jordan peterson essay structure

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The Writing Assignment That Changes Lives

Anya Kamenetz

Why do you do what you do? What is the engine that keeps you up late at night or gets you going in the morning? Where is your happy place? What stands between you and your ultimate dream?

Heavy questions. One researcher believes that writing down the answers can be decisive for students.

He co-authored a paper that demonstrates a startling effect: nearly erasing the gender and ethnic minority achievement gap for 700 students over the course of two years with a short written exercise in setting goals.

Jordan Peterson teaches in the department of psychology at the University of Toronto. For decades, he has been fascinated by the effects of writing on organizing thoughts and emotions.

Experiments going back to the 1980s have shown that "therapeutic" or "expressive" writing can reduce depression, increase productivity and even cut down on visits to the doctor.

"The act of writing is more powerful than people think," Peterson says.

Most people grapple at some time or another with free-floating anxiety that saps energy and increases stress. Through written reflection, you may realize that a certain unpleasant feeling ties back to, say, a difficult interaction with your mother. That type of insight, research has shown, can help locate, ground and ultimately resolve the emotion and the associated stress.

At the same time, "goal-setting theory" holds that writing down concrete, specific goals and strategies can help people overcome obstacles and achieve.

'It Turned My Life Around'

Recently, researchers have been getting more and more interested in the role that mental motivation plays in academic achievement — sometimes conceptualized as "grit" or "growth mindset" or "executive functioning."

Peterson wondered whether writing could be shown to affect student motivation. He created an undergraduate course called Maps of Meaning. In it, students complete a set of writing exercises that combine expressive writing with goal-setting.

Students reflect on important moments in their past, identify key personal motivations and create plans for the future, including specific goals and strategies to overcome obstacles. Peterson calls the two parts "past authoring" and "future authoring."

"It completely turned my life around," says Christine Brophy, who, as an undergraduate several years ago, was battling drug abuse and health problems and was on the verge of dropping out. After taking Peterson's course at the University of Toronto, she changed her major. Today she is a doctoral student and one of Peterson's main research assistants.

In an early study at McGill University in Montreal, the course showed a powerful positive effect with at-risk students, reducing the dropout rate and increasing academic achievement.

Peterson is seeking a larger audience for what he has dubbed "self-authoring." He started a for-profit company and is selling a version of the curriculum online. Brophy and Peterson have found a receptive audience in the Netherlands.

At the Rotterdam School of Management, a shortened version of self-authoring has been mandatory for all first-year students since 2011. (These are undergraduates — they choose majors early in Europe).

The latest paper, published in June, compares the performance of the first complete class of freshmen to use self-authoring with that of the three previous classes.

Overall, the "self-authoring" students greatly improved the number of credits earned and their likelihood of staying in school. And after two years, ethnic and gender-group differences in performance among the students had all but disappeared.

The ethnic minorities in question made up about one-fifth of the students. They are first- and second-generation immigrants from non-Western backgrounds — Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

While the history and legacy of racial oppression are different from that in the United States, the Netherlands still struggles with large differences in wealth and educational attainment among majority and minority groups.

'Zeroes Are Deadly'

At the Rotterdam school, minorities generally underperformed the majority by more than a third, earning on average eight fewer credits their first year and four fewer credits their second year. But for minority students who had done this set of writing exercises, that gap dropped to five credits the first year and to just one-fourth of one credit in the second year.

How could a bunch of essays possibly have this effect on academic performance? Is this replicable?

Melinda Karp is the assistant director for staff and institutional development at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University. She leads studies on interventions that can improve college completion. She calls Peterson's paper "intriguing." But, she adds, "I don't believe there are silver bullets for any of this in higher ed."

Peterson believes that formal goal-setting can especially help minority students overcome what's often called "stereotype threat," or, in other words, to reject the damaging belief that generalizations about ethnic-group academic performance will apply to them personally.

Karp agrees. "When you enter a new social role, such as entering college as a student, the expectations aren't always clear." There's a greater risk for students who may be academically underprepared or who lack role models. "Students need help not just setting vague goals but figuring out a plan to reach them."

The key for this intervention came at crunch time, says Peterson. "We increased the probability that students would actually take their exams and hand in their assignments." The act of goal-setting helped them overcome obstacles when the stakes were highest. "You don't have to be a genius to get through school; you don't even have to be that interested. But zeroes are deadly."

Karp has a theory for how this might be working. She says you often see at-risk students engage in self-defeating behavior "to save face."

"If you aren't sure you belong in college, and you don't hand in that paper," she explains, "you can say to yourself, 'That's because I didn't do the work, not because I don't belong here.' "

Writing down their internal motivations and connecting daily efforts to blue-sky goals may have helped these young people solidify their identities as students.

Brophy is testing versions of the self-authoring curriculum at two high schools in Rotterdam, and monitoring their psychological well-being, school attendance and tendency to procrastinate.

Early results are promising, she says: "It helps students understand what they really want to do."

Articles, advice and tutorials from the Essay team

Writing Philosophy

How to write with Essay

Advanced Features

How to use the advanced features of Essay

Tutorial Articles

A collection of articles to help a writer follow Dr. Jordan B Peterson's essay writing process using essay.app

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

10 Step Guide To Clearer Thinking Through Essay Writing - Jordan B. Peterson

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

5 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

In collections.

Uploaded by Unknown on June 26, 2022

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Jordan Peterson Essay Writing Guide For Students

Jordan Peterson and an Individual Approach to Essay Writing

Jordan Peterson can be considered the pioneer of creative essay writing . His grounded principles are vividly described in one of the textbooks, dedicated to academic papers. The insights he provides are a combination of practical methods and staples that give foundation to the text. Peterson has been actively uncovering the secrets to clarify your thinking and explore the theme to the fullest.

The primary goal of an essay is to form a coherent opinion about a subject. It is also the transformation of ideas that seem relevant to modern reality. There is no greater way to render these principles than apply them in real life. Writing, on the other hand, facilitates the thinking process to the point where the creative flow is automatic. By broadening the outlook on essays one can toy around with statements as long as they are supported by factual information.

Most writers are altering reality with the help of organized arguments. Peterson suggests that only those with the most reliable statements can win the race for high grades in college. If you want a job, you have to show your credentials. If you are trying to persuade someone the point of view is relatable, be ready to debate ideas on a daily basis. Most students are able to support their claims by following a classic essay structure. However, they can also render original ideas that are waiting to be discovered. It is highly recommended to think of the merit of the concepts that have been put forward by the writer.

Jordan Peterson feels confident about the power of words. Once he has published a guide on the essay formatting in the real world, he instantly added there are no clichés. Ideas might influence the world as much as cheesy sayings or stereotypical idioms. When the Romans started building their ancient cities, they needed an outline for the grandiose constructions.

The same goes for the compositions students are forced to create on the regular. You first have to conjure a draft in order to make the words last and subsequently, have an impact. By reading from different sources, the writers learn how to compare good ideas with the powerfully presented fakes. Some of the experts lack the experience to communicate their message clearly. This is the reason we only need to be affected by solid theories, as Peterson keeps reassuring us. It is easy to fool prey to the ideologies you do not really support only to find them fully embedded in the text.

This is one of the reasons we are so concerned about the impact of college essays on average grades at a given time. When you are writing a composition, you are conquering the unexplored charts and covering the traces of immaturity with your will. This is a complicated process that requires full concentration from the writer, however young they may be. Peterson is a full-on supporter of the ideas that we only learn about culture through its authors.

Setting up Space and Using Time Properly

We are familiar with the procrastination issues that prevent us from giving the paper our best. The most effective way to deal with it, Peterson persuades us, is to set up a workspace that will reveal you are true potential. You are going to be writing for hours on end, so it is important to take care of the keyboard, the mouse, and other finicky tools that might be useful in the process. Though it may seem trivial and foolish, the specialist reassures the students that all that matters is the creativity flow.

If you are not comfortable with your own writing bubble, you may end up with another good reason to avoid homework. Postponing the task is not the best way to approach it in the first place, so we are here to remind the writers about the potential merits of a convenient office. It has been proved that people’s minds operate swifter during the early hours of the day.

We realize that being a night owl is just another regime, but Peterson insists that you are smarter once you had enough sleep. Coffee is a powerful method to help you get down to writing. However, it can be counter-productive when it comes to strict deadlines. Having protein is another way to get ready for your writing session. Use 15 minutes a day to complete smaller tasks and move on to the bigger ones as you are finished.

