Jordan Peterson: Nietzsche, Hitler, God, Psychopathy, Suffering & Meaning | Lex Fridman Podcast #448

the following is a conversation with Jordan Peterson his second time on this The Lex fredman podcast you have given a set of lectures on ni as part of the new Peterson Academy and the lectures were powerful there's some element of the contradictions the tensions the drama the way you like lock in on an idea but then are struggling with that idea all of that that feels like it's a it's a nich and yeah well he has a big influence on me stylistically and like in terms of the way I approached writing and also many of

the people that were other influences of mine were very influenced by him so I was blown away when I first came across his writings there're so they're so uh intellectually dense that I don't know if there's anything that approximates that dovi maybe although he's much more wordy nich is very succin partly cuz he was so ill CU he would think all day he couldn't spend a lot of time writing and he condens his writings into very short while this aphoristic style he had and it's it's really something to strive for and and then he's also

an exciting writer like dovi and and dynamic and and romantic in that emotional way and so it's really something and I really enjoyed doing the I did that lecture that you described that lecture series is on the first half of Beyond Good and Evil which is a stunning book and uh that was really fun to take pieces of it and then to describe what they mean and how they've echoed across the decades since he wrote them and yeah it's been great taking each sentence seriously and deconstructing it and really struggling with it I think underpinning

that approach to writing requires deep respect for the person I think if we approach writing with that kind of respect you can take Orwell you can take a lot of writers and really d again on singular sentences yeah well those are the great writers because the greatest writers virtually everything they wrote is worth attending to know and and I think nich is in some ways the ultimate Exemplar of that because often when I read a book I'll mark one way or another I often fold the corner of the page over to indicate something that I've

found that's worth remembering I couldn't do that with a book like Beyond Good and Evil because every page ends up marked and and that's in marked contrast so to speak to many of the books I read now where it's it's it's quite frequently now that I'll read a book and there won't be an idea in it that I haven't come across before and with a thinker like n that's just not the case at the sentence level and I don't think there's anyone that I know of who did that to a greater extent than he did

so there's other people who whose thought is of equivalent value I've I've returned recently and I'm going to do a course on to the work of this Romanian historian of religion mer elata who's not nearly as well known as he should be and whose work by the way is a real antidote to the postmodern nihilistic Marxist stream of literary interpretation that the universities as a whole have adopted and ilad is like that too I I was I used this book called The Sacred and the profane quite extensively in a book that I'm releasing in mid

November we who wrestle with God and it's of the same sort it it it's endlessly analyzable I had to walked through the whole history of religious ideas and he had the intellect that enabled him to do that and everything he wrote is dream dream likee in its density so every sentence or paragraph is evocative in an imager Manner and that also what would you say deepens and broadens the scope and that's part of often what distinguishes writing that has a literary end from writing that's more merely technical like the literary writings have this imagistic and

dreamlike reference space around them and it takes a it takes a long time to turn a complex image into something semantic and so if your writing evokes deep imagery it has a depth that can't be captured merely in words and the great romantic poetic philosophers n has a very good example dovi is a good example so is mer El they have that quality and it's a good way of thinking about it you know it's kind of interesting from the perspective of technical analysis of intelligence there's a good book called the user illusion which is the

best book on Consciousness that I ever read it explains the manner in which our communication is understandable in this manner so imagine that when you're communicating something you're trying to change the way that your target audience perceives and acts in the world so that's an embodied issue and but you're using words which aren't when obviously aren't equivalent to the actions themselves you can imagine that the words are surrounded by a cloud of images that they evoke and that the images can be translated into actions yeah and and the greatest writing uses words in a manner

that evokes images that profoundly affects perception and action and that's the so I would take the manner in which I act and behave I would translate that into a set of images my dreams do that for me for example then I compress them into words I toss you the words you decompose them decompress them into the images and then into the actions and that's what happens in a meaningful conversation it's a very good way of understanding how we communicate linguistically so if the words spring to the visual full visual complexity and then that can then

transform itself into action that's and change in perception and because per well those are both relevant and it's an important thing to understand because the classic empiricists make the presumption and it's an erroneous presumption that perception is a value-free Enterprise and they assume that partly because they think of perception as something passive you know you just turn your head and you look at the world and there it is it's like perception is not passive there is no perception without action ever ever and that's a weird thing to understand because even when you're looking at something

like your eyes are moving back and forth if they ever stop moving for a tenth of a second you stop being able to see so your eyes are jiggling back and forth just to keep them active and then there's involuntary movements of your eyes and then there's voluntary movements of your eyes like what you're doing with your eyes is very much like what a blind person would do if they were feeling out the Contours of a object you're sampling and you're only sampling a small element of the space that's in front of you and the

element that you choose to sample is dependent on your aims and your goals so it's value saturated and so all your perceptions are action predicated and partly what you're doing when you're communicating is therefore not only changing people's actions let's say but you're also changing the the strategy that they use to perceive and so you change the way the world reveals itself for them see this is why it's such a profound experience to read a particularly deep thinker because you could also think of your perceptions as the axioms of your thought that's a good way

of thinking about it a perception is like a what would you say it's a thought that's so set in concrete that you now see it rather than conceptualize it a a really profound thinker changes the way you perceive the world that's way deeper than just how you think about it or how you feel about it what about not just profound thinkers but thinkers that deliver a powerful idea for example utopian ideas of Marx or utopian ideas you could say dystopian ideas of Hitler those ideas are powerful and they can saturate all your perception with values

and they they focus you in a way where there's only a certain set of actions yeah right even a certain set of emotions as well and it's intense and it's direct and they're so powerful that they completely alter the perception and the words bring to life yeah it's like a form of possession so there's two things you need to understand to make that clear the first issue is that as we suggested or implied that perception is action predicated but action is goal predicated right the act towards goal and these propagandistic thinkers that you described they

attempt to unify all possible goals into a coherent Singularity and there's advantages of that there's advant the advantage of Simplicity for for example which is a major advantage and there's also the advantage of motivation right so if you provide people with a simp simple manner of integrating all their actions you decrease their anxiety and you increase their motivation that can be a good thing if the unifying idea that you put forward is valid but it's the worst of all possible ideas if you put forward an invalid unifying idea and then you might say well how

do you distinguish between a valid unifying idea and an invalid unifying idea now was very interested in that and I don't think he got that exactly right but the postmodernists for example especially the ones and this is most of them with the Neo Marxist bent their presumption is that the fundamental unifying idea is power that everything's about compulsion and force essentially and that that's the only true unifying ethos of mankind which is I don't know if there's a worse idea than that I mean there there are ideas that are potentially as dangerous the nihilistic idea

is pretty dangerous although it's more of a disintegrating notion than a unifying idea the hedonistic idea that you live for pleasure for example that's also very dangerous but if you wanted to go for sheer pathology the notion that and this is Fuko and a nutshell and marks for that matter that power rules everything not only is that a terrible unifying idea but it it fully justifies your own use of power and and I don't mean the power nche talks about his will to power was more his insistence that a human being is an expression of

will rather than a mechanism of self- protection and security like he thought of the life force in human beings as something that strived not to protect itself but to exhaust itself in being and becoming it's it's like a it's like an upward oriented motivational Drive even towards meaning now he called it the will to power and that had some unfortunate consequences at least that's how it's translated but he didn't mean the power motivation that people like fuku or Marx was became so hung up on so it's not power like you're trying to destroy the other

it's Power full flourishing of a human being the creative force of a human being that well you could imagine that and and you should you could imagine that you could segregate competence and ability like imagine that you and I were going to work on a project we could organize our project in relationship to the ambition that we wanted to attain and we can organize an agreement so that you were committed to the project voluntarily and so that I was committed to the project voluntarily so that means that we would actually be United in our perceptions

and our actions by the motivation of something approximating voluntary play now you could also imagine another situation where I said here's our goal and uh you better help me or I'm going to kill your family well the probability is that you would be quite motivated to undertake my bidding and so then you might say well that's how the world works it's power and compulsion but the truth of the matter is that you can force people to see things your way let's say but it's nowhere near as good a strategy even practically than the strategy of

that would be associated with something like voluntary voluntary joint agreement of pattern of movement strategy towards a goal see this is such an important thing to understand because it it helps you start to understand the distinction between a unifying force that's based on Power and compulsion and one that is much more in keeping I would say with the ethos that governs western western societies free western societies there's really a qualitative difference and it's not some morally relativistic illusion so if we just look at the Nuance of n's thought uh the idea he first introduced And

Thus Spoke zaratustra of the Uber mench yeah that's another one that's very easy to misinterpret because it sounds awfully a lot like it's about power yeah right for example in the 20th century it was mis represented and co-opted by Hitler to advocate for the uh extermination of the inferior non- Arian races yeah and the Dominion of the superior Aryans yeah and yeah well that was partly because n's work also was misrepresented by his sister after his death but definit but I also think that there's a fundamental flaw in that Nichi and conceptualization so n of

course famously announced the death of God but he did that in a manner that was accompanied by Dire warnings like nich said because people tend to think of that as a triumphalist statement but n actually said that he really said something like the unifying ethos under which we've organized ourselves psychologically and socially has now been fatally undermined by well by the rationalist proclivity by the empir empiricist proclivity there's a variety of reasons mostly it was conflict between the enlightenment view let's say in the classic religious View and and that there will be dire consequences for

that and N knew like dovi knew that see there's a proclivity for the human psyche and for human societies to move towards something approximating a Unity because the cost of disunity is high fractionation of your goals so that means you're less motivated to move forward than you might be because there's many things competing for your attention and also anxiety because anxiety actually signals something like goal conflict so there's an inescapable proclivity of value systems to unite now if you kill the thing that's uniting them that's the death of God they either fractionate and you get

confusion anxiety and hopelessness or you get social disunity or and you get social disunity or something else arises out of the Abyss to constitute that unifying force and N said specifically that he believe that one of those manifestations would be that of um communism and that that would kill he said this in Will To Power that that would kill tens of millions of people in the upcoming 20th century I keep he he could see that coming 5050 years earlier and dovi did the same thing in his book the demons so this is the thing that

the a religious have to contend with it's a real conundrum because I mean you could dispute the idea that our value systems tend towards a unity and and and Society does as well because otherwise we're disunified but the cost of that disunity as I said is goal confusion anxiety and hopelessness so it's like a real cost so you could dispense with the notion of unity altogether and the postmodernists did that to some degree but they pulled off a slight of hand too where they replaced it by power now n did he's responsible for that to

some degree because n said with his conception of the Overman let's say is that human beings would have to create their own values because the value structure that had descended from on high was now shunted aside but there's a major problem with that many major problems the psychoanalysts were the first people who really figured this out after n because imagine that we don't have a relationship with the transcendental anymore that orients us okay now we have to turn to ourselves okay now if we were a Unity a clear Unity within ourselves let's say then we

could turn to ourselves for that Discovery but if we're a fractionated plurality internally then when we turn to ourselves we have we turn to a fractionated plurality well that was Freud's observation it's like well how can you make your own values when you're not the master in your own house like you're a war of competing motivations or maybe you're someone who's dominated by the will to force and compulsion and so why do you think that you can rely on yourself as the source of values and why do you think you're wise enough to to consult

