do we youth believe that [100:16] we come from do you believe a God put us [100:18] here or do you believe that do you [100:19] believe evolution is true do you believe [100:20] both are true you have to read the book [100:23] but I want I want to I know and fair but [100:25] but I I'm not trying to be a a smart [100:28] alic in in that response it's a [100:31] complicated answer yeah right it's a [100:33] complicated answer I think that we're [100:36] Guided by the spirit of [100:39] meaning okay I think that's also our [100:42] deepest Instinct that's somewhat D wiium [100:45] well I had a rule for this book is I [100:47] didn't make any claims about the [100:49] biblical stories that I couldn't justify [100:51] scientifically I don't think there's a [100:55] conflict I I think that viewing the [100:58] biblical stories as an amalgam of [101:00] superstitious protos scientific theories [101:02] is absurd I don't think there's any [101:04] evidence for that at all these are [101:06] stories So Stories and scientific [101:08] hypotheses aren't the same thing the [101:10] Lord of the Rings is not a scientific [101:14] hypothesis but that doesn't mean it's [101:16] not true do you believe my great great [101:17] great great Granddad was a an [101:20] amoeba well if you go you were a sperm [101:23] at one point I mean it's not that [101:25] implausible we all come from single [101:27] celled organisms this is I'm asking [101:29] these questions because I'm genuinely [101:31] it's like I'm genuinely wrestling with a [101:33] bunch of big existential questions that [101:35] I've actually only been wrestling with [101:36] maybe for like I'd say a year yeah so [101:38] it's very fresh for me and it's funny my [101:40] arc here is religious Christian up until [101:43] maybe 18 yeah like staunch atheist for [101:45] two years to the point that it was like [101:47] my identity yeah and then like yeah let [101:50] go of that drifted for a couple of years [101:52] and find myself it's really interesting [101:53] point where I'm like back at the door of [101:55] like okay let's re look at some of these [101:57] answers again yeah well that's exactly [101:59] why I wrote this book because I know [102:01] that that's the time and it's not just [102:02] the time for you that's the time that [102:05] we're in yeah it's the time we're in [102:07] 100% oh definitely definitely well it's [102:10] partly [102:11] because the enlightenment has exhausted [102:15] itself partly because it was wrong it's [102:17] failed us the individual I think [102:19] exhausted is a better word because it [102:21] wasn't like the enlightenment was [102:22] without its [102:24] benefits technological progress the the [102:28] hypothet the materialist reductionism [102:32] of the atheist scientist okay it's not [102:37] right factually they were wrong their [102:40] theory of perception was wrong they're [102:44] wrong we see the world through a story [102:47] we do not see the world as a collection [102:50] of facts they're wrong you see the [102:53] postmodernists figured this out and [102:54] that's why the postmodernist had a [102:57] walloping influence on culture now I'm [102:59] no fan of the postmodernist for a [103:01] variety of reasons but their insistence [103:04] that we see the world through a story [103:06] that they're right that's right I agree [103:08] I mean if you if you obviously read the [103:10] book sapiens um by novel Harari and his [103:14] central point is that what bound us as [103:16] humans and stop us being these scattered [103:17] chimps with stories they bind us [103:19] together so I completely understand that [103:20] we need a story it's how everything [103:22] money governments Etc function but what [103:25] that story is now I can I can agree that [103:27] a story of voluntary [103:30] sacrifice 100% agree that humans need [103:32] that there's no chance that we'd be here [103:33] otherwise and it's a set of values and [103:35] principles now those values and [103:37] principles are often found in religion [103:40] but do they and and a belief in a God [103:42] but do they have to be could they be [103:44] found in could I theoretically make a [103:46] new religion where me and my friends [103:49] all unite against a set of values [103:51] sacrifice give that's a great question [103:54] well this is what n basically [103:56] presupposed in some ways so when when n [103:59] observed that God had died say in 1850 [104:03] or [104:03] thereabouts his medication for that his [104:07] warning was we'll descend into nihilism [104:10] and communist [104:13] totalitarianism and that was exactly [104:16] right maybe a Mindless Hedonism in there [104:19] too dovi concentrated more on that nche [104:22] said we'll have to create our own values [104:24] we'll have to become that's what the [104:26] Superman is the nian Superman the man [104:28] who creates his own values mhm [104:31] try see what happens you can't do it you [104:35] can't create your own values because [104:36] values are [104:38] real they're not arbitrary they're not [104:43] relativistic so imagine this imagine [104:45] there's a very large number of games [104:47] that could be played like an infinitely [104:49] large number but there's a very small [104:51] number of games that people want to play [104:55] then there's even a smaller number of [104:57] games that sustain themselves and [104:59] improve as you play them okay so that's [105:02] like a landscape you could think about [105:04] it as a landscape of potential patterns [105:06] of interaction you could even think [105:08] about it as a landscape of potential [105:10] tribal [105:11] affiliations right the rules of those [105:13] games would be the principles of the [105:15] society okay now the question your [105:17] question is could we come up with our [105:19] own set of rules and the answer to that [105:21] is no why [105:24] because the sustainable abundant [105:29] playability of a game [105:31] is not arbitrary so for example if you [105:35] want to get along with your [105:37] wife she has to want to play the game [105:39] you're playing mhm okay now there's lots [105:43] of games you could play that aren't [105:45] going to fit