Follow US:

Practice English Speaking&Listening with: 2017/03/18: Mayhem while we're freezing and starving: my talk at Western

(0)
Difficulty: 0

these left your eyes and ears dr. Jordan Peterson

our differences between men yes curtain tomorrow

so the first thing I noticed did I actually mentioned this at the

University of Toronto debate with some of you for all the watched is that and

I'd be thinking about this for quite a while I said there was an overwhelming

which already been in the room that through the dusty Toronto meet and if

you look around with your day you'll see that it's probably running I would say

about nineteen camel and that's pretty remarkable way because there are more

women than men in universities now and so it's been quite interesting to me to

see that that one public costs the vast majority of people from and also the

people that are working at YouTube it's about ninety tenant as well and we're

not exactly sure why that is although I think maybe that nobody is

actually speaking to manage properly maybe I'm doing a bit of that and I

would say that's probably also pretty good for women because if men are doing

very well you can be sure that very well because as it turns out we actually need

each other so anyways I'm going to start again a bit I guess we're talking about

Bill c16 and why I mean I know I made some videos back at the end of September

I suppose most of you know that and one of them was expressing my concern about

a piece of legislation of the supporting at the federal level called field bill

16 and it what I'm purporting to do was to add gender expression and gender

identity to the list of protected groups particularly the development human

rights legislation and also making harassment and discrimination

something potentially addressable under the

to permission from the cold on a surface of it dirts very short bill as it turns

out on the surface it looks so I'm not a solo

it's very badly formulated the first major error is of course the gender

expression which is fundamentally fashion as defined by me on targeting

the rights conditioning websites it's how you presented yourself you how you

present yourself in terms of your clothing and you're faster than your

hair makeup and that sort of thing in day to day activities so it shouldn't be

too my reasonable point out that that does not constitute a broom and I'm

actually a bit of a stickler when it comes to language I think especially we

were making legislation that we should be laws that say exactly what they

should say and nothing else and since gender expression is not a

group it's straight to be it's very difficult to determine exactly how it's

going to be added as a group to the protected groups under the relevant

Human Rights Code but more than that

it's quite so it's quite obvious and I've talked to a number of people about

this so I know it's not just my imagination then they'll see 16 in

legislation like that are going to be interpreted in light of the policies

that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has developed and they are absolutely

incoherent setup also have I've ever seen one and that's why the the first

video the second video I mean because you know the University of Toronto in

its wisdom the HR and equity people decided that it was ok to force their

employees to undergo mandatory anti unconscious bias retraining which is

something I have a big problem with together that night you can diagnose

someone's unconscious bias first of all and even if you could there's no

evidence whatsoever that unconscious bias retraining will help

and finally there's no reason whatsoever why your employer no matter who they are

should be messing about with the fundamental perceptual structures of

Europe of your psyche when they're looking at things that

aren't even voluntary so it's appalling on multiple dimensions and one of the

things I would seriously recommend to all of you is that if anybody starts to

suggest that you need to undergo mandatory retraining through your

unconscious racial biases that if you go along with that you're immediately

admitting that you're the sort of bigot who needs to be retrained and I would

think very carefully about admitting them because first of all it's possible

that it's not true you know I mean people carry with them everyone carries

with them certainly in any recent reference that's

quite common what exactly that means in terms of their overt behavior or

proclivities is completely in undetermined by the relevant science

there's absolutely no excuse for social psychologists to be putting forward

tests like the implicit association test which purport to measure unconscious

bias as a diagnostic intuitive because they don't have the validity or the

reliability to do before this such in fact if you were a clinical psychologist

that you were using tests about sort of to diagnose individuals you'd be in

violation of the statutes that are governing proper products so I have my

reasons for objecting to these things you know what I really don't like about

Bill c16 and its surrounding policies is that it's it's putting into our law a

sequence of presuppositions that actually happen to be false and it was

me pointing out that they were false that's got me in whatever trouble I've

been in and generated the accusations of such things as transphobia and racism

because the insane individuals who are running black lives matter in Toronto

and I've since I'm not a racist I don't care if you're black or green if you're

crazy I'm gonna make the point two people who come to our place now are

really reprehensible individuals and so I was objective to Papa well I don't see

how that makes me racist with regards to being a transform first of all I

objected the terminology because phobia has a very specific terminology which is

Department where I also object to the word about Islamophobia by the way

because phobia is a benefit term and you don't just get to pull many Pinter's

away from their proper context and apply them to those people whose political

opinions you don't happen to agree with it's it's misuse of language it's misuse

of medical terminology and I would also like to tell you just so you know that

there are a number of first of all there aren't that many transsexual people in

the world aren't that many in Canada so whenever you hear for many of them it's

actually a reasonably substantial portion of the overall population there

are a lot of videos on YouTube put out by transsexual people including the

person I talked to you whose name is Jeremiah who who stayed quite the

vociferously that they only brief any of the activists the trends the so-called

trans activist political agenda that's being put forward as hypothetically

representative of their approval first of all they're not approved the fact

that you happen to have what would you say

gender dysphoria or or an indeterminate gender identity does not make you a

martyr the screw this certainly doesn't it doesn't situate you such that some

member of your group or someone so-called Li let's say can stand up and

she's ten purport the speaker you are mass as if you were uh I want to this

group I mean that's completely nonsensical I mean you can't talk to a

man and assume that these Peaks are all math and

talk to a black woman and have her say that she speaks for all black women and

they certainly can't stand up say that because they're transsexual

you speak for all transsexuals it's partly why we have the idea of

legitimate representation for people to legitimately represent a group they have

to have some legitimacy perhaps they have to be elected at least they have to

pull the people in order recording to represent as he can't just come on sale

it's inappropriate I've received 30 letters for transsexual people and 29

men more positive and I have to tell you why with regards to what I've been doing