with yourself to find out what those values are or what they should be say in the course of a single life I mean you know it's it's difficult to organize your own personal relationship ship like one relationship in the course of your life let alone to try to imagine that out of whole cloth you could construct an ethos that would be psychologically and socially stabilizing and last over the long run it's like and of course Marx people like that the the the people who reduce human motivation to a single axis they had the intellectual hubus

to imagine that they could do that postmodernists are a good example of that as well okay but if we lay on the table religion uh communism Nazism they are all unifying ethos they're unifying ideas but they're also horribly dividing ideas they both unify and divide religion has also divided people yeah because in the nuances of how uh the different peoples wrestle with God they have come to different conclusions and then they use those conclusions or perhaps the people in power use those conclusions to then start wars to start hatred to divide yeah well it's one

of the key sub themes in the gospels is the sub theme of uh the Pharisees and so the the fundamental enemies of Christ in the gospels are the Pharisees and the scribes and the lawyers so what does that mean the Pharisees are religious Hypocrites the scribes are academics who worship their own intellect and the lawyers are the legal Minds who use the law as a weapon and so they're the enemy of the Redeemer that's the pl that's a subplot in in in the gospel stories and that actually all means something the phic problem is that

the best of all possible ideas can be used by the worst actors in the worst possible way and maybe this is an existential conundrum is that the most evil people use the best possible ideas to the worst possible ends and then you have the conundrum of how do you separate out let's say the genuine religious people from those who use the religious Enterprise only for their own machinations we're seeing this happen online like one of the things that you're seeing happening online I'm sure you've noticed this especially on the right-wing troll right-wing Psychopathic troll side

of the distribution is the weaponization of a certain form of Christian idation and that's often marked at least online by the presence of what would you say cliches like Christ is King which has a certain religious meaning but a completely different meaning in this sphere of emerging right-wing pathology right-wing the political Dimension isn't the right dimension of analysis but it's definitely the case that the best possible ideas can be used for the worst possible purposes and that also brings up another Spectre which is like well is there any reliable and valid way of distinguishing truly

beneficial unifying ideas from those that are pathological and so that's another thing that I tried to detail out in these lectures but also in this new book it's like how do you tell the good actors from The Bad actors at the most fundamental level of analysis and good ideas from the bad ideas and you lecture on Truth they need you also struggled with so how do you know how do you know that communism is a bad idea versus it's a good idea implemented by Bad actors right right that's a more subtle variant of the religious

problem that's what the that's what the Communists say all the time the modern day Communists like real communism has never been tried and you could say I suppose with some justification you could say that real Christianity has never been tried because we always fall short of the ideal Mark and so I mean my rejoinder to the Communists is something like every single time it's been implemented wherever it's been implemented regardless of the culture and the background of the people who've implemented it it's had exactly the same catastrophic consequences it's like I don't know how many

examples you need of that but I believe we've generated sufficient examples so that that case is basically resolved now the general rejoinder to that is it's really something like well if I was in charge of the Communist Enterprise the Utopia would have come about right but that's also a form of dangerous pretense part of the way see that problem is actually resolved to some degree in the notion of in the developing notion of sacrifice that emerges in the western Canon over thousands and thousands of years so one of the suggestions for example and this is

something exemplified in the passion story is that you can tell the valid holder of an idea because that Holder will take the responsibility for the consequences of his idea onto himself and that's why for example you see one way of conceptualizing Christ in the gospel story is as the ultimate sacrifice to God so you might ask well what's the ultimate sacrifice and there there are variants of answer to that one form of ultimate sacrifice is the sacrifice of a child the offering of a child and the other is the offering of the self and the

story of Christ brings both of those together because he's the son of God that's offered to God and so it's a archetypal resolution of that tension between ultimate sacrifice ultimate because once you're a parent most parents would rather sacrifice themselves than their children right so you have something that becomes of even more value than yourself but the sacrifice of self is also a very high order level of sacrifice Christ is an archetype of the pattern of being that's predicated on the decision to take to offer everything up to the highest value right that pattern of

self-sacrifice and I think part of the reason that's valid is because the person who undertakes to do that pays the price thems it's not externalized they're not trying to change anyone else except maybe by example it's your problem that like soja niton pointed that out too um when he was struggling with the idea of good versus evil and and you see this in more sophisticated literature you know in really unsophisticated literature or drama there's a good guy and the bad guy and the good guy guys all good and the bad guys all bad and in

more sophisticated literature the good and bad are abstracted you can think of them as spirits and then those Spirits possess all the characters in The Complex drama to a late greater or lesser degree and that battle is fought out both socially and internally in the high order religious conceptualizations in the west if they culminate let's in the Christian Story the notion is that battle between good and evil is fundamentally played out as an internal drama yeah so the uh for a religious ethos the battle between good and evil is fought within each individual human heart

right it's your moral duty to constrain it to constrain evil within yourself and well there's more to it than that because there's also the insistence that if you do that that makes you the more most effective possible like Warrior let's say against evil itself in the social world that you start with the battle that occurs within you in the soul let's say the soul becomes the Battleground between the forces of Good and Evil the idea there there's an idea there too which is if that battle is undertaken successfully then it doesn't have to be played

out in the social world as actual conflict right you can rectify the conflict internally without it having to be played out as fate as young put it so what would you say to n who called Christianity the slave morality and his critique of religion in that way was slave morality versus Master morality and then you put in Uber into that well that's that see I would say that the woke phenomenon is the manifestation of the slave morality that n criticized and that there are there are elements of Christianity that can be Gerry banded to support

that mod of perception and conception but I think he was wrong in he was wrong in his essential criticism of Christianity in that regard now it's complicated with nche because nche never criticizes the gospel stories directly what he basically criticizes is something like the pathologies of institutionalized religion and I would say most particularly of the what would you say of the sort of casually too nice Protestant form you know that's a a thumbnail sketch and perhaps somewhat unfair but given the alignment let's say of the more mainstream po Protestant movements with the woke mob I

don't think it's an absurd criticism it's something like the degeneration of Christianity into the notion that good and harmless are the same thing or good and empathic are the same thing thing which is simply not true and and far too simplified and so and I also think n was extremely wrong in his presumption that human beings should take it to themselves to construct their own values I I think he made a colossal error in that presumption and that is the idea of uber match that the great individual the best of us yeah should create our

own values well and I I think the reason that he was wrong about that is that so when God gives instructions to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eve he basically tells them that they can do anything they want in the wall Garden so that's the kind of balance between order and nature that makes up the human environment human beings have the freedom vouch safe to them by God to do anything they want in the garden except to mess with the most fundamental rule so God says to people you're not to eat of the

fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil which fundamentally means there is an implicit moral order and you're to abide by it you're Freedom stops at the foundation and you can think about that I'd be interested even in your ideas about this as an engineer let's say is that there is an ethos that's implicit in being itself and your ethos has to be a reflection of that and that isn't under your control you can't gerrymander the foundation because the your foundational beliefs have to put you in harmony like musical harmony with the

actual structure structure of reality as such so I can give you an example of that so our goal in so far as we're conducting ourselves properly is to have the kind of interestes in conversation that allows both of us to express oursel in a manner that enables us to learn and grow such that we can share that with everyone who's listening and if our aim is true and upward then that's what we're doing well that means that we're going to have to match ourselves to a pattern of interaction and that's marked for us emotionally like

you and I both know this if we're doing this right we're going to be interested in the conversation we're not going to be looking at or watch we're not going to be thinking about what we're aiming at we're just going to communicate now the religious interpretation of that would be that we were doing something like making the Redemptive logos manifest between us in dialogue and that's something that can be shared to do that we have to align with that pattern I can't decide that there's some arbitrary way that I'm going to play you I mean

I could do that if I was a psychopathic manipulator but to do that optimally I'm not going to impose a certain mode of a certain a priority aim let's say on our communication and manip and manipulate you into that so the constraints on my ethos reflect the actual structure of of the world and I can't this is this is the Communist presumption it's like we're we're going to burn everything down and we're going to start from scratch and we've got these axiomatic presumptions and we're going to put them into place and we're going to socialize

people so they now think and live like Communists from day one and human beings are infinitely malleable and we can use a rational set of presuppositions to decide what sort of beings they should be the transhumanists are doing this too it's like no there's a pattern of being that you have to fall into alignment with and it I think it's the pattern of being by the way that if you fall into alignment with it gives you hope it it it protects you from anxiety and it gives you a sense of harmony with your surroundings with

other people and none of that's arbitrary but don't you think we both ared to this conversation with rigid axioms that we have maybe we're blind to them but in the same way that the Marxist came with very rigid axioms about the way the world is and the way it should be aren't we coming to that well we definitely come to the conversation with a hierarchy of foundation oxums right and I would say the more sophisticated you are as a thinker the the deeper the level at which you're willing to play so imagine first that you

have presumptions of different depth there's more predicated on the more fundamental axioms and then that there's a a space of play around those and that space of play is going to depend on the sophistication of the player obviously but those who are capable of engaging in deeper conversations talk about more fundamental things with more play now we have to come to the conversation with a certain degree of structure because we wouldn't be able to understand each other or communicate if if a lot of things weren't already assumed or taken for granted how rigid is the

hierarchy of axioms that religion provides this is what I'm trying to understand the rigidity of that hierarchy is play well play is not rigid at all no no no no no no it's got a rigid some constraints it took me about 40 years to figure out the answer to that question so it wasn't I'm serious about that so it wasn't it wasn't a random answer so play is very rigid in some ways so like if you and I go out to play basketball or chess like There are rules and you can't break the rules because

then you're no longer in the game but then there's a dynamism within those rules that's well with chess it's virtually infinite I mean I think what is it there's more patterns of potential games on a chessboard than there are subatomic particles in the observable universe like it's an insane space so it's not like there's not Freedom within it but by the it's it's a weird Paradox in a way isn't it because music is like this too is that there are definitely rules and so and there are things you can't throw a basketball into a chess

board and still be playing chess but weirdly enough if you adhere to the rules the realm of Freedom increases rather than decreasing and I I think you can make the same case for a playful conversation as it's like we're playing by certain rules and a lot of them are implicit but that doesn't mean that it might mean the reverse of constraint you know because in this seminar for example that I was referring to the Exodus seminar and then the gospel seminar everybody in the seminar there's about eight of us played Fair nobody play used power

nobody tried to prove they were right they put forward their points but they were like here's a way of looking at that assess it and they were also doing it genuinely it's like this is what I've concluded about say this story and i' and I'm going to make a case for it but I'd like to hear what you have to say because maybe you can change it you can extend it you can find a flaw in it and that's well that's a conversation that has flow and that's engaging and that other people will listen to

as well and that's also see I think that one of the things that we can conclude now and we can do this even from a neuroscientific basis is that that sense of engaged meaning is a marker not only for the emergence of Harmony between you and your environment but for the emergence of that Harmony in a way that is developmentally Rich that moves you upward towards what would you say well I think towards a more effective entropic State that's actually the technical answer to that but it makes you more than you are and there's a

directionality in that well I would like to sort of the reason I like talking about communism because it has clearly been shown as a set of ideas to be destructive to to humanity but I would like to understand from an engineering perspective the characteristics of communism versus religion uh where you can identify religious thought is going to lead to a better human being a better society and communist Marxist thought it's not because there's ambiguity there's room for play in communism and Marxism because they kind of had a utopian sense of where everybody's headed don't know