that criteria yeah now then [105:47] imagine it's even worse though because [105:49] to get along with your wife you she has [105:51] to want to play the game you want to [105:53] play but both of you have to play a game [105:55] that works today and tomorrow and next [105:57] week next month next year right and then [106:00] you have to play it with your kids and [106:02] your parents and a bunch of other people [106:04] so can I ask then so is it the case that [106:07] humans are designed in such a way where [106:09] there's a certain set of values and [106:11] stories that are most conducive with [106:14] their reproductive survival and so if [106:18] that's true and I completely agree [106:19] understand why that would be true [106:20] because this true true for all species [106:22] like there's a set of stories and [106:23] narratives probably in my dog if you go [106:26] back to a 100 years from when his [106:27] ancestors were in the wild that he [106:29] needed to subscribe to to reproduce to [106:32] be a dog and to survive as a dog but so [106:34] the question then becomes where do those [106:35] values come from are they innate within [106:37] us because of our environmental factors [106:41] so I need to be this way because of the [106:44] environment I live in so that I can have [106:45] sex with somebody and reproduce because [106:48] of I have two arms two legs Etc I'm this [106:50] Advanced chimp or do they come from [106:53] above somewhere and they're granted down [106:56] to me because if I look at every animal [106:59] not or and oh and okay yeah yeah it's [107:02] the same thing it it's you're looking at [107:04] the same problem from two different [107:06] perspectives it's and yes they're handed [107:09] down from on high yes their instincts so [107:12] who they handed down [107:16] from well the the the religious do you [107:19] struggle with this question well it's a [107:22] complicated question question but you [107:23] struggle with the [107:25] answer I I struggle with making the [107:28] answer simple enough to offer rapidly [107:30] are you clear yourself on [107:33] it not as clear as I could be what is it [107:37] you wrestle [107:39] with I've said well Clarity is part of [107:42] it I mean we we want to make things as [107:45] clear as possible breadth of Co coverage [107:48] right I mean I'm people ask me what I [107:51] believe and say well I'm not hiding what [107:53] I believe I'm like I lecture about it I [107:56] podcast about it I write about it it's [107:58] like that's what I believe there it is [108:01] is there obfuscation in that well some [108:04] partly things are complicated so it's [108:06] it's very difficult to give short [108:09] answers to complex questions they you [108:12] tend to give if you give short answers [108:14] to complex questions the answers tend to [108:16] be symbolic yeah you have to say [108:18] something like where do they come from [108:19] it's like well they come from [108:21] God now is that a useful answer well [108:24] it's a short answer so it's useful in [108:26] that it's short it begs the question [108:28] what do you mean by God we could return [108:31] to that in the story of Abraham these [108:34] are [108:35] definitions because if you're going to [108:36] talk about what's properly put in the [108:39] highest place you have to know what [108:41] you're talking about okay in the story [108:43] of Abraham the voice of Adventure is to [108:46] be put in the highest place and if you [108:48] follow that then you become the father [108:50] of Nations that's reproductive success [108:52] UC mhm right so that means the idea is [108:55] that there's an alignment between the [108:58] Instinct that calls you to Adventure and [109:01] the probability that you'll be [109:03] attractive to women in the manner that [109:05] ensures the survival of your descendants [109:08] and is that environmental it's both is [109:11] it's both it's both it's emerges as a [109:15] consequence of the constraints of social [109:17] interaction let's say like there's [109:20] constraints for example on what makes a [109:22] man desirable to a woman yeah right that [109:25] has nothing to do with you those [109:26] constraints those are there right [109:29] they're there in [109:31] the Society of women they're Eternal [109:35] they're not no woman she might vary in [109:38] her opinion to some degree but she [109:40] partakes of the pattern so it's there [109:44] now it's also built into you because [109:47] you're a social creature and so your [109:50] physiology [109:52] indicates to you the nature of that [109:55] pattern so does my dog have a different [109:58] religion to me does he have a different [109:59] God to some [110:01] degree it's it's there's an overlap [110:04] because you can communic the dog your [110:06] dog understands you and vice versa so [110:09] there's there's that's a good [110:12] question social mammals understand each [110:16] other right so there's an overlap in [110:19] their deepest instincts or their highest [110:21] impulses you can think about that both [110:23] ways I was I was going through my head [110:24] and thinking about like the Venus fly [110:26] trap and my my do my French Bulldog [110:28] Pablo and they all need a different set [110:31] of behaviors and principles and values [110:33] to Survive and Thrive and be happy well [110:35] you you could think about that as sure [110:37] sure I was thinking then does that mean [110:38] that they all have a [110:39] different yeah they have a different [110:41] intrinsic nature that's another way of [110:43] thinking about it yeah because of the [110:45] environment and the factors that they [110:46] face as that species so then Pablo's God [110:51] might be slightly different to my God if [110:53] we're talking about cuz I'm trying to [110:55] understand if like this idea of God is a [110:56] set of evolutionary [110:58] motivations yes that it is and it is [111:01] that you can think about it as rising up [111:03] from the material world or descending [111:05] from on Heaven it doesn't matter it [111:08] doesn't matter fundamentally it's the [111:10] same it doesn't matter there those are [111:13] different