This is a note on the correct time management that is going to work in real life. The author has tested the theory several times, only to find out we don’t have to wait for the perfect moment. Success should not depend on the resources that are simply nowhere to be found. According to the writers that have already been there and Peterson himself, professionals are ready to work daily. They are not looking forward to seizing an opportunity that might lead them to something larger-than-life. They take the writing process for granted and give in to the flow under the right circumstances.

Whenever you start to make a plan for your essay, it takes about 10 minutes to get fully immersed in the process. If you have overcome the temptation to get up and do something at that point, you are already taking steps in the right direction. Do not allow yourself to be tempted by emails that need answering and the news feed on your social media. We understand that letting your hair down at the end of the day is necessary, but this should not define the work process in general. The specialists say that it is better to concentrate on writing to avoid the power of distractions.

The writer adds that the appeal of procrastination does not diminish over time. However, the duration of these guilty pleasures decreases as you are fully absorbed in the process. You will later realize that there are days when your energy is very low. Even if you wait for a couple of hours, you will be able to get a hold of the essay and come back to where you’ve started. You should not fool yourself by saying that you can only write productively if it is several hours of hard work.

There is a maximum capacity for each person’s motivations, which in turn makes it harder to concentrate. Try to pursue the same goals day after day and do not fall into the trap of avoiding tasks constantly. The idea of cramming in desperation is not that alluring, especially if you discover the strategies of an effective time management process. Jordan Peterson has found a way to deal with essay strategies that just won’t come easy. Two hours a day that are indeed productive are way more generous than being able to deceive oneself into a session of intense cramming. Self-illusionary methods that involve doing something you are not inclined to will never help get homework finished. For all those who are taking a major in creative writing, these tips on the right use of time may be the best way to overcome the stress that accompanies the tests.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Jordan Peterson: ‘The pursuit of happiness is a pointless goal’

Life is tragic, says the provocative Jordan Peterson, and we are all capable of turning into monsters. But this hasn’t stopped millions from watching his online lectures. Tim Lott meets him as he publishes 12 Rules for Life

I t is uncomfortable to be told to get in touch with your inner psychopath, that life is a catastrophe and that the aim of living is not to be happy. This is hardly the staple of most self-help books. And yet, superficially at least, a self-help book containing these messages is what the Canadian psychologist Jordan B Peterson has written.

His book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos is an ambitious, some would say hubristic, attempt to explain how an individual should live their life, ethically rather than in the service of self. It is informed by the Bible, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung and Dostoevsky – again, uncommon sources for the genre.

I doubt it has the commercial appeal of The Secret (wish for something and it will come true) and it certainly strays markedly from the territory of How to Win Friends and Influence People . But then Peterson is in a different intellectual league from the authors of most such books. Camille Paglia estimates him to be “the most important Canadian thinker since Marshall McLuhan ”.

Peterson, 55, is a psychology professor at the University of Toronto who shot into the headlines in 2016 after refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns at the university which new legislation, Bill C-16 , compelled him legally to. Following this he was either hailed as a free-speech martyr or castigated as a transphobe. Demonstrations broke out on campus, and he has been the subject of a campaign of protest by trans activists . More controversy followed when he publicly defended James Damore , the sacked Google employee who suggested there were innate gender differences, as being no more than the scientific consensus.

He certainly doesn’t sit well with the usually left-leaning academic establishment. Apart from anything else, he believes most university humanities courses should be defunded because they have been “corrupted by neo-Marxist postmodernists” – particularly women’s studies and black studies. This has led him to be branded a member of the alt-right – although his support for socialised healthcare, redistribution of wealth towards the poorest and the decriminalisation of drugs suggests this is far from the whole story. He defines himself as a “classic British liberal”. But he also says – when challenged for being a reactionary – that “being reactionary is the new radicalism”.

Peterson has largely been in the news for his blazing, outspoken opposition to much of the far-left political agenda, which he characterises as totalitarian, intolerant and a growing threat to the primacy of the individual – which is his core value and, he asserts, the foundation of western culture.

I first came across Peterson not in any political context but as a teacher of story. His online videos contain extensive deconstructions of narratives and myths, both ancient and modern. I watched his videos on the psychological significance of biblical stories . Although I am a lifelong atheist, for the first time the Bible started to make symbolic sense to me. Peterson can take the most difficult ideas and make them entertaining. This may be why his YouTube videos have had 35m views. Even his biblical lectures have been watched 5m times – quite a figure for a theological analysis of the Old Testament. He is fast becoming the closest that academia has to a rock star.

Peterson’s worldview is complex, although 12 Rules makes a heroic attempt to simplify it into digestible material. It might be encapsulated thus: “Life is tragic. You are tiny and flawed and ignorant and weak and everything else is huge, complex and overwhelming. Once, we had Christianity as a bulwark against that terrifying reality. But God died. Since then the defence has either been ideology – most notably Marxism or fascism – or nihilism. These lead, and have led in the 20th century, to catastrophe.

“‘Happiness’ is a pointless goal. Don’t compare yourself with other people, compare yourself with who you were yesterday. No one gets away with anything, ever, so take responsibility for your own life. You conjure your own world, not only metaphorically but also literally and neurologically. These lessons are what the great stories and myths have been telling us since civilisation began.”

Peterson studied political science before shifting to psychology and became obsessed with understanding, at a time when the cold war was ongoing, how two sets of beliefs could be so deeply held it brought the whole of humanity to the brink of destruction. It has driven him ever since to reflect on human nature and the often irrational way in which we generate belief systems.

His first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (1999), is a profound but often impenetrable tome that, to quote his biographer , describes the “structure of systems of beliefs and myths, their role in the regulation of emotion, creation of meaning, and motivation for genocide”. It all feels a long way from his latest book, which has chapter titles such as, “Rule 1: Stand up straight with your shoulders back” and “Rule 11: Do not bother children when whey are skateboarding.” But the philosophy at the heart of it is the same.

I Skyped Peterson in Toronto before his visit to London to lecture and promote the book. In the (vain) hope of knocking him off balance, I led with: “Who the hell do you think you are? Moses?”

He simply laughed. “No, I think I’m someone who is properly terrified. I’ve thought a lot about very terrible things. And I read history as the potential perpetrator – not the victim. That takes you to some very dark places. Also, this book isn’t only written for other people. It’s a warning to me. I’m also saying: ‘Look the hell out because the chickens come home to roost.’ If I’ve learned one thing in 20 years of clinical practice, it’s that. I swear I’ve never seen anyone get away with anything in my whole life.

“Nietzsche pointed out that most morality is cowardice. There’s absolutely no doubt that that is the case. The problem with ‘nice people’ is that they’ve never been in any situation that would turn them into the monsters they’re capable of being.”

So if “nice people” get the chance to disguise their dark impulses from themselves, are they likely to indulge those impulses? “Yes. And a bit of soul-searching would allow them to determine in what manner they are currently indulging them.”

The fact of our essential darkness may, perhaps, be seen transparently in the flood of hatred, abuse and rage that is now clearly visible on anonymous Twitter feeds. It was “so-called normal people”, not sociopaths, who were responsible for the atrocities of nazism, Stalinism and Maoism. We must not forget, says Peterson, that we are corrupt and pathetic , and capable of great malevolence.

So if we are all monsters, how are we to be saved? The first thing is to understand how our worldview evolves. Crucial to this is a 20-year-old experiment on inattention – the famous Invisible Gorilla experiment. This involved recording two teams of basketball players and playing back the game to observers, who were asked to count the number of passes their team made. During the game, a man in a gorilla suit walks on to the court, pounds his chest and then walks off. More than 50% of the observers, astonishingly, did not notice the gorilla at all.

Why is this so important? Because, as Peterson notes, you only see what you aim at – not only metaphorically but also literally and physiologically. Your perception is adjusted to your aims. So if your aims are dark and corrupted, you will see the dark and corrupt things that facilitate your aims. And if your aims are high, you will see different things. Belief colours perception. This fits in with his claim that you must pursue proper meaning rather than happiness.

“It’s all very well to think the meaning of life is happiness, but what happens when you’re unhappy? Happiness is a great side effect. When it comes, accept it gratefully. But it’s fleeting and unpredictable. It’s not something to aim at – because it’s not an aim. And if happiness is the purpose of life, what happens when you’re unhappy? Then you’re a failure. And perhaps a suicidal failure. Happiness is like cotton candy. It’s just not going to do the job.”

