Episode Transcript
Transcripts are displayed as originally observed. Some content, including advertisements may have changed.
Use Ctrl + F to search
0:07
alright guys, it's a wee different
0:10
today if you can't tell i
0:13
what they like to call the the
0:15
one the only vid19
0:17
i have indeed
0:19
contracted it i will say
0:22
is it has not been that bad for me at
0:24
least not yet knock on wood i'm
0:27
you know sort out little bit of a cough then
0:29
it became some congestion
0:31
and fatigue than it sorta morphed
0:33
into now it's like sore throat and my voice
0:35
sounds a little messed up them
0:38
but i was able to do my show the
0:40
other day able to do the
0:42
conference today and boy oh boy
0:44
do i vote amazing one for you today so
0:47
you know we talked about a back in the winter we were this
0:49
close happened or doctor jordan peterson on
0:51
the show at the last minute
0:54
he had to back out because he had a toward
0:56
that he was doing and he had overbooked all these
0:58
other things and so they said i'm
1:00
sorry but we have to cancel and we
1:02
we meet with olives and with when can we are mommy one at
1:04
more whenever and they said in they summer
1:06
so reached out to to his team the other
1:08
day and to their credit they got right
1:10
back to me and said look will let's
1:13
do it will do with this day and i was like okay
1:15
i'm in now even i have club and nineteen
1:18
i don't care if i had ebola i
1:20
would still show up to try to us to try
1:22
to have this conversation with doctor
1:24
jordan peterson summary looking forward to it as
1:27
i told you guys for very long time when
1:30
it comes to apology
1:33
stuff like when he's talking about freud
1:36
young the various
1:39
different schools of thought like phenomenology
1:41
your existential was existential money talks about that stuff i'm
1:45
an amd like i love a
1:47
lot of the stuff he says i watch his entire twenty seventeen
1:49
lecture series and it was brilliant sweaty
1:52
talking about psychology
1:54
we talk about philosophy them all and
1:56
i love it i'm but then when we
1:59
when we get to the topic of politics
2:02
the and religion oftentimes i find
2:05
i have really sharp disagreements
2:07
with it i'm like wow this guy lives
2:09
just i loved everything said here and over here i
2:11
disagree with him on a lot almost everything
2:14
and so that to me the
2:17
perfect situation where i want
2:19
to have a conversation like i wanna
2:21
talk it out i want to hear mount i want to flesh out the
2:23
ideas i want to go back and forth because
2:25
there's nothing more interesting than that and so
2:28
we're going to do that we're gonna get into
2:30
it about a bring up some of the recent
2:32
controversy that went on a with
2:34
twitter and and elliot page
2:37
or bring up you know we'll talk about trump
2:40
will talk about economics basically anything
2:42
that i can squeeze in i will squeeze in in
2:44
our limited time and i'm really
2:47
looking forward to this so everybody
2:49
please enjoy here's doctor jordan peterson
2:52
doctor jordan peterson thank you so much for joining me
2:54
joining really appreciate it i'm
2:57
we were close to doing it doing the winter
2:59
but then but then mean you have a very
3:01
busy schedule and you had done all
3:04
toward the you were doing and so we had
3:06
to put it off to the summer but thank you
3:08
again because your man your word you said hey by
3:10
the summer will be able to do it and and you came through
3:12
so thanks for joining time please
3:14
do i'm glad we're able to arrange yeah
3:17
so there's a bunch of stuff i want to talk to about
3:21
whenever i hear you talk about psychology
3:24
and philosophy i'm always
3:27
floored by it i watched your entire
3:30
twenty seventeen lecture serious i
3:32
base given like as a student in the class and
3:35
that was brilliant which one knows that
3:37
the the maps meaning or they biblical lectures
3:40
maps of mean so he where you
3:42
went through all the different psychologists and and
3:44
they're different philosophies and arms
3:46
there's a bunch stuff i want to ask you on that and then later
3:49
on maybe we'll get into more political
3:51
and religious realm where we have ah
3:53
some disagreements but let's
3:55
start with this i
3:57
took the you know how are we talk about the big five
3:59
traits
4:00
yeah
4:01
the am i took that test yeah
4:04
myself what's that the
4:06
understand myself test it yes
4:08
whatever the i think i just googled like big five
4:11
trait test or something and whatever the first one the came
4:13
up was i talk and and it's know what i'm probably
4:15
a mistake but that's okay oh that's not the
4:17
right test while i have a test
4:19
on line of understand myself dot com
4:21
and it's accurate and it gives you a good reported
4:24
that details the five traits down to
4:26
ten aspects to alcohol
4:28
portrait if you have a partner
4:31
and they do at that gives you couples report to
4:33
the tells you why your fight and i
4:35
do know you need to appreciate each other
4:38
for similarities and differences so any
4:40
go doesn't matter will ,
4:43
perhaps i took the wrong test but on
4:45
this particular test that i took it
4:47
said that said was very high and conscientiousness
4:51
moderately high in agreeableness which i was actually shocked
4:53
by i thought i was more disagreeable the agreeable but
4:55
apparently i'm not i'm it's and i'm
4:57
somewhat low and openness the
5:00
low an extra version and i'm very
5:02
low in or autism the
5:04
and so when i look at those traits
5:07
and correct me if i'm wrong that strikes me
5:09
like i've i lean more hamper
5:11
mentally conservative my
5:14
politics are actually more lest
5:16
so it seems to me like there's a little bit of a contradiction
5:18
they're so can you speak on that a little bit and then also
5:20
tell me what your results are on at us yeah
5:24
well generally the best predictor of
5:26
a more liberal orientation is high
5:28
openness i
5:30
it's hard for me to believe that you're not
5:32
extroverted or open given what you do
5:35
so i would say from take different
5:37
test although i don't know which when you talk
5:39
like any might have taken have valid one valid one i
5:41
believe for sure it's
5:45
easy to put tess up it's hard to
5:47
make a valid yeah
5:49
generally speaking the more entrepreneurial
5:52
creative types tend to lean more
5:54
liberal and reason for that
5:56
and that's especially true if they're lowered conscientiousness
5:58
especially orderliness the reason
6:00
for that seems to be that
6:03
imagine that people might differ in there
6:06
biologically predisposed attitude
6:08
towards information flow the
6:11
flow of of people as well and
6:13
more conservative types are
6:16
more concerned about the potential disruption
6:18
and danger of novel ideas and new
6:20
people and there's good reason for that
6:23
because new people a novel ideas can really
6:25
flip the applecart upside down and
6:28
whereas liberal people more liberal people
6:31
are the energized and
6:33
interested in the exchange
6:35
of ideas and they are willing
6:38
to take the risk of disruption to
6:40
gain the benefit of novelty
6:43
and the new learning you
6:46
can't say which ones right because sometimes
6:48
new ideas are absolutely dreadfully
6:50
destructive karl marx his ideas
6:53
might be a good case in point where
6:55
they make sense once you accept you accept set
6:57
of axioms but they're unbelievably destructive
7:00
when implemented in so that
7:02
deviation from tradition was an absolute dastardly
7:05
then you know only the
7:08
different well everybody's pretty happy they
7:10
have electric lights that's not a political
7:12
issue obviously but sometimes
7:15
if you welcome new ideas you're right and sometimes
7:17
if you resist of you're right and that's
7:19
partly why we have a political dialogue right
7:21
so that we can adjudicate
7:24
between these two different claims added
7:27
curiosity would you say that there are any
7:29
of of marks his ideas
7:31
or any of his critiques of capitalism
7:33
that you think have merit
7:36
well
7:37
the idea that capitalism produces
7:39
inequality is clearly true march
7:42
didn't think that up the next be known
7:45
forever it says in the gospels that
7:47
the poor will always be with us
7:49
in inequality is an unbelievably pervasive
7:52
economic problem the problem with marxist
7:54
critique and the left wingers should take this
7:57
seriously and i mean seriously and
7:59
they don't the man in that
8:01
part of the reason that you're left wing i don't mean
8:03
you specifically but possibly you because
8:05
you're also somewhat higher and compassion you said
8:08
in agreeableness the left
8:10
these are concerned about the
8:12
detrimental effects of inequality the
8:15
unequal distribution of capital and
8:17
financial resources in particular other there's
8:20
all sorts of inequalities of distribution and
8:23
they are right to be concerned about that
8:25
because when
8:27
he quality becomes excessive it tends
8:30
to destabilize society so
8:32
we know for example that it neighborhoods
8:34
where movement up the socio economic
8:37
hierarchy is blocked and difficult
8:40
and there's quite an extreme range between poor
8:42
and rich that young men tend to become violent
8:45
because that's one of the ways they can attain status
8:48
when they can attain it in a legitimate let's
8:50
say and productive staff of his competition
8:54
and so in every society
8:56
that's ever existed a have has had to deal
8:58
with the potential negative consequences
9:00
of inequality so back and old
9:02
testament times the hebrews have a jubilee
9:05
every seven years i think it was the jubilee but
9:07
it doesn't matter where deaths
9:10
were erased that
9:12
forgiven and reason for that was that capital
9:15
what else can to accumulate in
9:18
hands of a smaller and smaller number of people
9:21
that marx was right enough diagnosis
9:23
although he did not the was not the
9:25
originator of that idea by any stretch of the
9:27
imagination but laying
9:29
at the feet of capitalism is it's preposterous
9:32
and it's under states the magnitude
9:34
of the problem because if
9:37
you're concerned about inequality and thera reasons
9:39
to be concerned in an intelligent
9:41
manner then you want to get
9:43
the diagnosis right and if you blame it
9:45
on capitalism you've got the diagnosis wrong
9:48
because every the economic system ever devised
9:51
by human beings has produced inequality the
9:53
only one has produced on increase
9:56
in material prosperity
9:59
especially for party the nets
10:02
free market capitalism
10:04
so the lefties who follow marks
10:06
because they're concerned about an impala
10:09
are guilty of the sin of not taking the problem
10:11
is cardinal to the with anywhere near the requisite degree
10:14
of seriousness inequalities away the
10:16
problem than then mere
10:18
capitalism and getting rid of capitalism
10:20
is you think what you think the soviet union
