Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • So I've been talking about your cause, I guess since you started your videos and since you started having troubles with human rights tribunals or threats by U of T.

  • And I just think it's common sense that says that I think that promoting critical thinking, helping people to be able to tolerate subjects that they may not feel comfortable about.

  • But then they should be able to hear process not based on emotions but based on an actual analysis of the facts, the evidence, the reality versus some agenda being shoved down their throat, whether it's media through, the professors and anyone teaching in academia knows that there are professors who have no problem with basically teaching their truth as fact.

  • And so I've been promoting this.

  • I've been promoting it.

  • Within my own organization are the Ontario Psychological Association.

  • I got a lot of flak from other psychologists who thought, No, we can't allow this type of speech to happen that discuss that you're supposed to have a travesty, really regulate.

  • When you had those other professors coming in and talking about the issue, some psychologist wrote pieces in in national or immediate publication, saying this kind of discussion should not happen.

  • Yeah.

  • Okay.

  • So in this from psychologist, the ones you're supposed best trained to be able to tolerate the discomfort that goes around, goes along with discussing uncomfortable topics.

  • So I was hoping for you to be able to share with the audience your experience in the last few months trying to promote this.

  • Like, you know what you're basically trying to promote, which I let you describe your whores.

  • OK, so what do you think about those videos from an attack?

  • Well, I think there were two things that Oh, I should give us some background on the videos, I guess.

  • I mean, I just made them in my office at home.

  • I wasn't I had no idea what the consequence would be.

  • I was destroyed.

  • This sort of my thoughts about party boat not so much Bill see 16 as the background policies that surrounded especially on the Ontario Human Rights Commission website, cause the bill itself.

  • It's rather innocuous.

  • It's only Loki paragraphs along.

  • The only part of it that isn't innocuous is the insistence that the insistence on transforming the hates the hate speech codes, including including harassment, discrimination based on gender what was a gender identity, gender expression in the eight speech codes?

  • I thought, that's that's weird.

  • There's something up there.

  • Anyways, I started digging more into the background of the Ontario Human Rights Commission website.

  • In the policies surrounding he'll see 16 to call.

  • The McCauley is barely to scratch the surface.

  • They're they're unbelievably badly written and contact internally, contradictory and over inclusive and dangerous.

  • And I mean they do things, for example, like make employers responsible for all the speech acts of their employees, whether they have intended or unintended consequences.

  • That's completely the only reason you would write a law like that is to get as many employers in trouble as you could possibly manage, because there's no other reason for formulating the legislation.

  • And I've also calling.

  • Mine came in recently from university.

  • He's starting to teach a little bit about the background for this sort of thing.

  • In one of his classes, he showed me the developmental progression off the policies surrounding Bill See 16 and originally they were written in a much more in a tighter format.

  • But then they were farmed out for what they called public consultation, which basically meant they ran them by a variety of people who, I would say, we're strongly only after the standard of the political spectrum, and they basically in order to not bother anyone who they had consulted when they decided, for example, that gender identity should be nothing but subjective choice, which is I don't even know what to say about that.

  • If you're a psychologist and you have any sense at all, that's a completely insane proposition.

  • It's first of all predicated on the idea that your identity is your subjective choice, and that's never been the case for any sort of identity.

  • Anywhere you take, I get Your identity is two fold.

  • The first thing that your identity is a functional set of tools to help you operate in the world, meaning repeat A, you know, just scratched the surface of PJ even and you find out it's, you know, Children start to construct their identities really, when they're breastfeeding, because that's when you first start your social interactions.

  • You start integrating your grief, your basic biological reflexes from a genie in perspective into something resembling a social relationship.

  • Because breastfeeding actually happens to be quite a complex act, and then you expand your you're developing identity out into the small, microcosmic social world of family, basically starting with your mother.

  • But then you have siblings and your father and your relatives, you know, conventionally speaking.

  • And your identity is a negotiated game, and and you're not the only one in charge of it by any stretch of the imagination at all.

  • I mean, one of the things that PJ pointed out was that between the ages of two and four, and I think later research is really having this home that even kids who were hyper aggressive to There's a small proportion of them, never like that learned to integrate their subjective desires into a broader social game and become socially acceptable to other Children.

  • And they do that through play.

  • You know, what they're doing is playing their identity into being, and then once they're older than about four and they've become properly socialized.

  • So other Children actually want to play with them because that's the critical issues, the fundamental issues.

  • Then, um, then then the peer community of Children helps him bootstrap their identity up to something that will eventually approximate in adult identity.

  • But that's functional.

  • It has nothing to do with women.

  • It's it's it's It's a crazy idea, then.

  • So so partly your identity is instead of tools with which you function in the actual world, and part of it is a negotiated agreement with the other people around you, and that's all being taken out of the that's that's all.

  • Actually, as far as I could tell, that's Lining.