But how do we build meaning? By putting it before expediency. Which is quite close to simply “acting right”. Peterson believes that everyone is born with an instinct for ethics and meaning. It is also a matter of responsibility – you need to have the courage to voluntarily shoulder the great burden of being in order to move towards that meaning. This is what the biblical stories tell us. The great world stories have a moral purpose – they teach us how to pursue meaning over narrow self-interest. Whether it’s Pinocchio, The Lion King, Harry Potter or the Bible, they are all saying the same thing – take the highest path, pick up the heaviest rock and you will have the hope of being psychologically reborn despite the inevitable suffering that life brings.

Peterson’s biggest analysis of story has been the Bible. He lays out how the Adam and Eve myth shows the coming of self-consciousness – and therefore an awareness of mortality, vulnerability, the future, and good and evil. Everyone in the story immediately starts to lie and dodge the blame – Adam blames Eve, Eve blames the serpent. Then they give birth to Cain and Abel, and the first act of human history is for Cain to murder his own brother out of resentment against him and God alike, and then lie about it: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Peterson talks a lot about the power of resentment in his writings. We hate those who are better than us (God, Abel) and want to destroy them, then lie to hide from the consequences. “Consult your resentment,” he says. “It is revelatory. Don’t underestimate malevolence and don’t underestimate the utility of your capacity for malevolence. If you’re weak, you should turn yourself into a monster. It’s a funny thing, that ‘monster’ is better than ‘nice’. But it’s not as good as ‘not monstrous’. And that’s the next thing to achieve. But cowering in your basement resenting everyone is the real pathway to darkness.

“You have to notice when you’re feeling homicidal. Let’s say you go to work and someone bullies you. If you notice, you’re fantasising some pretty nasty stuff. That tells you two things. The first is that you’re not as nice as you think. And the corollary of that is, you’re not as useless as you think.”

“God”, in Peterson’s formulation, stands in for “reality” or “the future” or “the logos” or “being” or “everything that isn’t you and that you don’t know”. And the principal discovery of early mankind is that “God” can be bargained with, through sacrifice – which is no more than saying if you sacrifice the pleasures of the present, reality is likely to reward you in the future. It’s not guaranteed, but it’s the best option you’ve got.

Having said that, and noting that his lectures are purely about the psychological rather than the theological value of the Bible, Peterson is a devout Christian. “Yes. Which is a form of insanity. The ethical burden is ridiculous. God might swipe you down even though you’re doing the right thing. But it’s your best bet. There is a great level of reality out there which we don’t know and don’t understand. We can bargain with it, but it doesn’t guarantee you anything and God can turn on you. That is the thing about life. There’s no guarantee of success.”

Does he believe in life after death? “I don’t know that I even believe in death! I’m not sure we understand anything about the role of consciousness in space and time. I don’t think the world is the way we think it is. I’m not a materialist. Whatever is going on down there at the subatomic level of matter is so weird that the people who understand it don’t understand it.”

The last chapter of Peterson’s book, misleadingly titled “Rule 12: Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street”, goes into the personal struggles he went through when it was discovered that his daughter, Mikhaila, had a rare bone disease. For many years, Peterson, his wife and daughter fought the illness, which clearly caused Mikhaila terrible suffering. It is also on record that Peterson and his daughter have suffered clinical depression. It is impossible to be sure, but it seems clear that the agony of these experiences has had a major impact on him and how he comes to focus on the underlying darkness of life.

There is much more to be said about Jordan B Peterson. He is a strange mixture of theologian, psychologist, conservative, liberal, wit and lay preacher. He’s a powerful advocate of the scientific method who is not a materialist. He can go from cuddly to razor sharp in a beat. His primary concern, however, which underpins nearly everything about him, is the defence of the individual against groupthink, whether on the right or the left.

“Your group identity is not your cardinal feature. That’s the great discovery of the west. That’s why the west is right . And I mean that unconditionally. The west is the only place in the world that has ever figured out that the individual is sovereign. And that’s an impossible thing to figure out. It’s amazing that we managed it. And it’s the key to everything that we’ve ever done right.”

Peterson’s 12 rules

Rule 1 Stand up straight with your shoulders back

Rule 2 Treat yourself like you would someone you are responsible for helping

Rule 3 Make friends with people who want the best for you

Rule 4 Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today

Rule 5 Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them

Rule 6 Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world

Rule 7 Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)

Rule 8 Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie

Rule 9 Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t

Rule 10 Be precise in your speech

Rule 11 Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding

Rule 12 Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

12 Rules For Life by Jordan B Peterson is published by Allen Lane (£20). Buy it for £17 from bookshop.theguardian.com

• The Observer
• Health & wellbeing

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Scott Atlas
• Thomas Sargent
• Stephen Kotkin
• Michael McConnell
• Morris P. Fiorina
• John F. Cogan
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• National Security, Technology & Law
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Pacific Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

The Importance Of Being Ethical, With Jordan Peterson

By any measure, Dr. Jordan Peterson is the most famous (now former—as is discussed in this interview) Canadian professor of clinical psychology in the world. He’s also a deep thinker and a best-selling author of multiple books, and has amassed a huge following through podcasts, YouTube videos, and public speaking. Today, Jordan Peterson is one of the most influential voices in the “anti-woke” movement and this powerful interview demonstrates why.

To watch the video,  click here .

TRANSCRIPT ONLY

Peter Robinson: If you're the prime minister of Canada, the man is a villain, but if you're a conservative, particularly a young conservative, it's very likely you think of him as a hero. Jordan Peterson on Uncommon Knowledge now. Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson. In 2016, the Trudeau government enacted legislation making it illegal to discriminate on the ground of quote, gender expression, close quote. Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist at the university of Toronto, objected. In particular, he flatly refused to use politically correct gender pronouns, said so in videos, and went viral. In 2017, he began a series of podcasts called the psychological significance of biblical stories, that has been viewed by millions. In 2018 he published a book, 12 rules for life, an antidote to chaos, that became an international bestseller. Last year, he published another bestseller, beyond order, 12 more rules for life. And then he resigned from the university of Toronto, we'll come to that, to devote himself to lectures and podcasts. Jordan Peterson, welcome.

Jordan Peterson: Thank you. Thank you.

Peter Robinson: I should note by the way that we are filming today as part of the classical liberalism seminar at Stanford. All right, question one. The February protest by Canadian truckers. They're protesting COVID restrictions, some of them block border crossings. Some of them snarl the capital city of Ottawa, a quotation then a video clip. Here's the quotation. You, in a message you taped for the protestors. I'd like to commend all of you for your diligence and work, on accomplishing what you have under trying conditions, and also for keeping your heads in a way that's been a model for the entire world, close quote. Now the clip.

Justin Trudeau: It has to stop. The people of Ottawa don't deserve to be harassed in their own neighborhoods. They don't deserve to be confronted with the inherent violence of a swastika flying on a street corner or a Confederate flag, or the insults and jeers just because they're wearing a mask. That's not who Canada and Canadians are.

Jordan Peterson:  Wow, can hardly even look at him.

Peter Robinson:  Here's the first question. How can discourse in a great democracy have become so polarized that Jordan Peterson and the prime minister look at exactly the same set of events and come to opposite conclusions about them?

Jordan Peterson:  Well, he's lying and I'm not. So that's a big part of the, that's a big part of the issue. I don't believe that he ever says a word that's true. From what I've been able to observe, it's all stage acting. He's crafted a persona. He has a particular instrumental goal in mind, and everything is subordinated to serve that.

Peter Robinson:  Why, what's the motivation?

Jordan Peterson:  The same motivation that generally, that's generally typical of people who are narcissistic, which is to be accredited with moral virtue in the absence of the work necessary to actually attain it.

Peter Robinson:  All right.