it's going to happen maybe Revolution is required but after the revolution is done we'll figure it out and there's an underlying assumption that maybe human beings are good and they'll figure it out when once you remove the oppressor I mean all these ideas kind of until you put them into practice you could they can be quite convincing if you in the 19th century if I was reading which is kind of fascinating the 19th century produced such powerful ideas marks and nich oh fascism too for that matter fascism so you know if I was sitting there

uh like especially if I'm feeling shitty about myself um a lot of these ideas are pretty powerful as as a as a way to plug the Ness hole Yeah right absolutely well and some of them may actually have an appropriate scope of application it could be that some of the foundational axioms of Communism socialism SLC communism are actually functional in a sufficiently small social group maybe a Bible group even like I I also have a I'm not sure this is correct but I have a suspicion that the pervasive attractiveness of some of the radical left

ideas that we're talking about are pervasive precisely because they are functional within say families but also within the small tribal groups that people might have originally evolved into and that once we become civilized so we produce societies that are united even among people who don't know one another that different principles have to apply as a consequence of scale so that's that's partly an engineering response but but I think there's a more a deeper way of going after the Communist problem so I think part of the Communist the problem fundamental problem with the Communist axim is

the notion that the world of complex social interactions can be simplified sufficiently so that centralized planning authorities can deal with it and I think the best way to think about the free Exchange rejoiner to that presumption is no the sum total of human interactions in a large civilization are so immense that you need a distributed network of cognition in order to compute the proper way forward and so what you do is you give each actor their domain of individual choice so that they can maximize their own movement forward and you allow the aggregate direction to

emerge from that rather than trying to impose it from the top down which I think is computationally impossible so that might be one engineering reason why the Communist solution doesn't work like I read in Sol nedson for example that the the central Soviet authorities often had to make 200 pricing decisions a day now if you've ever started a business or created a product and had to wrestle with the problem of pricing you'd become aware of just how intractable that is like how do you calculate worth well there's the central existential problem of Life how how

do you calculate worth it's not something like a central Authority can sit down and just manage and you you there is a lot of inputs that go into a pricing decision and the free market answer to that is something like well if you get the price right people will buy it and you'll survive this is a fascinating way to describe how ideas fail so communism perhaps fails because uh just like what people believe the Earth is flat when you look outside it's it looks flat but you can't see Beyond the Horizon I guess so in

the same way with Communism communism seems like a great idea in my family and my people I love but it doesn't scale and and it doesn't iterate it doesn't that's a form of scaling too right well I mean whatever ways it breaks down it doesn't scale uh and you're saying religious thought is a thing that might scale I would say religious thought is the record of those ideas that have in fact scaled right and iterated itated does religious thought it great so I mean there's a fundamental conservative aspect to religious thought tradition yeah there this

is why like mer elad for example who I referred to earlier one of the things elad did and very effectively and people like Joseph Campbell who in some ways were popularizers of Jose of elad's ideas and Carl Jung's what they really did was devote themselves to an analysis of those ideals ideas that scaled and iterated across the largest possible spans of time and so ilad and Yung Eric neyman they were looking and and Campbell they were looking at patterns of narrative that were common across religious Traditions that had spanned Millennia and found many patterns the

heroes myth for example is one of those patterns and it's I think the evidence that it has its reflection in human neurophysiology and neuros pychology is incontrovertible and so these foundational narratives they last they're common across multiple religious Traditions they Unite they work psychologically but they also reflect the underlying neurophysiological architecture so I can give you an example of that so the hero myth is really a quest myth and a quest myth is really a story of exploration and expansion of adaptation right so Bilbo The Hobbit he's kind of an ordinary every man he lives

in a very constrained and orderly and secure world and then the quest call comes and he goes out and he expands his personality and develops his wisdom and that's reflected in human neuropsychological architecture at a very low level way below cognition so one of the most fundamental elements of the mamalian brain and even in lower animal forms is the hypothalamus it's sort of the root of primary motivation so it governs lust and um and it regulates your breathing and it regulates your hunger and it regulates your thirst and it regulates your temperature like really low-level

biological Necessities are regulated by the hypothalamus when you get hungry it's the hypothalamus when you're activated in a defensively aggressive manner that's the hypothalamus half the hypothalamus is the origin of the dopaminergic tracts and they subsume exploration and so you could think of the human motivational reality as a domain that's governed by axiomatic motivational States love sex defensive aggression hunger and another domain that's governed by exploration and the rule would be something like when your basic motivational states are sated explore well then and and that's not cognitive like I said this is deep deep brain

architecture it's extraordinarily ancient and and the exploration story is something like go out into the unknown and take the risks because the information that you discover and the skills you develop will be worthwhile even in sating the basic motivational drives and then you want to learn to do that in a iterative manner so it sustains across time and you want to do it in a way that unites you with other people and there's a pattern to that and I do think that's the pattern that's we strive to encapsulate in our deep religious narratives and I

think that in many ways we've done that successfully what is the believe in God how does that fit in what does it mean to believe in God okay so in one of the stories that I cover in uh we who wrestle with God which I've only recently begun to take apart say in the last two years is the story of Abraham it's a very cool story and it's also related by the way to your question about what makes communism wrong and dovi knew this not precisely the Abraham story but the the same reason in Notes

from Underground dovi made a very telling observation so he speaks in the voice of a cynical nihilistic and bitter bureaucrat who's been a failure who's talking cynically about the nature of human beings but also very ACC accurately and one of the things he points out with regards to Modern utopianism is that human beings are very strange creatures and that if you gave them what the Socialist utopians want to give them so let's say all your needs are taken care of all your material needs are taken care of and even indefinitely dov's claim was you don't

understand human beings very well because if you put them in an environment that was that comfortable they would purposefully go insane just to break it into bits just so something interesting would happen right and he says it's it's the human Pro proclivity to curse and complain and he says this in quite a cynic and CTIC manner but he's pointing to something deep which is that we're not built for comfort and security we're not infants we're not after satiation so then you might ask well what the hell are we after then that's what the Abraham story

addresses and Abraham is the first true individual in the biblical narrative so you could think about his story as the archetypal story of the developing individual so you said well what's God well in the Abraham story God has characterized a lot of different ways in the classic religious texts like the Bible is actually a compilation of different characterizations of the Divine with the insistence that they reflect an underlying unity in the story of Abraham the Divine is the Call to Adventure so Abraham has the Socialist Utopia at hand he's from a wealthy family and he

has everything he needs and he actually doesn't do anything until he's in his 70s now hypothetically people in those times lived much longer but the voice comes to Abraham and it tells him something very specific it says leave your zone of comfort leave your parents leave your tent leave your community leave your tribe leave your land go out into the world and Abraham thinks well why I've got naked slave girls peeling grapes and feeding them to me it's like what do I need an adventure for and God tells them and this is the Covenant by

the way part of the Covenant that the god of the Israelites makes with his people it's very very specific it's very brilliant he says if you follow the voice of Adventure you'll become a blessing to yourself so that's a good deal because people generally live at odds with themselves and he says God says that's not all you'll become un blessing to yourself in a way that furthers your reputation among people and validly so that you'll accomplish things that were real and people will know it and you'll be held high in their esteem and that will

be valid so that's a pretty good deal because social people would like to be regarded as of utility and worth by others and so that's a good deal and and God says that's not all you'll establish something of lasting permanent and deep value that's why Abraham becomes the father of Nations and finally caps it off and he says there's a bet there's a better element even to it there's a Capstone you'll do all three of those things in a way that's maximally beneficial to everyone else and so the Divinity in the abrahamic story is making

a claim he says first of all there's a drive that you should attend to so the spirit of Adventure that calls you out of your zone of comfort now if you attend to that and you make the sacrifices necess necessary to follow that path then the following benefits will accue to you your life will be a blessing everyone will hold you in high estem you'll establish something of permanent value and you'll do it in a way that's maximally beneficial to everyone else and so so think about what this means biologically or from an engineering standpoint

it means that the instinct to develop that characterizes outward moving children let's say or adults is the same Instinct that allows for psychological stability that allows for movement upward in a social hierarchy that establishes something iterable and that does that in a manner that allows everyone else to partake in the same process well you know that's a good deal and like I can't see how it cannot be true because the alternative hypothesis would be that the spirit that moves you beyond yourself to develop the spirit of a curious child let's say what is that antithetical

to your own esteem is that antithetical to other people's best interest is it not the thing that increases the probability that you'll do something permanent that's that's a stupid Theory so God is a call to Adventure with some constraints a call to true adventure to true adventure true adventure yeah and then that's a good observation because that begs the question what constitutes the most true adventure well that's not fully fleshed out until at least from the Christian Perspective let's say that's not fully fleshed out until the Gospels because the passion of Christ is the you

could say this is the perfectly reasonable way of looking at it the passion of Christ is the truest adventure of Abraham it's a terrible thing he because it's a it's a the the passion story is a catastrophic tragedy although it obviously has its Redemptive elements but one of the things that's implied there is that there's no distinction between the true adventure of life and taking on the pathway of maximal responsibility andth burden and I can't see how that cannot be true like cuz the counter hypothesis is well Lex the best thing for you to do

in your life is to shrink from all Challenge and hide right to remain infantile to remain secure not to ever push yourself beyond your limits not to take any risks well no one thinks that's true so basically the maximally worthwhile Adventure could possibly be highly correlated with the hardest possible available Adventure the hardest possible available Adventure voluntarily undertaken does it have to be absolutely how do you define voluntarily well here's an here's an example of that um that's that's that's a good question too when Christ is the night before the crucifixion which in principle he

knows is coming he asks God to relieve him of his burden and understandably so I mean that's the scene in famously in which he's sweating literally sweating blood because he knows what's coming and the the the Romans designed crucifixion to be the most agonizing and humiliating Poss agonizing humiliating and disgusting possible death right so there was every reason to be apprehensive about that and you might say well could you undertake that voluntarily as an adventure and the answer to that is something like well what's your relationship with death like that's a problem you have to

solve and you could fight it and you could be bitter about it and there's reasons for that that especially if it's painful and degrading but but the alternative is something like well that's what's fleshed out in religious imagery always it's very difficult to to cast into words it's like no you you welcome you welcome the struggle that's why I called the book we who wrestle with God you welcome the struggle and Alex I don't see how you can come to terms with life without construing it something like construing is something like bring it on welcome

the struggle and I I can't see that there's a limit to that it's like well I welcome the struggle until it gets difficult well so there's not a bell curve like uh the struggle of moderation basically you have to welcome whatever as hard as it gets and the crucifixion in that way is a symbol of that well and it well it's it's worse than that in some ways because the crucifixion exemplifies the worst possible death but that isn't the only element of the struggle because mythologically classically after Christ's death he Harrows hell and what that

means as far as I can tell psychologically is that you're not only required let's say to take on the full existential burden of life and to welcome it regardless of what it is and to maintain your upward aim despite all Temptations to the contrary but you also have to confront the root of malevolence itself so it's not merely tragedy and I think the malevolence is actually worse and the reason I think that is because I know the literature on post-traumatic stress disorder and most people who encounter let's say a challenge that's so brutal that it