I could tell you why the first is they're not very happy with the idea

that they're being represented by these noisy activist groups because they don't

really at each individual cuz these were all individuals roping so that they're

they're not happy about being represented in a family because that

isn't how their political view of the world actually helps to lay itself up in

fact most people are transsexual are perfectly happy for example with the

pronouns he or she they just want to be called the other one and so the people

who are who want the agenda be to a hotel pronounce a very small might worry

of a very small minority it's hard to say how many of them are but the idea

that they're somehow developed representatives of the whole group is

observed they're also not very happy because they believe that that because

this has become such an issue they're actually likely to face more prejudice

rather than less prejudice you know because generally what people want

regardless of whatever kind of visible minority status they might have what

most people want is to live relatively peacefully and invisibly among other

people and so then whenever a political movement comes out to exaggerate or

or otherwise draw attention to the differences there's real danger and not

so so I'd like to put to rest the idea that somehow the trans activists who are

accusing me of all the things that are accusing me of are somehow more

legitimate representatives of transsexual identity and that's a

well-meaning than I am I don't believe that for a second I've dealt with all

sorts of people in my life more than more than most people that

have me that's for sure and they spend every sort of person you can imagine

that I work hard to make all of their lives better regardless of their of the

particulars of their identity and so to cast me as an entity was thinking

observed in I think I can be confident stating that to because I have the good

fortune of having about 500 hours of my public statements to university students

online I taped everything now everything that I say to students pretty much you

know at least in the classroom if there is anything even remotely reprehensible

in any of that content you can be sure that someone would have hauled it out

and put it on YouTube with big exclamation points from them that I will

be called properly to test for and none of that has happened at all the reason

for that is that there is none of it exists so I'm not saying that I'm

completely without bias you have to be a fool to say that you know everyone is

biased in their perceptions to something great but that's that's not the point

that doesn't mean you're racially biased or that you're racist it means that you

have your own particular viewpoint and then that comes with with the

idiosyncrasies of peculiarities of your character and your ethnic heritage and

your race and your culture and all of that so I'm not going to say if there a

moment that I don't have my own viewpoint because I do but a certain

thing better then the comments directly that mean that your turn to target with

some some of these half-witted epithets that are continuing

without me here completely without and he stand in whatsoever so all right so

let's go into the background of Bill c16 and why I objected to it so I won't

quite be pleading to the legislation as it was originally formulated in Ontario

and that was the legislation that was designed to provide protection for

people who whose gender identities that say were non-standard original

legislation wasn't too bad you know it basically attempted to do perhaps what

it shouldn't if it was going to be reasonable

they actually defined the non-standard gender identity fairly carefully but

they shot the legislation out to activist groups and what happened was

that by the time everybody and their dog so to speak could have her shot at

modifying the original terminology is absolutely mess and it's an absolute

mess now and we're to tell you why and also what's dangerous the first thing in

the policies that surround OC 16 there's a claim that's been instantiated in the

law in Ontario who will simply instantiate have been the law in Canada

and not yes it's a technical point when you need to pay attention to it because

of the technicalities matter so the claim is that biological sex gender

identity gender expression and sexual proclivity vary independently and that's

a false claim now that's actually what I said in the original video and that's

what people originally and still accused me of denying the existence of

transsexual people because obviously transsexual people

exist and they've existed for a very long period of time but that has very

little to do with whether or not biological sex gender identity gender

expression and sexual proclivity are independent and they are certainly not

independent they're not even close to independent they're so highly correlated

that the correlation is almost perfect and and these things matter when you put

them into into into the legal framework and so what's really happened is because

the social constructionist types have lost the intellectual battle as the

biological evidence or the grounding of identity that becomes stronger and

stronger over the last 50 years because they lost scientific argument they've

taken about their art they're trying to expatiate

legally it's not gonna work because you can make false facts law I mean you

divert people by doing them you can cause all sorts of trouble but it isn't

the work for any length of time so let's take apart the claim first of all the

first thing is that biological sex and gender identity are actually different

and you know you can make a case for that in a weak way because because there

is quite a range of personality expression let's say and interests among

people who have the same biological sex so there are masculine women let's say

and there are feminine men and there's quite an overlap although you can

distinguish the genders quite quite accurately using nothing but personality

information and interest so you can separate them even at the level where

there is some similarity but so you can make a weak case for that but it's

difficult to make a strong case and the reason for that is that virtually every

person whose biological sex is male expresses themselves in male or has an

identity that's male it's only about 1 in 300 people for will not identity

difference now you can say well that's because of the the degree of gender what

would you say amorphousness has been suppressed by sociological

phenomenon as that's true and something really doesn't

matter it's still going to be a very tiny minority it's not to exceed more

than 1% I don't think and so what that means is that 99% of people at the same

gender identity as biological sex so how is that independent it's the very

opposite of independent so it's wrong it's as simple as that and then now that

doesn't mean there are people who don't wear those - I had to do still masks and

those are the transsexual people audience but to extract from that the

statement that those vary independently is an intellectual sleight of hand

and it's really pushed forward by people who arrived and social constructionists

who believed that every single aspect of human identity is determined by culture

and that's patently false and not only that is dangerous lately because one of

the ideas that characterize the most reprehensible movements of the 20th

century because the human beings could be molded in any manner possible by the

state that we didn't have an intrinsic identity of any sort and that we're only

creatures of culture and that's not the case there's a very distinct human

identity and I'll talk about progresses okay so on gender identity and

biological sex do not very independent that's the first thing then the next

claim is well let's look to gender expression well you can dress in any

manner you want you can express yourself in a feminine manner culturally speaking

if you're male or you can express yourself in a masculine matter

culturally speaking if you're female but the truth of the matter is that the vast

majority of people whose biological sex is male and whose gender identity is

male presenting themselves and their fashion choices as male and the same can

be said about females so the notion of whose independence there is also

incorrect they can vary that they don't Haring independently and finally there

- sexual proclivity the vast majority of people who are male music you identify

as male who presented themselves as male are also heterosexual and that doesn't

mean that there are real people who are a homosexual

the percentage varies but it looks like it's somewhere between two and five

percent or maybe between one and five percent depending on the statistics but

that means that at least 95 percent of people who are male who are emphasized

male and presented themselves as male are also kind of assertion so those more

levels of analysis do not vary independently and that's that so the law

is incorrect it's badly formulated and it's poorly put forward and that's what

I was objected to no it's worse than that as far as I can tell because it's

social constructionist l and the social constructionist element is the

insistence that all of those things are culturally or culturally constructed and

they're not so let's do that let's review that a little bit it's like

elementary biology I suppose what's different between men and women right

well there's a variety of things you know the plastic human embryological

form is female XX or XY and the males are masculinized

in utero by testosterone so that's the first difference in testosterone

exposure in you the rule has quite profound effects on later on all sorts

of later than phenomena psychological and physical so for example one of the

things that higher levels of testosterone the neuter will seek to

predict is less interesting people are more interested fast and so are not

being well documented by research teams in the UK in particular but in any case

so the standard female Morpho the standard will for more quality female

but it's translated into BL male morphology

and so then what do you get for standard morphological transformations well is

the evident genetic ones speaking technically obviously male and female

genitalia differ substantially as we all know there are there are there is some

variation in that although it's very rare and then there are also other

differences that kick forward especially the punitive hits and some of those are

physiological and some of the recycle on it so one of the things that you see how

you for example is that there aren't very many there aren't very large

personality differences between boys and girls before permitting with regards to

negative emotion so that's trading eroticism for those of you who are

interested in things like during terminology and so people who are high

on neuroticism are more sensitive to anxiety and emotional pain and women are

more sensitive to fit men to anxiety and emotional pain on average and the effect