Jordan Peterson:  He's playing a role. You know, the swastika thing. It's like really, about Canadians? Really, we're gonna be worried about Nazis in Canada, 'cause I had protests for example, where people accused me of attracting Nazis. First of all, that just isn't a thing in Canada. There isn't a Nazi tradition, and I don't know anyone in Canada who's ever met anyone who's met some one who was Canadian and who was a Nazi. And so that's just a non-starter. And so when that sort of thing gets dragged into the conversation right off the bat, you know, that Canadians shouldn't be subjected to the inherent violence of a swastika. First of all, it's not even obvious what that swastika was doing there. There's reasonable evidence to suggest that the person who was waving it was either a plant or someone who was making the comment that that was what was characteristic of the government, not of what they believe. Now no one knows, 'cause the story around that event is messy and it's not like there were credible journalists who were going in there to investigate thoroughly, but to use that and the Confederate, the Confederate flag issue is exactly the same thing. You know, the story in Canada, our prime minister implemented the emergencies act. And so the question was why. And so I went on Twitter when this was trending and read at least 5,000 Twitter comments to try to get a sense, these were people who were supporting Trudeau in his application of the emergencies act. And I was trying to figure out, okay, well what do they believe is happening? And the story seemed to be, and this is as far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong. The story was something like make America great again, conservative Republicans on the, you know, pretty far right, were attempting to destabilize Canadian democracy. And so my question was, well, what makes you think they care, first of all, about Canada and its democracy. And second, why in the world would they possibly do that? You need a motive for a crime like that. And that was at the same time the CBC was insisting, the Canadian broadcasting corporation, which is subsidized by the liberals to the tune of 1.2 billion a year, was insisting that most of the money that the truckers raised was foreign financed. If it wasn't the bloody Russians, then it was the American conservatives. And so that all turned out to be a complete lie, and so, fine. It's Republican right wingers trying to destabilize Canadian democracy. Why, no one has an answer for that, 'cause what's in it for them? And then, okay, three days later the emergency act was lifted and I thought, okay, now what are they gonna make of that? What could possibly be the rationale for that? And the rationale was, well, that just shows you how effective he was. We had this coup ready to go that was financed by Americans apparently, and our prime minister acted so forthrightly that we only needed to be under the strictures of the emergency to act for three days. It's like, okay, I don't even know what sort of world I exist in where those things are happening. So, and then Canadians, why do Canadians buy this to the degree they do? And I think they're faced with a hard choice, 'cause in my country for 150 years, you could trust the basic institutions. So you could trust the government. It didn't matter what political party was running it. You could trust the political parties, right? From the socialists over to the conservatives, the socialists were mostly union types and they were trying to give the working class a voice. And honestly so, you could trust the media, even the Canadian broadcasting corporation was a reliable source of news. None of that's true now, and so Canadians are asked to make a hard choice or were in the truckers' convoy situation. And the choice was, well, either all your institutions are almost irretrievably corrupt or the truckers were financed by like right wing Republican Americans. Well, both of those are preposterous. You might as well take the one that's least disruptive to your entire sense of security. And so I think that's what Canadians did mostly.

Peter Robinson:  All right, I'll come back to Canada. Universities. Jordan Peterson in the national post this past March, quote. I'd envision teaching and researching at the university of Toronto full-time until they had to haul my skeleton out of my office.

Jordan Peterson:  Yeah, yeah.

Peter Robinson:  Instead you retired. Why?

Jordan Peterson:  Well it was impossible to go back. I mean, I couldn't think clearly about what I should do on the professional front for a long time 'cause I was ill. But when I started to recover and looked at the situation, first of of all, there was just no going back. I'm too well known and too provocative, I suppose. I've never really thought of myself that way, but it seems to have turned out that way. I couldn't just return to the classroom, and then there were other problems too. There's no bloody way I'm writing a diversity, inclusivity, and equity statement for a grant. I wouldn't, I can't imagine the circumstances under which I would do that. And that's absolutely crucial now in Canada and increasingly in the US to get any sort of research grant. You have to write a diversity statement, and it has to be the right kind of statement. I read the national sciences and engineering research council's frequently asked questions about how to prepare a diversity statement. And you couldn't, you couldn't write a more reprehensible document from the ideological perspective if you set out with the intent purpose of writing a reprehensible document. And so there's no way I could get funding for my research. And then my students, what bloody chance do they have of being hired in an academic environment today? You know perfectly well, those of you sat on faculty hiring committees, your basic decision right off the bat is okay, who do we eliminate? Because you have way too many candidates. And so you're searching for reasons to get rid of people. And I'm not saying this as a criticism even, it's just a reality, and any whiff of scandal of any sort, it's like, well we have 10 other people we could look at, why would we bother with the trouble? And so I just couldn't see my student having any future. And then I also thought, well, I can go lecture wherever I want, to whoever I want, with virtually any size audience with no restrictions whatsoever. Why would I go back to teaching a small class at the university? You know, not that I didn't like that, 'cause I did like it, but all I could see were disadvantages. Plus it was impossible, so that was why.

Peter Robinson:  So again from you in the national post, just exactly what am I supposed to do when I meet a graduate student or a young professor hired on diversity grounds? Manifest instant skepticism? What a slap in the face, the diversity ideology is no friend to peace and tolerance. It is absolutely and completely the enemy of competence and justice, close quote. What happened? How did wokeness, we can come to this in a moment too. Universities' faculty, university faculty, poll after poll of party affiliation in this country, I'm sure it's the same in Canada. The university faculty have been to the left for a long time, but this wokeness is something new. What's the transmission mechanism? What happened and how did it happen in still a small, single-digit number of years?

Jordan Peterson:  Yeah, well that's a tough question, you know? I mean, I've tried to put my finger on the essential elements of what you might describe as political correctness or wokeness. And I've done that a variety of ways. I had a student, for example, this is quite a promising line of research. Her name, Christine Brophy was her name. The first thing we wanted to find out was, well, is there really such a thing as political correctness or wokeness, right? Because it's vague.

Peter Robinson:  Can you identify it?

Jordan Peterson:  Yeah. Yeah. And I meant that psychometrically, because psychologists for 40 years have been trying to, one of the things that psychologists have been wrestling with is construct validation. That's the technical problem is how do you know, when you put a concept forward, whether it bears any relationship to some underlying reality. And so you can think of, well, is there such a thing as emotional intelligence? Is there such a thing as self-esteem, is there such a thing as political correctness? And so the proper answer to that is, well, we don't know, but there are ways of finding out. And so one of the ways you find out is you wanna see if the construct assesses something that's unique and that it does that in a manner that's separate from other similar constructs in a revealing and important way. There's a whole theory of methodology that goes, that should inform your efforts to answer such questions. So for example, if you're a clinician you might want to differentiate between depression and anxiety, keeping the concepts importantly separate so they have functional utility, but also accounting for the overlap because they're both negative emotions for example. It's part of epistemological mapping. And so we asked a large number of people a very large of political questions, trying to over sample questions that had been put forward in the media and in the public sphere as indicative of politically correct beliefs. And then we did the appropriate statistical analysis to see if the questions hung together. And so they hang together if question A is politically correct, let's say you answer it positively, and question B is politically correct and you answer it positively, if there's a large correlation between those two questions, then you think, well, they're assessing some underlying, I don't have to tell you all this, but you know this if you know anything about statistics, then you know that there's something underlying that's holding them together. And we identified a set of beliefs that were observable or identifiable, easily identifiable as politically correct. So then the question, so that exists, then the question is where does it come from? And we haven't done empirical analysis of that, but I think if you're reasonably familiar with the history of ideas, you can see two streams, two broad streams. One is a post-motor stream that basically emerged out of literary criticism. And it's predicated on what I think is actually a fundamental and a valid critique, which is that it's very, very difficult to lay out a description of the world without that description being informed by some value structure. That's at the core of what's useful about the postmodern critique. I think that's at the core of it. And I actually happen to believe that. I don't think you can look at the world except through a structure of value. The question then is, well, what is the structure of value? And also what do you mean by a structure of value? And that's where the postmodernists went wrong and where I think our whole society went wrong, because the radical left types who were simultaneously postmodern turned to Marxism to answer that question and said, well, we organize our perceptions as a consequence of the will to power. And I think that is an appalling doctrine. I think it's technically incorrect for all sorts of reasons that we could get into partly because power, if power is my ability to compel you to do things against your own interest or even your own desire, maybe I can organize my social interactions on the basis of that willingness to express power. I think that's a very unstable means of social organization. And so the notion that it's power that structures our relations, I think it's, where's your evidence for that? There's no evidence for that, it's wrong. But that's what we assumed and what universities teach by and large.

Peter Robinson:  But it's a kind of a recurrent temptation though, I'm just thinking now, Gibbon says Rome falls because Christianity rises. Something soft somehow by some horrible historical accident, misplaced power. Nisha, beyond good and evil, Christianity believe, I know he attacks Christianity specifically, but again, he's drawn to power to the will and to, and then of course we don't have to talk about Hitler and the Nuremberg.

Jordan Peterson:  And Marx.

Peter Robinson:  And Marx. So there's something, you're a psychologist, which means that you spend a lot of time plumbing human nature. There's a kind of recurrent temptation there. In other words, it makes no sense to me that this thing that has raged through these great magnificent institutions, these universities that our grandparents and great grandparents sacrifice to give money to and, these magnificent citadels of learning, this corruption goes, wait, it makes no sense that it emerged from lit grit. It makes no sense to me to suppose that English departments suddenly took over well, unless they're onto something.