  • Theorizing is technically illegal now in Ontario, and I'm not even talking about the potential biological basis of identity because the idea that identity has no biological basis, that's just wrong, unite factually wrong.

  • So and we've written a social constructionists.

  • We've written a radical social construction is view of identity into the law.

  • But even worse than that, we've gone beyond social construction.

  • Isn't P?

  • J was a construction is into just pure whim.

  • Your identity could be at any moment what you assume that it's going to be.

  • That's not a tenable solution.

  • There's nothing about that proposition that's reasonable.

  • So I was looking into this and I thought, This is just beyond comprehension that we've written that idea into the policy surrounding Bill, see 16 So that so I made that video has turned to sort that I don't have to figure out even what it meant.

  • The terminology is messy in the extreme.

  • First of all, with regards to gender identity.

  • Gender identity is not a spectrum.

  • It's a modified by movie distribution.

  • And if you're making laws you don't get to muck around with words.

  • You have to use the right words.

  • And so it's a modified by moment distribution.

  • Because almost everyone who has a biological identity of male or female identifies as male or female.

  • It's 99.7% and you could argue that that's a little tighter than it would be if society was more accepting of gender variation, Let's say, But even if it went down to 99% which would be an increase of, like what?

  • Well, it would be almost in order of magnitude increase.

  • You still have the overwhelming number of people whose gender identity matches their biological sex, and then you can.

  • You can stack on top of biological sex, gender identity, virtually perfect match, then gender expression.

  • Almost everyone who it's biologically male or female, who identifies this biologically male or female, expresses themselves as male or female.

  • and then the vast majority of them have a sexual orientation that's in keeping with their traditional keeping with their biological sex, gender identity, gender expression.

  • So now we have a law that says those air independent Guess what?

  • That's not the definition of independence, and you can't just playing much games with your legislative terminology.

  • It gets it gets people in trouble.

  • So it's not a spectrum, and that's that.

  • It's a modified by mobile distribution.

  • If there are obviously exceptions, and I never argue once in the videos that I put out, despite what helping reacted to them, that there weren't exceptions.

  • Of course there are exceptions.

  • And if you look at temperament, for example, you know the big differences between men and women are agreeable.

  • Justin Neuroticism.

  • Fundamentally, women are about half a standard deviation, more agreeable.

  • That's compassionate blindness.

  • And they're about half a standard deviation, higher and negative emotion.

  • And that's cross cultural, by the way.

  • And it also accounts for the reasons why women are about 3 to 4 times more likely to suffer cross culturally from depression and anxiety where he's been or more likely to be aggressively in prison and to and to drink and low agreeableness is actually the best predictor of incarceration among men those air solid biological differences.

  • But if you try to segregate men and women using only those two dimensions, you want to get it right about 75% of the time.

  • So there's a substantial overlap.

  • But that still doesn't mean there.

  • That's not a spectrum.

  • And the idea that there are no biological differences between men and women.

  • It's such a preposterous claim that I can't even believe that we would ever have that discussion.

  • I mean, there's women.

  • Men have wider jaws, mentor taller.

  • They have brought her shoulders.

  • Women have more endurance and endurance sports.

  • Women have a subcutaneous layer of fact.

  • The shape is different.

  • The way the arms were placed is different.

  • The voice is different.

  • That's just gross morphology.

  • I'm not even talking about genitalia, and then you could look a micro structures.

  • There's differences between men and women at every level of the human microscopic church, from the cellular, all the way up to the social.

  • So, like, what in the world are we talking about?

  • What's going on here?

  • It's crazy.

  • So that was video number one video number two was a bloody human resources department at the University of Toronto has adopted an equity position.

  • Okay, so what equity means is that it doesn't mean equality of opportunity.

  • It means equality of outcome.

  • And that is so This is the idea.

  • The idea is that you take us a social institution like the university.

  • And then you look at the organization of that university and every single strategy from the executive level that we don't to the student level.

  • Then what you do is you do an analysis of each level by community demography, right?

  • You get to define the demographic characteristics that you're going to discuss, However, which is actually a big problem.

  • Then you make the presupposition that unless that organization at every level matches the demographic representation of off of people at every level, then it's corrupt, oppressive and discriminatory, and it needs to be changed.

  • Okay, so you think What?

  • What's wrong with that?

  • Every levels have 50 50 men and women.

  • Let's say it's like you're really sure about that.

  • Are you so sure about that?

  • You don't think there's any natural differences in interest between men and women?

  • Well, if you don't think so, then why are most psychology?

  • Planets is 80% women and that and that and that differentiation is accelerating rapidly, Like I've seen it over the course of my career from maybe 60% man at the beginning of my career to like 80% women.

  • Now that man occupied more of the positions of the stems in the stem stem fields.

  • At least for now.

  • It's the same in bloody Scandinavia.

  • It's 20 to 1 nurses, 21 women to man nurses in Scandinavia and 21 men, two women in engineering and max in Scandinavia.