ways of looking at the same [111:14] problem when I say evolutionary [111:16] motivations it doesn't feel so Divine it [111:18] doesn't feel like a place a reason to [111:20] gather in a church it feels like like [111:23] I'm just kind of a a robot that's being [111:26] steered by these motivations of don't do [111:28] that do this this feels good if you're [111:30] with your friends and family you feel [111:31] good so do that more and if you're with [111:33] your friends and family you're safer so [111:34] you're more likely to have kids or is it [111:36] this sort of divine thing that we we [111:39] Society have told us God is where we [111:41] should worship and we should thank you [111:42] so much and go to a church and get on [111:44] our knees and pray because if there have [111:46] two very different things one is like [111:48] practical and pragmatic and the other [111:50] one is this divine [111:54] okay here's one way of thinking about it [111:56] so I mentioned that in the story of [112:00] Abraham God is the Call to Adventure [112:03] okay so that's a definition now the the [112:07] the Divine that's put forward in these [112:11] library of stories has multiple [112:13] characteristics he's characterized in [112:15] many ways but there's an insistence that [112:17] that reflects an underlying Unity now [112:19] the unity is incomprehensible in its [112:21] essence [112:23] okay so you have to accept that as the [112:25] initial starting point you're you're not [112:27] going to get the answer yeah okay you [112:30] can you can see something complex from a [112:33] variety of different perspectives okay [112:35] in the story of Noah God is the impulse [112:39] that comes to the wise to [112:42] prepare when trouble's Brewing yeah okay [112:45] now now okay so now you can think of [112:47] that as an instinct you can think about [112:49] it as got Instinct intuition negative [112:52] emot [112:53] anxiety but but it's more than that [112:55] because it's you can be afraid of [112:59] something that isn't real yeah okay now [113:01] you might have to ask yourself okay what [113:02] are the preconditions for your fear what [113:06] are the [113:07] preconditions to the validity of your [113:10] fear so you're afraid and you should be [113:13] well let's say that's a characteristic [113:15] of someone who's [113:16] wise okay so then the question is well [113:19] what's the essence of the wisdom that [113:21] makes your fear valid [113:23] Noah is described in the story of Noah [113:26] as a man wise in his [113:28] Generations so that means that by the [113:31] moral standards of his time he's an [113:33] upstanding human being okay so now you [113:36] can imagine that means he exists in [113:39] harmonious relationship with his present [113:41] self and his future self okay that makes [113:44] him mature but then he also does that in [113:47] a way that serves his wife and his [113:48] family and his community MH so his self [113:52] is is balanced and optimized across [113:55] those parameters that makes [113:58] him secure in his foundation and [114:00] properly oriented if you're secure in [114:03] your foundation and properly oriented [114:06] upward then there's no difference [114:09] between the voice of the Divine and the [114:11] Instinct for the Instinct that preserves [114:13] you in times of trouble but you see you [114:16] can't exactly get there by the mere [114:18] bottomup materialistic notion because [114:21] you could think of about the fear that [114:23] guides Noah as an instinct but the [114:25] instinct is pathological unless it [114:28] exists in this wider moral [114:30] framework because then you could have [114:32] the fear of a coward well that's not [114:36] helpful The Wider moral framework could [114:39] that wider moral framework just [114:42] be I'm in My DNA I'm hardwired to want [114:44] to [114:45] reproduce because yeah but rep even [114:47] reproduction isn't see this is I think [114:49] where Dawkins went dreadfully wrong sex [114:52] and reproduction aren't the same thing [114:53] for people not anymore certainly well [114:57] not at all because we're High investment [115:00] reproducers sex just gets the ball [115:03] rolling so so here's a question how [115:06] would you have to act to maximally [115:09] ensure the survival of your Offspring [115:11] okay so [115:12] now what do you mean survival do you [115:17] mean that your son lives do you mean [115:20] that your grandson lives do you mean [115:22] that 20 Generations down the road from [115:26] you the pattern that you represented is [115:29] still propagating itself successfully [115:31] does it mean that the people that you [115:33] produce are able to take on all [115:35] Challengers because of the manner in [115:36] which they conduct themselves that's a [115:39] lot more complicated than just sex like [115:42] way more complicated so the pattern that [115:44] Abraham so Abraham is the father of [115:47] Nations [115:49] right the [115:52] there's an insistence in the story that [115:55] the manner in which he conducts [115:57] himself as a hero establishes the [116:02] pattern that makes his [116:04] descendants successful [116:07] eternally I I just can't figure out [116:09] whether this is um whether like what [116:13] what order things happened in in terms [116:15] of is the Bible just a consequence of [116:17] people trying to figure out our [116:19] evolutionary motivations and turn them [116:21] into these stories that guide us why [116:24] just okay we can remove the word just [116:27] well but that's an important removal [116:29] it's an important removal because it's [116:31] you know because it's it has bound is [116:32] the Bible in part the story of human [116:35] beings coming to Consciousness yes yeah [116:38] yes okay yeah does it reflect a deeper [116:41] underlying reality yes yeah how deep is [116:44] that underlying well let's say okay it's [116:45] a story about the [116:48] psyche and then that say well no it's a [116:50] story about the psyche in Society okay [116:53] so well no it's a story about the psyche [116:56] in society in the natural world mhm okay [117:00] well what's underneath that the source [117:04] of nature