Jordan Peterson:  Yeah, they are.

Peter Robinson:  Do see what I mean?

Jordan Peterson:  No, they are onto something. They are onto something. This is why I emphasized in my previous remarks what I think is at the core of the postmodern critique. I don't think you can look at the world except through a structure of value. And the English, so you think, well, how did the, why is literary criticism so relevant or become so relevant and so powerful? And I think, well, I believe that we see the world through a narrative framework. And so that if that's true, and we could talk a little bit about that, what I mean by that, I think you need a mechanism to prioritize your attention and to, because attention is a finite resource and it's costly, so you have to prioritize it. And there's no difference between prioritizing your attention and imposing a value structure. Those are the same thing. And then I think that the mechanisms that we use to prioritize our attention are stories. And that means that the people who criticize our stories actually have way more power than you think, because they're actually criticizing the mechanism through which we look at the world. And so the postmodernists would say, look, you even look at the scientific world through a value laden lens. And I think, yeah, you do, they're right. But what they're not right about is that the lens is one of power. And now for someone like Nisha, the thing about a word like power is you can expand the thing, the borders of the word, to encompass virtually any phenomena you want. And so that's why I tried to define power as my willingness to use compulsion on you or other people, because power can be authority, power can be competence. I don't mean any of that. I mean you don't get what you to do what you want, I get to tell you, coercion, exactly. And I do think that Marxist types view the willingness to use coercion as the driving force of human history. And that's really saying something, 'cause that means it's the fundamental motivation. And that's a very caustic criticism, and it's easy to put people back on their heels about that. You know, one of the things you see about capitalists, 'cause I've been stunned to see the CEOs of major corporations like roll over in front of these DEI activists, I think, well, what the hell's wrong with you people, you know? You're not even making use of your privilege, and why are you, well, it's not very powerful if you're the CEO of a major corporation, you can't even withstand some interns who have DEI ideology. It's like, it's doing you a lot of good. And so, and why would you produce a fifth column within your organization that's completely opposed to the entire manner in which you do business and the capitalist enterprise as such? And one answer would be, well, we don't think much about ideas. It's like, well maybe you should. And you know, you can be cynical about it and say, well, it's just a gloss to keep the capitalist enterprise going while appearing to meet, you know, the new demands of ethical, of the new ethical reality, which I think is a bad argument too. But more importantly it's that people are guilty. And the radicals who accuse us all, historically and as individuals, of being motivated by nothing but the desire for power strike a chord, especially in people who are conscientious, you know, because if you're a conscientious person and someone comes to you and says, like a little mob of 30 people says, you know, you can be a little more careful in what you say and do on the racist front and the sexist front, et cetera. You're likely to think, well, I'm not perfect. I probably could be a little more careful. And it's no doubt that people have been oppressed in the past. And it's also no doubt that, in some sense, I'm the undeserving beneficiary of historical atrocity. And so, you know, maybe I should look to myself, and that's weaponization of guilt and it's very effective and it's not surprising, but it's not helpful. So, you know, so there's a resentment that drives this, like a corrosive resentment that's able to weaponize guilt and it's very difficult for people to withstand it.

Peter Robinson:  Listen, I asked friends what one question they'd most like me to hear, most like to hear me ask you. And it was, everybody said the same thing. And then I came across you on a video saying a few years ago, people often asked me if I believe in God. I don't like that question. So I won't ask that question, but the role, you've just talked about values. So here's a question, I wanna hear how you think about this. This is a question that strikes me as philosophy 101. Although I have to admit there are other people who just see no traction in this one at all. My late friend, Christopher Hitchens, just batted this one away. And here's the question. If there is no standard, we don't have to rise to calling it God, but if there's no objective standard of reason outside and above ourselves, if everything is just matter, how can we think, how can we do science? CS Lewis, this is CS Lewis. And Hitchens just thought this made no sense at all. But I feel it. CS Lewis, if I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, meaning only all that exists is what we can perceive through our senses, then not only can I not fit in religion, I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains and brains on biochemistry and biochemistry in the long run on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. You feel that one as well?

Jordan Peterson:  Yeah. Well, that's a complicated problem, that. First of all, I do believe that I don't think science is possible outside of an encompassing Judaeo-Christian ethic. So for example, I don't think you can be a scientist without believing as an axiom of faith that truth will set you free or that will set us free. So we don't know the conditions under which science is possible, you know, and we tend to overestimate its epistemological potency. It's only been around, I mean, you can stretch it back to the Greeks if you're inclined, but in a formal sense it's only been around for about five centuries and it's only thrived for a very short period period of time. And it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there were particular preconditions that made its rise and ascendancy possible.

Peter Robinson:  It is a historical phenomenon. It happened at a specific moment in time.

Jordan Peterson:  Right, and at least in principle, for particular reasons. Yeah, and I think one of the conditions, well there's a bunch of them. One is, for example, there's an intense insistence in the Christian tradition that the mind of God in some sense is knowable. So we could say, well, the structure of the cosmos, and you have to believe that that's the case before you're going to embark on a scientific endeavor. You have to believe that there's some relationship between logos, logic let's say, but logos is a much broader concept than logic, that's for sure. You have to believe that there's some relationship between that and the structure of the cosmos. You have to believe that the pursuit of truth is in itself an ethical good, because why would you otherwise bother? You have to believe that there is such a thing as an ethical good. And those aren't scientific, those are not scientific questions, which is why I think the arguments of people like Hitchens are weak. It's like, yeah, Hitchens, Dawkins, people like that. They have a metaphysic, which they don't know. And they assume that metaphysic is self-evidence. Like, well, sorry guys, it's actually not self-evident. And they assume that it can be derived from the observations of empirical reality. And the answer to that is, no, there's gonna be axioms of your perceptual system that aren't derivable from the contents of your perceptual system. And you might think, well, that's not very scientific. And I would say, well, take it up with Roger Penrose and see what he thinks. 'Cause I just talked to him for like three hours about, partly about this topic, about say the role of consciousness and the structure of consciousness, and it's by no means obvious that the materialist reductionists have the correct theory about the nature of consciousness. And not surprisingly, it's like, we don't understand the relationship between consciousness and being at all. And so they're, you know.

Peter Robinson:  These are hard, hard questions.

Jordan Peterson:  Well, they're the hardest, the hard question for consciousness researchers is why is there consciousness rather than why aren't we just unconscious mechanisms acting deterministically? They call that the hard question. I don't think that is the hard question. I think the hard question is what's the relationship between consciousness and being itself. And, 'cause I don't, I can't understand what it means for something to be in the absence of some awareness of that being. So when we say being, there's an awareness component implicit in the idea of being itself. Consciousness is integrally tied up with being in some mysterious manner. And so, and I also don't believe that the most sophisticated scientists are by necessity reductionist materialists. Like get as far as you can with that, no problem. It's Okham's razor clear if you can reduce and account deterministically, no problem. But don't be thinking that accounts for everything. 'Cause I don't think there's any evidence that it does.

Peter Robinson:  From science to politics. Two quotations, Jordan Peterson. This is a tweet of just last month. Does anything other than the axiomatic acceptance of the divine value of the individual make slavery a self-evident wrong?

Jordan Peterson:  Right, that's a good one to pick up. Yeah. Yeah.

Peter Robinson:  Well you know as my friend Jordan Peterson who tweeted it after all.

Jordan Peterson:  Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, yeah, I was thinking about, I was thinking about.

Peter Robinson:  Hold on, I wanna give you, I'm going to put you in a guest's company here. That's you, here's GK Chesterton. The declaration of independence bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal. There is no basis for democracy except in the divine origin of man. So these are very similar thoughts. And the notion here is that if that we can't do science without some notion, am I allowed to call it the divine? That's just say it's the Judaeo-Christian-

Jordan Peterson:  No, no, the divine's fine. We could define that technically too.

Peter Robinson:  Oh, can you? All right, that might get us off a slightly uncomfortable hook here, talking about icky stuff like religion. But so if we can't do science without a notion of the divine, can we engage in self-government?

Jordan Peterson:  No, no, no. Well, one of the things I've been talking to my audience about is this right to free speech and how that might be conceptualized. 'Cause you can think about it as a right among other rights, let's say. So it's just one of a list of rights. And you can also think of rights as being granted to you, let's say in some sense, by the social contract. And so a, which is a different theory say than the notion that rights originate in some underlying religious insistence of the divine value of the individual. The problem with the right, there's a bunch of problems with the rights among other rights argument. I don't think free speech is a right among other rights. I think that, I don't think there's any difference between free speech and thought, and it has to be free, because if it's not free, it's not thought. So imagine mostly you have to think about hard things because why think, otherwise, if everything's going alright, you don't have a problem. When you have a problem, you have to think. And if you have a problem, the thinking is gonna be troublesome because you're gonna think things that upset yourself and upset other people. It's part of the necessity, it's part of what will necessarily happen if you're thinking.