  • So what's happened in Scandinavia as they made this side or egalitarian in terms of its legal and social structures is that the gender differences in personality between men and women have got bigger, not smaller.

  • So what that means is that social construction isn't isn't wrong.

  • That's what it means wrong, disproved.

  • It's exactly the opposite of what the theory would have predicted, because the theory predicted, and God only knew how it was going to sort of tell folks.

  • It's like not like people knew this to begin with.

  • The idea was that as you equalize the social, the social structure that the differences between men and women would disappear.

  • Guess what?

  • That didn't happen.

  • And it's not studies of just a few 100 people in a few locations, those air population wide studies, and they'd be replicated multiple times.

  • So and the funny thing, yes, is that so?

  • They're temperamental differences between men and women.

  • It's an neuroticism, and on agreements are not the only temperamental differences.

  • So if you fragment extra version fragments into assertiveness and gregariousness, women or gregarious, many more assertive if you fragment conscientiousness and orderliness and industrious women are more orderly and men are more industrious.

  • If you fragment openness, which is the creativity dimension into interest in ideas and the interest in aesthetics, you fight that women are more interested in aesthetics and men are more interested in ideas.

  • So so because you've been fraction of the Big 5 to 10 you get gender differences across all of them, and they're not trivial.

  • Either.

  • They make a difference.

  • So okay, so anyways, back to the putting thing of all the preposterous and idiotic ideas.

  • So, first of all, to make gender equity across every dimension of organization, you have to assume that men and women have identical interests or and temperaments, and that if they don't, the state should intervene to bloody well ensure that they do, which is something for all your women to figure out.

  • Because now there's many, many what positions in society that women preferentially occupied.

  • So what you gonna do about that?

  • And what you gonna do about Asians?

  • Because they occupy preferential positions as well?

  • You know, they're overrepresented in all sorts of professional institutions, and the probability is that that's going to increase.

  • What you gonna do about that?

  • What about the Jews?

  • But I'm gonna do about them because they have there at the same position as the Asians get the quotas on all those people.

  • What kind of stupidity is that?

  • And then it's worse to because let's say you equalize women.

  • And just for the sake of argument across all these different dimensions of society, well, then, what you gonna do?

  • Are you going to equalize for black women and Latino women and Asian women?

  • Are you gonna stop type black women because it's not like they're all the same?

  • Are you going to ensure that women from lower classes are represented just as much as women from upper classes.

  • And how many generations back?

  • Are you gonna go to check that?

  • What about intelligence?

  • What about attractiveness?

  • How about height?

  • How about wait?

  • So the problem with the fraction nation by group identity is that it's endless.

  • There's no way of ensuring equality across groups because there's an infinite number of groups you could fragment group identity all the way down to the level of the individual, which is exactly what you should do, which is what we already did in the West.

  • We figured well, the ultimate diverse population is a population of individuals, So you let the individuals sort it out?

  • No, no.

  • And replace that with group.

  • Well, what that means for the bloody social activists is that they'll be able to play this game forever, because you can continually fraction a group identity ab nauseum, so the system will never be equal.

  • And you can bloody well be sure that as we implement social policy to make sure that all outcomes are equal.

  • But the amount of space that you personally you're going to have to maneuver in is gonna shrink and shrink and shrink and trained.

  • We've already seen that happen in many societies.

  • You think we would learn from the 20th century.

  • So that's the equity issue.

  • And then worse, even this is the HR and equity people.

  • They're actually mucking about with people's unconscious biases.

  • So this is what we want, right?

  • We want your employers and the state to re educate you so that your perceptions, because that's what we're talking about with regards to unconscious bias so that your perceptions fall into in accordance with their demands and not even your voluntary perceptions.

  • By the way, your your involuntary, unconscious perceptions have to be re trade.

  • Okay, so maybe that's not so good.

  • Especially when you look at that bloody implicit association test Masari vanishing from Harvard and Anthony Greenwald from the University of Washington.

  • So body she isn't about Marxist and Green woman varnishing both bloody well know and have written that their implicit association test has neither the reliability nor the validity to be used as an individual diagnostic test.

  • They know it just something like a collected about that not everyone is aware of that.

  • I could pick up a power slide.

  • Yeah, what do you do that.

  • Yeah, so I'll let you take over when you do that.

  • So despite the fact that no Yeah, well, just fight it.

  • Okay, So the a pleasant association tested principle is this word association game.

  • It's actually predicated, I would say, on psychoanalytic ideas, most particular union ideas because Young developed, the association has many, many, many years ago, but it purports to investigate whether you are unconsciously biased towards one group against another group.

  • Could be gender.

  • Could be ethnicity could be race could be attractive.

  • This whatever.

  • But the problem is is that when you give the same person that damn I t twice, they don't get the same results.

  • So there's a rule for diagnostic tests, and the rule is the reliability tests retest.