fragments them it isn't mere suffering that does that to people it's an encounter with malevolence that does that to people their own sometimes Often by the way Soldier will go out into a battlefield and find out that there's a part of him that really enjoys the mayem and that conceptualization doesn't fit in well with everything he thinks he knows about himself and humanity and after that contact with that dark part of himself he never recovers that happens to people and and it happens to people who encounter Bad actors in the world too if you're a

naive person and the right narcissistic psychopath comes your way you are in like Mortal trouble because you might die but that's not where the trouble ends if there's a young young man in their 20s listening to this how do they escape the pull of zi's Notes from Underground with the eyes open to the world how do they select the adventure so there's other characterizations of the Divine say in the Old Testament story so one pattern of characterization that I think is really relevant to that question is the conception of God as calling and conscience okay

so what does it mean it's a description of the manner in which your destiny announces itself to you and I'm I'm using that terminology and and it's it's distinguishable say from nich's notion that you create your own values it's like part of the way you can tell that that's wrong is that you can't voluntarily gerrymander your own interests right like you find some things interesting and that seems natural and and autonomous and other things you don't find interesting and you can't really for yourself to be interested in them now so what is the domain of

interest that makes itself manifest to you well it's like an autonomous spirit it's like certain things in your field of perception are illuminated to you think oh that that's interesting that's compelling that's gripping Rudolph utto who studied the phenomenology of religious experience described that as numinous thing grips you CU you're compelled by it and maybe it's also somewhat anxiety provoking it's the same reaction that like a cat has to a dog when when the cat's hair stands on end that's an awe response and so there's going to be things in your phenomenological field that pull

you forward compel you that's like the voice of positive emotion and enthusiasm things draw you into the world might be love might be aesthetic interest it might be friendship it might be social status it might be um Duty and and and and indust ousness like there's various domains of interest that shine for people that's sort of on the positive side God is calling right that would be akin to the spirit of Adventure for Abraham but there's also God as conscience and this is a useful thing to know too certain things bother you they they they

take root within you and they they turn your thoughts towards certain issues like they things you're interested in that you've pursued your whole life there are things I'm interested in that that I felt as a moral compulsion and so you could think and I think the way you can think about it technically is that something pulls you forward so that you move ahead and you develop and then another voice this is a voice of negative emotion says while you're moving forward stay on this narrow pathway right and it'll Mark deviations and it marks deviations with

shame and guilt and anxiety regret and that actually has a voice don't do that well why not well you're wandering off the straight narrow path so the Divine marks the path way forward and reveals it but then puts up the constraints of conscience and the Divine in the Old Testament is portrayed not least as the dynamic between calling and conscience what do you do with the negative emotions you didn't mention Envy there's some really dark ones that can really pull you into some bad places Envy fear yeah EnV is a really bad one pride and

envy are among the worst those are the sins of Cain by the way in the story of Cain and Abel cuz Cain fails because his sacrifices are insufficient he doesn't offer his best and so he's rejected and that makes him bitter and unhappy and he goes to complain to God and God says to him some two things he said if God tells him if your sacrifices were appropriate you'd be accepted it's a brutal thing it's a brutal rejoiner and he also says uh you can't blame your misery on your failure you could learn from your

failure when you fail you invited in the spirit of envy and resentment and you allowed it to possess you and that's why you're miserable and so Cain is embittered by that response and that's when he kills Abel and so you might say well how do you fortify yourself against that pathway of resentment and part of classic religious practice is aimed to do that precisely what's the antithesis of envy gratitude that's something you can practice right and I mean literally practice I think Envy is one of the biggest enemies for a young person because basically you're

starting from nowhere life is hard you've achieved nothing and you're striving and you're failing constantly because and you see other people whom you think aren't having the same problem yeah and they succeed and they could be your neighbor they could be succeeding by a little bit or somebody on the internet succeeding by a lot and I think that that can really pull a person down that kind of Envy can really destroy a person yeah yeah definitely well the Gratitude element would be something like well yeah you don't know anything and you're at the bottom but

uh you're not 80h you know one of the best predictors of wealth in the United States is age so then you might saywell who's got it better the old rich guy or the young poor guy and I would say most old Rich guys would trade their wealth for youth so it's not exactly clear at all at any stage who's got the upper hand who's got the advantage and you know you could say well I've got all these burdens in front of me because I'm young and oh my God or you could say every dragon has

its treasure and then that's actually a pattern of perception you know I'm not saying that people don't have their challenges they certainly do but discriminating between a challenge and an opportunity is very very difficult and learning to see a challenge as an opportunity that's the beginning of wisdom it's interesting I don't know how it works maybe you can elucidate but when you have Envy towards somebody if you just celebrate them so gratitude yeah but actually as opposed to sort of ignoring and being grateful for the things you have like literally celebrate that person it transforms

it like it lights the way I don't know why that is exactly abely the only reason you're envious is because you see someone who has something that you want okay so let's think let's think about it well first of all the fact that they have it means that in principle you could get it at least someone has so that's a pretty good deal and then you might say well the fact that I'm envious of that person means that I actually want something and then you might think well what am I envious of I'm envious of

their attractiveness to women it's like okay well now you know something about yourself you know that one true motivation that's making itself manifest to you is that you wish that you would be the sort of person who is attractive to women now of of course that's an extremely common longing among men period but particularly among young men it's like well what makes you so sure you couldn't have that well how about here's an answer you don't have enough faith in yourself and maybe you don't have enough faith in well I would say the Divine you

don't believe that the world is characterized by enough potentiality so that even miserable you has a crack at the brass ring and like I I I talked about this actually practically in one of my previous books because I wrote a chapter called uh compare yourself to who you are and not to someone else at the present time well why well your best Benchmark for tomorrow is you today and you might not be able to have what someone else has on the particular axis you're comparing yourself with them on but you could make an incremental improvement

over your current state regardless of the direction that you're aiming and it is the case and this is a law the return on incremental Improvement is exponential or geometric and not linear so even if you start this is why the hero is always born in a low lowly place mythologically right Christ who redeemed seems the world is born in a manger with the animals to poverty-stricken parents in the middle of a god-forsaken desert in a nondescript time and place isolated well why well because everyone young struggles with their insufficiency but that doesn't mean that great

things can't make themselves manifest and part of the insistence in the biblical text for example is that it's incumbent on you to have the courage to have faith in in yourself and in the spirit of reality the essence of reality regardless of how you constr the evidence at hand right look at me I'm so useless I don't know anything I don't have anything it's hopeless I don't have it within me the world couldn't offer me that possibility well what the hell do you know about that this is what job figures out in the midst of

his suffering in the Book of Job because job is tortured terribly by God who makes a bet with Satan himself to bring him down and job's decision in the face of his intense suffering is I'm not going to lose faith in my Essential goodness and I'm not going to lose faith in the essential goodness of being itself regardless of how terrible the face it's showing to me at the moment happens to be and I think okay what do you make of that claim well let's look at it practically you're being tortured by the arbitrariness of

life that's horrible now you lose faith in yourself and you become cynical about being so are you infinitely worse off instantly and then you might say well yeah but it's really asking a lot of people that they maintain Faith even well even in their Darkest Hours it's like yeah that's that might be asking everything from people but then you also might ask this is a very strange question is if you were brought into being by something that was essentially good wouldn't that thing that brought you into being demand that you make the best in yourself

manifest and wouldn't it be precisely when you most need that that it would be that you'd be desperate enough to risk what it would take to let it emerge so you kind of make it seem that reason could be the thing that takes you out of a place of Darkness sort of find finding that calling through reason I think it's also possible when reason fails you to just take the leap navigate not by reason but by finding the thing that scares you the risk to take the risk take the leap and then figure it out

while you're in the air yeah well I that I think that's always part of a heroic Adventure you know is that ability to cut the gordian knot but but you could also ask from an engineering perspective okay what are the axioms that make it decision like that possible and the answer would be something like I'm going to make the presumption that if I move forward in good faith whatever happens to me will be the best thing that could possibly happen no matter what it is and I think I think that's actually how you make an

alliance with truth and I I also think that truth is an adventure and the way you make an alliance with truth is by assuming that whatever happens to you if you're living in truth is the best thing that Could Happen even if you can't see that at any given moment because otherwise you'd say that truth would be just the handmaiden of Advantage well I'm going to say something truthful and I pay a price well that means I shouldn't have said it well that possibly but that's not the only possible standard of evaluation you can because

what you're doing is you're making the outcome your deity right well I just reverse that and say no no truth is the deity the outcome is variable but that doesn't eradicate the initial axium where's the constant right where's what's the constant he maybe uh when you said uh Abraham was being fed by naked ladies that's an interpolation obviously but would have been out of keeping for the times but it does make me think sort of in stark contrast to n's own life that perhaps getting laid early on in life as a useful starter uh step

one get laid and then go for adventure there's some basic satiation of Des I think it's perfectly reasonable to bring the sexual element in because it's a powerful motivating force and it has to be integrated I don't think it's adventure it's romantic adventure right right but the the lack of basic interaction sexual interaction I feel like is the engine that drives towards that cynicism of the inel there there's there's there's very little doubt about that we know perfectly well anthropologically that the most unstable social situation you can generate is young men with no access to

women that's not good and they'll do anything anything to reverse that situation so that's very dangerous but then I would also say there's every suggestion that the pathway of Adventure itself is the best Pathway to romantic attractiveness and we we know this in some ways in a very blunt manner the Google boys the engineers who are too what would you say naively oriented towards empirical truth to note when they're being Politically Incorrect they wrote a great book called a billion Wicked thoughts which I really like it's a very good book and it's Engineers as psychologists

and so they'll say all sorts of things that no one with any sense would ever say that happen to be true and they studied the pattern of pornographic fantasy and women like porn graphic stories not images so women's use of pornographic pornography is literary who are the main protagonists in female pornographic fantasy Pirates werewolves vampires surgeons billionaires Tony Stark you know yeah and so the basic pornographic narrative is Beauty and the Beast those five categories terrible aggressive male tameable by the right relationship hot erotic attra action and so I would say to the young men

who and I have many times to the young men who are locked in isolation it's first of all join the bloody Club because the default value of a 15-year-old male on the mating Market is zero and there's reason for that you know and zero is a bit of an exaggeration but not much and the reason for that is well what the hell do you know like you're not good for anything you you have potential and maybe plenty and hopefully that'll be made manifest but you shouldn't be all upset because you're the same loser as everyone

else your age has always been since the beginning of time but then you might ask well what should I do about it the answer is get yourself together you know stand up straight with your shoulders back take on some Adventure find your calling abide by your conscience put yourself together and you'll become attractive and we know this is look we know this is true the correlation between male sexual opportunity and relative masculine status is about 6 that's higher than the correlation between intelligence and academic achievement I don't think that there's a larger correlation between two

independent phenomena in the entire social science and health literature than the correlation between relative male social status and reproductive success it's by far the most fundamental determinant but what's the cause and effect there it's a loop men are motivated to attain social status because it confers upon them reproductive success and that's not only cognitively but biologically I'll give you an example of this there's a documentary I watch from time to time which I think is the most brilliant documentary I've ever seen it's called crumb and it's the story of this underground cartoonist Robert Crum who

was in high school was in the category of males for whom a date was not only not likely but in unimaginable so he was at the bottom of the Bottom Rung and almost all the reactions he got from females weren't wasn't just no it was like are you out of your mind like with that contempt right and then he became successful and so the documentary is super interesting because it tracks the utter pathology of his sexual fantasies because he was bitter and resentful and if you want to understand the psychology of Serial sexual killer and

the like and you watch crumb you'll know find out a lot more about that than anybody with any sense would want to know but then he makes this transition and partly because he does take the heroic Adventure path and he actually has a family and a and children and he he's actually a pretty functional person as opposed to his brothers one of whom commits suicide and one of whom is literally a repeat sexual offender it's a brutal documentary but he what he did in his adolescence after being rejected was he found what he was interested

he was a very good artist he was very interested in music and he started to pursue those sort of single-mindedly and he became successful and as soon as he became successful and the documentary tracks this beautifully he's immediately attractive to women and and then you might ask too even if you're cynical like well why do women why do I have to perform for women and the answer to that is something like why the hell should they have anything to do with you if you're useless they're going to have infants they don't need another one right

partly the reason that women are hypergamous L they want males who are of higher status than they are is because they're trying to redress the reproductive burden and it's substantial I mean the female of any species is the sex that devotes more to the reproductive function that's a more fundamental differ definition than chromosomal differentiation and that's taken to its ultimate extreme with with humans and so of course women are going to want someone around that's useful because the cost of sex for them is an eight 18yearold period of dependency with an infant so so so