Peter Robinson:  I just wanna repeat, you said something that just stopped me. Sorry, because it actually stopped me so completely cold that I missed a little bit of what followed. I just wanna repeat it. There is no difference between speech and thought. If you're gonna have free thought, you must have free speech. That's the argument?

Jordan Peterson:  Yeah, okay, well I'll unpack that first and then return to the other one. Well, there's a bunch of reasons for that. I mean, first of all, mostly you think in words, now people also think in images, but I'm not gonna go into that, we'll just leave that aside. But mostly we think in words, and so we use a mechanism that's sociologically constructed, the world of speech, to organize our own psyches. And we do that with speech. And basically, when you think, there's two components to it that are internal in a sense. When you think you have a problem, so you ask yourself a question, and then answers appear in the theater of your imagination, generally verbally. So that'd be like the revelatory element of thought, and that it's very much prayer-like in some fundamental sense because it's very mysterious. You know, the fact that you can pose yourself a question and then you can generate answers. It's like, well, why did you have the question if you can generate the answers? If the answers are just there, and where do the answers come from? Well, you can give a materialist account to some extraordinarily limited degree, but phenomenologically, it's still the case that you pose a question to yourself in speech and you receive an answer in speech. Now it can also be an image, but forget about that. Then the next question is, well, what do you do once you receive the answer? And the answer is, well, if you can think then you use internal speech to dissect the answer, which is what you do, for example, you encourage your students to do if they're writing an essay. You know, they lay out a proposition and then you hope they can take the proposition apart. And essentially if they are, what they're doing is they're transforming themselves into avatars, speaking avatars of two different viewpoints. So you have the speaker for the proposition and then you have the critic, and maybe you lay out the dialogue between them. And that constitutes the body of the essay. And you have to be bloody sophisticated to manage that, because it means that you have to divide yourself in some sense into two avatars that are oppositional. And then you have to allow yourself to be the battle space between them. That, and people have to be trained to do that. That's what universities are supposed to do. It's really hard. What people generally do instead of that is talk to other people. And that's how they organize themselves, by talking to other people. And then the reason you have the right to free speech isn't so that you can just say whatever you want to gain a hedonistic advantage, which is one way of thinking about it. You just get, you have a right to say whatever you want. Like you have a right to do what you want, you know, subject to certain limitations. So it's like, it's a hedonic freedom. It's like, no, that's not why you have a right to free speech. You have a right to free speech because the entire entirety of society depends on, depends for its ability to adapt to the changing horizon of the future on the free thought of the individuals who compose it. It's like a free market. In some sense, it's a free market argument in relationship to thought, we have to compute this transforming horizon. Well, how do we do that? Well, by consciously engaging with possibility. Well, how do we do that? Well, it's mediated through speech. So societies that are going to function over any reasonable amount of time have to leave their citizens alone to grapple stupidly with complexity so that out of that stupid grappling, fraught grappling that's offensive and difficult and upsetting, we can grope towards the truth collectively before taking the steps to implement those truths before they've been tested. And so then you might, so that's the free speech argument. The divinity argument is, well, you are that locus of consciousness, that's what you are most fundamentally. And the reason that's associated with divinity, that's a very, very complicated question, but part of the reason I outlined this in my series on the biblical series on Genesis, is at the beginning of Genesis, for example. So imagine this divinity of the individuals rooted in the narrative conception that's part and parcel of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. You have God at the beginning of time, in whose image men and women are made, acting as the agent that transforms the chaos of potential into the habitable reality that is good. And he uses the word, the divine word, logos to do that. And what that implies is that the word that's truthful, there's more to it than that, but the word that is truthful is the word that extracts habitable order out of chaos. And that's what characterizes human beings, that capability. And I think, yeah, that's right. And then you might ask, do you believe that, I would say, well, that's what your culture's based on. So you might say, I don't believe that, it's like, fair enough, say what you want, but try acting, try basing your personal relationships on any other conception than that and see what happens. You know, people are so desperate to be treated in that manner that it's their primary motivation. You want other people to treat you as if you have something to say, that you're worth attending to, you know, that you have the opportunity to express yourself no matter how badly you do it. And if they're willing to grant you their attention and time to help you straighten that out, there isn't anything you want more than that. And if you try to structure your social relationships on any other basis than that intrinsic respect for their intrinsic value, it's gonna fail.

Peter Robinson:  Okay, we've talked about faculty. Students, the kids, couple of statistics. According to Gallup, the proportion of Americans who claim no religious affiliation among Americans over 76 years old, just 7%,. 93% of the oldsters claim a religious affiliation. The youngest group that Gallup tested is Americans between 26 and 41. Almost a third claim no religious affiliation. Item one, item two, I'm reasonably certain this is the same in Canada, at least in Eastern Canada, but certainly in the United States, poll after poll after poll shows that young people are far more open to socialism or to, at least to what we would say farther, not just left of center, but farther left political aims. They're the ones who most fervently support, by the way, this is an inversion from the Reagan years in the eighties, when the kids were more conservative than the older, that's not the case now. And then we add my personal observation, which is that during COVID, during the lockdowns, to me personally, almost more shocking than any other aspect was the supineness, the passivity of the kids, except for, it was established very, very early that if you're young, you're at no serious risk of this. You'll get sick perhaps, it'll be a flu, but you're more likely you to die in a car accident up to the age of 20 something then you are to die of COVID. That got established right away, and universities shut down, and they made kids take exams on, or take their classes on Zoom. And I could detect no pushback, no kid was talking, trying to diss the man. In general, they were saying, yes master, like Igores to Dr. Frankenstein. So this is all really bad news.

Jordan Peterson:  Why do you think the first part of that question is importantly related to the second part?

Peter Robinson:  Well, I was sort of hoping that I was kind of setting that up as the question for you to answer.

Jordan Peterson:  Oh, okay, okay. Fair enough, fair enough.

Peter Robinson:  In other words, I guess let's just state it, that this is extremely crude and it feels even cruder now that I've listened to you talk with such sophistication for a while now, but here's the crude point, the crude suspicion is that if you don't have some notion of the transcendent, if you don't have some notion of the divine, then you'll believe any damn thing.

Jordan Peterson:  Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think that's right.

Peter Robinson:  And that's what the kids are doing.