society and the psyche this is [117:06] an an interesting question it's very [117:07] direct one but I would love just an [117:09] answer that I because I haven't got [117:11] Clarity on this what is it you believe [117:13] what what God is it that you believe in [117:15] I've I heard you talk about this sort of [117:17] substrate idea and such but in a simple [117:19] way that I can understand do you believe [117:21] in man in the sky God do you believe in [117:24] it's a well that's not as that's not as [117:26] primitive a conceptualization as the [117:29] atheists would have you believe what is [117:31] it you believe well there isn't anything [117:33] more complex in the known universe than [117:35] a human brain MH so if you want a model [117:39] for reality as such like proclaiming [117:44] that it has something akin to the [117:46] structure of the human psyche is not an [117:49] absurd claim given that that is the most [117:51] complex Thing by far that we know of by [117:55] far so what is it you [117:56] believe well I've been explaining it but [117:59] I mean I I did say I mentioned something [118:03] which we skipped over very quickly [118:05] because I introduced it too [118:07] rapidly the postmodernists figured out [118:10] that we live in a story but then they Le [118:12] to a faulty conclusion of two forms well [118:16] three there's no uniting story that was [118:20] one of their conclusions in fact the [118:22] definition of postmodernism is [118:24] skepticism of meta narratives there's no [118:27] uniting story it's like well that's a [118:30] stupid Theory because it there's no [118:33] Union so what there's just diversity [118:36] well we worship diversity now in this [118:38] utterly foolish manner there's no [118:41] difference between diversity and [118:43] War without a uniting narrative there's [118:46] nothing but War so no that's not going [118:51] to work wrong [118:53] hedonistic self-gratification there's [118:55] Michelle Fuko for you to a T it's like [118:58] why is that wrong why can't people just [119:00] do what they want with whoever they want [119:02] all the time because it defeats itself [119:04] and quickly it's not a sustainable game [119:07] if it's all about you and your whims I [119:10] don't want to be anywhere near you and [119:13] that won't be so good for you that's not [119:15] going to work [119:17] power that's really where the [119:19] postmodernists landed with their what [119:21] would you say temptation to turn towards [119:26] marks it's all about power it's like [119:29] first of all that's probably a [119:30] confession if that's what you believe [119:32] and second no it's not try tyrannizing [119:36] your wife and see how well that works [119:39] for you try tyrannizing yourself and see [119:41] how successful you are power is not the [119:44] game okay what's the game what's the [119:48] story I mentioned earlier it's voluntary [119:56] self-sacrifice right you offer yourself [119:58] up in the service of something higher [120:01] That's the basis of society That's the [120:03] basis of psychological stability the [120:05] Christian insistence is that That's the [120:08] basis of the world I'm gonna ask you [120:10] again because I I want to be I want to [120:12] be clear is what what is what is it you [120:15] what is the god you believe in I think [120:18] that the claim that Christ is the [120:19] embodiment of the prophet and the laws I [120:22] think that's true okay [120:24] yeah that that's complicated it's very [120:27] very complicated but I think it's true [120:29] so you believe that Jesus was God God [120:35] yeah I I think I think if you understand [120:40] what that means that it's [120:42] indisputable I I'll give you I'll give [120:44] you a brief explanation of why [120:53] Christ takes the sins of the world onto [120:57] himself so that means all the problems [121:00] that there are are his [121:03] problems right okay [121:10] so the the idea there is that there's no [121:15] difference between making that [121:16] assumption and then actually beginning [121:18] to address those problems and there's no [121:21] difference between that which best [121:24] addresses the problems of [121:27] mankind that and the Divine those are [121:30] the same thing and I can't see how that [121:33] can be otherwise because the contrary [121:36] hypothesis would be that you would adapt [121:38] best to your life by avoiding things [121:40] that are difficult and terrifying and No [121:43] One Believes that and so the pattern of [121:45] the passion this is the voluntary [121:48] self-sacrifice issue taken to its [121:50] extreme the pattern of the passion is [121:53] the decision to voluntarily confront and [121:56] welcome anything that happens to [121:58] you no matter what it is [122:02] and that's a terrible thing to ask or [122:07] Endeavor [122:08] to undertake [122:11] but well the alternative is to shrink [122:15] away well the spirit of shrinking away [122:18] is the Divine it's like I don't think so [122:22] that that's [122:24] preposterous the spirit of unlimited [122:27] courage well that's not a bad start for [122:30] a definition of what constitutes the [122:33] Divine the highest possible [122:37] value has your belief in God religion [122:41] been shaken at all oh [122:44] yes [122:47] definitely because you've been [122:48] constantly over the last year and a half [122:51] two years you've been through a [122:52] particularly difficult time with losing [122:54] people in your life that are um were [122:57] foundational to you Tammy as well oh [122:59] yeah well and I was in extreme pain for [123:03] three [123:05] years right I went through three years [123:07] where every minute of my life was worse [123:10] than any minute I had ever had previous [123:13] to that it was [123:16] terrible and did I lose [123:20] faith was it questioned challenged [123:24] absolutely [123:26] absolutely um it it just became [123:30] absurd it was absurd so many things had [123:33] gone off the rails in my wife was dying [123:38] my daughter was ill I [123:41] was things had blown up around me in 50 [123:44] different ways and I was like seriously [123:48] in pain was terrible I was walking