10:23
or maoist china will was yeah
10:25
whatever you the will just as in
10:27
equal so as cuba so
10:29
we venezuela be nice places
10:32
that purport to be egalitarian or anything
10:34
but a problem
10:38
the qualities very very deep problem so
10:41
yeah so a smartphone right to point
10:43
to it as a problem but completely wrong and his diagnosis
10:46
right i mean i accept a lot of what you say there
10:48
and you know a lot of the government you brought up
10:50
like venezuela for example i would definitely categorize
10:53
them as authoritarian and
10:55
not egalitarian but to
10:57
accept your premise further here when you talk
11:00
about capitalism we
11:02
know that inequality can exist no matter
11:04
what system or under is effectively the argument how
11:06
would you respond to the point that there have
11:09
been times throughout us history where
11:11
that inequality has been the give you
11:13
can be less and then that also led
11:15
to what was called the golden age of economic
11:18
expansion in the us so for example under
11:20
fdr and the new deal i'm
11:23
they did a lot of redistribution of wealth
11:25
through social programs on these new deal
11:27
projects are had shovel
11:29
ready jobs and they put the country to work
11:31
in the midst of the great depression and
11:33
they also increase taxes on the wealthy
11:36
for example the
11:38
you look at a model like that and think it makes
11:40
sense in other words like a a regulator version
11:42
of capitalism as opposed to capital
11:44
there has to be there has to be regulations
11:47
okay your has to be there has to be a
11:50
the system of law in place
11:52
worry a free market to even work
11:55
right been so for example so
11:58
the you have to guaranteed
12:00
property rights for example you have to be guaranteed
12:03
freedom of association you
12:05
have to be treated as if you
12:07
have intrinsic worth all
12:10
of those things have to be enshrined in law
12:12
so you need an underlying operating system
12:14
in some sense that axiomatic
12:16
and constitutional in order for a
12:18
free market economy to even
12:21
get off the ground and we don't exactly
12:23
know what those prerequisites are
12:26
some of them appear to be theological and
12:28
some of them appear to be philosophical
12:30
and and legal so the theological
12:33
presuppositions would be what
12:35
the the founders of the american
12:38
enterprise were referring to when he
12:40
said that they held these truths to be self
12:42
evident the
12:44
same and those self evident
12:46
truths had to do with the dignity and value
12:48
of each individual and their intrinsic
12:51
worth before the law and
12:53
stay in some sense before god the
12:56
self evident in some that is a consequence
12:58
of a theological underpinning and
13:01
then out of that arises a constitutional
13:03
framework it guarantees
13:05
people the liberty and autonomy
13:08
the and
13:09
and security especially with regards
13:11
to property rights that enables free
13:13
enterprise and the acquisition of wealth to
13:16
begin
13:17
that would also
13:18
the involve prohibitions
13:20
against arbitrary seizure
13:22
the
13:23
the property because
13:26
otherwise see of some people if we
13:29
, up a system where no one can get rich
13:32
like exceptionally rich let's say
13:35
we also set up a system
13:37
where no one can where everyone can
13:39
become wealthy some people have to become
13:41
wealthy first you know that
13:43
already you know leg when something like
13:45
flat screen tv's were introduced or
13:47
or a cell phones for that matter for
13:50
the first cell phones for the first five
13:52
years they were the the way things
13:54
are extremely wealthy billionaires and
13:57
the reason for that was the technology was extremely
13:59
expensive to begin
14:01
and unless there was a market that
14:03
was supplied by people with access capital
14:07
the marketing of the product
14:10
wouldn't have
14:11
begun and a price couldn't
14:13
the lowered that's true but didn't nasa
14:15
also do a lot of the original investing that
14:18
gave us the internet the
14:20
or a splitter i'm responsible for lot of the red zone other words
14:22
it's it's sort of a hybrid of both public
14:24
and private sector what you see
14:27
that hybrid model in places like canada
14:29
you see it added plate redevelop luxury scandinavian
14:31
countries but we should ride out with regard to the
14:33
scandinavian countries that and if you look
14:35
out it's international rankings of the
14:37
degree to which it is easy to do
14:39
business as in a given country right
14:42
scandinavian countries constantly rank
14:45
in the top ten or twenty and how they
14:47
have a the have a social net
14:49
put in place but they're monumentally free
14:51
market capitalist economies so and
14:53
you know we have to fight all the time about the balance
14:55
between providing people
14:58
with equality of opportunity and
15:00
also providing them with the requisite
15:02
security that also aids and abets
15:04
that some we're is an example so
15:07
canada has our our healthcare
15:09
system that's more socialized than the
15:12
system in the us and are some advantages
15:14
and disadvantages to that canada
15:16
spend the last on hospital
15:18
administration than the u s deaths so
15:21
that's an interesting and somewhat
15:23
unexpected fact we
15:26
rush and healthcare in canada by waiting
15:28
times and it can be quite brutal though
15:31
my daughter for example had to get to
15:33
her ankle replaced at one point in the waiting list in
15:35
canada was three years he was
15:37
walking around are broken ankle the three
15:39
years was untenable
15:41
though
15:42
there it's rational
15:44
by waiting time in a manner analogous
15:46
to the manner in which healthcare is rationed
15:49
by wells in countries that have less
15:51
socialist system correct however it's
15:53
also the case that canada has a higher
15:55
per capita entrepreneurial rates
15:58
than the u s and one of them reasons
16:00
for that appears to be that people can step
16:02
outside of their
16:05
the current jobs and the security
16:07
that those jobs offer them and
16:09
undertake the risk of establishing a new venture
16:11
because they don't have to worry that their family
16:14
now has lost its health care of security
16:16
ah so these things are complicated right they
16:18
have to be dealt with honor in some sense
16:20
at a detailed level and on the case by case basis
16:23
that if you want to point to the scandinavian countries
16:25
what you see there is well add
16:27
up a free markets capitalist
16:30
framework with a constitutional underpinning
16:33
and in some arguments about
16:35
how much of a social security that can be
16:37
cast out of that free enterprise
16:39
web to provide people with a reasonable
16:41
amount of security yeah you know
16:44
i'm i'm very interested do you say this doctor peterson
16:46
because i do think it flies in the face of how a lot of
16:48
people myself included maybe are
16:50
viewed your politics because the
16:53
i ah people generally don't have any idea what
16:55
i think because they just make the youngsters based
16:57
on idiot journalists and that's the end of that
16:59
i mean i guess that's a fair point because i'm
17:02
like i often mention the
17:04
scandinavian countries in many respects
17:07
as sort of an idea
17:09
like i like social democracy and that i think it's
17:11
a healthy mix of socialism
17:13
and capitalism and i like the
17:15
idea of thinking of
17:17
an ideal government as trying to create
17:20
a better meritocracy and in order for there
17:22
to be a better meritocracy i
17:24
think in a civilized society you can take
17:26
certain things off the table you can take healthcare
17:29
off the table you can take education off the table
17:31
the and i mean look at it this
17:33
way if we're having one hundred yard
17:36
dash kind of want everybody to start
17:38
at the same place rise often tell
17:40
know you do you don't want them to started the same
17:42
place why you wanna start them with
17:44
the same lack of barriers
17:46
to the their movement forward so
17:48
that no negative naughty the same thing do you
17:50
believe in a positive rights too because we
17:52
all agree there negative liberties of the government needs
17:54
to leave me the hell alone in these respects but
17:56
are there are also some positive rights isn't there
17:59
a right to healthcare regret own
18:01
there's no right to healthcare delete or any
18:03
without so do you remember the us
18:05
citizens her to the socialized medicine systems
18:07
to single payer healthcare countries
18:10
well let's start with the first question first
18:12
with forget positive rates very
18:15
rare that you have a right that requires someone
18:18
else to provided for you the
18:20
other day and they have been friends for example favourite
18:22
healthcare in their cars wells are they they arguably
18:25
have that right mean it depends
18:27
first of all i don't like this friend civil system
18:29
i think it's a catastrophe and well it's
18:31
a western catastrophe so it's not that big catastrophe
18:34
but it's nothing it it
18:36
has virtually no merit compared the english
18:38
common law system and i don't think the french
18:40
civil system would have been possible without the english
18:42
common law system have been there first
18:45
and other english common law you have
18:47
all the rights there are you're
18:49
not granted to you by the government there
18:52
an intrinsic part of your being an
18:54
unnecessary corrective to the of reach
18:56
of the state and those are only be
18:58
limited by necessity when people engage
19:00
in conflict an inner conflict
19:02
is adjudicated in the english common law system
19:05
president by president and what
19:08
would you call negotiation as
19:10
to the borders of rights are undertaken at
19:12
the level of extreme high detail that's
19:15
a brilliant system the french suffer
19:17
from the same delusion and they've
19:19
always suffered from the solution this french intellectual
19:22
delusion that intellect
19:24
and central planning and can
19:26
can substitute for incrementally
19:29
incremental movement of free market system
19:31
including free market systems in the in
19:34
the area of jurisprudence the not
19:36
just not the case and the idea
19:38
that you have you have to healthcare is mike while who's gonna
19:40
provided for starters
19:42
to do learn and hurried can
19:44
do that exact
19:46
the force
19:48
and so so i'm really wondering
19:50
how reason desirable uh-huh given
19:53
the right issue here that's what we're talking
19:55
we're not talking but whether not the government
19:58
can ensure intervene
20:01
so that a health care minimum
20:03
is provided to the populace at large
20:05
that's a different issue the issue here
20:07
is the issue of right the
20:10
rights are very you don't want to multiply
20:12
rights beyond necessity because every right