Jordan Peterson:  Yeah, well, I mean, Dostoevsky's comment on that was if there's no God, everything is permitted, you know, and he did a lovely job of analyzing that in, well, in Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov. And I think it's true. I think you'll, if you believe nothing you'll fall for anything. And I really do believe that's the case. And you know, you might say, well, what do you mean? You mentioned earlier that people like to ask me if I believe in God and I always think, well, who are you to be asking that question. First of all, you have some notion of what you mean by believe that you think is just accurate, 'cause you know what believe means. And so you have an apriory theory about belief. And now you're asking me if my belief in God fits into your apriory theory. It's how about we start by questioning your apriory theory of belief, 'cause I don't even know what you mean by believe and neither do you, especially when we're asking a question that profound. 'Cause it, you know, do you believe in God, there's two mysteries there. Well three, you, believe, God, all three of those are subject to question. I think people act out what they believe. And so when people ask me if I believe in God, I say generally that I act as if God exists or I try to act as if God exists. And they're not very happy about that because they want me to abide by the rules of, the implicit rules of their question, which is, no, do you believe in the religious view as a pseudo scientific description of the structure of reality. It's like, well, I don't even know how to answer that question because it's so badly formulated, I can't get a handle on it. Do you believe that there's something divine? Well, let's try to define divine here. We can do that for a moment. Most of us have some sense that literary stories differ in their depth. That, I don't think that's an unwarranted proposition. Some stories are shallow and some stories are deep. Some stories are ephemeral and some move you deeply, whatever that means, it's a metaphor, but we understand what it means. Imagine there are layers of literary depth. And one way of conceptualizing the layers of literary depth is that the deeper an idea is the more idea, other ideas depend on it, right? And so you have fundamental ideas that are fundamental, because if you shake that idea, you shake all the ideas that are dependent on them. And then I would say, well, the realm of the divine is the realm of the most fundamental ideas. And you don't get to believe in that or not, because the alternative is to say, well, all ideas are equal in value. It's like, okay, well try acting then. And you can't because you can't act unless you prioritize your beliefs. And if you prioritize them, you arrange them into a hierarchy. And if you arrange them into a hierarchy, you accept the notion of depth. And so that's a no-go. When we use language of the divine, we're talking about the deepest ideas. And so I believe that the notion that each individual is characterized by a consciousness that transforms the horizon of the future into the present, that's a divine idea, it's so deep. And our cultures necessarily, I think functional cultures are necessarily predicated on that idea. So I don't just think it's a Western idea. I don't think you can have a functional culture that in some sense doesn't instantiate that idea because you interfere with the mechanism of adaptation itself by not allowing it free expression. You know, and you can be like my prime minister and you can say, well, I really admire the Chinese communist party because when it comes to environmental issues, they get things done. And I think, I couldn't begin to tell you how many things are wrong with that statement. That would take like 15 years to tell you why you're an inexcusably narcissistic idiot, but we can start like simply. If you know what you're doing and you have power. If you know what you're doing, maybe you can be more efficient in your exercise of, in your control over movement towards that goal. Let's just assume for a minute that you do know what you're doing. Well maybe if you have power, then you're efficient. Fair enough, man. What about when you don't know what you're doing? How about then? Where do you turn? What that means is your ideology failed you. And do you have a mechanism for operating when you don't know what you're doing? Well no, 'cause we always know what we're doing because we're totalitarian and we have a complete theory of everything, and don't say anything to the contrary or else. We've got it all wrapped up. Yeah, except when you don't. And so what do we do in free societies when we don't know what we're doing? Well, we let people talk. And out of that babble, out of that noise, and American culture is particularly remarkable in this regard, you have this immense diversity of opinions, most of which are completely useless, and some of which are absolutely redemptive. And one of the things that's so remarkable as a Canadian observing your culture in particular is that, you know, you guys veer off in weird directions fairly frequently and things look pretty unstable. And then there's some glimmer of hope somewhere that bursts forward in a whole new mode of adaptation, and away you go again. And that just happens over and over and over. And that's a consequence of real diversity, of real diversity. And it's definitely a consequence of like freedom of association and freedom of speech, 'cause it enables all that.

Peter Robinson:  Sure, so, all right. That's optimistic. And I always like to end to show on an up note here, but I'm not quite ready to end the show yet. So I want to hold that thought, put a pin the optimism. You mentioned Trudeau's admiration for the Chinese communist party. Ray Dalio, billionaire, on China. Empires rise when they're productive, financially sound, earn more than they spend, and increase assets faster than their liabilities. Objectively compare China with the US on these measures and the fundamentals clearly favor China, close quote. Now this is Jordan Peterson writing about communism in your introduction to the 50th anniversary edition of the Gulag archipelago, the 50th anniversary of the publication of that in the west takes place next year. Jordan Peterson, no political experiment has been tried so widely with so many disparate people in so many different countries, and failed so absolutely and catastrophically. How much proof do we need? Why do we still avert our eyes from the truth? Now I have one, I'm setting this up because this next quotation I think is actually quite beautiful. And I really wanna see what you do with it. Ray Dalio gives voice to this persistent temptation. Jordan Peter says, why, why do we still feel tempted. And Dostoevsky in the legend of the grand inquisitor. The grand inquisitor is speaking to Christ, and he says to Christ, you're all wrong. Receiving their bread from us the people will clearly see that we take the bread from them to give it back to them, and they will be only too glad to have it so, as we will deliver them from their greatest anxiety and torture: that of having to decide freely for themselves. Never was there anything more unbearable to the human race than personal freedom, close quote. It's too hard. Dr. Peterson, it's just too hard. Canada had a good run. The United States had a good run, but sustaining free societies across the decades and across the generations is just too hard for human nature to bear. No, you're not supposed to agree with that.

Jordan Peterson:  Well, two things, you know, the first thing is that man does not live by bread alone. So that's the first rejoinder and the second is with regards to difficulty. Well, the only thing more difficult than contending forthrightly with existence is failing to do so. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this isn't difficult. I mean, part of what the Western religious tradition has done and religious traditions in general to some degree is to try to provide people with support from what's divine in their incalculably difficult efforts to deal with the unknown let's say, the unknowable. Know that if you orient yourself ethically in the most fundamental sense, then in some sense you have the force of God on your side, and then maybe you can prevail despite the difficulty. And I think that's, I think that's right. I think it's, I think that's true. So, and you can ask yourself, I try to ask these questions seriously, you know, and I would also say that I've been driven to my religious beliefs such as it is by necessity, not by desire. What do you want to have on your side when you're contending with the unknowable future and its vagaries? How about truth? How about beauty? How about justice? You want allies? Those are powerful allies. That's what the university's supposed to be teaching young people. It's like, you need some allies, man. Well, how about the pursuit of truth? Well then the scientists have their say. And I would say on the economic front, well how about the free trade between autonomous individuals, the free trade of goods of value between autonomous individuals. That's not such a bad thing to have on your side, these eternal verities. And then we could say perhaps that, well, there is a set of eternal verities, but they're all eternal verities. So they share something in common, some good in common, all good things share some good in common. Well, what is the good that they share in common? Well, for all intents and purposes, that's God. And you might say, well, I don't believe in that. It's like, well, I don't know what you mean. You don't believe there's any such thing as good? You don't believe there's any such thing as ultimate good? I'm not trying to make some ontological claim about an old man living in the sky, although I think that's a lot more sophisticated concept than people generally realize. That's not my point. My point is you do have a belief system, whether you know it or not. It's a system of ethics, whether you know it or not, There's either something at the bottom that unifies it or it's not unified, which means you're aimless and hopeless and depressed and anxious and confused, 'cause those are the only other options. And maybe you don't know what that unifying belief is, but that doesn't mean that it's not there. It just means you don't know what it is. And so I'm trying to puzzle out what it is. You know, I can give you a couple of examples very, very briefly 'cause I won't, so I already mentioned the Genesis, the story in Genesis, it associates God with the force process that generates habitable order out of chaos and attributes that nature in some sense to human beings. In the next part of the story, in the story of Adam and Eve, God is what people walk with unselfconsciously in the garden. So Adam doesn't because he's now ashamed and he doesn't walk with God anymore. But so what is God? Well, that's what you walk with when you're unselfconscious. So that's an interesting idea. And then you have the God that manifests itself, himself let's say in the story of Noah, and that's the intuition that hard times are coming and that you better get your house in order. And you think, well, does that lead you that intuition? Well, certainly sometimes if you have any sense, it's like, well, what's the nature of the intuition? Is that a spirit that animates you? Well, obviously because there you are acting, and so you're acting out a pattern. It's a spirit that animates you. And so, and then there's the story of the tower of babel. What's God there? Well, God is that which you replace at your peril because everything will come tumbling down. That's the tower of babel. It's like, well, is that true or not? You think about that for a week, especially in that light, you think, oh, definitely. If we put the wrong thing at the top, like Stalin for example, then look out. And we've done that a bunch of times in the 20th century. I think, you know, Milton conceptualized Lucifer as something like the spirit of unbridled, intellectual arrogance, it's something like, Lucifer is the light bringer. And he is engaged in a conflict with God attempting to replace the divine. And that's pretty explicit in the story. And I look at that and I think, oh, that's a poetic intuition of the battle between the secular intelligence and the religious structure. That's Milton's prodroma. And what he sees happening is the intellect has become so arrogant that it will attempt to replace the divine and rule over hell, I think. Yeah, well that's the Soviet Union, man. That's Mao's China. We know, we know, we've got our theory. It's total, we've solved the problem and nothing's gonna change. Fair enough if you wanna rule over hell. And you think, well, these societies are successful. It's pretty odd definition to success as far as I'm concerned. You wanna be successful like China? You know, that's why it's true that man does not live by bread alone, you know? A wealthy slave, that's no life, man.

Peter Robinson:  Last question. And again, I'm gonna take a moment to set this up, and I'm going to fumble, I'm going to grope toward it. I'm going to stumble along toward this question, but here's what, I'm finding myself thinking back to the 1970s. Canada is part of this, but I know the American story better. And in the 1970s, everything goes wrong. Economic stagnation, loss of morale in this country because we lose in Vietnam, Watergate scandal. We're on the defensive as the Soviets advance in Africa, Latin America. And then in the 1980s it all turns, and we go from 1979 and the Soviet and the national humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to 1989, one decade, just 10 years later, the Berlin wall comes down. So the question here is the loss of freedom of speech, the corruption of the universities, the rise of China, which is in all kinds of ways a more formidable opponent than the Soviet union was. In all kinds of ways, one could argue that we're in a worse position now than we were in the seventies. And so what I want to know is are you speaking to those few who have eyes to see and ears to hear? Do you believe that we are capable? Do you hope to prompt another kind of restoration, or is Jordan Peterson the fascinating, eloquent, compelling champion of a lost cause?