like [123:51] 12 miles a day because I couldn't sit I [123:54] did that for [123:56] months winter rain whenever I had a [123:59] friend who walked with me was terrible [124:03] and yeah I mean I thought what was the [124:06] desperation it wasn't even the pain it [124:08] was the fact that I was in such terrible [124:11] shape that I felt that I was a felt I [124:16] believed that I was a burden to everyone [124:19] around me and that that was only likely [124:21] to get get [124:22] worse and I thought what's the sense in [124:25] this what's the possible significance of [124:29] this so yes everyone's faith is [124:33] challenged I mean Christ [124:35] himself cries in despair out to God on [124:38] the cross and the story wouldn't be [124:41] believable without [124:43] that like if you're going to live you're [124:45] going to be pushed past your [124:47] limit right if you're going to [124:50] live so [124:52] so but who knows what you discover when [124:55] you're pushed past your limit in that [124:59] moment you know I've been in my [125:01] relationship for some time now and I [125:02] genuinely think I'd [125:04] rather I'd rather die myself than my [125:06] partner die [125:08] uhuh and you were there as Tammy was [125:11] struggling with her health yeah which is [125:14] not something I've heard you actually [125:15] talk about before in what I've observed [125:18] she was she was dying [125:22] is that harder to take for you than your [125:26] own pain and struggle I think generally [125:28] if you love someone it's worse to see [125:30] them suffer than to suffer yourself you [125:32] certainly figure that out when you have [125:34] kids and this all happens at the same [125:36] moment the same couple of years of your [125:40] life is there anything to you know [125:44] people always search for Silver Linings [125:45] and [125:46] things is there anything we're both [125:50] alive my family is thriving the my [125:54] adventure is [125:56] expanding life isn't fair is it doesn't [125:59] appear to be very fair because I mean [126:01] this is how your story ended it in that [126:03] regard but it could I don't know if an [126:05] adventure is [126:06] fair I don't even know if that's what we [126:09] want like this is something I really [126:11] came to understand more deeply when [126:13] writing this book what are we built [126:16] for we're built for maximal [126:19] Challenge and that isn't the way we view [126:22] ourselves in the modern world we we view [126:24] ourselves as built for pleasure you know [126:27] pornography we we view ourselves as [126:30] built for [126:31] consumption or for safety or [126:35] for or for for maybe for egotistical [126:39] self-aggrandisement and [126:41] fame those [126:43] are look many all of those things are [126:47] better than their absence let's say you [126:51] know I think part of the reason that [126:52] Andrew Tate is so popular among young [126:54] men because it it's better to be a [126:56] successful reprobate than a useless [127:01] scer seriously I mean seriously well [127:04] that's why the villain in stories is [127:06] often admirable compared to the coward [127:09] right at least the villain is out there [127:10] like doing villain things you know but [127:15] at least he has meaning well and he he's [127:18] not he's not the villain at least the [127:21] villain villain has meaning the the [127:23] villain's on a quest of sorts you know a [127:25] committed and a committed villain can [127:27] learn that's another thing [127:30] too what are we built [127:33] for I think we're built for maximal [127:36] Challenge and that's that's way more [127:39] interesting I mean one of the things [127:41] that see I figured out that [127:45] lies that totalitarian states were a [127:48] consequence of lies in about 1985 [127:51] I I really figured it out I'd been [127:53] reading Sol nits and and Carl Yung i' [127:55] been reading I was reading a lot I was [127:57] really obsessed by it I thought oh I see [128:00] so hell is the Dominion of the [128:03] LIE okay so what do you do about that [128:06] while you stop [128:07] lying that's how you fight it and that [128:10] means you do that in your own life you [128:13] just stop just you practice stopping you [128:18] practice not doing the things you know [128:20] you shouldn't do you practice [128:22] paying attention to your words to see if [128:24] they're landing solidly and they make [128:26] you confident instead of weak right you [128:29] abandon [128:30] your [128:33] shortterm desire for control and power [128:36] understanding that there isn't anything [128:39] better that can happen to you than what [128:41] happens if you tell the truth right no [128:44] matter what it looks like to you in the [128:45] moment it's a strange thing but I can't [128:49] see how it could be otherwise because [128:50] you'd have to hypothesize that you're [128:53] going to align yourself with life with [128:56] nature with Society with god with [128:59] yourself by lying No One Believes that [129:03] you might think you can get away with it [129:05] that's way different right but no one [129:07] believes that [129:11] so well so then what happens in [129:14] consequence of that well I think what [129:17] happens in consequence of that is what [129:18] happened to [129:19] Abraham your life just goes like [129:23] this just opens and opens and opens and [129:26] opens and I don't think there's any [129:27] limit to [129:28] that and that's [129:32] ridiculously [129:34] entertaining like unbearably [129:36] entertaining there's what you want in [129:37] your life you want it to be unbearably [129:41] entertaining and it's funny you know [129:43] when you watch people go to movies I [129:45] mean James [129:47] Bond right that's an unbearably [129:50] entertaining life and that's what people [129:52] want to see when they go to a theater [129:54] because that's what they want that's [129:56] what they [129:58] want and maybe all the sorrow and [130:01] catastrophe that's part of that has to [130:03] be part of it because otherwise [130:07] there's there's nothing about it that's [130:16] glorious why does that move you so much [130:23] because life is