isn't massive it's about a third to half standard deviation but it's massive

enough so that if you look at the end of the distributions where the extreme

people are almost all the people who have extreme problems with anxiety and

emotional pain are women it's running about four to one in terms of depression

and anxiety disorder diagnosis worldwide and there's no evidence that that's

cultural now on the other end of the spectrum so to speak there are being all

pathologies as well so males are much more likely to manifest a bit social

personality disorder they're much more likely to be characterized by alcoholism

and they're also more likely to manifest attention deficit

disorder in various learning disabilities and so that also seems to

be biologically predicated to large degree so and interestingly enough those

differences the personality differences between men and women with regards to

trade negative emotion emerge of puberty well why well that's thinking of it for

them now these are speculations but you can you can think about them to tell you

tell me what you think I mean they're reasonably Brown in speculations but are

not certain to going to state them as fact although I would say that the idea

that these differences in personality between men and women exist that's how

powerful those typical are those differences are and precisely what they

consist of is still subject to some investigation but it's extraordinarily

well documented so what happens to men and women at puberty

while the men had bigger they get stronger especially their upper bodies

and human beings are quite aggressive were prey animals as well as were

predators as well as prey offenses for the one of the ways that we defend

ourselves aggressively is using upper body strength so we punch like kangaroos

there's other evidence that do that so and we punched and so what that means is

that men are quite a bit more dangerous than women didn't say panda can combat

and that's an actual actually a real problem you see one of those you see

that manifest itself in part you know strange statistic because will come as

news to most of you better wives hit their husbands more often than husband

see if there was quite quite a lot actually

but it's in it's a misleading statistic to some degree because women lack

upper-body strength they can hit their husbands and they're not really gonna

hurt them that much I mean there are men who are abused and I'm not trying to

make light of that but one of the problems with having much higher father

body strength is that if you hit so on your leg leviathans are hurt them and so

male aggression in the in that context the dynamic relationship physical

aggression is much more likely means dangerous or lethal to the female

oppression of the same sort as part of the reason I think that women are more

likely to hit their husbands or wife's more likely to hit their husbands and

the reverse is because both the wives and husbands know perfectly well that

the baby's hurt that when you have much so there isn't as much in a vision in

the mCP aggression okay so now what is it what is it mean for women that men

are stronger than them starting at puberty it means that women are at a

disadvantage in physical combat that's part of the reason I think that their

nervous systems make them more nervous or anxious and more susceptible to

emotional pain is because the world's actually more dangerous for them now the

world is also more dangerous for women sexually now that's self-evident where

do you think I have to explain now is foolish enough to try to disagree about

the reason that sex is more dangerous for women though mr. Manohar viously

because women can get pregnant and that changes that changes their life

completely coming from danger they may choose to have an abortion but that in

itself is no trivial matter and as soon as you have a child a nutshell is

dependent on you then your whole life has changed and in more traditional

societies of you kind of sexual adventure Co started with a standard

traditional structures and you ended up pregnant now you are in a serious

trouble and so for women to be more anxious and

more susceptible to emotional pain because of their increased sexual

vulnerability is perfectly reasonable and then the final reason I think that

women are more susceptible to anxiety and emotional pain is because you know

it's not obvious to me that woman's work nervous systems are actually actually

served to function in the best interests of women I think that they actually

serve to function in the best interests of

because you think if you think about our evolutionary past for that matter our

president know you're quite a different creature when you're a single person

they all are maybe Hall Dan you are when you are a female that has an incident

especially in infants under both kinds of all my console because human infants

are unbelievably fragile you know they're born in some sense way before

they should be that's part of the evolutionary problem too because our

heads are so big the babies our babies have to be poor very young compared to

other mammals of our size roughly speaking the gestation period should be

longer for human beings because our pets are so think the babies have to come out

early and that makes it you know relatively underdeveloped and so they

needed tremendous amount of care they're very fragile and so it seems to be quite

likely that woman's nervous systems are optimized so that they're more threat

sensitive and more sensitive to emotional pain because they have to be

more responsive to infants and they have to take care of them especially in their

most fragile state and that won't be in the first time months I think

tilts women's nervous systems hard in the direction of what men might regard

success of negative emotionality but you have to be sensitive to threatened

danger if you're going to have an infant because they're very very fragile so I

think the only the reasons and there's lots of other personality differences

between men and women you know I can give you a list of them and these are

well-documented

there's not a lot of difference in men and women in terms of extraversion if

you look at extraversion as a whole extraversion is roughly the dimension

that bring the dimension of this valley that's associated with positive emotion

and extroverted people are gregarious and enthusiastic and assertive they like

to party they like to have a good time the social environment is their

environment and as extraversion breaks down into enthusiasm and assertiveness

and women are more enthusiastic which means that not only do they have more

negative emotion than men they also have more possible connection and so so

that's the positive emotion dimension the negative emotion dimension is

neuroticism as I said some are basically indexes anxiety and emotional pain

frustration disappointment grief that sort of thing although the same

dimension that breaks into volatility and volatility volatility are another

irritable and withdraw withdraw are less likely to do things that are threatened

and women are higher by about a third of the standard deviation agreeableness is

the dimension that men and women differ on the most and agreeable people this is

I think the most fundamental dimension of nationality and that characterizes

human be so agreeable people are compassionate and polite warm and kind

and giving but they're easily it's easy to take advantage of them and they're

not about going to standing up for themselves so naturally if you look at

one of the things that predicts wage differential across time male or

female is more agreeable people get paid less and the reason for that is that

often salary negotiation negotiations are zero song and if you're not as

aggressive you don't get paid because people aren't just going to give you

money we just going to be nice to you that's not how

it works you generally have to fight it for status and position and move look

forward in careers and in order to do that you have to take the relatively I

would say self-centered attitude because the offices in some sense the operative

opposite of being agreeable is to be self-centered and I'm also not saying

that in a particularly negative way there's advantages to being

self-centered and to fight for your own territory and they're more likely to do

that and you might say well what's your evidence that those differences in

personality aren't culturally constructed in the evidence for that

it's quite clear you can go online you look up the skin beneath these studies

store online and look up gender differences in personality cross

culturally you'll find the relevant studies they've been done with tens of

thousands of people and what they showed quite clearly is that in those societies