20:14
that you multiply puts the onus of
20:16
responsibility on every one is well
20:18
they're not they're not cost free so
20:21
what constitutes race is very difficult thing
20:23
to determine i'm also not a fan of bills
20:25
have rights i think they're generally a mistake really
20:28
i like the the system much better pluto
20:31
like the bill of rights and our in our own within like
20:33
that not particularly no i
20:35
think it's and while the elegant solution and the reason
20:37
from out is that under the english
20:39
common law system from which to build
20:41
rights was derived you have
20:44
all the rights there are where
20:46
is under a french civil system which is
20:49
and and derivative of that is the american
20:51
bill of rights the government grants you
20:53
the rights and i don't believe the government grants
20:55
you rights i don't think that's how
20:57
it works i don't think rates are a secondary derivative
20:59
of a social contract that's
21:02
wrong way of looking at it because it it
21:04
makes the government and the social contract
21:06
the source of the right i think
21:08
that's a big mistake so you're
21:10
not a fan of basically any positive rights
21:13
you think we have negative rights and that's
21:15
basically the end of it correct though you'd
21:17
have to tell me exactly what positive breaks you're
21:19
thinking about i don't believe that you have a right
21:21
to healthcare even though obviously the
21:24
more healthcare we can provide the people in
21:26
the most efficient possible manner the better that
21:28
is for everyone now healthcare is healthcare tricky
21:30
one because it's because it's an unlimited
21:33
domain because almost everything
21:35
can be shoehorned into the category
21:37
of health
21:38
so that's also a problem with regards to
21:40
let's say
21:42
the limiting what might constitute the right
21:44
mean you have a right to healthcare you have a right
21:46
to mental health you have a right to physical health
21:49
of course you don't obviously not
21:51
how could you possibly have a right to those things
21:54
the more than you have a right to food
21:57
the takes effort and time to produce food then
21:59
it takes
21:59
the effort and time for people to care for you when
22:02
so
22:02
there's no there's no right to have
22:05
no right to that well i guess what
22:07
i'm talking about it i'm just referring to it as a
22:09
matter of funding so do we have
22:11
private companies that are interested in profit
22:14
the in the ones who provide daycare or
22:17
do we have it as a matter of public funding
22:19
so instead of our tax dollars going to i
22:22
don't know war corporate bailouts
22:24
etc our tax dollars would go towards
22:27
funding people so all i can tell you what
22:29
can't canadians do when they're in a canoe in
22:31
a healthcare crisis who if they
22:33
have money they go to
22:35
the dates lawyers
22:37
the other way to though there are plenty ongoing
22:39
article tired on trees cause they can afford healthcare
22:41
here right i know that's why so right it was
22:43
people with money that right right
22:46
okay yeah yeah i
22:48
i didn't say everyone could do it an account but
22:51
that
22:53
the push comes to shove
22:55
you want to think very hard but whether you want to be in
22:57
a situation where you
23:00
cannot no matter what resources
23:02
you have at your disposal get
23:04
timely treatment for your wife's cancer
23:07
that's true but to your point before
23:11
the we do a wallet biopsy here
23:13
though you're rationing care by
23:16
one metric or another the question is do you met
23:18
and direction of based on need or the irrational
23:20
based on well you can rest
23:22
in peace on need
23:24
you can't rush anything based on me nuts
23:26
another misapprehension on the marks side
23:29
who the hell determines need
23:30
world you out from and need some an
23:32
accounting our emergency room i think they've
23:35
take precedence a facile answer
23:37
is it i'm asking a serious question
23:40
i thought i was given a serious answer know you're not
23:42
because there's when
23:44
you're trying to parcel out need
23:46
who you're dealing with multiple
23:50
serious stance
23:52
or catastrophe simile tiniest and
23:55
we don't know how to adjudicate the
23:57
provision of resources based on need
23:59
so i can give an example of that
24:02
you mention you have a kid who's
24:04
ah
24:06
single parent mother
24:08
minority
24:11
the bride's family unbelievably
24:14
academically gifted and capable
24:16
of benefiting from
24:18
ah high quality
24:21
publicly funded education or
24:24
you have a kid who's
24:27
god
24:28
the form of cancer that
24:30
the likely to
24:31
be painful and
24:33
it's
24:35
protracted suffering or wrong lengthy period
24:38
of time we've got a finite pool of money
24:41
how in the world you would you to kate between those two situations
24:45
an answer is you can't and
24:47
, only two situations not the
24:49
million situations that actually exists
24:52
and the way we do adjudicate the
24:54
to be no says situations as we use money
24:57
that is the mechanism for due to case and
25:00
you might say what produces all sorts of unfair consequences
25:02
and the response
25:04
to that is yeah that's for sure
25:07
that
25:09
that's not the issue the issue
25:11
is what what makes you think you can
25:13
do better there is
25:15
no evidence that you can do better and so
25:18
the idea that need ,
25:20
take precedence like that's that's
25:22
fine in principle though it's not not
25:25
in the world could possibly
25:27
adjudicate need you know that's
25:29
what they tried to do with the central planning committees
25:32
planning the soviet union when they returned make pricing
25:34
decisions and sometimes have the soviets
25:37
central planners had to make like five thousand
25:39
pricing decisions a day they
25:41
are trying to adjudicate need to we need
25:43
more nails or do we need more hypodermic
25:47
needles
25:48
well how in the world next like
25:50
to decisions not five thousand how
25:52
in the world are you possibly going to compute
25:55
that
25:56
and this is this is the other problem
25:59
that the marxist
25:59
in particular
26:02
the free market system is a giant
26:05
compute computational device distributed
26:08
computational device
26:11
involving billions of calculations per
26:13
second trying to compute
26:15
the transforming horizon of the future
26:18
and it can't be replaced by central planning
26:21
not even in principle but don't you think
26:23
there are some issues with that because profits
26:25
at the core of it so just to push back a little bit
26:27
a study came out scientific american reported
26:29
on this recently if the united states
26:32
had a universal healthcare system like
26:34
canada for example during the coven
26:36
nineteen pandemic three hundred and thirty thousand
26:39
more lives could have been saved so in some
26:41
ways i agree well i am minorities who is very
26:43
like that enhancing no one no one in
26:45
the world know there's no one in the world who could possibly
26:48
the study like that with valid outcomes
26:51
you don't like that and the family scientific american
26:53
reported it's not in the least i don't really
26:55
see if i did one hundred published studies i know
26:57
exactly how they were there's no
27:00
possible way that you can produce a scientific
27:02
study with that kind of complete not
27:04
less you build it in from the beginning was too many
27:06
variables take into account so
27:08
and were not also debated whether nord in
27:11
some circumstances the public
27:13
health care system is a desirable good that
27:15
that's something that needs to be discussed at
27:17
the level of detail the maybe
27:19
situations where it's an entirely good
27:22
i'm telling you some of the downsides one of the
27:24
downsides of telling you what happens in canada that
27:27
if you're in a dire situation it's
27:30
not like having to wait two years my
27:32
dad waited two years for knee replacements to
27:34
half years that i was exacerbated by kobe is not
27:36
like that isn't expensive
27:38
the couldn't move
27:40
that's expensive
27:41
in money there was nothing
27:43
we could do about it he was to elderly
27:45
to be taken down to the states
27:48
the was two logistically complex
27:51
so he was basically crippled for two years
27:53
now that's that's costly
27:56
then you think was not money it's like yes it is
27:58
it's money and time
28:00
the lot of people in canada are talking about a hybrid
28:03
private public model
28:05
that would have to be done experimentally and
28:07
locally and carefully
28:08
the see what he he advantages and
28:10
disadvantages would be and metrics would have to
28:12
be established properly night so you
28:15
have figure out what is your trying to measure wait
28:17
times might be one of them because wait times
28:19
are basically are proxy for expense already
28:21
said that canadian public health system
28:25
seems to be more efficient than the american system in some
28:27
ways his american hospital spend about thirty
28:29
percent of their budgets collecting
28:31
money right because having
28:33
to keep track of everything that's being
28:36
the offered
28:37
having to charge for that it's actually a tremendous
28:40
administrative burden and that does
28:42
seem to be somewhat lessened for
28:44
example when the canadian system
28:46
and the big problem with canadian system first
28:48
of all we don't know if it's sustainable that's
28:50
a problem but the wait times
28:52
or catastrophic and it's chronically underfunded
28:55
now that may be an intractable problem
28:57
because healthcare has an infinite
29:00
hope your as an infinite amount
29:02
people are pretty much spent everything the hell
29:04
out or die i mean i would you say
29:06
we have we times here too cause forty five thousand
29:08
people die every year in the us cause they don't have healthcare
29:11
that's a weird nine it's littered with dead bodies
29:13
so i'm not making a game on are not
29:15
making the case that the american system is prefer
29:18
canadian system
29:19
molina case okay so
29:21
i'm saying that we don't exactly
29:23
know how to negotiate this going forward
29:26
started down there are some people and us
29:29
that face terrible way times and can't get access
29:31
to hospitals and all i'm saying that there
29:33
are people in the us who don't face
29:35
that and every one in canada faces
29:38
and he doesn't seem right it's the least bit reasonable
29:40
that if i have excess reserves is even
29:43
those that could be them voted to
29:45
subsidizing they have health care
29:47
for poor people if
29:50
i was willing to pay a premium for
29:53
more rapid healthcare delivery and one
29:55
of the points this
29:57
is about it would be that i would subsidize
30:00
my own fans the surgery
30:02
or medical treatment as someone who was in more
30:04
dire economic straits why should not be allowed
30:06