I think the adventure comes first heroic adventure comes first well it's complex because the other problem let's say with the Crum boys is that their mother was extremely pathological and they didn't get a lot of genuine feminine nurturance and affection oh of course but the family and Society are not going to help you most of the time with a heroic Adventure right they're going to be a barrier versus a in good families they're both because because they put up constraints on your behavior but they like I've interviewed a lot of successful people about their calling

let's say because that's I do that with all my podcast guests how how did the path that you took to success make itself manifest and it's it's very the pattern's very typical almost all the people that I've interviewed had a mother and a father now it's not invariant but I'd say it's there 99% of the time it's really high and both of the parents or at least one of them but often both were very encouraging of the person's interests and Pathway to development that's fascinating i' I've heard you analyze it that way before and I

I had a reaction to that idea because you focus on the positive of the parents yeah I feel like it was the maybe I I see biographies differently but it feels like the struggle within the family was the Catalyst for greatness in in in a lot of biography maybe I'm misinterpreting it but I I don't think you I think that that's a reflection maybe correct me if I'm wrong I think that's a reflection of that dynamic between positive and negative emotion like my son for example who's doing just fine um he's firing on all cylinders

as far as I'm concerned he has a nice family he gets along with his wife he's a really good musician he's got a company he's running well um he's he's a delight to be around he was a relatively disagreeable infant he was tough-minded and so and he he didn't take no for an answer and so there was some tussle in regulating his behavior he spent a lot of time when he was two sitting on the steps trying to get his act together and so that was the constraint and and but that wasn't that wasn't something

that was it's an opposition to him away because it was in opposition to the immediate manifestation of his hedonistic desires but it was also an imp to further development me the rule for me when he was on the stairs was as soon as you're willing to be a civilized human being you can get off the stairs and you might think well that's nothing but arbitrary super ego patriarchal oppressive constraint or you could say well no what I'm actually doing is facilitating his cortical maturation because when a child misbehaves it's usually because they're under the domination

of some primordial emotional or motivational impulse they're angry they're over enthusiastic they're they're upset um they're selfish like it's narrow self-centeredness expressed in a immature manner but see okay uh tell me if I'm wrong but it feels like the engine of greatness at least on the male side of things has often been trying to prove the father wrong or trying to gain the acceptance of the father so that tension where the parent is not encouraging like you mentioned but is basically saying no you you won't be able to do this okay so my observation as

a psychologist has been that it's very very difficult for someone to get their act together unless they have at least one figure in their life that's encouraging and show shows them the pathway forward so so you can have a lot of adversity in your life and if you have one person around who's a good model and you're neurologically intact you can latch onto that model now you can also find that model in books and people do that sometimes like I've interviewed people who had pretty frag fragmented childhoods who turned to books and found the pattern

that guided them in like let's say the the The Adventures of the heroes of the past because that's a good way of thinking about it and I read a a book called Angela's Ashes that was written by an Irish author Frank mccort fantastic book beautiful book and his father was an alcoholic of gargantuan proportions he just an an Irish drinker who drank every scent that came into the family and many of whose children died in poverty and what Frank did as a testament to the human spirit is he sort of divided his father conceptually into

two elements there was sober morning Father who was encouraging and with whom he had a relationship and then there was drunk and useless later afternoon and evening father and he rejected the negative and he Amplified his relationship with the Positive now like he had other he had other things going for him but he you know he did a very good job of discriminating and and I mean partly the question that you're raising is to what degree is it useful to have a beneficial adversary yeah and I mean struggle-free progress is not possible and I think

there are situations under which where you know you might be motivated to prove someone in your immediate circle wrong but then that also implies that at some level for some reason you actually care about their judgment you know you just didn't write them off completely well I mean that's why I say there's an archetype of a young man trying to gain the approval of his father and I think that repeats itself in a bunch of biographies that I've read I don't know there must have been an engine somewhere that they found of approval of uh

encouragement maybe in books maybe in the mother or maybe the the role of the parents has flipped well my my father was hard to please very did you ever succeed yes but it wasn't easy ever when when was the moment when you uh succeeded late pretty late like 40 maybe later was it uh gradual or a definitive moment when a shift happened my father always was always willing to approve of the things I did that were good although he was not effusive by any stretch of the imagination and the standards were very high now I

was probably fortunate for me you know and and I it does bear on the question you're asking is like if you want someone to motivate you optimally God it's complicated because there has to be a tempor mental dance between the two people like what you really want is for someone to apply the highest possible standards to you that you're capable of reaching right and that's a that's a that's a vicious dance because you have to have a relationship with your child to do that properly you know because you want to if you want to be

optimally motivating as a father you keep your children on the edge it's like you might not reward something your child that you would think would be good in someone else because you think they could do better and so my father was pretty clear about the idea that he always expected me to do better and was that Troublesome it was like I felt often when I was young that there was no pleasing him but I also knew that that wasn't I knew that that wasn't right see I actually knew that wasn't right because I could remember

especially I think when I was very young that I did things that he was pleased about I knew that was possible so it wasn't it wasn't unpredictable and arbitrary it was just difficult it sounds like he's hit a pretty good optimal but it's uh for each individual human that optimal differs well that's why you have to have a relationship with your children you have to know them and and well with yourself too and and with your wife you you you can't hit that optimal that optimal is probably love that's because love isn't just acceptance love

is acceptance and encouragement and it's not just that either it's also no don't do that that's beneath you you're capable of more and how harsh should that be it's like that's a really hard question you know like if you really love someone you're not going to put up with their stupidity don't do that you know one of the rules I had with my little kids was don't do anything that makes you look like an idiot in public why cuz I don't want you disgracing yourself why not cuz I like you I think you're great and

you're not going to act like a bloody fool in public so that people get the wrong idea about you no what about inside a relationship how a successful relationship is how much challenge how much peace is a successful relationship one that is easy one that is challenging I would say to some degree that depends on your temperament my wife is quite a provocative person and there are times when I I suppose do I wish that there are times when I casually wish that she was easier to get along with but as soon as I think

about it I I don't I don't think that yeah cuz i' I've always liked her we were friends ever since we were little kids and she's she plays rough and I like that as it turns out now that doesn't mean it isn't a pain from time to time but you know and that is going to be a temperamental issue to some degree and and an issue of negotiation like she plays rough but fair and the fair part has been establishing that it's been part of our ongoing negotiation and part of it is in the play

you get to find out about yourself or what your temperament is cuz I don't think that that's clear until it's tested oh definitely not definitely not you find out all all sorts of things about yourself in a relationship that's for sure well and partly the reason that there is provocativeness especially from women in relationship to men is they want to test them out it's like can you hold your temper when someone's bothering you well why would a woman want to know that well maybe she doesn't want you to uh snap and hurt her kids and

so how's she going to find that out ask you well you're going to say well I'd never do that it's like never e let's find out if it's never never so we don't know how people test each other out in relationships but or why exactly but it's intense and necessary what's your and what's in general should a man's relationship with temper be you should have one and you should be able to regulate it like that's part of that attractiveness of the Monstrous that characterizes women's fantasies right because and N pointed this out too go back

to n you know n one of n's claim was that most of what passes for Morality is nothing but cowardice you know I'd never cheat on my wife it's like uh is there anybody asking you to that you actually find attractive or are there dozens of people asking you to that you find attractive it's like well I would never cheat it's like no you just don't have the opportunity now I don't I'm not saying that everyone's in that position you know that they would cheat even if they had the opportunity because that's not true but

and it's the same with regards to oh I'm a peaceful man it's like no you're not you're just a weak coward you wouldn't dare have it to have a confrontation physical or metaphysical and you're passing it off as morality because you don't want to come to terms with the fact of your own weakness and cowardice and part of the that what I would say is Twisted pseudo-christian morality that nche was criticizing was exactly of that sort and it tied into resentment and envy and he tied that in explicitly said that failure in life masked by

the morality that's nothing but weak cowardice turns to the resentment that undermines and destroys everything and that does that purposefully yeah I think he was criticizing if under the facade of niceness there's an ocean of resentment yeah that's for sure that's that for sure that's also the danger of being too forthcoming with people see this is another thing let's say about my wife who's not particularly agreeable it's like she's not particularly agreeable but she's not resentful and that's because she doesn't give things away that she that she isn't willing to and if you're agreeable and

nice and your conflict avoidant you'll push yourself too far to please the other person and then that makes you bitter and resentful so that's not helpful do you think you'll be in trouble for saying this on a podcast later no no we we know each other pretty well and like I said it's it's not it's a trait that I find admirable it's provocative and um challenging and it seems to work well we've been together 50 years so uh quick pause bathroom break if we can descend from the realm of ideas down to uh history and

reality I would say the time between World War I and World War II was uh one of History's biggest testing of ideas and really the most dramatic kinds of ideas that helped us understand the nature of Good and Evil I just want to ask you sort of a a question about Good and Evil uh Churchill in many ways was not a good man Stalin as you've documented extensively was a horrible man but you can make the case that both were necessary for stopping an even worse human being in Hitler so to what degree do you

need monsters to fight monsters do you need bad men to be able to fight off greater evils it's everything in its proper place is the answer to that you know we might think that our life would be easier without fear let's say we might say that our life would be easier Without Anger or pain but the truth of the matter is is that those things are beneficial even though they can cause great suffering but they have to be in their proper place and that capacity that could in one context be a terrible Force for evil

can in the proper context be the most potent Force for good a good man has to be formidable and partly what that means as far as I can tell is that you have to be able to say no and no means like I thought a lot about no working as a clinician because I did a lot of strategic counseling with my clients in a lot of extremely difficult situations and I learned to take apart what no meant and also when dealing with my own children because I used no sparingly because it's a powerful weapon let's

say but I meant it and with my kids what it meant was if you continue that pattern of behavior something you do not like will happen to you with 100% certainty and when when that's the case and you're willing to implement it you don't have to do it very often with regards to monstrosity it's like weak men aren't good they're just weak that's n's observation that's partly again why he was tempted to place the will to power let's say and to deal with that notion in a manner that when it was tied with the revaluation