where the most has be done to move move the social world into a position of

radical equality and so that would roughly be the Scandinavian countries

because they've done more than that more about than any other country the

personality differences between men and women maximise they don't minimize they

maximize and I'll say that again in the countries where the most has been done

to equalize the playing field between men and women men and women get more

different rather than more the same so for only a social constructionist is out

there the audience and there's probably not that many of you because you

wouldn't come in here meet our social constructionist you're actually wrong

yeah well the thing is

no need so one of the things you might be interested in is that it's all the

same to me its subsets like when I was looking into this to begin with

in this river started probably 25 years ago looking at differences in

personality between men and women you know was it all is it all whether they

were fundamentally biologically biological or fundamentally sociological

or or what mix produced the differences no one knew and the most logical

hypothesis really I thought was that as you equalize the society that men and

women would become more the same that is not what happened and so we've actually

looked the social constructionist hypothesis with regards to gender

differences in sex and personality we'll put that to the test in a very intense

way and the social constructionist you won't fail so it's very straining

because no one really believed that right if you make this big society one

of the same in men and women get more different what's up with that well the

answer seems to be is that there's fundamentally two sources of variability

in personality right there's perhaps more but you can categorize them as

roughly genetic and roughly sociological well if you take out all the

sociological differences between the landscape in which men and women are

rated all you have left are the biological and genetic differences so

they maximize well that's exactly what happened

this actually matters it really matters and this is why the demands for equity

are so well there's about 15 reasons what demands for equity order offices

between men and women should not be overlooked partly because it's it's

wrong to overlook the genuine differences between men apart it's not

good for the man it's not good for the women so one of

the things you see in Scandinavia for example is there's an overwhelming

preponderance of female nurses and there's an overwhelming preponderance of

male engineers and actually that data on on personality differences there's

there's there's the standard traits which all continue to go through I can

do that quite quickly there's no much difference in trade conscientiousness

between men and women if you break it down into the aspects women are a bit

more orderly than them but there's no difference in industriousness and then

with regards to openness which is the Intelli intellect creativity dimension

overall there's no difference between men and women but if you break it up

into the aspects then the differences are actually quite pronounced so what

you have is that openness to experience is the technical truth and it roughly

breaks down into something that's sort of like create creativity and aesthetic

interests versus interest in ideas and what you see is the women Hearst third

of the standard deviation higher than men in terms of creativity and aesthetic

aesthetic proclivity let's say and men are one third of the standard deviation

higher than women in terms of interest in ideas and it's not a trivial

difference and it makes a difference so but the biggest difference between men

and women as it turns out this is almost one standard deviation which is a

walloping difference you never see that in social sciences a massive difference

is difference between difference in interest and the masculine interest

roughly speaking these and things and then female interest roughly speaking is

in people and that's what underlies the difference is saying in in career choice

preference between things like nursing and psychology and social work and

and that sort of thing and engineering and because engineering is perhaps the

most male-oriented of all the disciplines and the evidence that that's

sociological is very very weak now I should also point out because this is

important people have wondered for a long time if they if the differences

between men and women save as regards to the sciences and the engineering you

have anything to do with intelligence and the former president of Harvard

there is summers going terrible trouble at one point in fact I think he had to

resign because he made a very technical claim when he said that if you look at

the distributions of intelligence for men and women imagine have a normal

distribution right so almost everybody's at the average there's some extremely

extremely intelligent people but not very many and there's some people who

are very intellectually impaired but not very many if you map the distributions

of men women onto one another there's two hypotheses one hypothesis roughly

speaking is that they're the same and the evidence for that is is reasonable I

would say the other the other theory is that the means are the standing the mean

is the same so both men and women have an average IQ of 100 but the standard

deviation is different so it's larger an amendment it is and women and what that

means is that if the way the hell out into the hyper genius range they're

almost all men but also if you go way the hell up into the range where people

are incredibly intellectually impaired they're also all men and that's the

increased male variability hypothesis and you see increased male variability

in a number of different species partly because men are more expendable than

women and the reason for that biologically speaking the reason for

that is that well you don't need that many men to impregnate a lot of women

but you know women you need women women are immortal

it with regards to reproduction so every woman counts

although going to man thousand and that's true many many species and so you

see more variability of male behavior because of that cross species frequently

and and that comes often at the cost of increased male Ennis and you know look

at it guys you get the diamonds buddy here sooner than the typical one and

that's partly the price you pay for running parking and testosterone because

it's quite toxic over the long run so men are more men and do pay for their

further whatever advantages they might have and they pay for that that's

increased by about ten percent it's a non-trivial disadvantage anyways what

Larry Summers said was well if the IQ distribution is flat out for men than

for women maybe one of the reason that almost all the outstanding men in

science technology engineering and mathematics are male is because it takes

a genius level of ninety level say hundred and fifty or hundred sixty and

when you could weigh out on the distributions when the distributions

different like that then there's massive differences at the ends now he didn't

say that was true by the way he said that that was one possibility and by the

way it is one possibility because Nature doesn't arrange itself so that

everything it presents to us is in keeping with what we would like to be

true politically in fact quite the contrary

no I'm kind of with regards to that because I've looked at the data on both

sides and I can't I don't think that we can make a determinable statement both

the differences in science technology engineering mathematics over

representation of men on the basis of variability and intelligence but I

didn't think we can make the case in terms of interest because it is the case

that the biggest differences that there are between men and women are

differences in interest and the question is well do we have a problem with that

because that really a problem now you know you couldn't you could set up your

culture to I hate those differences you know

because you can make cultures very coercive and so if you punish boys from

the time they were born for being interested in things and insisted that

they become more interested in people then perhaps you can do that and you

would come at some cost that you could do the same thing to girls you could

make them less interested in people that more interested in things but you know

did you through the degree that those differences are real and to the degree

that they're actually Balan grounded in biology you're gonna have to turn your

society into something pretty gaff too radical to produce those differences so

what you gonna do that and if you did what why do you want to do it is it no

is it a big problem that men and women actually have different interests and

this is really that biggest surprise is that something they never replicate all

right so well so but back to Bill c16 okay

the policy surrounding it are incorrect and they're dangerous and they're

dangerous partly because they are predicated on the insistence that all of

these these levels of analysis with regards to human identity are societal

culturally constructed and they're not and there's implications for that too

because one of the things that's happening this is happening particularly

with regards to the equity movements so if I'll define equity for you used to be

equality of opportunity but it's shifted to equity and in many universities now

the human resources department is human resources in equity they should be

absolutely ashamed of themselves for that is it is it is absolutely appalling

it's reprehensible I actually think

there's almost no political stance that's more reprehensible than the

stance that demands equity it's very alien form and to be tried

very many times in very many places and the net result of pushing equity

political perspective was not good and if we if people had any sense of 20th

century history all the first thing they'd realizes that political systems

based on the notion of equity become murderous very very rapidly and so

so tada hilsa here's how I'm diagnosed and an organization as racist and

pathological so the first thing to do is pick your key dimensions of identity and

whatever they happen to be then that common ones are gender race ethnicity

and sexual proclivity fine but they're very numeral right that's one of the

problems is that you can continually something bite people into groups

without antigen and the groups are relevant you know so for example if you

were concerned with the representation let's say of Hispanic women are you

going to be deeply concerned about the representation of Hispanic women from

economically deprived backgrounds and from and for rich backgrounds for

privileged balances that they have reasonably intercepted by Hispanic women

into those who came who were privileged and those who came from privileged

backgrounds in further subdivide them by well how about attractiveness how about

that how about weight how about that how about IQ

how about disability you know you can fractionated populations endlessly with

regards to their group identity so that that's one of the fundamental problems

with the notion of equity is because you can never attain it because you can keep

fractionating the group's and so you're not going to maintain Emily but apart

from now let's say that you just start with the major categories you know

gender ethnicity race and sexual proclivity that's fine so here's how you

diagnose an organization to find out if the people who run it are unfortunately

biased and prejudiced you look at the strata of the organization right at the

power structure then you take each strata and you map it on to the

demographics of the general population according to your particular way of

breaking down that population you have to keep in mind and if there's any lack

of concordance between the general population and representation at each of

those levels of the hierarchy then you describe the whole hierarchy

possibly biased and racist it's like well that's convenient except that it's

wrong I mean well the thing is you know most organizations do have their share

of bikes for historical reasons it's for events or reasons that are perhaps a lot