to do that why not set up the system so
30:08
that both of those because i
30:10
guess arbitrary idea that why it's gotta be
30:12
public or it's gotta be private so
30:14
well no first of all healthcare
30:17
isn't one thing it's three hundred thousand
30:19
things each of them differential and complicated
30:22
and each of them it goes cheated
30:24
necessarily by people who are wise
30:27
out a level of detail and into
30:29
work out and with regards these
30:31
scandinavian countries these models
30:33
have to remember these countries
30:36
have fewer people have been some of your cities
30:39
very homogenous societies their much simpler
30:41
societies that the u m which is slick
30:43
staggeringly complex complex
30:46
complex society so a
30:48
lot of the solutions that work in scandinavia
30:50
it's not obvious that still scale to a country
30:53
the size of us maybe they'd scale
30:55
at the state level possibly and
30:57
in some of your states are experimenting with more
30:59
left wing approaches to problems of education
31:02
and healthcare and so forth a
31:04
good that's another this big advantage to the of were
31:06
system is that because you
31:08
the
31:10
federated system and the states have a
31:12
fair bit of autonomy you can run experiments
31:14
at the local level and see what works it gives
31:16
you get your metrics right minutes complicated
31:19
emily advantageous nasa free
31:21
market system to it's just a free market system
31:23
of states
31:24
the let some let's move on from
31:26
health out only get bogged down and healthcare wasn't my intent
31:28
for us to go hit thirty minutes on this but there
31:31
because there's so many other things i want to talking about i'm
31:33
let's let's go real simple
31:36
here if you are an american citizen
31:38
you were here in the twenty twenty election
31:40
would you have voted for trump
31:43
biden nobody or third
31:45
party candidate
31:46
i don't know you know you did sir are the
31:49
answer questions until you're actually in the situation
31:52
when clinton was facing off against
31:54
trump the very long time
31:57
i felt that i would have voted for clinton
31:59
i
31:59
the she had the at least
32:02
the administrative background and
32:04
a governmental experience
32:06
to know what the job was
32:08
to handle it i felt the trump
32:10
was is a wild card which he most
32:13
definitely was then i went to this
32:15
her the night of the election i will
32:17
add to this republican the
32:19
our in canada at a private
32:22
club
32:23
the
32:24
watching the election and they did a straw
32:26
both fair
32:27
and
32:29
industrial vote i cast my vote for
32:31
trump the no
32:33
surprise me and it
32:35
was something i sorta switched on last minute
32:37
and the reason i switched i would say
32:39
is because i thought clinton betrayed
32:42
the working class in
32:44
fact our for she lost the election it isn't something
32:46
i just felt that's definitely what happened
32:48
and so i thought to hell with you you know
32:50
i'd rather have this wild card in
32:53
here with his spontaneous lies than have
32:55
you in here with the earth programatic
32:57
powered mad driven ah
33:00
pre authorized lies so
33:02
i don't know it's hard to tell what you do in a
33:04
situation so you're actually in
33:06
do you think trump as president in
33:09
his for years also betrayed the working class
33:13
them
33:14
nord in the same manner know really
33:16
i think trump did some things that were written quite
33:19
spectacular i'm i'm not i'm
33:21
like what well how about no war
33:25
well he did assassinated top iranian
33:27
can oh no no no hiding i didn't have a say
33:29
that about i didn't say anything about assassination
33:31
i said something very specific he
33:34
i would say that cannot do not no
33:36
it's not an act of words and assess nation
33:38
an article in iranian commander i
33:41
don't understand the point you're make alarm try
33:43
to say if in iraq if the iranians
33:45
killed one of our generals we would call
33:48
that an act of war we do to them aniston
33:50
nectar war or right then i guess we have to differentiate
33:52
between an act of war and a war what
33:55
you have right now with russia
33:57
there's a war
33:59
right did nord and be engaged us
34:02
in war of that sort so that
34:04
was a signal contribution he also
34:06
established abraham and accords which
34:08
you've got nowhere near enough attention not new
34:10
nearer the attention they deserve
34:12
in
34:13
and the people who negotiated that should have won
34:15
a nobel peace prize because that
34:18
brings the possibility of peace to the middle
34:20
east and i consider a d or
34:22
there was a big accomplishment both of those things
34:24
you consider the the giant increasing
34:27
drone strikes under trump problematic
34:31
what you mean problematic you mean desirable
34:34
the duke as you said i'll he didn't get us in a new
34:36
war but i would consider all those bombings
34:39
which are illegal by the way an act of war you
34:41
think you know either trump i didn't say that trump
34:44
record was unblemished more that there
34:46
weren't skirmishes of various sorts
34:48
not trying to paint him i'm
34:51
not trying to pay him beige and
34:53
or i'm not trying to whitewash the perfectly
34:56
aware of trump's flaws and disadvantages
34:59
that he didn't embroil the us
35:01
in a war and you guys have been embroiled in
35:03
a pointless war for for what how long
35:05
now since the nineteen sixties one
35:07
after another and then the abraham
35:09
records are a big deal
35:11
so and did he betrayed the working class
35:14
well i think just in some sense evade
35:17
it's a vague question hillary definitely
35:19
betrayed the working class because she decided to go
35:21
with the whoop mob instead of her typical
35:24
in typically and instead of the typical base of
35:26
power that the democrats it always relied on so
35:28
can i gathered cornell decision you're
35:30
going example on trump betraying the working class to there's
35:32
a few things you the point to first father was net
35:35
outsourcing of jobs under his administration
35:37
when he campaigned as the opposite the second
35:39
thing is is number one legislative accomplishments
35:41
was a twenty seventeen tax cut were eighty three
35:43
percent of the benefits went to the top one percent those
35:46
are two examples of your we campaigned
35:48
as the anti outsourcing guide and there was net outsourcing
35:51
under his administration and fact that same tax
35:53
bill incentivized outsourcing and
35:55
then again that tax bill mostly benefit of the wealthy
35:58
and it didn't help the working class oh that's i mean by
36:00
be trying the working class i think he campaigned in a
36:02
very populist way but in terms
36:05
of how he governed it was very sort
36:07
of standard establishment republican just like george
36:09
w bush for example
36:11
well i don't have any real comments on not
36:13
like i said i'm not trying to whitewash trump
36:15
administration i'm just pointing to a couple of
36:17
things that he did that allows got credit for
36:20
yet and shouting and got credit for
36:22
i actually enjoyed you are on the pbt
36:24
patasse i think it was recently and for
36:26
you made a comment that you found trump whiny
36:28
particularly over the you
36:31
know common refrain
36:33
that he can't stop saying he thinks the election was stolen
36:35
and it's where i mean i'm on your commentary
36:38
was like move on well i think
36:40
i think it's a strategic error on his part
36:43
at minimum
36:44
mint trump
36:45
portrays himself and thinks of themselves
36:48
the winter and part of his attractiveness
36:51
on the populist front was his
36:54
unabashedly
36:56
victorious persona
36:58
let's say
36:59
and he's the guy that gets things
37:02
done and he's the guy that wins
37:04
the
37:06
apparently
37:08
the election was stolen from him
37:09
so that begs the question
37:12
are you that and with a winner and the guy that gets
37:15
things done or are you the guy that lets
37:17
things be stolen from you and
37:19
the and so the trumpet always had was while
37:21
i'm not the guy or not that guy i don't
37:23
know who else i am but i'm definitely the winner
37:25
here
37:26
and i think that now campaign
37:29
eating as if he was the ah
37:32
victim let's say alba
37:34
plot isn't
37:36
going to do him any good i think it
37:38
was probably a fatal decision from the strategic
37:40
perspective because so off brand
37:43
that has nothing that's completely independent
37:45
of
37:46
whatever virtue the argument about the still lex
37:48
might have well i don't believe that the that
37:51
the judiciary in the united states is so
37:53
corrupt that the the possibility
37:55
of are valid finding
37:58
on the election fraud fraud front
37:59
been reduced to zero i don't find that credible
38:02
then i do think so i also think that that's
38:05
it's a mistake on that front and it's a mistake
38:07
for conservatives there a mistake
38:09
for conservatives take that route because
38:12
conservatives can't say all
38:14
the institutions are corrupted untrustworthy
38:17
that's what the radical leftists say and
38:20
populace conservatives tend to do that
38:22
and not really leaves them with nothing except
38:24
maybe an appeal to public whim nelson
38:26
a way to govern so i think that was
38:28
a mistake to the
38:32
you don't you in your commentary
38:35
i'd you often hear a strong defense
38:37
i'm of our institutions
38:40
and i do feel like one of the common
38:42
things that defines the current political era
38:44
is definitely populism the
38:47
bubbles up on the left up through
38:49
the vessel of say a bernie sanders and even
38:51
what i would argue was a fake populism that came
38:53
up on the right with donald trump where the agreement
38:55
does seem to be will hold on these institutions
38:58
are really not working for us and they're broken
39:01
and they're fundamentally corrupt and
39:03
you know the genesis of it being you
39:05
have this donor class of
39:07
corporations and billionaires that donates
39:10
to politicians and then they get elected
39:12
and do the bidding of that donor class
39:14
and the corporations the
39:17
do you disagree with that analysis do think that that's
39:20
just overwhelm the problem in the institution
39:22
where a healthier
39:23
well
39:25
i think it's partly a tower of babel
39:28
prob so i've been listening
39:30
a fair bit to russell brand who i quite like
39:32
the brothel is very very smart
39:34
he's definitely one of the smartest people i've ever
39:36
met his unbelievably sharp and
39:39
he differs in his
39:41
political utterances from me
39:44
a substantial degree although there's a fair bit
39:46
of commonality as well
39:48
these more beating
39:51
the anti capitalism drum
39:53
in a manner that i tend not to but
39:55
there's a specific reason for that and the reason
39:57
is that
39:58
russell has realize
39:59
that
40:00
size is a problem and
40:03
you know the the lefties tend to