of all values was counterproductive and counterproductive in the final analysis it's not like he not like there wasn't something to what he was driving at you know formidable men are admirable and you know don't mess with them Douglas Murray's a good example of that he's you know he's a rather slight guy but he's got a spine of Steel and there's no more than a bit of what's a monstrous in him and Joo willink is like that and Joe Rogan is like that and you're like that but there's a different level I mean if you look

to me churo might represent the the thing you're talking about but World War II Hitler would not be stopped without Stalin well I wonder yes yes and you you if I may insert into this picture of complexity Hitler would have not stopped until he enslaved and exterminated the entirety of the Slavic people the Jewish people the Slavic people the gypsies the everybody who's non Arian but then Stalin in the mass rape of German women by the Red Army as they March towards Berlin is a kind of manifestation the full monstrosity that a person can be

you you can easily be in a situation you can easily and unfortunately find yourself in a situation where all you have in front of you are a variety of bad options you know that's partly why if you have any sense you try to conduct yourself very carefully in life because you don't want to be in a position where you've made so many mistakes that all the options left you are terrible and so you said well was it necessary to Ally with Stalin it's like well it's very difficult to second guess the trajectory of something as

complex as World War II but we could say casually at least as westerners have in general that that Alliance was necessary now I think the mistake that the West made in the aftermath of World War II was in not dealing as forthrightly with the catastrophes of Communism as an ideology as we did with Fascism and that's especially true of the intellectuals in the universities I mean it was very common when I was teaching both at Harvard and at the University of Toronto for the students in my personality class where we studied soul niten Who's actually

an existential psychologist in many ways and a deep one none of them knew anything about the Soviet atrocities none of them knew anything about what happened in Ukraine and the death of 6 million productive people had no idea that the Communists killed tens of millions of people in the aftermath of the re Russian Revolution they know even less about Ma and the great Le yeah right right which which some estimates are 100 million people now you know when your error bars are in the tens of millions well that's a real indication of a cataclysm and

nobody knows how many people died from direct oppression or indirect in the Soviet Union 20 million it seems like a reasonable estimate Sol nen's upper bound was higher than that and how do you uh measure the intellectual output that was suppressed and killed off the the the number of intellectuals artists and writers that were put into prod Farmers for that matter and anyone who was willing to tell the truth right absolutely so yeah catastrophic and so I think the West's failure wasn't so much allying with Stalin I mean it was Douglas MacArthur who wanted to

continue he thought we should just take the Soviets out after the second world war and they removed them from any position of authority where such a thing might be made possible and people were tired and but was MacArthur wrong well he certainly wasn't wrong in his insistence that Stalin was as big a monster as Hitler or bigger so the valorization of the leftist proclivity the radical leftist proclivity is the sin of the West I think more intensely than allying with Stalin tricky Nuance topic but if we look at the modern day and the threat of

communism Marxism in the United States uh to me it's disrespectful to the atrocities of the 20th century to call somebody like kamla Harris a communist but I see the sort of escalation of the extremeness of language being used used when you call somebody like Donald Trump a fascist then it makes total sense to then use similar extreme terminology for somebody like KLA Harris but maybe I could ask your evaluation if you look at the political landscape today somebody like Joe Biden and K Harris well the first thing I would say is that I think that

viewing the political landscape of today as a political landscape is actually wrong I think it's not the right frame of reference because what I see happening are are a very small percentage of dark tetrad personality types so mellan manipulative narcissistic wanting undeserved attention Psychopathic that makes them predatory parasites and sadistic because that goes along with the other three that's about in the serious manifestation that's probably 3 to 5% of the population and they're generally kept under pretty decent controlled by civilized people and stable social interactions I think that their machinations are disinhibited by cost-free Social

Media communication so they gain disproportionate influence now these people want undeserved recognition and social status and everything that goes along with it and they don't care how they get it because when I say they want that I mean that's all they want so in the realm of social media you mentioned uh yes but are you also suggesting that they're over represented in the realm of politics politicians and so on they're over represented in the realm of fractious political discourse because they can use ideas first of all they can use let's say the benevolent ideas of

the right and the benevolent ideas of the left either one and switch back and forth for that matter as a camoufl FL for what they're actually up to so how do you you've interviewed a lot of people and you have a really powerful mind you have a good read on people so how do you know when you're sitting across from a psychopath I I wouldn't say that I do know in normal social circumstances we have evolved mechanisms to keep people like that under control let's say that you and I have a series of interactions and

you screw me over once I'm not going to forget that now I might not write you off because of the one time but if it happens three times it's like we're not going to play together anymore and in normal times most of our social networks are connected and interacting so like if you ripped me off three times and I noted that I'm going to tell everybody I know and they're going to tell everybody they know and soon everyone will know and that's the end of your tricks but that assumes that we know who you are

and we're in continual communication well all of that's gone online so anonymity does that and so does the amplification of emotional intensity by the social media platforms and their algorithms I think what we're doing this is happening on Twitter continually is we're giving the 5% of psychopaths a radically disproportionate voice and what they're doing is there's a bunch of them on the left and they're all we're so compassionate and there's a bunch of them on the right and at the moment they're all we're so Christian and Free Speech oriented it's like no you're not you're

a narcissistic Psychopaths and that's your camouflage and you hide behind your anonymity and you use um fractious and divisive language to to attract fools and to elevate your social status and your clout and and not only that to gain what would you say satisfaction for your sadistic impulses see the problem is it's hard to tell who's the psychopath and who is a uh uh heterodox truth Seeker yeah well if you were charitable about Tucker Carlson's recent interview you'd say that was exactly the conundrum he faced and it is hard like I've thought about for example

interviewing Andrew Tate and I thought I don't think so and then I thought why I figured it's not obvious to me at all that he wouldn't charm me so I knew this guy Robert hair Robert hair was the world's foremost authority on psychopathy he established the field of clinical analysis of Psychopathic behavior and Har was a pretty agreeable guy so you know he would give people the benefit of the doubt and he interviewed hundreds of serious Psychopaths like imprisoned violent offenders and he told me in one of our conversations that every time he sat down

with a violent offender psychopath and he had a measure for psychopathy that was a clinical checklist so he could identify the Psychopaths from just the say run-of-the-mill criminals every time he sat down with them they pulled the wool over his eyes and it wasn't he videotaped the the interviews and it wasn't until later when he was reviewing the videos that he could see what they were doing but in person their tricks were more sophisticated than his detection ability well okay this is fascinating because again you're a great interviewer I would love it if you interviewed

somebody like Putin so this idea that you are a fool in the face of psychopathy just doesn't jive with me I'm an agreeable guy that's the problem I'll give people the benefit of the doubt right right but that's good because the way you reveal psychopathy is by being agreeable not weak but uh seeking with empathy to understand the other person and in the details in the little nuanced ways that they struggle with questions yeah the psychopathy is revealed so so from uh we're kind of just to separate the two things so one over representation of

psychopathy online uh with anonymity that's a serious fascinating problem but in the interview one-on-one yeah I don't know if the job of a human being in conversation is to uh not talk to Psychopaths but to talk I mean like how would you interview Hitler well I've you know I've had very difficult clinical interviews with people in my clinical practice and so what do you how do you how do you approach that well I I really probably approach that the way I approach most conversations and it's something like I'm going to assume that you're playing a

straight game but I'm going to watch and if you throw the odd crooked maneuver in then I'll note it and after you do it three times I'll think okay I see I thought we were playing one game but we're actually playing another one and if I'm smart enough to pick pick that up that usually works out quite successfully for me but I'm not always smart enough to pick that up but see here's a nice thing this a one-on-one conversation that's not recorded is different than one that's listened by a lot of people because I would

venture to I trust the intelligence of the viewer and The Listener to detect even better than you yes and I think that's true by the way to detect the psychopathy yeah I've had the odd interview with people that I wasn't happy with having organized because I felt that I had brought their ideas to a wider audience than might have been appropriate but my conclusion and the conclusion of my producers and the people I talked to was that we could run the interview the discussion and let the audience sort it out and I would say they

do so I think as a general rule of thumb that's true and I also think that the long form interviews are particularly good at that because it's not that easy to Main maintain a manipulative stance especially if you're empty for like 2 and 1 half hours yes you get tired you get irritable you show that you lose the track you're you're going to start leaking out your mistakes and so and that actually is the case for all the world leaders I would say one hour is too short in something happens at like 2our plus Mark

where you start to leak and I'm trusting the intelligence of the of the listener to sort of uh to detect that yeah and it and it might be the intelligence of the distributed crowd and I mean that is what I've seen with the YouTube interviews is that it's hard to fool people as such over a protracted period of time and I guess it's partly because everybody brings a different slightly different set of falsehood detectors to the table and if you aggregate that it's pretty damn accurate but of course you know it's it's comp at because

um ideas of Nazi ideology spread in the 20s there was a real battle between Marxism and Nazism oh yeah and I believe there are some attempts at censorship of Nazi ideology censorship very often does the opposite it gives The Fringe ideologies power if they're being censored because that's an indication that the uh the the the man in power doesn't want the truth to be heard kind of idea and that just puts fuel to the it also motivates the paranoid types because one of the reasons that paranoia spirals out of control is because paranoid people almost

inevitably end up being persecuted because they're so touchy and so suspicious that people start to walk on eggshells around them as if there are things going on behind the scenes and so then they get more distrustful and more paranoid and eventually they start misbehaving so badly that they are actually persecuted Often by legal authorities and you know it's down the rabbit hole they go and so you know musk is betting on that to some degree right he believes that free expression on Twitter X will sort itself out and be of net benefit and I follow

a lot of really bad accounts on X because I like to keep an eye on the pathology of the left let's say and the pathology of the right thinking at least in my clinical way that I'm watching the Psychopaths dance around and try to do what Their subversion and it's an ugly place to inhabit that's for sure but it's also the case that a very tiny minority of seriously Bad actors can have a disproportionate influence and one of the things I've always hoped for for social media channels is that they separate the anonymous accounts from

the verified accounts they should just be in different categories people who will say what they think and take the hits to their reputation Anonymous types if you want to see what the anonymous types say you can see it but don't be confusing them with actual people cuz they're not the same we know that people are we know that people behave more badly when they're Anonymous that's a very wellestablished psychological finding well and I think the danger to our culture is substantive I think the reason that everything perhaps the reason that everything started to go sideways

pretty seriously around 2015 is because we invented these new modes of communication we have no idea how to police them and so the psychopathic manipulators they have free reign about 30% of the internet is prnography a huge amount of internet traffic is outright criminal and there's a penumbra around that that's you know Psychopathic narcissistic troublemaking trolls and that might constitute the bulk of the interactions online and it's partly because people can't be held responsible so the Free Riders have free reign it's a fascinating technical challenge yeah how to make our society resilient to the Psychopaths

on the left and the right yeah yeah it might be the fundamental problem of the age given the amplification of communication by our social by our social networks and so to generalize across Psychopaths you could also think about Bots yeah which behave similar to psychopaths in their certainty and not carrying their maximizing some function they're not carrying about anything else attention yeah yeah yeah short-term attention even worse yeah because because you might you know that's another problem a like if the algorithms are maximizing for the grip of short-term attention they're acting like immature agents of