  • Reliability has to exceed something like 0.8 point 9.8, at least, So the Big five does that.

  • I tested that, but there's a damn.

  • There's damn few tests that passed that reliability criteria, and the idea is only reliable.

  • Don't remember precisely, but I think it's about 50.5, which isn't even.

  • It's not even near close enough to be used as a diagnostic test.

  • Plus, it's not valid So what does that mean?

  • Let's say I assess your unconscious bias and give you a diagnosis.

  • Well, there's no evidence that it predicts your behavior.

  • So So what?

  • What good is it?

  • What good is it?

  • Well, it's good if you want people to send you to re training exercises so that you can have your perceptions adjusted in the direction that your organization in the state thinks his problem and that's happening everywhere.

  • Got letters this week already for people at CBC, it's becoming mandatory there.

  • ST Mike's Hospital.

  • Same thing.

  • They've decided that all of their micro institutions within the hospital will be equitable.

  • 50% women and 50% men at every single level of the organization or the organization is corrupt and oppressive.

  • It's like it's it's it's spreading so fast you can't believe I wrote Mazar, Banana, she and Anthony Greenwald yesterday and send it off to some of my colleagues say, Are you going to come out and make a public statement about the fact that you're damn test is being used by pathological people for nefarious purposes?

  • It's like, well, we'll see what they have to say about that.

  • I was a bit more polite my letter, but there's no excuse for it.

  • There's absolutely no excuse for it.

  • And as far as I'm concerned, it's proper part of the broader corruption of social psychology you guys may know or not.

  • Social psychology has been rife with with controversy and scandal over the last three or four years, and a big part of the reason for that damn corrupt discipline and the use of the eye for political reasons is a perfect example of them.

  • There is no excuse for it.

  • And the people at ST Mike's, you know, they say, Well, this is scientifically validated, like No, it's not.

  • And worse let's say you do have unconscious bias just for the sake of argument, and you could measure it reliably, which you can't and that it was valid, which it isn't.

  • Let's say all of those things were in case there's no evidence whatsoever that those damn unconscious bias training programs, retraining programs have the effect that they're supposed to have, and there's some evidence that they actually have the reverse it there.

  • And maybe that's because people don't really like being marched off to re education by the employers.

  • After they've being diagnosed as racist, even if there's no evidence that they, in fact are so.

  • It's an absolute misuse of psychology and incidences.

  • Politically motivated, it's politically motivated.

  • It's an assault on freedom.

  • Anyways, I made those two videos and took tried to take the HR inequity people at u of T to task cause they made that training mandatory for their HR people.

  • I thought you don't have the right as an employer to invade the unconscious structures of your employees minds and alter their political perspective.

  • Even though you can't do it, you don't have the right to do that.

  • And to think about it as something you should do as a matter of course as part of your ethical duty is you really want that you really want that.

  • That's what you want reporters to be able to do.

  • Figure out independently of your behavior, whether or not you're like a you're a racist or a classist or or misogynist or whatever that happens to be.

  • And you really think that the bureaucrats at the university, for example, or bureaucrats anywhere, for that matter are actually capable and qualified of doing such a thing.

  • Property do far more damage than any possible good.

  • Well, so anyways, I made those two videos turn to sort this out to investigated in them.

  • For whatever reason, you know the proverbial well, you know what happened.

  • Bye.

  • Within two months, there was 180 newspaper articles written about it, and I don't know how many millions of people have watched these things online now, but it's plenty.

  • And so what?

  • That also means I click my finger on something because who cares what a dimwitted professor from the University of Toronto does with his spare time in midnight?

  • No one should care.

  • I should have had my 15 minutes of notoriety if that.

  • But that isn't what happened.

  • It was It was major news in Canada for three months.

  • And I'm still talking to people all over the world about get 100 letters a day.

  • At least I can't keep up with Bo Peep from people who are being cornered in all sorts of ways by their idiot employers and these safe space propositions at universities and the restrictions on their speech.

  • They they tell me constantly.

  • Well, I really agree with you, but I'm afraid to say anything about it, So Oh, good.

  • That's a wonderful position for us to be in where people are afraid, they're afraid to speak their minds.

  • What the hell and it's not getting better.

  • And if we don't do something about it, still get a lot worse.

  • You saw what happened in Berkeley.

  • That's just a taste of what's to come.

  • You know, one day there's gonna be an anti fast demonstration with a little bit of violence and the bad guys on the other side.

  • You're gonna come out and we're not gonna like that very much.

  • So maybe we should get our act together and stop that from happening before it actually happens.

  • Unless that's what you want.

  • And I wouldn't recommend it.

  • We have a pretty sophisticated society, and you wouldn't take much to put a spanner into the spokes.

  • Flip everybody on their forehead.

  • So wake up for Christ sake.

  • It's This is not good.

  • And the fact that the fact that you know the bloody federal government has decided that they won't let people pick the judiciary or enlist they take unconscious bias training, right?