40:05
be skeptical of big government and the right
40:07
wingers tend to be
40:09
sorry the lefties tend to be skate skeptical
40:11
of big companies brand that right
40:14
wingers tend to be skeptical of big government
40:16
right and i think the right way forward through
40:18
all that mess is that we should be skeptical
40:20
of big you know american
40:23
two thousand and eight there was this mantra that
40:25
was
40:26
what
40:27
the down from on high
40:29
too big to fail that
40:31
was not only wrong but anti
40:33
true so something anti true is literally
40:36
the opposite of what's true not just
40:38
a lie not just a misstatement and
40:40
the real ah the
40:42
proper response to the two thousand and
40:45
eight crisis should have been so
40:47
big that it inevitably
40:49
must fail
40:51
so when people are skeptical of institutions
40:55
that the skepticism should be levied
40:58
somewhat more carefully at to in
41:00
two ways one should be lol
41:03
all institutions tend towards
41:05
anachronism and corruption as they age
41:07
and they have to be constantly update there
41:10
you have a civic responsibility
41:13
who attend who the organizations
41:16
of your society
41:17
the local organizations political parties
41:20
churches
41:21
the business organizations in your community
41:23
you should be a member of those and participating
41:25
in them to improve the nastiest
41:28
a lot of mankind the old dad
41:30
uncles the very common mythological
41:32
motif and then the other problem is
41:34
the problem of scale it
41:37
seems highly probable that
41:39
once institutions reach
41:41
a certain magnitude
41:44
the their mirror size some
41:47
towards an authoritarian egotism
41:50
that seizure
41:52
and so i can't see why the right
41:55
and left can't agree on is that what we have
41:57
here is a problem of scale so
41:59
would you have responded to that two thousand and eight
42:02
crash by breaking up the big banks
42:04
that i don't know knowing i don't i don't something the
42:06
right the left to agree on anti monopolists
42:08
would agree on that yeah well
42:11
i mean i have an objection
42:13
in principle to overweening
42:16
and large i don't like centralized
42:18
arises i think they're inefficient an
42:20
authoritarian and i don't know what i would have done
42:22
in that specific situation because generally
42:25
in complex circumstances
42:28
like that the devils in the details
42:30
the
42:31
by get germany thoughts on the bailouts
42:34
oh you know it any
42:37
thoughts
42:38
yeah like how basically the government came
42:40
in rushed in propped up wall
42:42
street as everything was crumbling and
42:44
sort out the homeowners together with them so well that
42:47
you know it seems to me that the money
42:49
went to the wrong people are right it would have
42:51
been lot more it would be more difficult
42:54
to prop up the mortgage holders
42:57
the would have had the same effect eventually or on the
42:59
banks the i think that
43:02
yeah that the the their
43:04
the fastest element to that a so
43:06
fascism who fascism
43:08
the word is derived from the word sassy's
43:11
and that means to bind together
43:14
and so fascism is the
43:16
unholy alliance let's say of media
43:19
corporation and governments
43:21
and i think the two thousand and eight
43:23
bailouts like so much of the
43:26
globalist idiocy that pervades
43:28
our society today is essentially
43:30
fastest in its nature then
43:32
i think that's extremely unfortunate than extremely
43:34
dangerous so
43:37
you know the two thousand eight financial crisis
43:39
was a strange bird because
43:41
it was the consequence of a brilliant technological
43:44
innovation no one expected
43:47
the consequences of that innovation to
43:49
be as dramatic as they were
43:51
so basically what happened was that you
43:53
know every mortgage has a risk right and some
43:56
people are read less
43:58
risky than others
44:00
the get mad at each mortgage has a specific
44:02
risk then you could imagine bundling together
44:04
mortgages of a certain risk
44:07
the be a two percent three percent default
44:10
rate on average bundle a thousand
44:12
of them together you average across
44:15
the risk
44:16
the disagree and then theoretically
44:18
you can discount the risk
44:20
that was the idea of putting these mortgage trenches
44:23
together bundle risky
44:25
investments together
44:26
stabilize the risk offset
44:29
it financially and sell the resulting
44:32
france the the grouping brilliant
44:34
bloody brilliant idea what
44:37
no one expected was that linking mortgages
44:39
together like that would link
44:41
housing prices together across the entire
44:43
country rights but no one saw
44:45
that coming and we were subprime
44:48
so they should have been really about those low well
44:50
as play all that nord to say no no that's
44:52
hard to say you don't want to say that too quickly
44:54
because remember that
44:56
for decades before that it had been government
44:58
policy on the left and on the right
45:01
try to facilitate the
45:03
purchase of homes by people who were who
45:05
were doing so well economically
45:07
and what that meant that was was that mortgages
45:09
were going to be extended to people who are hiring who
45:12
had a higher credit risk and part of
45:14
him purpose
45:16
aggregating the more just mortgages together
45:18
in these trenches was to decrease
45:20
that risk so that more people could
45:22
have houses
45:24
now you could argue that it was a bad
45:26
idea try to ensure
45:28
that people who are economically
45:30
unsustainable or unreliable
45:32
for whatever reason had access to
45:34
enough money to buy a house that's a different issue
45:37
but both democrats and republicans decided
45:39
that was a good idea at and a big issue
45:41
is the ratings agencies lied they
45:44
were bought off so they would say oh these are rated
45:46
aaa which means they're the safest investment you
45:48
can do when very clearly on it's face it
45:50
was not a safe investment while they were investment
45:53
well they looked safe to begin with
45:55
because when they bundled the when they bundled
45:57
the mortgages together they did discount the rest
45:59
but what happened this is another unexpected
46:02
consequences
46:03
once the risk was lowered the
46:06
banks are incentivized to take on even
46:08
more risky mortgages because they believe
46:10
they could now discount the risk
46:12
the not just got out of control yeah
46:14
and some of that was corrupt in obviously
46:16
in some of it as in cinema with
46:18
collusion with rating agencies but you
46:20
also have to understand that running
46:23
a rating agency is no simple matter and
46:25
if you're smart enough to rate the reliability
46:27
of investments you're smart enough to go
46:30
develop your own investment portfolio make a fortune
46:32
on your own and so the regulators
46:34
are always going to be pit the regulators
46:36
are always going to be playing be playing
46:39
catch up game with the real financial
46:41
geniuses and innovators volt they
46:43
they were paid by the people they were supposed
46:45
to be raining so there was a grub without interest
46:48
rate that were they were they are incentivized to say oh
46:50
yeah these are rated aaa and really
46:52
was just a big rubes people were playing hop
46:54
on well with very tight was as i wasn't
46:56
just the big bruise if there's a moral hazard
46:58
there and it's not trivial
47:00
right i mean the the you shouldn't
47:02
use your raiders should be independent
47:05
obviously and so your points well taken
47:07
their but there are many factors that
47:09
went into that catastrophe and some
47:11
of them words if you can't you
47:13
can't talk it all up to corruption
47:16
i wouldn't because it was complicated
47:19
and like i said that bound
47:21
bundling the more we just that was really smart idea
47:23
and one did think that cuz
47:25
i the theory was that housing
47:27
prices across the country were going to remain on
47:29
correlated and
47:30
the always has it
47:32
wasn't the mortgages were linked together with
47:34
these new financial instruments that housing prices
47:37
the started to move in sync and that's
47:39
what sunk the market no
47:41
one is no one saw that coming to that's remember
47:43
at the beginning the conversation talk about the danger of new
47:45
ideas you've learned an
47:47
idea like that you say look we figured out a way to
47:50
specify risk and to decrease
47:52
the investment risk
47:55
of moans
47:57
given to people who are less financially
47:59
stable
47:59
she does everybody be clapping about that because
48:02
it means you can get poor people into houses
48:04
then the unintended consequence was the whole housing
48:07
market collapse
48:08
no yeah know that coming
48:10
the yeah yeah me i guess i'd i
48:12
struggle with that in this sense i don't want
48:14
to presuppose and end of history analysis
48:16
where we assume that we already sort
48:18
of maxed out on our potential
48:20
in a sense so we always have to be open a new ideas
48:23
it as they have to be intelligent new ideas
48:25
that are that can be tested and verify
48:28
yeah well that's the big just
48:30
the court yeah that's all the devil is in
48:32
those details i target well it's
48:34
also why we have free speech by the way
48:36
it is ranked yeah we an obvious these
48:38
ideas before we implement them in principle
48:41
i'm as staunch defender of that as
48:43
you can get in fact a while we have talk
48:46
about that so i notice
48:49
you just the other day you were banned from
48:51
twitter now you know i'm
48:53
somebody nobody can argue
48:55
against my lefty credentials everybody
48:57
knows i'm a man of the left having
49:00
said that my that my
49:02
on this issue of social media censorship has
49:04
always been look we need to expand
49:07
first amendment protections and the way you
49:09
do that is to regulate these
49:11
big social media companies like their
49:14
public utilities though if you do that
49:16
than you you know basically you're saying this
49:18
is the new public square and people
49:20
can speak their mind you're not a doesn't mean of course you can't
49:23
you know docs people are do direct
49:25
threats of violence or anything or anything it's actually
49:27
illegal will remain illegal but outside
49:29
of that you can't censor people just based
49:31
on some political opinion
49:34
so you know i definitely wouldn't know where'd
49:36
you suspended you etc but i do
49:38
have a question about that specific tweet
49:40
that did get you in trouble because
49:42
you know you've said something to the effect of more
49:45
i don't know if it got me in trouble you
49:47
know i don't think i'm in trouble twitter ban me
49:50
but i don't consider that trouble doesn't
49:52
have fair enough fair point but
49:54
you said some of the effect of remember when pride was
49:56
a sand and dumb the
50:00
the criminals and alienates just had her breasts
50:02
cut off by a criminal subliminal physician exactly