very [130:26] wide you know [130:29] there's the the Peaks and bellies [130:32] are very distant from one [130:35] another and I I don't know maybe as you [130:38] ascend uphill [130:40] your understanding of [130:42] the chasm between the Peaks and valys [130:45] also [130:46] increases you know cuz you think maybe [130:48] as you're successful you're happier well [130:52] first of all I'm not sure that success [130:55] and happiness are the same thing I'm not [130:58] sure that we want them to be the same [130:59] thing I don't even know what people mean [131:01] when they say they want to be happy if [131:04] you investigate it technically you find [131:06] out that really what people mean when [131:08] they say they want to be happy is that [131:10] they don't want to [131:12] suffer that's different than the [131:14] enthusiastic joy that you might think [131:16] about you know that's part and parsel of [131:19] a child's laughter you want to be happy [131:20] what do you want to be laugh laughing [131:21] all the time is that what you're saying [131:23] well no that's not what I mean well what [131:25] do you mean do you mean the [131:26] gratification that comes along with the [131:28] cookie at 1: in the morning no that's [131:30] not what I mean well okay what do you [131:32] mean well I don't know it's like yeah [131:34] you don't know partly what you mean is [131:36] you don't want pointless suffering fair [131:39] enough you know fair fair enough but [131:42] that doesn't mean it's happiness that's [131:43] your goal there's no I don't think [131:46] that's your goal I don't think your [131:48] podcast would be successful if that was [131:49] your goal I think you would have washed [131:51] up on the shs of triviality long ago I [131:56] do well there's something you're doing [131:58] that's working there's something about [132:00] the way you're approaching the situation [132:02] that's of broad appeal there's some [132:05] archetypal pattern that's you're acting [132:09] out in your conduct in your podcast [132:12] because otherwise it wouldn't have the [132:13] effect it [132:16] has it's true I I I agree I don't know [132:19] what it is but I but well you know some [132:22] of it we talked about some of it you [132:23] know you said that you you can you [132:26] can you can apprehend the outline of [132:30] some of the principles some of that you [132:33] probably discovered as you went along [132:34] rather than you know putting them in [132:36] place to begin with this seems to work [132:39] yeah you know so that's a discovery of [132:41] of a pathway well as a podcaster as well [132:44] I don't think you really truly [132:45] understand your principles until they're [132:46] tested so and especially when they're [132:48] tested from both sides so th you know [132:52] this side's telling you to be more like [132:53] this and this side's screaming at you to [132:54] be more like this and you you're faced [132:57] with a decision when you're you know [132:58] when I started out as a podcaster there [132:59] was no one screaming there was no one [133:00] there right right but at some point in [133:02] the journey you get immense pressure [133:04] yeah yeah well then you're also that [133:06] forces a decision out of you yeah well [133:08] you're also in a situation then when you [133:10] have to start worrying about your [133:11] reputation which is something you don't [133:13] have to worry about when no one knows [133:14] who you are yeah and it's very dangerous [133:16] to worry about your reputation as soon [133:18] as you start worrying about your [133:19] reputation as a part you're going to [133:22] fail yeah cuz you're not interesting [133:24] then you'll stop taking risks yeah so [133:26] then you know another question emerges [133:28] you got people yelling at you from this [133:30] side and this side well how do you know [133:32] what's right well it [133:35] isn't partly it's by listening because [133:37] you want to pay attention to your [133:38] audience but there's something guiding [133:41] you if you do what you're doing properly [133:43] that has nothing to do with the clamor [133:46] yeah yeah it's funny because actually it [133:49] links back to some of the other [133:50] principles we talked about today it's [133:52] one of one of the things I've learned is [133:54] having a good relationship like good [133:56] friendships and a good part relationship [133:58] with my wife is actually the foundation [134:00] for me to be able to navigate the scream [134:03] people screaming at me from both sides [134:04] yeah why because it just anchors me [134:10] in it's like an anchor of like knowing [134:13] who I actually am irrespective of the [134:16] the like the crowd telling you who you [134:18] are yeah yeah well that's a good that's [134:20] a very good illustration of distributed [134:22] identity yeah yeah yeah it's like you [134:25] are your wife and your friends and your [134:28] family yeah right there's no [134:31] fundamentally there's there cannot be [134:34] any separation there that's yeah and and [134:36] well you you said you've you experienced [134:38] that it's like that's what gives you [134:40] that's part of what gives you a [134:42] foundation it's like yeah that's not a [134:45] losery and it's nice because as you said [134:47] like when I go out into the world [134:48] everyone is very nice to me it's just if [134:50] you spend too long on the internet [134:52] people scream at you from both sides [134:53] they say do it more like this do it like [134:55] this where are the CEOs this is called D [134:58] we want more of these kind of guess you [134:59] should talk about this politics Trump [135:01] Cala Trump and the middle of that you [135:04] going [ __ ] hell and that's where you [135:05] have to take some time to really like [135:06] tune into yourself and go who am I and [135:08] why am I doing this and what are my [135:10] principles and irrespective of the [135:12] principles I Choose Or I believe in that [135:17] there's going to be suffering and [135:18] there's going to be sacrifice and [135:20] there's going to be great Advent as well [135:21] MH and the good one thing I really like [135:24] that