  • What the hell?

  • It's crazy.

  • So anyways, that's what happened in addition to its ideologically driven.

  • Just that do you think I'm always quite cynical?

  • You think it's also make work project for people that they figure we could create?

  • These tests that aren't valid aren't reliable gun industry.

  • No, that's gonna keep going forever.

  • Now, you'd never expect social psychologist to be careerist with you.

  • Yes.

  • Yes, definitely.

  • Well, I mean, it got out of hand to It's not, You know, people don't necessarily plan these things.

  • I'm sure that the on Charity Rights Commission, when they were talking about preferred pronoun used, have no idea whatsoever that within four years of introducing the policies that there would be 71 different gender identity categories.

  • No one saw that coming.

  • How could you possibly see that coming?

  • I don't think varnishing and Green Wall had any idea that their tests would be transformed into an implement off all season rapidly.

  • Okay.

  • And just for those were interested in putting the implicit association puts it.

  • Attitudes test my students.

  • I always give a link to that.

  • If anyone's interested, I could give you a link where you go in the test and actually do it yourself.

  • Find out the assumption is that if you are implicitly racist, so explicitly racist, you say I hate blacks, say implicitly racist.

  • Oh, no.

  • So my best friends.

  • But when you do this test, the idea is that, Well, if you're showing a black person's face okay versus a white person's face, you're more likely associate that black person with violence.

  • So you're basically being primed and consciousness when you see a black face.

  • If you subsequent to see a weapon and you're asked to decide whether this is a weapon or a tool, you're more quickly gonna say weapon because you're already thinking dangerous violence weapons.

  • Because you know, you have this negative association of black with weapons, and you'll do that faster than when you see a white face with white faces.

  • Be more neutral.

  • So whether you see after the white face, a gun or a weapon in theories about equal issue take equal time to determine whether it is one or the other things like that.

  • This is the kind of testing they do when they associate it, or they've done this test, as Dr Peterson saying with countless other types of constructs and again the reliability.

  • The validity is not just suspect.

  • It's just it's non existent and said, If you'd like to try it out, if your students check out on the right space page, you're not email.

  • May Facebook me.

  • I'll give you the link and they don't like, I think 50 different.

  • No Democrat Democrat Republican Vanilla strawberry Hold these everything that you do and see where your implicit or unconscious biases and Dr Peterson saying it's getting out of.

  • And that's all I get with gender pronouns.

  • Because during the debate that you had whatever that WAAS at u of t one of people there was a lawyer very condescending.

  • Brenda cost.

  • That's right.

  • You think, Oh, this kind of thing would never happen?

  • You don't know what you're talking about.

  • First of all, the coupon Terry Human Rights Tribunal page.

  • They specifically say that Jen, you know that you have to identify people by their preferred identity or expression, which includes pronoun usage.

  • Is there on their pages not explicit stated in Bill See 16 but the Monetary Stories Tribunal, who will in fact, enact any type of action against somebody who's violated his policies.

  • It's on their very page, and I know you spoke about your own experience.

  • I hope that not everyone saw the debate.

  • Do you talk with that part?

  • Where's speaking to other professionals, Adults to be ideologically driven like Osman?

  • What they said about the risk was Crossman was interesting.

  • I mean, she's She's definitely not looking at this the same way that I knew that one of the things she said we're in a rather condescending May manner was that I wouldn't be sent to jail even though I wanted to be a pair of raising.

  • But that's roughly what she said, but that you know that the Human rights tribunal could take away my property in my wages and all that.

  • That seemed to be OK for her as long as it didn't extend to jail.

  • But that's also nonsense, because if you're if you're found guilty by the human rights tribunal and you don't pay, then that's contempt of court.

  • And that goes to a different court, and then they put you in jail and that's already happened.

  • So it's it's crooked lawyer hand waving fundamental, and it's an attempt to play down the significance of the law.

  • You go read about who online and read about powers of the even rights tribunal and then see how safe you feel.

  • So here is one of the things they can do.

  • This is Section 1.6 in a document about powers of the powers of the tribunal's they called Social Justice Tribunals.

  • In not terribly, actually call the social justice.

  • It's mind boggling.

  • They can suspend President League normal legal precedent and jurisprudential tradition in the pursuit of their eggs.

  • That's one of the it's actually documented as one of their powers.

  • Think about that.

  • Like we live in a society that's essentially bound by the restrictions of the English common law in English.

  • Common law is one of the most remarkable developments of civilization ever, period.

  • Because what I see in the English system, basically the pre supposition is that you have all the rights there are.

  • They're not in numerator.

  • You just have all of them, except when one of those rights imposes a restriction on someone else, and then they get irritated that you would take you to court.

  • And then the judge sorts out who's who has which micro, right?

  • And then that's laid out is precedent.

  • So English common law, this tremendous body of evolved doctrine about how the infinite number of human rights that each individual has interacts with everyone else's rights.