50:04
so my question is
50:06
the position really criminal if you agree
50:09
that adults can decide to transition
50:11
than why would the physician be criminal stone
50:13
adults have that right if they want to transition
50:21
not everything legal isn't criminal
50:25
and do they have that right see
50:27
i would have lived ellen page alone if she hadn't been
50:29
parading her new abs in assassin magazine
50:33
how many kids you think she can convince
50:36
to convert
50:37
one yet so i wasn't no
50:40
no it's yeah no no i wanna i
50:42
wanna respond to that i think the
50:44
with the trans community it's very similar to the
50:46
gay community where back when that first
50:48
became a big issue people thought oh
50:51
we talk about it if it's in magazines or whatever
50:53
we're promoting kids to go down that
50:55
path the really what happened is people
50:58
are who they are and other day they just decided
51:00
to be little yeah i'm gay and they were just more
51:03
open and honest with themselves sort of the you're promoting
51:05
people to do that about his name would happen if you
51:07
are that it you'll read okay learn
51:10
are totally unwilling still listening
51:12
about that sits right so it exploded
51:14
others in an absolute look one of the reasons
51:16
that i
51:17
suppose bill see sixteen and candidate
51:19
to begin with this pronoun compelled speech
51:21
bill was because i knew perfectly
51:24
well what was going to happen when we introduced
51:26
confusion about gender identity
51:28
into the public sphere the
51:31
argument was that if we
51:33
the left
51:34
people with gender dysphoria alone
51:36
to make their own way stop
51:38
torturing
51:40
that
51:41
we would decrease the mental health
51:43
load on those individuals
51:46
and my a analysis as a clinician was
51:48
that for every one person of
51:50
that sort that we hypothetically
51:52
save we do my thousand
51:54
more the consequence of confusion
51:57
and then social contagion i
51:59
knew literature or and psychogenic
52:02
epidemics the used to call that mass
52:04
hysteria and solider sure the goes back about
52:06
three hundred years and whenever
52:08
you introduce often when you
52:10
introduce social confusion you
52:13
can produce the psychogenic epidemic especially
52:15
among generally it's adolescent
52:17
females who are most susceptible to
52:19
so i thought oh well what's going to happen
52:21
is will produce a psychogenic epidemic of gender
52:24
dysphoria among adolescents emails
52:26
and that is exactly what's
52:28
happened
52:30
and it isn't the fact that we've freed
52:32
up people who are
52:33
what
52:34
in doubt about their identity
52:36
to be who they are
52:38
that may have happened in a tiny minority cases
52:41
it's absolutely a definitely the case that
52:43
we've doom thousands of kids too brutal
52:46
mutilating surgery and premature
52:48
sterility and we've done that on
52:50
the altar of our hypothetical moral
52:52
virtue and compassion
52:55
what i read a call
52:57
but analysis of the trans surgery
52:59
industry last week growth
53:01
rate projection for you lefty
53:03
types and you're anti corporatism
53:06
read projection fifteen percent
53:08
per year invest now
53:10
at three hundred and fifty million dollar business
53:13
as of twenty twenty two
53:15
projected to expand his seven hundred
53:17
and fifty million by twenty twenty seven
53:20
no moral hazard there twenty
53:23
of moral hazard lawyer what a massive surgery
53:25
is absolutely brutal so
53:28
what percentage of the population do you
53:30
think in your conception of how this is
53:32
unfolding what percentage of the population
53:34
do you think is gonna end up being trans
53:37
at the end of this do you think like a million
53:39
seventy percent know if we know and renaissance
53:42
we know already that about one in five
53:45
adolescence now identifies
53:47
to use that heated word identifies
53:50
as part of the hypothetical lgbtq
53:52
plus community so
53:55
it's one in five of us don't know what
53:57
the upper limit is this a consulting group
53:59
in the hey now this claiming there is one hundred and fifty
54:01
different genders it actually
54:04
i suppose seven billion different genders
54:06
if you want to get technical about it because everybody's
54:08
temperament efforts
54:09
that i don't know what the upper limit is
54:12
and i have no idea what the upper limit is for this
54:14
surgical intervention will see doesn't
54:16
but i don't find it i don't find it the least
54:18
bit acceptable and if you think that your compassion
54:21
is demanding
54:23
did you extend your ah
54:25
pity
54:26
the ldp btc do
54:28
was community
54:30
the cost of sterilized and killed
54:34
you should think again you're on the wrong
54:36
side of this an ornate it's runway don't
54:39
i died , would appreciate if you
54:41
don't ascribe believed me that i don't have remember
54:43
my original question was why i said
54:45
earlier licensed in i said you know
54:47
your pages an adult and so do think
54:49
that he has the right now but added that
54:52
was the original question comments after that
54:54
yeah but as a star and
54:57
, figure and a model for
54:59
emulation
55:00
the
55:01
he also has the responsibility
55:03
not to entice confused
55:05
adolescence into a catastrophic
55:08
decision before they have the maturity
55:10
to make that decision
55:11
i just have to
55:12
the jordan i think it's a little bit of a moral
55:14
panic i just don't see some sort
55:17
of that you know renzi
55:19
okay what would you consider them trans what's
55:21
first of all that's a hell of a way to put it why
55:24
why don't you take a look at the increases
55:26
in surgical interventions and see what you
55:29
think mean how many do you think our many
55:32
nice were like if we're talking all answer
55:34
your question i'll answer questions the argument is
55:36
a the used to be very repressed
55:38
biggest that's very outside of the tradition and
55:40
the norm in the standard and that now
55:43
when i don't have much of a mood all at a national anyway oppressed
55:45
what used to be surprised all the as anti
55:47
your lgbtq community i mean it was very
55:49
recently regular out of all marijuana united
55:51
source of all they're not a community well
55:55
you and what are your point i'm a unity
55:57
no i'm know actually
55:59
neither
55:59
i understand it nor you and
56:02
that's why we're delving into a first
56:04
of all they're not a community
56:06
that's just a catchphrase
56:09
it's a buzzword and i'll tell you something
56:11
else that almost all the kids who are
56:14
undergoing surgical intervention the
56:16
clinical literature is absolutely clear on
56:18
this eighty percent of kids
56:20
with gender dysphoria
56:22
identify as homosexual when they mature
56:26
eighty percent
56:28
and that means the vast majority of people who
56:30
are being converted
56:32
surgically are gay
56:35
know how is that an advantage to the gay
56:37
community precisely now
56:40
i see i'm not i'm not taking a position in
56:42
any way shape or form on the
56:45
kids because i don't know that
56:47
you showed up this to comment on a kids' school but
56:49
see that's why we're having this conversation those because
56:52
my original question was about kids the adults
56:55
and what's your take his on the adult and it sounds
56:57
to me like that let me ask as would you ban
56:59
transition surgery for adults
57:09
really
57:11
yeah really good paneling price for it
57:13
and i hope that i think that it was
57:16
it was an an active stunning hubris
57:19
to conduct the first trans
57:21
surgery procedure without it's not obvious
57:24
to me at all that it's been a net social good
57:26
are there some people that are obviously
57:28
trans who were born in one body they feel
57:31
like they're in the other body and when they're an adult they can make
57:33
the decision and then even from just a freedom and liberty
57:35
perspective since they have that right
57:37
even if they do it and then they regret it should they have
57:39
the right to try
57:41
good question i mean it's tricky one
57:43
right because there's all sorts of surgical
57:45
enhancement procedures that are obviously not
57:48
obviously appropriate make the be legal
57:50
and i don't know exactly where that cut off line
57:52
is so to speak and that's partly why we're having
57:55
we're having discussion about
57:56
but
57:58
it is or this entire
57:59
the
58:01
in many ways is stated so idiotically
58:03
that it almost defies description in
58:06
what do you mean feel like you're
58:08
in the wrong body
58:10
measurement is but no hang on a sir
58:12
i was gonna rule the cells for these sorts
58:14
of diagnostic decisions even okay
58:17
the rule is that you have to make a valid
58:19
and reliable diagnosis
58:21
that's if you diagnosing depression or anxiety
58:23
of obsessive compulsive disorder or
58:25
cancer anything like that their standards
58:28
that you have to abide by in
58:30
order to make to make in order to facility
58:32
obligations of your professional call
58:35
if someone comes to says
58:38
i feel like i have lung cancer
58:41
that is not sufficient grounds put on which
58:43
to formulate diagnosis much less proceed
58:45
to surgery and so the
58:47
question is
58:48
what do you mean by feel
58:51
what is that is that an emotion is it
58:53
a motivation is it the philosophical solution
58:56
what is it limp like salem explain
58:58
to you what i mean them expense want to be so i've been do my chauffeur
59:00
about a decade and about two or three years
59:02
into doing my show there were some stories
59:04
here in their thy covered about the transition
59:07
somebody who is trans reached out to me
59:09
and explained to me and a very straightforward way look
59:12
i was bored biologically female
59:15
i feel like i'm biologically male
59:17
my reality that my up we'll we'll
59:20
i'm just explaining what they said and then you can respond to
59:22
our be like to respond and they told me
59:24
as soon as i got the surgery
59:26
change the way i dressed change the way i peered
59:28
i felt for nominally better and so
59:31
that's why at least for me this was
59:33
the answer now i think you would be incredibly
59:35
arrogant for me to say back to that person
59:38
no you shouldn't do that or i know better
59:40
than you do for yourself and i thought to say
59:42
that every time somebody does this it works out well
59:44
of course because everybody's an individual putting
59:47
some instances that's the answer though
59:49
you know me as a simple outsider i just
59:51
look at it and say hey whatever floats your boat method works
59:53
it were not most of the time my attitude
59:56
is you can go to hell and handbasket anywhere you
59:58
choose if you're an adult
59:59
now the problem this problem
1:00:02
is complicated and compounded by the
1:00:04
fact of the necessity of medical involvement
1:00:06
and the ethics on the medical front so
1:00:09