attention right and so then imagine the worst case scenario is negative emotion gers more attention and short-term gratification Garners more attention so then you're maximizing for the grip of short-term attention by negative emotion I mean that's not going to be a principle if we were talking earlier about you know unsustainable unifying axioms that's definitely that's definitely one of them maximize for the spread of negative attention negative emotion that Garner short-term attention Jesus brutal I just I tend to uh not think there's that many Psychopaths so maybe to push back a little bit it feels like

there's a small number of psychopaths m 3 to 5% is is the is the estimate worldwide in terms of humans sure but in terms of the the pattern of stuff we see online My Hope Is that a lot of people on the extreme left and extreme right or just the trolls in general are just young people kind of going through the similar stuff that we've been talking about trying on the cynicism and the resentment uh there is there's a drug aspect to it there's a pull to that to uh to talk about somebody to take

somebody down I mean there is some pleasure in that there's a dark pull towards that and I think that's the sadistic Po and I think a lot of people I mean see when you say sadistic it makes it sound like some kind of it's a pathology it's pleasure in the suffering of others right but I just think that all of us have the capacity for that all humans have the capacity for that yeah some more than others but everyone to some degree and when you're young you don't understand the full implic of that on your

own self so if you participate in taking other people down that's going to have a cost on your own development as a human being like it's going to take you towards a dust's nose from underground in the basement cynical all that kind of stuff alone which is why a lot of young people try it out you know the the reason is you get older and older you realize that that there's a huge cost to that so you don't do it but there's young people that so like I would I would like to sort of believe

and hope that a large number of people who are trolls are just trying out the derision no doubt and then so they can be saved they can be they can be helped they could they could be shown that there's uh more growth there's more flourishing to uh celebrating other people and actually and criticizing ideas but not in the way of derision LOL but by formulating your own self in the world by formulating your ideas in a strong powerful way and also removing the cloak of anonymity and just standing behind your ideas carrying the responsibility of

those ideas yeah I think all of that is right I think the idea that that's more likely to occur among young people that's clear people as they mature get more agreeable and conscientious so we actually know that that what you said is true technically it's definitely the case that there's a an innate tilt towards pleasure in that sort of behavior and it's it is associated to some degree with dominant striving um and I do think it's true as you pointed out that many of the people who are toying with that pattern can be socialized out

of it in fact maybe most most people even even the repeat criminal types tend to desist in their late 20s so imagine that so 1% of the criminals commit 65% of the crimes so imagine that that 1% are the people that you're really concerned with they often have stable patterns of offending that emerged in very very young like even in infancy and have and continued through adolescence and into adulthood if you keep them in prison until they're in their in the middle of their late 20s most of them stop and that might be the easiest

way to understand that might just be delayed maturation so are most people salvageable yes definitely is everyone salvageable well at some point it becomes first of all they have to want to be salvaged that's a problem but then it also becomes something like well how how much resources are you going to devote to that like the the farther down the rabbit hole you've gone the more energy it takes to haul you up so there comes a point where the probability that you'll be able to get enough resources devoted to you to rescue you from the

pit of Hell that you've dug is zero and that's a very sad thing and it's very hard to be around someone who's in that situation very very hard and it seems that it's more likely that the leaders of movements are going to be Psychopaths and the followers of movements are going to be the the people that we're mentioning that are kind of lost themselves to the ideology of the movement well we we know that what you said is true even historically to a large degree because Germany was successfully densified and it's not like everybody who

participated in every element of the Nazi movement was brought to Justice not not in the least the same thing happened in Japan so to some degree the same thing happened in South Africa right and so and it's the case for example also in the stories that we were referring to earlier the biblical Stories the Patriarchs of the Bible most of them are pretty bad people when they first start out like Jacob's a really good Jacob is the one who becomes Israel he's a major player in the biblical narrative and he's a pretty bad actor when

he first starts out he's a mama's boy he's a liar he uh he steals from his own brother and in a major way he deceives his father he's a coward you know and yet he turns his life around so be careful the leaders you idolize in worship but then it's not always clear to know who is the good and who's the evil y that's hard you have been through some dark places in your mind over your life uh what have been some of your dark hours and how did you find the light well I would

say I started contending with the problem of evil very young 13 or 14 and that that's been the main that was my main motivation of study for 30 years I guess something like that at the end of that 30 years it became more and more I became more and more interested in fleshing out the alternative like once I became convinced that evil existed and I that was very young I I always I always believed that if you could understand something well enough that you could formulate a solution to it but it turns out that seeing

evil and understanding that it exists is less complicated than a technical description of its opposite like what is good you can say well it's not that for sure it's not owitz how about we start there it's as far from owitz as you can get it's as far from enjoying being an owitz campg guard as you can get okay well where are you when you're as far away from that as you could possibly get what does that mean that and it does have something to do with play as far as I'm concerned like I think the

antithesis of Ty is play so that took me a long time to figure out that specifically you know um and so that was very dark like I spent a lot of time studying the worst behaviors that I could discover abstractly in books but also in my clinical practice and and in my observations of people and so that's that's rough um more recently I was very ill and in a tremendous amount of pain like that lasted pretty much without any break for 3 years and what was particularly useful to me then was the strength of my

relationships my immediate relationships my friendships also the relationships that I had established more broadly with people you know U Because by the time I became illite was reasonably well known and people were very supportive when when I was having trouble and that was very helpful but it's certainly the case that it was the connections I had particularly with my family but also with my friends that were the Saving Grace and that's something to know you know I mean it's necessary to Bear the burdens of the world on your own shoulders that's for sure the burdens

of your own existence and whatever other responsibilities you can mount but that by no means means that you can or should do it alone and so you know you might say well welcoming the adversity of Life as a Redemptive challenge is a task that's beyond the ability of the typical person or even maybe of anyone but then when you think well you're not alone maybe you're you're not alone socially you're not alone familial maybe you're not alone metaphysically as well you know there there's an insistence and I think it's true there's an insistence for example

in the old and the New Testament alike that the more Darkness you're willing to voluntarily encounter the more likely it is that the spirit of Abraham and the Patriarchs will walk with you and I think that's right like I I think it's sort of technically true in that the best parts of yourself make themselves manifest if you want to think about it that way the best parts of yourself whatever that means make themselves manifest when you're contending actively and voluntarily with the most difficult challenges why wouldn't it be that way way and then you could

think well that's yourself it's like well are the best unrevealed parts of you yourself well no they're a kind of metaphysical reality they're not yet manifest they only exist in potential they transcend anything you're currently capable of but they have an existence you could call that yourself but like it was yung's contention for example with regards to such terminology that the reason we use the term self instead of God is because when God was dispensed with let's say by the processes n described we just found the same thing deep within the instinctive realm let's say

we found it at the bottom of the things instead of at the top it's like it doesn't matter it doesn't matter fundamentally what matters is whether or not that's a reality and I think it's the fundamental reality because I do think that the deeper you delve into things this is what happens to Moses when he encounters the burning bush so Moses is just going about his life he's a Shepherd he's an adult he has wives he has children he has responsibilities he's left his home and he's established himself and so things are pretty good for

Moses and then he's out by Mount Corb in that story but it's the central mountain of the world it's the same Mountain as SI which is the place where Heaven and Earth touch and he sees something that grabs his attention right that's the burning bush and Bush is a tree that's life that's the tree of life and the fact that it's on fire is that's life ex exaggerated because everything that's alive is on fire and so what calls to Moses is like the spirit of being itself and it it tracks him off the Beaten Track

and he decides to go investigate so Moses is everyone who goes off the Beaten Track to investigate and so as he investigates he delves more and more deep ly until he starts to understand that he's now walking on sacred ground so he takes off his shoes and that's a symbolic reference of identity transformation he's no longer walking the same path he no longer has the same identity he's in a state of flux and that's when what happens is that he continues to interact with this calling and Moses asks what it is that's being revealed and

God says I'm the spirit of being itself that's basically the answer I am what I am it's it's a more complex utterance than that I am what I will be I am what was becoming it's all of that at the same time it's the spirit of being that's speaking to him the spirit of being and becoming and it tells Moses that he now because he's delved so deeply into something so compelling his identity is transformed and he's become the leader who can speak truth to power and so he allies himself with his brother Aaron who's

the political arm and who can communicate and he goes back to Egypt to confront the Tyrant and that's that's an indication of that idea that if you wrestle with life properly that the spirit of being and becoming walks with you and it's like I how can that not be true because the the contrary would be that there would be no growth in challenge well that's you have to be infinitely nihilistic to believe that it's obvious but it's also just fascinating that hardship is the thing that is um that ends up being the Catalyst for delving

deeply it's hardship voluntarily undertaken well and it's crucially true look if you bring someone into therapy let's say they're afraid of elevators and you trick them into getting near an elevator you'll make them worse but if you if you negotiate with them so that they voluntarily move towards the elevator on their own recognizance they they'll overcome their fear and they become generally braver but it has to be voluntary see I got to push back and explore with you the question of voluntarily yeah let's look at n yeah he suffered through several health issues throughout his

life migraines eyesight issues digestive problems depression with suicidal thoughts and yet he is one of the greatest Minds in the history of humanity so were these problems that he was suffering arguably involuntarily a feature or a bug that's a good question the same thing happens in the story of job because job is a good man God himself admits it and the the Satan comes along and says to God I I see you're pretty proud of your your man there job God says yeah he's doing pretty well and Satan says I think it's just because things

are easy for him let me have a crack at him and see what happens and God says yeah I think you're wrong do your worst right and that's how people feel when those slings and arrows come at them let's say like n well job's response to that now the story is set up so that what befalls job is actually quite arbitrary right these catastrophes that you're describing the volunteerism in job is his refusal to despair even in the face of that adversity and that seems like something like an expression of voluntary free will he refuses

to lose faith and the the way the story ends is that job get get everything back and more and you know so that's a descent and Ascent story and a cynic might say well the ends don't justify the means and I would say fair enough but that's a pretty shallow interpretation of the story what it indicates instead is that if you're fortunate because let's not forget that and you optimize your attitude even in the face of adversity that there it's not infrequently the case that your fortunes will reverse you know and I found that in

many situations the journalists whose who whose goal was most malicious in relationship to me who were most concerned with improving their own what would you say fostering their own notoriety and gaining social status at my expense were the ones who did me the greatest favor those were the interview that went viral and so that's that's interesting you know because they were definitely the places where the most disaster was at hand and I felt that in the aftermath every time that happened our my whole family was destabilized for like two months because things it wasn't obvious

at all which way the dice were going to roll but you leaned into that so in a sense that there's this kind of a transformation from the involuntary to the voluntary basically saying bring it on that act of Bring It On turns the hardship involuntary hardship into voluntary hardship well not necessarily let's say but you could say that's your best bet well you know I'm I'm I'm never going to say that you can transcend all catastrophe with the right attitude because that's just too much to say but I could say that in a dire situation

there's always an element of choice and if you make the right choices you you improve the degree you improve your chances of success to the maximal possible degree it might be too much to say but nevertheless is could be true Victor Franco Marcus aurelus well that's what the resurrection story proclaims is that you know even under the darkest imaginable circumstances the fundamental finale is the victory of the good and that seems to me to be true do you have regrets when you look back at your life in the full analysis of it well as I

said I was very ill for about 3 years and it was seriously brutal like every this is no lie every single minute of that 3 years was worse than any single time I'd ever experienced in my entire life up to that so that was rough was the roughest the physical or psychological pain just literal pain yep yeah I was walking like 10 to 12 miles a day rain or shine winter didn't matter not good and it it was it was worse than that because as the day progressed my pain levels would fall until by 10