more unseemly than historical reasons but the idea that you can categorically

state that every single difference at every single level of the hierarchy is a

consequence of the racial bias and of the unseemly thoughts of everyone in the

organization is an absolutely appalling thing to think you know it's a

multivariate problem right now why are people represented differently in

different organizations well there's probably 20 reasons not why you can't

just say well it's racism or it's prejudice it's like yeah yeah sure yes

it's probably racism and it's probably prejudice but that the only reasons

there's lots of reasons and you have to do a differentiated analysis first of

all to understand them and then have to be very careful not to muck about

stupidly with the organization to make it worse than it already is and so the

idea and that we thought the University of Toronto HR department is teaching its

employees just straight out that's happening if they if the organization

doesn't produce a population equivalent outcome then it's racist or sexist or

whatever esque you want it to be there's

something wrong with it and then where's the now everybody in the bloody

organization needs to be reeducate it's like come on that's just nuts it's not

sensible and well no he's it's not sensible it's it's downright dangerous

and so that was the other reason that I made the videos to begin with is because

I don't believe that that's the least bit appropriate and I think it takes our

society down there in danger is a path so all right so let's

oh yeah so so this is the last thing I was asked to talk about so we're in a

rather chaotic political period right now and as you may have all noticed

that's certainly manifested itself in the American election which is still

causing all sorts of perturbations but you can see the same thing happening in

let's say in Europe for the time being right what you see happening roughly

speaking is that the divide between the left wing and the right wing is growing

and extremism along both ends is also growing and really that's not a good

because we've had extremist right-wing movements in the last time in 50 years

we've had extremists left-wing movements and they weren't pretty and maybe we

don't want to bring them back and so we have a serious problem

all right so let's take a look at that for a minute and look at a series so

let's look at the left so I'm going to tell you some things about the left the

first thing is that people vote their temperament and you need to understand

this because when you're talking to people who are across the political

divide with people and I'm assuming they're relatively reasonable people

we're not talking about the experience for a moment if you're talking to people

who are liberal or left leading then you talk to people who are highly trained

openness and lowering conscientiousness okay and so that makes them roughly

speaking interested in ideas and creative but not very good at

implementing things and and then people who are on the right of the opposite

there are Global Witness and they're highly conscientious and that

conscientiousness and that makes them not very good at thinking of new things

but pretty damn good at implementing things that already exist and so and so

the thing about that is that both of those ways of interacting with the world

are necessary under different conditions you know sometimes you have a good idea

and you're running on it and what we need are people have

we have just as intense efficiently and effectively and in an orderly manner and

the way you go but sometimes you're efficient and orderly structure is not

working anymore because the environment has changed dramatically around it and

you need troublemakers with new ideas to come in and break things up so that you

start moving in a different direction and you might ask yourself well when is

the time for the chaos of the left and when is the time for the order of the

right and the answer to that is we don't know and that's why we have to talk

because of the like the environment moves around all that's right it's

constantly shifting underneath our feet and sometimes it's shift so that we have

to shift to the last to stay in the middle and sometimes it's shift so that

we have to shift to the right to stay and then the only way we can figure that

out is by having political dialogue and that's part of the reason why I'm

stronger free speech and advocate isn't as if so I should have to defend myself

for such a foolish thing no honkies

so what freedom of speech first of all freedom of speech isn't a cornerstone of

our civilization I think mister disappears I don't think

it's reasonable to know how to debate about Gotham and I think the reason for

that is is that free speech is how people faith now you might think two

things but generally you don't what you do is have rehashed temperamental

prejudices over and over again in your mind and you actually don't think much

until you write for other people or until you talk to people they make you

think because your assumption is just going to be that you're correct unless

you can really think and hardly many people can think because in a way it's

hard in order to think you have to fragment yourself up into multiple

personalities each of which hold about posing perspective and then you have to

let those opposing perspectives have a battle in the theatre of your

imagination that's a very difficult thing to do and so don't confuse having

your idiosyncratic prejudices with thinking you have to be technically

trained in order to think and it's very uncomfortable and painful and so people

don't like it at all so generally what we do they looking

speed is that you put forth your view of the world perhaps in the best manner

that you can but also loaded with your own prejudices and biases because how

and your ignorance as well because you have to speak from your restricted

perspective knowing as little as you do know and with your personality you know

first and foremost in your utterances and then other people correct you and

hopefully you enter you enter into a real dialogue where body you can

transcendence be your own bias limitations and expand the toolbox with

which you use to work in the world and everyone benefits from that and then you

modify your viewpoints so that they actually work better in the future

because that's kind of what what means what it means to have a useful and

correct viewpoint is do you have a toolbox that is going to enable you to

work effectively in the world and if you're too modest and too narrow or too

ignorant what that means is that your toolbox is only going to

we're very narrow environment if you go out into public and you hammer yourself

up against other people especially those who don't agree with you you can

formulate the problems more clearly you can discuss the possibility for

consensus and then you can negotiate an implementation strategy and the

alternative to that is that you're silent your slave or your retirement

that's it we devolve into conflict it's fighting and that's not a good idea and

we don't have to do it because we do actually know how to talk to each other

and although perhaps we forget very frequently why they should have to know

the other thing to think about this you know you don't exist just for who you

are now you also exist for who you're going to be next week and next month the

next year and five years down the road and so on and so on you're actually a

collection of people that extends out into the future and so what that means

is that you not only have to get along with yourself you have to get along with

all the people that you're going to be and one of the ways to determine who

those people that you're going to be are is to talk to other people around you

because you're actually a collective that extends across time and insofar as

you're only speaking for yourself right now you're not speaking for yourself as

you're distributed across time but if you talk to a bunch of other people then

what you're doing is approximating yourself distributed across time so it's

actually even in your selfish best interest to talk to a bunch of other

people because they can help you represent yourself better than your

going to do this by yourself and then you know I would also say that well

there's other reasons that you want to you want to talk to other people to get

your toolbox in order because we might want to say to me well what do you what

should you be aiming for in your life and I can tell you that roughly speaking

if you're looking for something that will give your life meaning that's best

that's actually quite straightforward as far as I've been able to tell them this

is where the nihilists have it's so wrong that it's almost unbelievable and

as far as I'm concerned funding they're just escaping from

responsibility anyways even though they have perfectly rational arguments for

their nihilism it's like everything's meaningless it's like no first of all no

pain is not meaningless you're never gonna meet anyone who will never tell

you that their own pain is meaningless so we could just forego the whole

meaningless art in to break off the bath it's like there may be no positive

meaning in life you can have a discussion about that but self-evident

negative meaning exists and everyone knows it and even someone who's anarchic

and nihilistic to the core you know if you drive a spike through their hand

they're going to act like that has meaning and since I'm an existentialist

yes and look at how people are instead of what they say it and they'll act out

the idea that that has meaning very very rapidly so we'll just go with that now

it might say well if there's all sorts of suffering and that's everything but

that's not the kind of meaning that I believe doesn't exist I believe that

only positive meaning doesn't exist which is you know a little on the

negative side I would say to begin with but but I can understand it people have

people can have pretty dreadful lights you know and you can easily get yourself

in this situation where it seems like there's nothing at all to your life

except suffering and that's what happens to people who become suicidal for

example and it's no jokin they have their reasons path you know sometimes

those people have been hurt ways that are absolutely unimaginable and so when

they they see a horizon it's full of nothing that's suffering

you can't just wave that away but I would say the first thing we might

hypothesize is that since pain is an unalterable fact of meaning

and certainly seems to be negative that one of the things you

try to orient yourself in relationship to is the reduction of human suffering

no because I think that's all you know the answer to what you do above a child

who's suffering in a concentration camp isn't who the hell is going to care the

billion years right that's not the right answer and if it's not the right answer

in that situation then perhaps it's not the right answer at all and the right

answer to who the hell's gonna care anyways in the billion years is why in

the world when you frame a mistake that idiotically I mean anybody anybody this

is a kind of a trick of the imagination in some sense

anybody who's quick-witted can come up with a frame of reference that thinks

anything that it's almost anything like leaning within that frame of reference

well all that means to me is that you picked a stupid frequent reference right

why should you why should you accept without doubt the consequence of your

skip that elderly who's gonna care in a million years yeah really you got to be

better than that if that's how you're gonna write both meaning well so what do

you want for meaning alright reduce suffering that'd be a good one you can

devote your life to that and I would say start locally and and I think this is

the alternative to right-wing nationalism and which is too much order

and left-wing chaos which is too much chaos we don't want to go down that

rabbit hole again either so what's the alternative I thought about this for a

very long time I took me decades to come to this

conclusion the conclusion is that you straighten yourself out and you do that

humbly there's this idea that in Testament which I get quite a kick up

out of that you're not supposed to pray in public it's a little more complicated

than that so you're not supposed to pray in public until you want to sort of know

the dispute that you have with your brother for example I really like that

idea because what it means is that you shouldn't make a public display of your

virtue until you've straightened up your damn life and this is one of the things

that don't like about protests and I really

don't like the fact that university students are taught by their half-witted

professors that delay me to change the world

no don't change the world by going that way that signs that people that you've

defined as more evil than unity first of all the probability that they're more

evil than you is actually quite ly lower because evil that maybe you're in the

same damn boat and if you divide the world up conveniently so that you can

identify the innocent and the Damned or the oppressor and the oppressed and you

think if you're in the positive category than the probability that you're part of

the solution and not part of the problem is zero so it's just not that easy you

know and the most profound people that I've ever read have said the same thing

over and over like the line between good and evil runs down the middle of every

human heart and the first thing that you're supposed to do is win that battle

on your own territory and that's no bloody joke that's a difficult thing to

do because it means that you have to recognize that recognize yourself as a

perpetrator of great people and that is what you are and that's a terrible thing

for people to learn you know we look at the 20th century and you think well who

brought on the horrors of the communist systems and the horrors of the Nazi

system is the answer is people just like you and that's the answer if you don't

understand that and you think that is wrong then you're not very wise and and

it's not surprising because the price that you paid for list of this is

radical dissolute disillusionment and the confrontation with evil and no one

wants that really it's a terrible thing to confront and that's because human

beings are terrible creatures now I think we're also absolutely remarkable

creatures and wonderful creatures but we have an unlimited capacity for brutality