  • And like back when Trudeau in the first Trudeau brought in the Human Rights code that the Bill of Rights, the Canadian Bill of Rights, there were lots of people who were upset by it because it's a different formal legal reasoning, the Bill of Rights says, Here's the rights you have that the government is granting you.

  • That's not how it works out to the English code.

  • The English code is you have all the rights there are, but they rub up against other people's right, so we have to sort that out, that with court precedent.

  • And that's what the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal in Ontario can dispense with if they want the reason there.

  • I know the reason that they put that line in there because the Social Justice I Caucasus is that the legal structures of Western civilization are oppressive, patriarchal are oppressive, patriarchal, so it's perfectly reasonable to toss the ball over.

  • If you're in pursuit of something like social justice, it's like that's fine.

  • People sure go ahead and do that.

  • But If you think that you can transform what we have already now to some kind of utopia, then you're dangerous because that's how the world works and utopians have be more dangerous than any other people for the last 100 years, that's for sure.

  • Like there's all sorts of things wrong with Western society.

  • Always there always will be.

  • But compared to 85 to 90% of the rest of the planet, this is bloody heaven.

  • And that's why people want to move here.

  • So you can say, Well, it's corrupt compared to my imaginary utopia, It's like, Yeah, that's for sure.

  • It certainly is.

  • But if your imaginary utopia was realised in hardcore politics over 30 year period, everyone would be out in the streets starving to death.

  • We already know that because it happened multiple times throughout the 20th century and societies that were well, they weren't assist fistic ated, as our society is now.

  • But they were plenty sophisticated for their time, and you'll hear the neo Marxist types.

  • This is the most annoying argument ever.

  • Anyone, every makes, they say, Well, what happened in the Soviet Union, that wasn't real communism.

  • It's like 1st 0 Yes, it waas.

  • That's why it also happened in China, which was a very different society.

  • But what they really mean when they say that is, well, you know, that's Stellan character.

  • He wasn't such a good guy.

  • He didn't really know how to implement that Marxist doctors but me.

  • I'm pretty pure of heart.

  • And if you would have made me dictator for 20 years, then the utopia would have arrived as promised.

  • It's like, First of all, if you think that there's something wrong with your dangerous and second, let's just say for a minute that some saint didn't get ahold of the tools of power and tried to implement from each according to his ability to each according to his need, and actually did that in appearance saint like manner.

  • Here's what would happen The next people in the revolutionary string, like Stella, would come along and stab them in their bed in the middle of the night.

  • That would be the end of fact.

  • So So there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for that sort of thinking.

  • And if you read soldier, it's in school.

  • I got compatible, which you should do like everyone shoot because it's like the definitive document of this sort of thing emerged that emerged from the 20th century soldier Nixon laid out with extraordinary clarity, first in his writings on Landon and then in his writings on the Soviet Union.

  • More broadly, exactly how the pernicious and pathological Marxist doctors were transformed logically and systematically into the sorts of laws that killed millions of people.

  • Millions of people.

  • There were people starving so badly in the Soviet Union by the 19 twenties that they had posters telling them not to eat their Children.

  • So we've been down that road already.

  • So what the hell are we doing it?

  • We're going down that road again under the guise of equity, right?

  • And equality?

  • Well, that was their doctrines that promoted those lost to begin with.

  • Not good.

  • Okay, So when Dr Peterson, when you talk this way, some people are gonna say Either you're out of proportion.

  • You make a huge leap from where we are now to be.

  • And so I think there's a lot of room for misunderstanding for people, especially if they have certain ideologies that they like to protect.

  • So, one of the reasons I wanted by people over Waas to be able to ask question.

  • You've heard Asami, Dr Peterson tenants, but he's he's trying to convey, and he said No, and I don't have any videos.

  • Each person's watched, but you haven't already right now.

  • Okay, Someone, someone has a specific question.

  • Either from something Dr Peterson said today or things for the videos would be nagging at you like I really want to ask him face to face straight up.

  • What do you mean, my days, or what is your solution to that?

  • Please?

  • I'm open up the floor.

  • I just talked really loud.

  • Please, Michael, pick it up.

  • And then everyone here.

  • Does anybody have a specific question you'd like to ask?

  • Okay.

  • O K O k.

  • A sidebar.

  • I've watched videos.

  • Really?

  • Your bones and explain treat by or I know this is one of your heroes.

  • I was a great man.

  • I'm a little disturbed.

  • No.

  • Why was he committed?

  • You know what?

  • The book that he wrote in which he was accused of anti Semitism has not yet translated into English?

  • Well, one of the things that he did, he certainly There's certainly no sign of anti Semitism in the good liquor not as far as I could tell, and I don't think the other books I've read.

  • I haven't seen that either.

  • He did write a book near the end of his life on the role of the Jewish intellectuals played in the establishment of the Soviet Union.