11 at night when I was starting to get tired I was approaching what would you say I was approaching something like an ordinary bad day but as soon as I went to sleep then the Clock Was reset and all the pain came back and so it it wasn't just that I was in pain it was that sleep itself became an enemy and that's really rough man because sleep is where you take refuge you know you're worn out you're tired and you go to sleep and you wake up and it's generally it's something approximating a new

day this was like Copus on steroids and that was it was very difficult to maintain hope in that because I would do what I could like there were times when it took me like an hour and a half in the morning to stand up and so I do all that and more or less put myself back into something remotely resembling Human by the end of the day and then I knew perfectly well exhausted if I fell asleep that I was going to be right at the bottom of the bloody Hill again and so after a

couple of years of that it was definitely the fact that I had a family that that carried me through that what did you learn about yourself about yourself and about the human mind from that from all of those days well I think I learned more gratitude for the people I had around me and I learned how fortunate I was to have that and how crucial that was my wife learned something similar she she was diagnosed with a form of cancer that as far as we know killed every single person who ever had it except her

it's quite rare um and her experience was that what really gave her hope and played at least a role in Saving her was the realization of the depth of love that her son in particular had for her and that that says nothing about her relationship with Michaela with her daughter it just so happened that it was the revelation of that love that made Tammy understand the value of her life in a way that she wouldn't have realized of her own accord we're very very there's no difference between ourselves and the people that we love and

there might be no difference between ourselves and everyone everywhere but we can at least realize that to begin with in the form of the people that we love and I hope I'm better at that than I was I think I'm better at it than I was I'm a lot more grateful for just ordinary ordinariness than I was because when I first recovered I remember I was standing first started to recover I was standing in this Pharmacy waiting for a prescription in little town and they weren't being particularly efficient about it and so I was in

that standing in the aisle for like 20 minutes and I thought I'm not on fire I could just stand here for like the rest of my life just not being in pain and enjoying that and you know that would have been something that before that would have been you know I would have been impatient and RAR to go cuz I didn't have 20 minutes to stand in the middle of an and I thought well you know if if you're just standing there and you're not on fire things are a lot better than they might be

and I certainly I know that and I think I remember it almost all the time you gain a greater ability to appreciate the mundane moments of Life yeah definitely the miracle of the mundane right yeah I think n had that CU he was very ill and so I suspect he had you know and he was regarded by the inhabitants of the village that he lived in near the end of his life as something approximating a saint he apparently conducted himself very admirably despite all his suffering you know but that still there's this tension as there

is in much of nicha's work between the um uh the miracle of the mundane appreciating the miracle of the mundane versus uh fearing the tyranny of the mediocre it's more than mediocre and resentful yes but that's you uh giving him a pass or seeing well fair enough you know there's a kind of I mean the tyranny of the mediocre I I always hated this idea that some people are better than others and I understand it but it's a dangerous idea this is why I like the story of Kan and Abel I would say because C

is mediocre but that's because he refuses to do his best it's not something intrinsic to him and I actually think that's the right formulation because you know I had people in my clinical practice who were they were lost in many dimensions from the perspective of comparison one woman I remember in particular who man she had a lot to contend with she was not educated she was not intelligent she had a brutal family like terrible history of psychiatric hospitalization um and when I met her at a hospital she was an outpatient from the psychiatric ward and

she had been in there with people that she thought were worse off than her and they were and that was a long way down that was like Dante's Inferno level down it was a long-term psychiatric impatient Ward some of the of the people had been there for 30 years it it made uh One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest look like a romantic comedy and she had come back to see if she could take some of those people for a walk and was trying to find out how to get permission to do it and so you

know better better than other people some people are more intelligent some people are more beautiful some people are more athletic is maybe it's possible for everyone at all levels of attainment to strive towards the good and maybe those talents that are given to people unfairly don't privilege them in relationship to their moral conduct and I I think that's true like there's no evidence for example that there's any correlation whatsoever between intelligence and morality you're not better because you're smart and what that also implies is if you're smart you can be a lot better at being

worse I think for myself I'm just afraid of dismissing people because of my perception of them yeah well that's why we have that metaphysical presumption that everybody's made in the image of God right despite that immense diversity of apparent ability there's that underlying metaphysical assumption that yeah we all vary in our perceived and actual utility in relationship to any PR proximal goal but all of that's independent of the question of axiomatic worth and that Preposterous as that notion appears to be it seems to me that societies that accept it as a fundamental aaic presumption are

always the societies that you'd want to live in if you had a choice and that to me is an existence proof for the utility of the presumption and also you know if you treat people like that in your life every encounter you have you make the assumption that it's it's an assumption of what would you it's radical equality of worth despite individual variance in ability something like that man your interactions go way better I mean everyone wants to be treated that way look here's a developmental sequence for you naive and trusting hurt and cynical okay

well is hurt and cynical better than naive and trusting it's like yeah probably is that where it ends how about cynical and trusting as step three right and then the trust becomes courage it's like yeah I'll put my AR my hand out for you but it's not cuz I'm a fool and I think that's right because that's the re-instantiation of that initial trust right that makes childhood magical and paradisal but it's the ad mixture of that with wisdom it's like like yeah you know we could be we could walk together uphill but that doesn't mean

and I'll presume that that's your aim but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to watch what's a better life cynical and safe or hopeful and vulnerable to be hurt oh you you can't dispense with vulnerable to be hurt that's that's the other realization it's like you're going to stake your life on something you can stake your life on security but it's not going to help you don't have that option so what do you do when you're betrayed ultimately by some people you come across grieve and look elsewhere do what you can to forgive and

not least so you lighten your own burden maybe do what you can to help the person who betrayed you and if that all proves impossible then wash your hands of it and move on to the next adventure and do it again yeah yeah boy this life something else uh so we've been talking about some heavy difficult topics and you've talked about truth in your n lectures and elsewhere when you think when you write when you speak how do you find what is true you know Hemingway said uh all you have to do is write one

true sentence yeah how do you do that well I would say first that you practice that it's like it that question is something and and Hemingway knew this at least to some degree and he certainly wrote about it is that you have to orient your life upward as completely as you can because otherwise you can't distinguish between truth and falsehood it it has to be a practice know and for me I started to become serious about that practice when I realized that it was individ ual it was the immorality of the individual the resentful Craven

deceitful immorality of the individual that led to the terrible atrocities that humans engage in that make us doubt even our own worth I became completely convinced of that that the fundamental root cause of evil let's say wasn't economic or sociological that it was spiritual just psychological and that if that was the case you had an ex existential responsibility to aim upward and to tell the truth and that everything depends on that and I became convinced of that and so then look you set your path with your orientation that that's how your perceptions work as soon

as you have a goal a pathway opens up to you and you can see it and the world divides itself into obstacles and and things that move you forward and so the pathway that's in front of you depends on your aim the things you perceive are concretizations of your aim if your aim is untrue then you won't be able to tell the difference between truth and falsehood and you might say well how do you know your aim is true it's like well you course correct continually and you can aim towards the ultimate are you ever

sure that your aim is the right direction you become increasingly accurate in your apprehension is it like part of the process to cross the line to uh to go outside the over to window to dip a to outside the open the window for a bit of course that's what you do in part and play um I was at the comedy Mothership and every single comedian was like completely reprehensible all they were doing was saying things that you you can't say well but it was in play what I'm trying to do in my lectures is I'm

on the edge like I have a question I'm trying to address and I'm trying to figure it out I don't know where the conversation is going truly like it's it's an exploration and I think the reason that the audience is responding is because they can feel that it's a Highwire act you know and I could fail and you know my lectures have degrees of success sometimes I get real fortunate and there's a perfect narrative Arc I have a question I'm investigating it it comes to a punchline conclusion just at the right time and it's like

the whole Act is complete and sometimes it's more fragmented but I can tell when the audience is engaged because everyone's silent you know except maybe when they're laughing but there's a kind of sense that you're arguing with yourself when you're lecturing it's beautiful it's it's really beautiful and Powerful to watch like nche does the same there's contradictions in what you're saying there's a struggle of what you're saying but I do think that when you're doing the same on the internet you get punished for the deviations you get punished for the exploration especially when that explores

outside the over to window look if you're going to play hard in a conversation to explore you're going to say things that cost that are edgy right that are going to cause trouble and that might be wrong and that that's another reason why Free Speech protection is so important you actually have to protect the right let's say in the optimal circumstance you have to protect the right of well-meaning people to be wrong now you probably have to go beyond that to prot truly protect it you have to even protect the right of people who aren't

meaning well to be wrong you know and and we also need that because we're not always well-meaning but but I don't you know the alternative to that protection would be the insistence that people only say what was 100% right all the time I'm also I guess the is a a call to our fellow humans not to reduce a person to a particular statement this is what the internet tends to want to do especially if it's the worst thing they ever said yeah yeah yeah cuz God well anyone judged by that standard is doomed unless they're

silent but it also just makes you not want to play yeah right not want to uh take sort of radical thought experiments and carry out that's kind of the definition of a totalitarian state no one's playing in a total State ever but in this case it's an emergent one yeah with Psychopaths uh roaming the landscape well thean that that might be the general pattern of totalitarianism well in totalitarianism there's usually one psychopath not multiple yeah but everyone well everyone else is complicit at least in their silence yeah does the study of the pathology of psychopaths

online wear on you yes definitely do you ever consider doing a less of that yes yes yes definitely but you know probably I experienced most of that on X but that's also where I found most of my guests that's also where I get a sense of the Zeitgeist which is necessary for example if you're going to be a podcast host it's necessary for me to make my lectures on point and up to date to get a sampling of the the current moment you have to be of the moment in in many ways to function at

a high level is there a price there's a price to be paid for that because you're you're exposed to everything in a sense and and you can also over sample the darkness yeah yeah definitely and it can make you more and more cynical yeah well it's a danger right yeah yeah well luckily for me you know I have many things that counterbalance that the familiar relationships we talked about the friendships the and then also all of the public things I do are positive the lecture tours for example which I'm on a lot they're basically 100%

positive so I'm very well butress against that that's great to hear darker element as a fan in the arena watching the Gladiators fight your mind is too important to be lost to the cynical to the to the battles with the uh with the abyss well you you have a moral obligation too to maintain a positive positive orientation it's a moral obligation the future is of course rif with contradictory possibilities and I suppose in some ways the more rapid the rate of transformation the more possibility for good and for evil is making itself manifest at any

moment but it looks like the best way to ensure that the future is everything we wish it would be is to maintain faith that that is the direction that will prevail and I think that's a form of moral commitment when it's not just naive optimism well Jordan thank you for being courageous and being the light amid the darkness for many many people and thank you for once again talking today thanks very much for the invitation and for the conversation much always a pleasure to see you and uh you're doing a pretty decent job yourself about

there Illuminating dark corners and and bringing people upward I mean you've got a remarkable thing going with your podcast and you're very good at it thank you Jordan thanks for listening to this conversation with Jordan Peterson to support this podcast please check out our sponsors in the description and now let me leave you some words from friedrick N I would like to learn more and more to see as beautiful that which is necessary in things then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful thank you for listening and hope to see you next

time