and evil and every one of us carries it and so what you do is each other sort

that out of your own life and you start ah I haven't done talk to me just a

while back about about his life having well he decided to put himself together

he started being this little ritual thing which I thought was quite cool he

was his kind of an isolated guy very overweight guy when I talked when he

lost about 130 pounds which was quite impressive as part of putting himself

together but he started doing it by building he had a bunch of labels left

over from his childhood and the first thing he did because he was feeling very

nervous tic and hopeless he he found that he got a little bit of satisfaction

of Billy little things on the labels you know and I thought that was really

interesting and so he built a bunch of these things and then he said well I got

a bunch of these things built and then I kind of figure out how to organize them

in the room memory that's cool because he started high resolution at the level

of detail you know it was building something that was trivial he knew that

it was just playing a game but then as soon as he had a collection of bills

that he had to sort out the space that he was going to organize them in any

figured out really on this sort of the room that they were going to do so we

started organizing and beautifying the realm and at the same time he modified

his diet and he was putting himself together that's the right thing to do

that's the right thing to do is that there's there are responsibilities that

are awaiting you right that are in your own brows and you know what they are

this is also something that no one can preach to you about it's something you

have to decide for yourself and you can do it read straightforwardly it's

something that I do on a regular basis you sit down in the evening or in the

morning and ask yourself Mike Harris be someone that you want the answer from

but the ingredient genuinely need to want to have the answer not telling

yourself none of that you're asking yourself all right there's a bunch of

things about my life that aren't in order that aren't together and I know it

and they're making me suffer and they're making me less than I am and there's

some of those things that are staring me right at the face and I know what they

are and there's some of those that I can put in order today with a little bit of

work so that when I wait tomorrow the domain of my experience

which is basically being itself that the main of my experience will be more

pristine and better put together than it is today you ask yourself that you'll

find right away you know what they are five things that come up and they'll all

be things that aren't very heroic they're kind of trivial and that you do

the voiding you've been avoiding those our little dragons of chaos those things

and you know they're just little bit that's good because you're not much of a

hero warrior and so maybe little tiny dragons are all the ones you know you

serve those things out and they don't first of all in order your it will order

the beating around you in a more pristine and productive way but they can

just a little bit more focused of together and what that would be is that

the next thing you can do is ask yourself the same question and the

problems that will emerge would be slightly larger and more complex and

then you can try to put those in order and that will make everything around you

more pristine and Bennifer together and it'll make you a little bit stronger and

more clear-headed and then another set of problems will emerge that's a little

bit larger and if you continue to do that

you know you'll certain your cell phone you'll clean up your room you put your

house in order and then you could start to work in the community and by that

time you'll actually have some power and some and some self-confidence and some

confidence and some crazies and they'll be much more much less likely to

stupidly hit something complicated with the stick and say that you fixed it but

you have to start lower you have B Carly only said that very interesting one of

his very interesting phrases he says there the reason that modern people

can't see God is because they won't look Lowell enough I really like that at

seven I mean he's an extraordinary wise person what he meant by that was

something like what I'm telling you this that to a secret to your existence is

right in front of you and it manifests itself as all those things you know you

should do but you're avoiding because one of the things you might ask yourself

is cursory useless and weak and miserable and and and cruel than all

those horrible things but partly that's because

equip me and part of the reason for that is they calculate what you know you

should be doing so you might ask yourself because this is a very

interesting game if you started doing the things that you know you should do

this is a discussion with your own conscience if you start doing those

things that you know you should do and you did that diligently what the hell

would you be like in ten years now that's an exciting game that's an

interesting game and if you play that you'll find that you're a hell of a lot

more than you were and that's something at least you might not hit the pen

offense but you're going to be a lot more than you are and then if you're not

weak and miserable and wretched and suffering and dismal and south pity and

all those things you're gonna be a lot less resentful you're gonna be a lot

less broom you'd be a lot less cruel to yourself unto other people that's a

pretty good start you know even if you're not a positive

force for good in the world if you just weren't wretched and horrible that would

be a good a good initial contribution no I would say to there's a corner that

goes along with that and this is so so so you could look at it this way this is

something that I tried to explain I didn't video on Pinocchio a couple of

videos about Pinocchio which I mean they're fascinated by because it's a

very good themselves and how people understand the archetypes even if they

don't know they understand them because they don't give a very interesting movie

and think about it you might ask well when modern people think about people

going to church they think how can people leave those foolish those

superstitious question well what the hell do you think you're doing we're

doing or moving what are you doing you're here here you are you probably

have seen Pinocchio lately but whatever you know

you're an adult to bring your five-year-old to seek no tip you're just

as interest as he is think about what you're doing first of all you know those

are drawings they're not real creatures they're drawings

secondly they're about a pot a wooden puppet who actually happens to wander

around who is being guided to life by a cricket as high as Bowl is to L for

reasons no one can understand and somehow that makes a fairy turn them

into something that's real it's like that's strange people right the fact

that you're doing that is very peculiar and it says something about what people

are like means that we understand things that we don't really understand and so

no cable is up it's a very interesting movie I can tell you what its

fundamental presupposition is I'll just guide you through it very very rapidly

so the beginning of the movie Geppetto who's who's a the archetype of the good

father by the way which is an archetype that we forgot about does exist because

our culture isn't just a tyrannical patriarchy as you can tell by the fact

that we're warm and comfortable and we're not tearing each other to shreds

at the moment which is what you do in a state of absolute chaos right it's

mayhem well you're freezing and starving right and that isn't what we have we

have a piece and it's rare and it's amazing that we have it and we shouldn't

take it for granted because it's not the normal order of things the normal order

of things is destructive chaos and if you're fortunate enough to live

somewhere this piece holland reductive you should thank your lucky stars every

second of your life and if you don't do that all that means is that you don't

know anything about history and you know nothing about human beings because

things can get absolutely monstrous and it happens all the time and there's

always a fraction of the population thinks that's how they like things to be

and perhaps there's a fraction of Units like that too and I wouldn't do that

fragment if I was you unless you wanted to know where it will take you and

anyways

cause of their diet and then you can tell that he's got a warm house and it's

full of toys it's full of music boxes and he's got a little kitten and he's

gotta go officially takes care of them so he's a good guy it makes this pallet

and then he puts us both on the puppet and that's the final act of the puppet

canapa it's capacity to speak and that's what you want if you're a good father is