  • But you can't get it in English, so I don't know what to say about that.

  • I know that it's being criticized from both sides.

  • I would say one side saying, Well, this was a story that needed to be told on the other side saying, Well, this fears in Danny's anti Semitism So but you would ask that question.

  • That's okay, So I'm going to venture out on a limb because I've been thinking about this for a while.

  • Am I going to do No.

  • I know I haven't got my thoughts formulated well enough.

  • The leftist doctors tend to be very attractive intellectuals, and so any group that's overrepresented in intellectuals is likely going to be overrepresented on the leftist end of the spectrum.

  • And they're temperamental reasons for that.

  • We know that if you lean laughter because you're hiring openness lower in orderliness and that seems to be associated with with, like you, at least in part.

  • But I don't want to go into it any more than that, because because I haven't thought it through sufficient.

  • But I also haven't been able to get a coffee and socially in the last book.

  • I can't get it in English hasn't translated for one reason or another.

  • So but I don't think you see anything like that in the booth.

  • There's another question before we're gonna have you asked the question.

  • But after the way back to this, But you mentioned a number of times about the quarrel is between Cuba and the left and that the people who believe in support thought police are not actually just left.

  • Is there a whole other category?

  • Yeah, yeah, Such 40 states turn to in a few minutes the first special, please.

  • So I think we're doing a good job of that right now.

  • I mean, how fast do you think things?

  • How fast could you even hope for things to change?

  • Look at what's happened to the situation in women's inspected with women since 1970 has changed so fast that people can't even keep up.

  • It's not obvious, by the way, either.

  • That is being particularly good for women now.

  • You could make a case that was good for society.

  • Maybe it's a tough one because the birth rate is plummeting.

  • And so, you know, maybe you don't care about that.

  • Maybe think there's too many people on the planet already, whatever.

  • But you know, it isn't that easy to figure out when something is working properly.

  • What one of the things we do know, we seem to know is that to the degree that rights are extended to women, economic prosperity follows so you can see worldwide that the societies that have extended the rights to women most extensively are also the societies that seem to be flourishing economically.

  • And there does seem to be a causal relationship.

  • But women have paid a big price for that.

  • So what's happened in apartness?

  • First of all for, say, women who were middle class or lower their their lives have essentially fallen apart because marriage is now restricted to the rich, which is also something to think about.

  • For those of you who think marriage is a oppressive, patriarchal institution, it's like, okay, then why are only the rich people getting married they're oppressing themselves.

  • I don't think so.

  • And so the women who are in the lower socioeconomic strategy or suffering badly and so are their Children.

  • And they have terrible jaws most of the time, like jobs in retail where you know they're called in every day from the next day.

  • They don't have a schedule that said ahead of them.

  • They get paid very badly.

  • They've got kids to take care of, and so they have no free time.

  • It makes it really easy targets for useless, predatory nails.

  • And it's really hard on the kids, and that's like 40% of the female population.

  • Something like that.

  • You guys, you know, I don't know about all of you, but you're in university.

  • You're part of the privilege Cartman of Elite, you know, so these sorts of things don't really touch you the same way they touch other people.

  • And so women are much happier if you look at national polls than they were, say in the late 19 fifties and early 19 sixties, and I think that's partly because freedom and happiness, those are not the same thing.

  • You're not even close and you know, I see young women all the time, struggling to figure out what to do with their lives because they have no idea how to have a job slash career and a family.

  • So and there's no answer to that.

  • It's a really difficult problem.

  • You know, when there's all sorts of ideas like, I did a lot of consulting for law firms for a long time, about a decade, and I had a lot of clients who were extremely kind functioning female lawyers, younger ones trying to figure out howto balance their career with their desire to have a life.

  • And, you know, you hear all the time about women being denied access to positions of power, and then that's it.

  • That's the consequence of prejudice and oppression.

  • It's like, Yeah, yeah, everything is caused by the same thing First, right?

  • You've got one cause of principal.

  • Wonderful.

  • Now you're a philosopher.

  • Figure out everything with it.

  • It's like the law Firms cannot keep their women in their thirties.

  • They cannot keep big law firms.

  • They all leave.

  • Why?

  • Because the women hit 30.

  • They're brilliant, conscientious, intelligent.

  • They were deadly in high school, deadly university.

  • They nailed law school.

  • They whipped through their article they made partner by the time they were 30 was like they're in a rocket to the top position what they find when they get their 80 hour work weeks.

  • Right?

  • Because that's one of the things you want to think about.

  • You know, you think that the people who run things are sitting at home smoking big cigars like telling their millions Went to do it like that is not That's like the 19 twenties 1,000,000 year that's on the cover of the monopoly game that's going sociological analysis.

  • I know lots of people like that.

  • They work all the time all the time from the second they wake up till the second they go to sleep and they don't just casually work, you know?

  • Because I know what some of you go to the library for six hours, you say?