helps me for some bizarre reason is [135:26] the knowledge that I will die [135:28] someday why does that help it just it's [135:32] a good question why does it help it [135:35] helps [135:36] because if I think it's focusing in me [135:39] on what actually matters yeah in a way [135:42] that I wouldn't be it wouldn't be as [135:43] easy to otherwise what it saying is it's [135:45] just a reminder of okay if I'm going to [135:47] die someday then actually this person's [135:49] screaming at me to be more like [135:51] this is obviously doesn't matter like it [135:56] obviously doesn't matter in the in the [135:57] context of my other priorities well it [135:58] might be that death is what makes things [136:00] matter scarcity always makes the value [136:03] something well right but but then we're [136:05] talking about a kind of ultimate [136:06] scarcity and like you can ask yourself [136:08] one of the fundamental questions you can [136:10] ask yourself is what is the nature of [136:13] the real right and I think death makes [136:16] things real I agree yeah that's why it's [136:19] an important I don't know seems like a [136:21] weird thing to say but it reminds me [136:23] that what's trivial and what's [136:25] not um in the context of a finite amount [136:28] of resources time attention that I can [136:31] commit it's it's foolish to commit some [136:34] of them to some of the things that I [136:36] find myself committing them to sometimes [136:38] when I remind myself of that death how [136:40] do you pick your guests curiosity yeah [136:43] that's I pick people I want to talk to [136:45] yeah it's like I'd like to hear what [136:47] that person has to say yeah and it's [136:49] something that I'm trying to alert so [136:50] it's typically when I when I'd seen you [136:52] wrote a book called who we who wrestle [136:54] with God that's the word Israel hey [136:57] that's what Israel means uhhuh yeah yeah [136:59] and that's the chosen people of God [137:02] Israel I didn't know that yeah but I [137:04] thought this is a subject that I'm [137:05] curious about so I would like to talk to [137:08] Jordan to see if he can help me you know [137:10] fill in this sort of jigsaw puzzle in my [137:12] brain of subject matters that relate to [137:13] this and I evolve I'm probably going to [137:14] have kids soon and when I have my kids [137:16] I'm going to be curious about Parenthood [137:18] and I'm going to speak to you know [137:19] guests that can help me with that that's [137:21] been my framework and it's worked in [137:24] terms of I still like doing this well [137:27] there's no reason so when I'm on stage [137:30] lecturing I'm on a [137:32] journey it's a real journey yeah it's [137:35] not an act like I pose a question to [137:38] myself before I go on stage it's a [137:40] question I want the answer to and I [137:43] don't have and I go on stage and I try [137:45] to move towards the answer and people [137:48] come along and I want to go there and [137:51] they want to come along it's a good deal [137:53] and the podcasts are like that if you're [137:55] doing them honestly it's like I want to [137:57] talk to this person that's a really nice [137:59] way of thinking about it moving towards [138:00] an answer yeah not even sure what the [138:02] answer is but well and it'll change as [138:04] you approach it move towards the answer [138:07] right the questions and the answers [138:09] change as you move towards it that's [138:11] okay that's fine we touched on this [138:13] earlier but it's something that I wanted [138:14] to touch on because one of the themes of [138:16] this podcast is often the subject of [138:19] grief and I read that you lost both your [138:20] parents within sort of six months of [138:22] each [138:23] other what do what does that moment [138:25] teach you about priorities about life [138:27] about what matters about anything that [138:30] you could pass down to me that's [138:32] important things last way less Long than [138:36] you [138:37] think so you should be aware of that and [138:42] not take things for [138:44] granted no and so and I don't think I [138:47] took my parents for granted now did I do [138:49] that perfectly well we don't do things [138:52] perfectly [138:53] but it was pretty good it was pretty [138:57] good I learned when my I watched my [139:01] wife's family go through the death of [139:03] their mother and one of the consequences [139:07] of that was [139:08] that my wife and her siblings and her [139:13] father pulled closer together in during [139:17] that time and that really it was like a [139:20] wound healing you know mhm and so I saw [139:24] that and I saw that that worked so for [139:26] example [139:27] Tammy has a stronger relationship with [139:30] her older brother than she did [139:33] before her father also died so we lost [139:37] her father and my father and my mother [139:39] this year [139:41] basically it isn't that her brother [139:44] substituted for her father but it was [139:46] that there was more there than she had [139:48] made use of and so when her father [139:50] father [139:53] Departed the possibility of expanding [139:55] that relationship with her brother was [139:57] on the table and I did the same thing [139:59] with my sister and my [140:00] brother [140:02] and that's helpful it's [140:05] helpful [140:07] so there's opportunity everywhere even [140:11] in grief there's [140:13] opportunity is that one lesson that your [140:15] father taught you that stay pay [140:16] attention [140:21] he was good at that he was good at he [140:24] taught that very well and it wasn't a [140:27] good idea to not pay attention on my [140:29] father he uh he had a he wasn't he [140:33] wasn't I wouldn't describe him as an [140:35] easy [140:37] person he had high standards and he was [140:40] rather [140:41] unforgiving and [140:45] that's I don't know do you forgive the [140:48] people that you love for not being [140:50] everything they they could be that's a [140:52] hard question it's okay dear it's like [140:55] is it [140:56] now I think we have a lot of that in our [140:59] culture it's okay I like you just like [141:02] you [141:04] are do you forgive [141:09] him