you want to take yourself if you want turn into someone who can speak right

who can speak his soul and so Geppetto puts a smile on his son space it says

wouldn't it be wonderful if he could be a good boy yeah wouldn't it be wonderful

right because that's what you do at the earther before me I think wouldn't it be

possible if this puppet could actually become something new genuine and

independent with its own voice well he says that's not likely goes off to bed

then a star appears up in the window to be wish this on the star what does it

mean to wish on stars well the star is the light that beckons in the darkness

right and it's something transcendent you look up into the night sky it's

awe-inspiring whether you're religious or not you're looking into the infinite

while you make a relationship with the infinite by wishing on a star you raise

your eyes above the horizon and point at the light that beckons in the darkness

and you say I wish more than anything else that my son can become a real

person it's like that's what you do know if you're a good for the employer made

him into a slave you want to be a tyrant you don't want him to be a puppet you

want him to be something strong and independent also off

to the world he faces all these different moral problems he's armed with

his conscience it turns out to be a bomb right well why that's well it's cuz

things bug you you know your conscience bug shield and the reason that the

conscience is Jiminy Cricket is because that's the same initials as Jesus Christ

and Jiminy Cricket is southern US slang for Jesus Christ and no doubt the other

majors thought that was very comical I'm gonna tell you that the bomb is a very

strange representation of Christ that's for sure who would make it into a

frickin and he's also rather error-prone in the movie so because the movie

doesn't have precisely the formal Christian structure but part of the

reason this took me a long time to figure out too is that you have to have

a dialogue with your conscience but it has to be a dialogue is it's actually

not 100 percent right and it has to be something that you build by having a

discussion with it across time and that's actually what the no kid has no

Junior cricket as the movie progresses oh the puppet and the conscience get

wiser by banging themselves against the world

and the puppet has to resist the temptation of easy Fame and celebrity -

that's the first temptation right because he's asked to be an actor which

is an easy way to be celebrity it's like the Kardashians right it's a fix its

status without responsibility or or confidence and so that beckons has an

attraction and then in these he's he learns that lying is a very bad idea

right that's why his nose girls so he has to get that sort of go and then he

said he's asked to present himself as a victim of circumstances that's what the

Fox in the coyote and when he decides that he's too old to go back to school

they take him to Pleasure Island where he's trained to be a jackass that works

for slavers into salt mines right not bad for animation I would say and then

at the end of the movie he tries to go back home because he's terribly lost and

he's half jackass because the people are Pleasure Island

total time to do nothing but brain which I can't help with offers are what will

you say as an awful polity parallel to what's having to educate people who are

being educated in modern universities right which are increasingly playhouses

where your talk to brain and listen I can't listen to protesters it just it

just it's just painful it's this constant repetition of a soulless

nonsense

a lot of the chapter is because the protesters are trying to convince

themselves even more desperately that they're trying to convince

so anyways the nephew goes back home half Jack house and half game and he

tries to find his father which is no going home right now what's your an

adult it's your young adult you don't get to go back because there isn't

anyone there that can tell you what to do anymore and so they go you can okay

those holding his father isn't there and it finds out that he asked for at the

bottom of chaos itself to rescue his father and that's what we have to do

right because our civilization is in a state of crisis and that was predicted

long ago by people that beat you in dusty is key and partly what you're

trying to do with you go to university is to go to the heart of darkness right

to the crazy that terrifies you the most and to find your values your culture

really has and that's what it means to go down to the bottom of the desk to the

thing that terrifies you that most into prison before your father it's a very

old story the Egyptians were telling that story 4000 years ago it's one of

the oldest stories at that time and so that's what you have to do it um you you

know you yourself as your culture so you're more than just a weak and simple

minded individual right you dedicate yourself to the study of what's great

about the past and you incorporate it so that there could be something to you and

then you bring your father back up to the surface so that the culture can see

and live again and then that makes you into a real individual well that's the

movie well we've watched it cap identify it

now it's time to understand it it's time to learn understand that in an

articulated unconscious matter because it's too late for us to be unconscious

anymore and so we have Scylla and Charybdis we have the chaos of the left

and the left says well we need to tear down structures because they oppress

obviously structures impress because something's good at the bar top of the

structure not so good at the bar so be of any value structure is gonna

privilege some things and exclude others but if you scrap the value structures

then there's nothing to live for so we can't do that that's just chaos and then

the radical right says back to the nation it's like really you know we went

back to the nation a couple of so it doesn't really look that great and

part of the reason for that is that the purpose of the nation isn't the nation

the purpose of the nation is to produce citizens who transcend and rejuvenate

the nation and so the nation should be problem properly subordinated to the

individual right to the divine individual for that matter

and that's what we figured out in the West now it isn't that we only figured

that out in the West but so far we've been fortunate enough to put it into

reasonable practice in our political institutions and thank God for that

at least it's worth somewhere and would be completely foolish to give that up

because look at what it's provided us with it's remarkable for free as free as

intervene that doesn't mean that we're happy because freedom and happiness are

not the same thing at all but we did figure out that the state should be

subordinate to the wisdom of the individual to the sight of the wisdom of

the individual but that puts a heavy responsibility on everyone that means

you have to be the wise individual who can see and speak that's your job and if

you do that the thing that's so cool about that is you know you need a

meaning in your life that enables you to bear the suffering of your life without

becoming corrupted that's the basic rule and you have to build yourself into

something that you can actually respect so that you can see yourself bearing

that terrible existential burden properly and then you don't lose hope

you don't lose meaning because you can see that you're strong enough to stand

up underneath that burden and then there's something about you that you can

respect and then maybe other people can respect and it will help bring suffering

in the world to an end and it will help people develop fully as individuals and

that will enable us to avoid the dehumanizing rigid sterile uniformity of

the nationalistic left and appalling chaotic devouring chaos of the radical

left pabu know the individual

that's the secret to the world and you're all individuals and so you're all

the secret to the world and all you have to do to discover that is picked up your

data responsibility stop listening to people who keep burdening you with - how

many goddamn rights the alot yeah it's like you need some responsibility so

pick it up open your eyes and learn how to make yourself articulate and that one

of the world will descend to this series of howls that had already descended into

the 20th century

well that's probably just as good a place as any to end and I'm going to

talk to you longer than I was supposed to but I'm going to do that so I think

in principle we have time for questions okay so start with you do you want to

use the mic yeah okay so I'd ask you to try to keep your questions relatively

short so so see if you could get them articulated up to the point where they

can be relatively concise okay so we're Lee were talking about the idea

that like who needs to be a distinction between gender and sex and like I'm like

you mean how they say they are connected and the idea that because we can find an

example I'm not connected that I'm something necessarily connected like

where does that idea come from I mean it comes from there's a deep fascia

underneath that and alysha's that human nature could be intimately valuable and

that the state to determine the direction that that malleability should

should take that's the fun that's the underlying issue now I suppose there's

also a wish to something greed that we can all burst the bonds that define us

you know in a particular way but you gotta ask yourself if you really want to

do that one of the things I see happening to young people that I think

is terrible is that there has to abandon their identity before they even have one

and so then they turn to these group identities which are extraordinary shell

they're very very shallow how are you gonna get your life being a transsexual

it's not an identity I'm not saying there are no transsexuals I'm not saying

that but you don't get through life as a black person you don't get through life

as a white person you get your life by having a differentiated identity that's

the toolbox that you used to interact with others and part of now part of that

means that you have accept certain limitations on who you

are but you want those limitations because there's nothing worse than total

freedom it's like you dropped someone out the ocean right in the middle of the

ocean no direction and you say you're free to swim any way you want to do the

back don't have an identity how about here

I question I just want to my question is language already had well so the

question is about you already think any of us would be here so I think that the

issues that we're discussing would have come up in another way you know because

I think I think everyone knows that whatever we're talking about has very

little to do with gender pronouns I mean and people have asked me why I chose to

live or die let's say on that particular amount it's like well the answer of that

is you have to pick someplace that's actual to stand and the problem might be

somewhat observed well even in a battle you know it's like well who cares if you

take the next yard of ground why would you die over that well when you think

about it that way it's paramount it's foolish but you have to make the

abstract concretely before you can actually engage with it and so it just

so happened that this was the issue I didn't believe that if there weren't

gender-neutral pronouns English then then this would have just come up some

other way because political correctness and that and the polarization between

right-left were occurring long before this particular issue manifested itself

yes the deposits all I think the questions and then and everybody can

hear them to be a little faster yes

what do you think my military usefulness is in understanding our components that

go into how violence is created and then examples or opposing the norm well I

think you have to scapegoat the right thing you know because there is

malevolence in the world you know that's another thing that we've forgotten about

our modern parlance my colleagues tend to look askance at me because they don't

believe in such a thing and I think well well first of all yes you do believe in

it whether you say you do or not if you don't you worried you're heading

to sound unless you're willing to say for example I think it was unit 791 you

guys without the existence of evil you go online and read about it at 791 and

then you see what you think about that if I told you what was done in China

before the world war 2 by the Japanese scientific investigative squads let's

say that's the sort of thing that the things that were done by that unit were

so terrible that I would not discuss them before an audience without a

trigger one because they would burn themselves into your imagination and you

would never forget them for the rest of your life and if you can invest I think

of a 731 by the way if you could investigate that

pollution that there's no such thing as evil then that's fine you go ahead to

live that way and just see how far it gets you so we need to localize

malevolence look at the other thing I want to tell you too is that people have

encounters with malevolence in their lives and it often produces supposed to

manic stress disorder so very frequently soldiers develop post-traumatic stress

disorder not because of what they observed because of what they observed

themselves doing so they observed himself doing something absolutely

vicious on the battlefront and they think where did that come from I didn't

think that's what I was at all it's like yeah you didn't think so because you are

never in a situation like that you've never had a chance to reveal to yourself

exactly what you were like who was truly malevolent who really truly wanted to

hurt them and there's no room in their philosophy of being for that sort of

that sort of event or action just fragments them and they never recover or

they'll often never recover they have to develop a fully fledged

philosophy of evil in order to recover I understand that there are people who are