  • Well, I studied in the life for six hours.

  • No, you didn't.

  • You study for happen.

  • You look through Facebook.

  • You know, I went home when you said Well, I studied for six hours and you're happy about it.

  • But you know money.

  • Well, you did part because you can't You know, I can only read for about 3.5 hours till I'm done, and I'm pretty good at it.

  • So these people who are running things there's corrupt people, obviously.

  • But the vast majority of them, first or self made a second.

  • They're so bloody efficient.

  • It's smart, you cannot believe it, and they work 80 hours a week, and most of them happen to be man.

  • And why is that?

  • Because there are a small number of insane men who will do nothing but work 80 hours a week and no matter where you put them, if you put them in the middle of a forest with an axe and all they do is run around chopping down trees.

  • So the isn't why aren't there more women in positions of power?

  • It's why are there any men insane enough ever to occupy those positions?

  • You know, because we also know, and the data on this is very clear.

  • What's the relationship between money and well being once you have enough money to keep the bill collectors from your door, So once you have enough money to stave off misery, which is sort of lower middle class, something like that in our society, maybe a little a little lower than that.

  • Extra money does not help you.

  • It does not improve your life, so why bother with it?

  • Well, that's what the women in the law firms think.

  • It's like most of them by the time they're in their thirties, are married.

  • Almost all of them are married to men who make as much money or more than that, because that's what women go for.

  • Cross culturally fortified years older, equal or higher in the socioeconomic status so their their husbands already make $350,000 a year.

  • It's like they think, Well, I don't need much more money.

  • The man used money to keep track of the competition, by the way, because all the male lawyers that I talked to usually real hard ass guys really low and agreeable.

  • That's really high conscientiousness like conservative types, Lohan openness as well, and they want to win.

  • And the reason they care about their damn bonus at the end of the year isn't even so much because of the money.

  • It's because they've got a much bigger bonus.

  • But the other son of a bitch sitting beside him so there's a riel like a real brass knuckles competition that drives these sorts of things.

  • But we get things backwards so often it's in psychology and sociology.

  • It's not why there aren't more women in positions of power.

  • It's quiting any, then want those positions.

  • You just have no idea the amount of responsibility that comes along with that.

  • Just imagine for a minute trying to run a $1,000,000,000 corporation, you can't even bloody well balance your checkbook.

  • And there's dust bunnies underneath your bed.

  • How in the world would you ever run a $1,000,000,000 corporation?

  • Those things are complicated, and you have enemies, and they're trying to take you out all the time.

  • You look at Apple and Samsung, and they're just torturing each other in the courts.

  • Nor, you know, you.

  • If you're if you're running a big corporation, you'll be you'll be handed in two or 300 lawsuits out of time, and that's just that's just nothing compared to the complexity what you actually have to do.

  • Stay on top of the technology, constantly interact with your large customers, travel all the time because you have to maintain the relationships you have to regulate the politics.

  • It's our business you have believe me, it's no picnic.

  • And you think what they get along money.

  • It's like, what makes you think that's such a good thing?

  • You know, like if you're half crazy and you have a lot of money, you're gonna be crazy a lot faster frees you from all sorts of constraints.

  • You know, we know the data on lottery winners there no half a year later.

  • And some of them are done, especially if they have, like, a bit of a cocaine problem to begin with because, you know, being broke stops him from dying.

  • If you were cocaina, you get enough money in the way you go and you think yourself, you know you've got all sorts of bad habits and weirdness is if somebody dumped an infinite amount of money on you, what makes you think you would unravel completely?

  • It's highly probable.

  • So anyway, so back to these women, you know what they do when they're 30 is they look around with a clean hit partner.

  • So they hit the medical profession.

  • They think, What the hell am I doing this for?

  • Why would anyone in their right mind want to be woken up at three in the morning Sunday by their great Japanese client, who wants them to work for the next five hours non stop to fix this damn problem, which is gonna cost him $100 million right now.

  • Or we'll find someone else to pay $750 an hour to to fix it right now.

  • And you think, Well, that's, you know, a masculine form of value that because that's one of the criticisms.

  • If the law firms just adopted a more feminine structure value, it's like, what kind of bullshit is back and the reason.

  • The reason that you get up, it's three in the morning on Sunday.

  • To talk to your Japanese client is freaking out about their contract is because you don't jump the hell up and do it right now.

  • There's some starving associate who's unbelievably ambitious in New York will pick up the pieces 2/10 of a second, and they're smart, aggressive, and they'll take you out.

  • So it has nothing to do with masculine structures of values, all the foolish ideas.

  • And, you know, it's not just long when this happens, you know.

  • We know, for example, that female doctors were far fewer hours, too.

  • So the more female doctors you have, your doctors, you have to have.

  • And I'm not complaining about women's prior

So I've been talking about your cause, I guess since you started your videos and since you started having troubles with human rights tribunals or threats by U of T.

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it