yeah yes I don't think [141:14] they're my dad and I sorted out our [141:16] differences a long time ago you know [141:19] when I left home [141:21] our relationship was somewhat fractious [141:23] from the time I was 13 till the time I [141:25] left [141:25] home he developed quite a severe [141:29] depression which ran in my family and [141:31] that made [141:32] him harder to understand than had been [141:36] the case previously it also made the [141:39] probability that if there [141:42] were events in the household that they [141:45] would be they'd have [141:48] more reverberation than they would have [141:51] otherwise and that was confusing to [141:57] me I understood why that happened later [142:01] not much later and it wasn't very long [142:03] after I left home that whatever [142:05] differences I had with my father were [142:08] irrelevant so we didn't really [142:11] have unresolved issues I wouldn't say [142:14] what about your mother what's the one [142:15] lesson my mom was great what's the [142:17] lesson if any she left with you my [142:21] mother was a very hospitable [142:23] person and in the in the Old Testament [142:27] accounts hospitality is a cardinal [142:29] virtue and she was very good at making [142:32] people welcome when my the day my mother [142:34] died I I I I thought about her most of [142:37] the day that day memories came to mind [142:40] and one of the things I realized about [142:42] my mother was that uh I don't have a [142:44] single negative memory of my [142:47] mother it's really quite something to [142:49] know someone for 62 [142:53] years and really I really don't have a [142:57] negative memory of my mother I don't [143:00] remember [143:02] any time where she [143:13] acted she was a good person my [143:18] mother um [143:22] I could always make her laugh she had a [143:24] very good sense of humor I appreciated [143:27] that a [143:28] lot and she although she was a very [143:31] agreeable person and a very feminine [143:33] person she was tough too and she wasn't [143:37] a edle [143:40] type you know she had strong protective [143:42] instincts but her desire to help her [143:46] children become independent Trump that [143:49] for sure [143:51] Jordan we have a closing tradition on [143:52] this podcast where the last guest leaves [143:53] a question for the next not knowing who [143:55] they're leaving it for and the question [143:57] left for you is how do you feel most [144:13] misunderstood I don't know if I am [144:16] misunderstood I think the people who [144:17] don't like me some of them have me [144:20] confused with some figment of their [144:24] imagination some of the people who don't [144:26] like me they understand [144:28] me they just don't like what they [144:30] understand they don't like what it [144:33] implies and so that's okay with [144:36] me I I don't feel misunderstood I [144:41] wouldn't say I I've got nothing to [144:44] complain [144:45] about [144:48] um people who've been listening to me [144:51] they understand me and as far as I can [144:53] tell that's been very good for them and [144:56] that's unbelievably gratifying for me [144:58] it's you must experience that I mean [145:01] your podcast has had a broad effect and [145:03] I presume a positive effect on people [145:06] there isn't anything better than that to [145:08] see that what you're doing has that [145:11] broadly salutary effect that's great [145:14] that's another indication of our [145:16] essentially I would say religious nature [145:19] you know Jo willing told me this you [145:21] know Joo said that he could he could [145:24] have easily been like a gang leader [145:27] criminal type he's a tough Warrior [145:30] character you know and he said when he [145:32] went into the military he discovered [145:35] that being the leader of a team and [145:37] moving people in a positive direction [145:39] there wasn't anything better than that [145:41] and so that just straightened him out [145:43] you know and I feel exactly the same way [145:45] there isn't anything better than that [145:47] and so I'm able to do that and I see the [145:49] evidence of that all the time and [145:52] whatever misunderstandings there might [145:54] be about me necessary or unnecessary are [145:56] so trivial compared to that that they're [145:59] not they don't even really register what [146:01] a privilege Jord that's for sure Jordan [146:04] thank you so much it's a privilege we [146:06] share because doing this for me is a [146:07] great privilege and the fact that it [146:08] positively impacts anyone is everything [146:10] you've just said and I see that in your [146:12] work but also I see it when we have [146:13] these conversations in the immense [146:15] Avalanche of people who profess that [146:17] you've changed their life in some [146:18] positive way and moved them in a better [146:19] Direction and that's a refutable and no [146:21] one can you know I mean there's as I say [146:24] there's no greater privilege so Jordan [146:26] thank you so much for your time I [146:27] appreciate it thank you thanks for the [146:29] invitation again it's always a pleasure [146:30] talking to you thank you isn't this cool [146:33] every single conversation I have here on [146:35] the D of a CE at the very end of it [146:37] you'll know I asked the guest to leave a [146:40] question in the Diary of a CEO and what [146:43] we've done is we've turned every single [146:45] question written in the Diary of a CEO [146:48] into these conversation cards that you [146:50] can play at home so you've got every [146:53] guest we've ever had their question and [146:56] on the back of it if you scan that QR [146:58] code you get to watch the person who [147:02] answered that question we're finally [147:04] revealing all of the questions and the [147:08] people that answered the question the [147:10] brand new version 2 updated conversation [147:13] cards are out right now at Theon [147:15] conversation cards.com they've sold out [147:18] twice instantaneously so if you are [147:19] interested getting hold of some limited [147:21] edition conversation cards I really [147:23] really recommend acting quickly [147:26] [Music] [147:46] [Music]