, you ask me about how that should be regulated
1:00:11
my answer was i'm not exactly sure about that
1:00:14
yeah although it isn't obvious to me that the
1:00:16
that it's obvious to me that the trend
1:00:18
surgery enterprise has gone way
1:00:21
too far way to for thousands of
1:00:23
people to before and i'm
1:00:25
certain that it's harm
1:00:29
exponentially more people than it's help move
1:00:31
now and i was it also say with regards to that
1:00:33
story
1:00:35
an anecdote is north data and it's not something
1:00:37
that you base diagnostic decision on inferno
1:00:40
cake aired off selling torture anecdotes that's
1:00:42
true yeah well well and that's especially
1:00:44
true when you're talking about diagnosis know
1:00:46
we're in this weird situation where this
1:00:49
is andy conversion bill legislation
1:00:52
let's say it's now illegal
1:00:54
essentially for mental health professionals
1:00:57
position as as well to
1:00:59
talk to anyone the young
1:01:01
about their so called gender identity
1:01:04
which is by the way a complete load of
1:01:06
rubbish for all sorts of reasons which
1:01:08
we kept also get into it's
1:01:10
illegal to talk to them about that unless you're
1:01:12
going to affirm what they feel
1:01:15
but you can convert them surgically
1:01:19
don't think about that we've made talking
1:01:22
about conversion illegal
1:01:24
but we made but we're promoting surgical
1:01:27
conversion and everyone
1:01:29
thinks that's moral and decent why i don't
1:01:31
think so no not even not in the lease i
1:01:33
think it's appalling
1:01:35
the worst which level of paul and there's
1:01:37
no excuse for and certainly
1:01:40
on the diagnostic front they're actually
1:01:42
rules for psychologists there and the rules
1:01:44
are written by
1:01:45
the requisite organizations like the american
1:01:47
psychological association you are required
1:01:50
by the laws that govern your kaunda
1:01:52
act as a profession
1:01:54
the use only valid and reliable
1:01:56
means of diagnosis period and
1:01:58
it among psychologist or what that
1:02:00
means is extremely well delineated
1:02:02
and what your client feels
1:02:05
that is not a valid or
1:02:07
reliable measure there's
1:02:09
all sorts of examples of people
1:02:11
anorexic sick field if they're too fat why
1:02:15
not strip the remaining flesh
1:02:17
off the surgically
1:02:19
why is that different
1:02:22
they definitely feel like if i mean i've had and rex
1:02:24
clients and i spent some time with
1:02:26
one clients six
1:02:28
months she came to lunch with me to
1:02:31
eat i watched street and encouraged
1:02:33
her to eat and
1:02:35
i did this i did this
1:02:37
this or routine with her at one point i
1:02:40
had a look at her size use quite a slight woman
1:02:42
small in about five feet tall so
1:02:44
small one and extraordinarily thin because
1:02:46
she was anorexic and i had to sit
1:02:48
beside me and to look
1:02:50
at her thigh and mine and
1:02:52
i asked her which of them was margin
1:02:55
and mine was like at least fifty
1:02:57
percent
1:02:58
wider audience like visually
1:03:01
absolutely op is and see
1:03:03
lot a lot ten minutes i
1:03:05
would say she said well i think she start
1:03:07
hers was larger and so i said okay
1:03:09
i'm going to do something you watch be very very carefully
1:03:12
to make sure that are not
1:03:13
performing any trick on you so i put a piece of paper
1:03:16
under my leg and a piece paper under
1:03:18
hers and i just trace my thigh
1:03:20
i put a trace my thigh on the peace paper first
1:03:22
and i put it under hers and trace
1:03:24
her thigh and then i showed her the
1:03:27
to traces
1:03:28
and or size were
1:03:30
an inch and a half the and on mine or both sides
1:03:32
and she probably looked at that piece of paper for
1:03:34
fifteen minutes
1:03:37
there are not only did she feel that she was fat
1:03:39
when she looked at her own body
1:03:41
that's what she saw anders
1:03:44
complicated reasons for that like anorexics
1:03:46
don't seem to be able to look at the whole body they
1:03:48
look pieces of nobody and
1:03:51
then they can't tell if the musculature
1:03:53
in the skin there is is fat or if
1:03:55
it's thin they lose the ability
1:03:58
to see themselves as a guest salt and now
1:04:00
only do they feel that they're fat they see
1:04:02
that the what is that
1:04:04
does that mean right and even if
1:04:06
they're not right then
1:04:09
how is it that ceiling me as a valid
1:04:11
indicator of identity and also
1:04:13
by the way ceiling has never been a valid indicator
1:04:15
identity because your identity
1:04:18
is not based on who you on who
1:04:20
you feel you are that
1:04:22
is the that is us are noted as
1:04:24
theory of identity that is so shallow
1:04:27
that anyone with a shred of intellectual
1:04:30
pretension who utters it should instantly
1:04:32
be ashamed of themselves
1:04:33
who your own think it is her identities as
1:04:35
what they feel i mean it's more of
1:04:38
a default defense of freedom
1:04:40
and liberty people make their own choices
1:04:42
even like you said he even if you're going to hell in a handbasket
1:04:45
so i don't think it's a crazy position i
1:04:47
understand people disagreeing with a but i certainly don't think
1:04:49
is a crazy position
1:04:51
crazy position the american psychological
1:04:53
association adopted it's crazy position
1:04:56
because it violates the diagnostic regulations
1:04:58
privileges validity and reliability and
1:05:00
if the arguments you
1:05:02
have the right to go to hell and and basket
1:05:05
in your own manner as an adult
1:05:07
well we could have a discussion about that that
1:05:09
still begs the question of do surgeons
1:05:12
gets to help you and still
1:05:14
abide by their medical ethics that's
1:05:16
a different issue so art work i
1:05:18
bet i think everybody understand your position on this
1:05:20
now you're you're on the record and and and
1:05:22
you flush it out i will ask you i mean
1:05:24
so to speak i saw you talked to
1:05:26
was dave rubin the other day and
1:05:29
i'm you made you made that you don't
1:05:31
think that gay conversion therapy
1:05:34
should be banned the also conceded
1:05:36
that you don't think it works though
1:05:39
why could have been allowed him i don't think it was an issue
1:05:42
we just how many
1:05:44
people would enjoy ferguson's that while said
1:05:46
he said well as anybody successfully d
1:05:48
jade and your response was like
1:05:50
i don't think so it could be allowed
1:05:53
which strikes know what my of is
1:05:55
very highly unlikely that those particular
1:05:58
words were my response to right choose
1:06:00
my words lot more carefully than that so
1:06:03
yes i don't believe that there isn't there evidence
1:06:05
that people have been successfully d dade
1:06:07
album i don't know the studies and
1:06:10
it's tricky issue because
1:06:12
it through our bisexuals let's say
1:06:14
which we seem to all agree on that there are borderline
1:06:17
cases and i suspect that there are bisexuals
1:06:19
who decide to live
1:06:22
street life yes
1:06:25
or no is that true or not easy
1:06:27
yeah but if they're by they still have the attraction to
1:06:29
the same sex too that's always
1:06:31
there
1:06:32
it's more about how he is it a continuum
1:06:35
is it a continuum are these discreet category
1:06:38
i think it's all spectrum yes
1:06:40
okay then there's gonna be some people who are
1:06:43
mostly gay who are slightly bisexual
1:06:45
who decide deliver straight line
1:06:47
sure
1:06:48
the what we don't have that same
1:06:51
there will always have some sexual attraction to the same
1:06:53
sex is the point so thereby no matter
1:06:55
how they relax your
1:06:56
header a search to monogamous men generally
1:06:59
have some attraction to other women
1:07:02
group that's right so you can later that
1:07:04
i believe me
1:07:05
the i got married because neither neither here
1:07:07
nor there are a lot of this is decision and the
1:07:09
degree to which people can decide which lifestyle
1:07:12
so to speak they're going to choose that's an open question
1:07:15
as all this rush to ban conversion
1:07:17
therapy well first of all was an absolute catastrophic
1:07:20
mistake not because there's something good
1:07:22
about conversion therapy but because
1:07:25
banning discussion of identity
1:07:27
with a therapist completely
1:07:30
this rates the therapeutic process
1:07:32
oh you do is
1:07:34
a therapist is talk about someone's identity
1:07:38
so if you come to me let's say you're
1:07:40
confused and you're young
1:07:42
the
1:07:44
just for example in
1:07:47
you come to come for the
1:07:49
therapeutic conversation
1:07:52
if i affirm your identity
1:07:55
i'm doing you a colossal disservice
1:07:58
first of all you know very happy with your
1:08:00
identity because otherwise you wouldn't be coming
1:08:03
to see a therapist
1:08:04
certain my role as a therapist is
1:08:06
not to affirm
1:08:08
or to deny
1:08:11
it's to in choir
1:08:12
right
1:08:14
very difficult for any of us to figure
1:08:16
out who we are and
1:08:18
unless we're it's possible
1:08:20
for us to have a difficult decision discussion
1:08:23
about who you are how
1:08:25
in the world are we going to engage in a therapeutic
1:08:28
darla
1:08:29
yep just say well you know you feel
1:08:31
that way and therefore i will be stripped
1:08:33
of my license by my governing body if
1:08:35
i even raise a question
1:08:38
they're not the end of that and
1:08:40
and what one why did we pass this
1:08:42
legislation because legislation handful of fundamentalists
1:08:44
in the us where hypothetically attempting to convert
1:08:46
gay people how many times did that happen
1:08:49
in the last twenty years
1:08:51
one hundred number they attempt er how many times
1:08:53
did it work no attempt bow
1:08:55
attempt i have no idea man really
1:08:57
does anyone else right right a
1:08:59
tiny tiny minority of
1:09:01
people
1:09:02
first of all certainly virtually no one
1:09:04
from the mainstream psychotherapy to community would
1:09:06
ever do that are you had
1:09:09
a handful of fundamentalists perhaps who
1:09:11
are doing this now and then in some
1:09:13
situations and now we've made
1:09:15
laws everywhere
1:09:17
that basically made it impossible it
1:09:19
made it impossible for everyone to have an honest conversation
1:09:21
with any of their target
1:09:23
and that's supposed to be an improvement it's not
1:09:25
improve
1:09:26
the probably decimated the psychotherapeutic
1:09:29
the enterprise and possibly the medical and
1:09:31
prices well
1:09:32
that you cannot ask know the
1:09:35
kind of questions you have to ask if your therapist
1:09:38
you know what you came to me and you're confused about sexuality
1:09:42
maybe your promiscuity has gotten out of hand
1:09:44
i don't have what it is or maybe you haven't had
1:09:46
sex with anyone for five years you know
1:09:48
there's the two opposite ends of the spectrum
1:09:51
i'm not disturbing you some
1:09:53