11 and that malevolence exists in the world well we can put it on someone else

and you can punish it them for and you could chase them away and then you can

pretend that it's gone but it never goes away and then the right way to deal with

it is to find the thing in you that's that and to work to comprehend and to

control it also one of the things that's very interesting about that

that also makes you extraordinarily tough if you do it you know I can give

you a pop-culture example about me so Harry Potter obviously has an enemy

right and that's old immortan if you can't see the figures saying Christ and

Satan lurking behind those figures then you're really not using your imagination

to any great degree there archetypical finger strength and the thing about

Harry Potter is that the only reason that he can face full awareness because

he's oh he's got a touch of evil inside of it it's embedded inside of it and

that's extraordinarily useful to know that because it's very visible to be a

monster or more importantly it's very useful to be able to be in loss to them

because if you can't be a monster you can't stand up for yourself or for

anything else so the trick is to take that monster inside of me when to

incorporate it in to use it and then you don't have to schedule another people

and you can constrain the spread of evil started with yourself and and only the

people that you admire whether you're men or women have exactly that capacity

because women do not like harmless men they like dangerous men to the Civil

Arts and men have no respect for harmless men they like dangerous men who

are civilized and so the trick for men is to turn yourself into a dangerous

amount of the civilized and I would say the most dangerous man is the person who

can speak properly so I mean there's other forms of dangerousness there's

nothing wrong with physical prowess there's nothing wrong with all of the

multi-dimensional ways that you could learn to be dangerous but the highest

the highest order danger is articulated speech and well for all these reasons is

speech moves the world and so give your skinny goes right

well I would say question is that Jonathan heightened his people at the

heterodox Academy have attempted to rank order American universities in terms of

their allegiance to classical ideals like many of the deeper than

enlightenment ideals of free speech III discourse comparative social justice

maybe what the University of Chicago at all and I think what I think about my

answer to that would be Canadian universities have done such a good job

over the over the decades standing up for free speech that everyone just takes

it for granted but now it's come under threat and I think it's come under

threat because the postmodern movement which basically started in 1970s and

which is deeply nested inside a matrix of Marxism while private economy the

post-modernism himself poses a substantial threat to the very idea of

free speech just taken believe in free speech you see that the postmodern is to

go understand these things I'm not saying that every social justice

activist is a committed post modernist because most of them aren't educated

enough to peenie

Jordan by saying I'm just saying it takes it to substantial amount of

Education before you're the incarnation of a political philosophy right you have

to do a lot of reading and so I would say you know Michel Foucault by Jacques

Derrida our fragmented up into there

someone who's PI person correct you'd say well 95 percent of them is

normal person that's 5 percent of them is like Michel Foucault it's the evil

offspring of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida and so and but if then if you

put 20 of them together if you're more and you get the whole philosophy

blasting forward happening well what is in the philosophy value scarf is

excluded which of course they do and but maybe further purpose of a value

structure is to exclude so if you're in a structure hierarchy positions then

you're privileged for doing that but the reason that the values don't exist and

that you fight for it is because of privileges you and it doesn't have the

part by excluding me so no that's pushing it a bit too far

it's like value instructors exclude and they happen because there's no

structures if they don't exclude but to move from that to say that the only

reason valuing structures exist is to exclude is palpably observed look if

you're gonna go get your brain operated on

you're going to make a crease up there's a hierarchy of competence among

brain surgeons that's independent of their desire for power at least partly

and you're gonna look for the best brain surgeon just like you'd look for the

best auto mechanic er or if the best plumber for the best carpenter anything

that's worth doing by evasion by definition and of course if there are

good carpenters there are also people who aren't good carpenters is like

prejudice to point that out it's not prejudice 2.80 they're just not good

carpenters luckily they might be able to be good at something else now the

structures exclude and that's why babies is and then what we should do is flatly

eliminating things or floor perversity I'm gonna say we should know that this

is where the marks of Marxism comes into it's very strange into your identities

there's no way of having a dialogue between them because well for the post

modernists dialogue doesn't even exist there's no way of developing a consensus

between groups that are predicated on different identities the whole idea of

consensus through dialogue is actually a tray that was generated by the people

who occupied the most dominant positions and those are the fellows centered

positions that Derrida is always on about well it seems it's an interesting

idea because now these structures are prejudicial there's no doubt about it no

and one of the ways of thinking about that if you think you're not prejudiced

like yeah yo do you sleep with anyone who asks you to now some of you

don't get asked very often but but but I make that very very straightforward

point here is that in our most intimate relationships were precisely most

prejudicial you want to take that away from people or do you wanna start

knowing that certain kinds of prejudices let's say in favor of things that are

desirable or valuable are actually

different ideas

yeah I'm jeanna so I'll give an example that woman heard studies and say well

seek help from therapist which allows experiencing and moves

through crisis a lot better than me yeah that's one advantage that I threw the

house on us another another advantage we have generators that were a lot Malaysia

post-traumatic we knew it by crazy situations

but to what extent doing jobs our propensity so she just because doesn't

mean okay well it's very complicated question is given that there are

differences between men and women let's say to what degree she's so society be

structured so that the negative consequences of those differences might

be all too common the specific example was perhaps that women are more likely

to seek medical attention and psychological health which does happen

to be the case and that that's perhaps beneficial and then would be better if

men were more prone to seek help as well and they have problems we don't know who

could this not be the case well let me just think about that for a second here

so you see if I can figure out how to answer that problem I think the way you

start is by trying to figure out what the differences are at first you know

because I always thinking I'm a very leery of broad-scale Social Solutions

because I think they're so low resolution that they tend to cause more

trouble than they then they they tend to cause more trouble than they forestall

well just at the beginning of starting to understand what the differences

between men and women actually are you know like the Scandinavian studies that

I talked about they're only about 15 years old and it is it takes about 15

years for scientific information generally to sort of leach out into the

general public if it's going to do so and so the question

the next question might be okay what do we do in the face of those differences

and the answer that is like I don't know what we should do about it I do think

that we should we should for forego the temptation to jump to premature

conclusions and we have some real problems with this so one of the things

that's happening and many of you may have noticed it is that men are bailing

out of the humanities and Social Sciences like math you know if you and

this has been happening for about 15 years 20 years I mean overall enrollment

in the humanities has declined substantially since the nineteen sixties

is old simplified nonsense and it's very very hard go there and they have

whatever it's like a Johnny it's your rap we have an aversion problem which is

what we're dealing with there's no man left the need manatees in the social

sciences has that actually didn't work because I'm not sure of the work I guess

we're going to find out you know and then we have that the converse problem

statement regards to engineering and women women don't go into engineering

well shouldn't it well the first question might be who said that

should come Isis is that what we should do is open up opportunities for people

because I think the idea of leveling the playing field to the degree that's

possible to equalize opportunity is a good one from a sociological perspective

because you don't want talent to go to waste

now that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that the way that's done commonly is

intelligent or appropriate because it often doesn't work at all it is best if

we can open up society so that people can let their talents flourish I would

say we remove unreasonable prejudice to the degree that that's possible when you

do that by constraining it in your own life and then you let people make their

own decisions and let it sort out the way it will and you know you see that in scandinavia

Or so that you have 19 Female nurses to 1 male nurse versus 19 Male Ingenieur to 1 Female Ingenieur, and maybe that's ok

Maybe that's wrong, we don't know

But I think the individual should the people be who decide

Do we have time for one more or maybe should we stop?

The Description of 2017/03/18: Mayhem while we're freezing and starving: my talk at Western