pretty damn difficult conversations but
1:09:55
your identity the up
1:09:58
the well now we can
1:10:00
yeah that's very strange by that's that's certainly
1:10:02
not in august it's catastrophic and
1:10:04
and will do no good whatsoever and to
1:10:07
a to ally that with the allowance
1:10:10
and insistence now that the surgical
1:10:12
conversion route is both appropriate and
1:10:14
effective indeed it will somehow
1:10:16
reduce suicide rates there's absolutely no
1:10:19
evidence whatsoever for that claimed by the
1:10:21
way outright lie
1:10:23
that claim i'm doug peterson i
1:10:25
don't wanna take up too much more your time you've been very kind
1:10:27
with your time with me and i really appreciate that i
1:10:29
guess i'll ask one more question i'm very
1:10:31
curious your thoughts on i'm obviously we
1:10:33
just had this big supreme court
1:10:35
case here in the us were real vs wade
1:10:37
was overturned and now gets thrown
1:10:39
back to the states and the individual states will decide
1:10:42
what to do with abortion and now as
1:10:44
we speak at least thirteen states has
1:10:46
fully band abortion i'm what's
1:10:49
your take on role vs wade you think it should have been upheld
1:10:51
or do you think it should have been overturned and
1:10:53
what your feelings more generally on
1:10:55
the issue of abortion
1:10:57
well
1:11:03
i don't think anybody regards abortion as
1:11:05
a positive good
1:11:09
so i make a terrible joke you know
1:11:12
you wouldn't get one as a gift for your sister
1:11:14
for christmas
1:11:16
it's not a good
1:11:17
no it's a last ditch attempt
1:11:19
to stave off her impending moral
1:11:22
catastrophe so
1:11:24
i think that policy should be put in place
1:11:28
in the broadest possible sense with
1:11:30
the aim of lowering the overall
1:11:32
abortion and i don't
1:11:34
think that can be done effectively
1:11:37
with compulsion
1:11:39
i'm not an advocate for compulsion in
1:11:41
the realm of policy in general maybe
1:11:43
there have to be exceptions made in the case of
1:11:45
criminals
1:11:47
that complicated to but generally if
1:11:49
or as our policy requires compulsion
1:11:52
then it's bad policy and is counter
1:11:54
productive i know i've been talking
1:11:56
to people in hungary partly
1:11:58
as a consequence of the
1:11:59
one versus wade decision and hungry
1:12:02
, institute a lot of family friendly policies
1:12:05
in the last ten years it's been their fundamental
1:12:07
policy focus and one
1:12:09
of the things they've done which is quite interesting
1:12:11
is
1:12:13
his
1:12:14
exempt women from paying income tax
1:12:16
at different levels as they have children
1:12:19
so the have one child i think
1:12:22
your income tax load goes down
1:12:24
i don't remember if it's ten or twenty percent and
1:12:26
so on up till four children and
1:12:28
at the point of having for children
1:12:31
if you're the mother you
1:12:33
are then exempt from paying into tax for the rest
1:12:36
of your life and that's in the context
1:12:38
of a broad range of
1:12:40
policies designed to the
1:12:42
support stable heterosexual
1:12:45
monogamy and to provide a stable
1:12:48
basis for the raising of children
1:12:50
and one of the consequences of that is that although
1:12:53
abortion is legal in hungary up
1:12:55
to twelve weeks
1:12:57
the a variety of reasons the
1:12:59
part they rate abortion rate
1:13:01
by forty percent
1:13:03
you know thumbs up to that as far as
1:13:05
i'm concerned and i think that
1:13:07
we should use their certain markers and we should
1:13:09
be using the to to
1:13:11
test the health of our society
1:13:14
that we're not using we use
1:13:16
unemployment we use inflation
1:13:18
those are the two major major economic
1:13:20
metrics
1:13:23
rick
1:13:26
we don't use it almost every western
1:13:29
country is way below replacement terms
1:13:31
birthrate and i think that's catastrophe
1:13:34
and i think abortion rates another matter
1:13:38
well designed policy
1:13:40
should aim at driving the rate down as low
1:13:42
as possible with a minimum amount of
1:13:44
course of force
1:13:46
no in principle i'm pleased
1:13:48
because i'm a d centralist in in
1:13:50
a most fundamental sense with that decision to
1:13:52
kick the be decisions back down to the states
1:13:55
the battle house for a multiple do
1:13:57
a multitude of experiments to be
1:14:00
simultaneously run and
1:14:02
i'd been working with fingers
1:14:05
on the liberal left to try to also
1:14:08
determine what a reasonable pathway
1:14:10
forward mighty
1:14:11
in terms of protecting minimal rights to
1:14:14
healthy to safe
1:14:17
and medically revised abortions
1:14:20
though
1:14:22
anyways the monumentally issue is we should
1:14:24
we should reconfigure family policy in
1:14:27
in in a fundamental way so that
1:14:30
so that one of the aims is the reduction of the
1:14:32
abortion rate because why wouldn't people
1:14:34
want that
1:14:36
no one thing it's good what was
1:14:38
the old mantra on the democrat side
1:14:41
the really rare right
1:14:43
yeah we could concentrate on the rear part
1:14:45
you know the and wouldn't that be better
1:14:48
so we we tend
1:14:50
to get our heads lost in the clouds in discussions
1:14:53
like this and i think that's a big mistake you
1:14:55
have to go back do a careful
1:14:57
analysis and try to figure out exactly what
1:14:59
problem you're trying to solve here
1:15:02
well doctor gordon pearson i want to
1:15:04
thank you so much for your time you've been very generous
1:15:06
with your time and thank you again
1:15:08
for you know jousting with me here
1:15:11
it's always more interesting to me when you
1:15:13
have some competing ideologies
1:15:15
and we kid disagree here and there and
1:15:17
hopefully was hoping you had fun hopefully
1:15:20
the audience enjoyed it and dumb again
1:15:22
i want to thank you
1:15:24
well thanks for the invitation i don't
1:15:26
get an invitation very often you
1:15:28
know people criticize me for not talking to lefties
1:15:31
although i do from time to time and a lot my
1:15:33
private life but most of the reason
1:15:35
for that is they don't talk to me and
1:15:38
if i mean very did i did to say yes not
1:15:40
always depends on who's asking but
1:15:43
i'm just pleased that you decided to talk
1:15:45
with me and so about a be my pleasure
1:15:47
to do it again on whatever topic you'd
1:15:49
like to do it on and also while we're
1:15:52
wrap it up here just tell everybody where they can find you
1:15:54
the various shows you're hosting etc
1:15:58
well i suppose most people familiarize
1:16:00
themselves with what i have to say on you tube
1:16:03
the couple of books twelve rules for life
1:16:06
beyond order they're
1:16:08
popular books people have found them useful
1:16:11
if they're trying to put the lives together and that was what
1:16:13
they were designed for i have an academic book
1:16:15
called maps a meeting which is heavy going back
1:16:17
for people are philosophically inclined they might
1:16:20
find that interesting
1:16:21
the hard read
1:16:23
youtube is probably the best access points for
1:16:26
people looking for something relatively straightforward
1:16:29
so
1:16:30
more than welcome to do that
1:16:32
all right well thank you very much doc i really appreciate
1:16:34
it the dog with
1:16:37
yeah right everybody
1:16:39
that was the one the only doctor jordan peterson
1:16:42
i'm going into this interview
1:16:45
i had to
1:16:47
try to figure out which things are
1:16:49
going to prioritize which things i'm gonna talk
1:16:51
about and what should we focus more
1:16:54
on and less on because you
1:16:56
know it's difficult there's so many things you are talking about
1:16:58
there's you know he's you had so
1:17:00
many big stories written about i'm
1:17:02
there's so many criticisms of hit from the left
1:17:04
and you know i had to try to balance
1:17:07
had balance white try to have to have conversation
1:17:09
that him at ease get myself in the flow
1:17:11
but also pushed back in certain ways and
1:17:14
i think i did a a pretty decent job
1:17:17
i brought up some the recent controversies would people
1:17:19
are probably most interested in somehow
1:17:21
we ended up talk about health care for thirty minutes
1:17:23
i'm in there were you know the part on trump
1:17:25
i thought was very interesting and maybe got some stuff
1:17:28
out of him that maybe he's not that anywhere
1:17:30
else yet so it's some new stuff the
1:17:32
new i hope people on enjoyed
1:17:34
that i certainly had a good time doing it i'm
1:17:37
i will say for sure from my perspective when
1:17:41
you watch him on you tube or
1:17:43
listen him on a podcast
1:17:46
like easy easy to listen to when
1:17:48
you're talking directly to him he has
1:17:50
a very the very strong
1:17:52
presence to the like
1:17:54
a deer were definitely times i wanted to like
1:17:56
inter jackson and make a point real quick
1:17:59
and like cut him off then say something to like clarify
1:18:01
something anything he makes it so
1:18:03
difficult to do that do that have to wait
1:18:06
for an opportunity where you can hop
1:18:08
in and then try to address the a
1:18:10
however many things you were waiting on three four
1:18:12
things so anyway
1:18:14
i hope i did a good job i pushed back
1:18:17
however i could wherever i could
1:18:19
while still keeping it cordial i'm
1:18:22
if you're somebody who's a fan of doctor toward
1:18:24
pearson is watching this is not chris
1:18:26
kyle and friends original i welcome
1:18:28
you i'm i assure
1:18:30
you all of us lefties do not have
1:18:32
cooties i'm we can
1:18:34
also be very thoughtful as well
1:18:37
and i'm yeah i wanted to go
1:18:40
down a path with jordan peterson that i
1:18:42
don't think anybody else is really gone
1:18:44
down him with and i
1:18:47
think i think we succeeded are obviously i'll leave
1:18:49
that up to you guys you guys tell me how you
1:18:51
thought it was i certainly had fun doing
1:18:53
it i'm there were times or was contentious
1:18:56
but i thought it was contentious and cordial
1:18:58
at the same time and look i
1:19:00
deftly do it again so ,
1:19:02
love you guys by the way subscribe
1:19:05
on subset who get
1:19:07
the video versions of the show a day
1:19:09
early five dollars a month and
1:19:11
then you can also sign up for free on subset
1:19:14
of you want to pay the five dollars and get the audio
1:19:16
version of the show or as soon as it drops
1:19:18
a day later on saturdays so thank you
1:19:20
for everybody who is a subset member and
1:19:22
for everybody who isn't please consider doing
1:19:24
it because we don't take
1:19:27
any advertiser money for this podcast
1:19:29
we've never spoken to an advertiser we've
1:19:31
never run an ad before we're
1:19:33
very proud of that so that you told a small
1:19:36
dollar donors you guys build they show
1:19:38
and again i hope you enjoyed this and
1:19:41
rocky next week
Podchaser is the ultimate destination for podcast data, search, and discovery. Learn More