Jordan Peterson:  Well, I mean, when I spent a lot of time at the various universities I was associated with studying motivation for atrocity, 'cause I was very curious about that as a psychologist, not as a sociologist or an economist or a political scientist. You're an Auschwitz guard. Okay, what's motivating you as an individual? And I wanted to understand it well enough so that I could understand how I could do that. Because one answer to that is, well, that sort of behavior so far beyond the pale, that it's completely incomprehensible. It's just a manifestation of say like intense psychopathy and a normal person can't even imagine it. And I think, nah, that evidence doesn't really suggest that, because it isn't obvious that all the people involved in the Nazi movement, for example, were criminally pathological, that they were deviations. Like, incomprehensible deviations from the norm. It'd be lovely to think that and it would make the world a lot simpler, but I think the evidence mostly suggests that, no, you can get ordinary people to do that sort of thing and maybe even to enjoy it. And so that's pretty bloody terrifying. And so I tried to understand that and I think I did to some degree, although we can't go into that, fair bit of that's a consequence of envy. It's the spirit of Cain I would say if you had to sum it up in a phrase, but that isn't the issue. The issue is how do you stop it from happening again? And because that's supposed to be what we're concentrating on, let's say in the aftermath of the second world war. Never forget, which should mean something like how about we don't do this again? And so my question was, well, how do we best go about that, ensuring we don't walk down that road again? And my conclusion was that's, because it was fundamentally an issue of individual psychology most fundamentally, more than economics, more than sociology, all of that. The cure is individual. People have to, they have to act as ethically as they are powerful, or else. And so I've been trying to convince people to do that, I suppose, or to put forward, not to convince them precisely, but to put forward an argument about why that's necessary and why it's on them. It's like, no, this is on you. You gotta understand this, this problem, it's you. You don't get it right, it isn't gonna work. And so how do you do that? Well, you start with what you have under control in your own life, 'cause where else are you gonna start? You look to yourself, put your house in order. Don't be worried about some other person walking the Satanic path. And that's what activists do all the time, right? It's you, it's the corporations, like it's someone else. No, no, it's you. And I think that's also fundamental to the Judaeo-Christian doctrine is that it's you, it's on you, redemptions in individual matter. And so my hope is that if enough people take themselves with enough seriousness, then we won't end up in hell, because we certainly could. It's a high probability. And so, and I also don't think that you can be motivated enough to put your house in order to the degree that's necessary merely by being attracted let's say to the potential utopia that might emerge as a consequence of that. So that'd be a vision of heaven, let's say. No, you need to also be terrified of hell. I think, well, there's no such thing, it's like, just because you haven't been there doesn't mean there's no such thing. It's like you have to be pretty bloody naive to think there's no such thing. Like how much evidence do you need and how does it come about? Well, it comes about at least in partial consequence of the sins of men. And I think that's true. So I go around and I talk to people. I say, look, there's not only more to you than you know, there's more to you than you can imagine. You have an ethical responsibility to act in that light. And you might claim not to believe that, but I would say, well, your whole culture is predicated on that belief. And insofar as you are an active member of that culture and a believer in its structure, then you believe it. You might not be very good at believing it. You might be full of conflict and doubt, and you might not be able to articulate it, but it's still right at the bedrock of your culture, this notion of, what, the divine sovereign individual? Is that not what your culture's predicated on, that idea, the logos inherent in each person? It's something other than that? I've never seen a credible argument made to show that it's anything other than that. You know, you can say, well, rights are attributed to you by the state. It's like, sorry, that's a weak argument because the state's dependent on your actions. So, you know, to believe that you have to believe that the state is the entity and that individuals are just subordinate in some fundamental sense to the state. It's like, no, the state is dependent on the individual to exactly the same degree. So we're the active agent of the state in some sense. We're the seeing eye of the state, the speaking mouth of the state, 'cause the state's dead without the individuals that compose it.

Peter Robinson:  Can you, incoming freshman next year, university of Toronto, Stanford university, 18 year old kids coming into this. We've been through three years of COVID. I won't rehearse it all. One sentence. What would you, what would you, what would you say to them as they begin university at the age of 18 or 19? What's the restorative, the redemptive sentence? What should they do?

Jordan Peterson:  Don't be thinking your ambition is corrupt. You know, 'cause that's part of the message. Now human beings, we're a cancer on the planet. We're headed for an environmental apocalypse. The entire historical structure is nothing but atrocity, et cetera, et cetera. Anyone with ethical aim whatsoever is just gonna pull back. You don't want to manifest any ambition, support the patriarchal structure, exploit the environment. You gotta crush yourself down. You shouldn't even have any children. It's like, no, there's no excuse for that. There's zero excuse for that. I saw a professor at an event, something like this. He came out and trumpeted this bloody environmentally friendly house he'd built, and you know, fair enough, man. It was a pretty interesting house, but not everybody had the $4 million that it took him to build it. And I'm not criticizing his money even. It's like, he's had some money, good for him. He built a house, okay. But then to trumpet that as a moral virtue, well you're pushing it there. And then he came out to all the kids and he said, you know, my wife and I decided that we were only gonna have one child. And I think that's one of the most ethical things we could have possibly done, and I would strongly encourage you to do the same. I thought, you son of a bitch. You get up in front of these young people. A lot of these kids were children of first generation immigrants from China, and he showed all these images, you know, of these terrible factories in China, these endless rows of sterile mechanism that were subordinating all the Chinese people to this terrible, you know, capitalist machine. And I thought, you don't understand. Half the audience is looking at those factories and thinking that's a hell of a lot better than struggling through the mud under Mao, buddy. And so he, I don't know where he thought he was, but to come out in front of all those kids and basically tell them that the whole human enterprise is so goddamned corrupt that the best thing they could possibly do is limit their multiplication, and to think of himself as a scholar and an educator, it was just, I did say something by the way. It was rather uncomfortable and he stomped off the stage, but that's no message for young people. That's no, there's no excuse for that. And you think, well, I, you know, we're gonna destroy the planet, we have to do this. We have to demoralize the youth to be ethical. It's like, yeah, really? That's your theory? You're gonna demoralize young people to be ethical. That's your theory. It's like, you should go and think about that for like a year. And I'm passionate about this, you know, because you have no idea how many people that's killing. You have no idea. I see people everywhere, all over the world. They're so demoralized, especially young people, especially young people with a conscience, 'cause they've been told to since they were little that there's nothing to them but corruption and power. It's like, how the hell do you expect them to react? You know they, well, I shouldn't do anything, man, you know?

Peter Robinson:  Dr. Jordan Peterson on the, what was the phrase? The divine sovereign individual, the divine sovereign individual. Thank you. For Uncommon Knowledge, the Hoover institution, and Fox Nation, I'm Peter Robinson.

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

Jordan Peterson: Psychology and Philosophy of Life, Part III

The third part in the series explores peterson's approach to life..

Posted August 7, 2018

I found myself identifying with Jordan Peterson because I have much in common with his professional life. He is a clinician, a professor, and a researcher. His primary area of academic interest is personality theory. He has done high quality empirical research on identity and personality traits. He has read deeply and widely, and, even though I do not share is overall worldview, I consider him theoretically and philosophically sophisticated. He dives deeply into complex thought and has produced an interesting book on human meaning making. He has figured out how to share his work with the public—so much so that one can readily argue that his general influence as a public intellectual is currently second to none. These are all skill sets that I have sought to develop as part of my own identity.

Frankly, there are very few people I know who can encompass all of the above, and so I admire him for that. Part of the reason that it is difficult to be accomplished across the above domains is because the discipline of psychology is remarkably fragmented. Consider, for example, that I am a member of one division of psychology called “Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology” (APA Division 24) and another division called “ Psychotherapy ” (Division 29) and another called “Clinical Psychology” (Division 12). In general, they are made up of different people who have different philosophical and scientific assumptions, and even different conceptions about what psychology and psychotherapy is or should be. His Canadian status notwithstanding, I could envision Peterson being in all (or none) of these APA divisions given his broad and sophisticated view of the field.

Two major areas of interest for Jordan Peterson are modern personality trait theory (the so-called Big Five ) and Carl Jung’s analytical psychology. Those who are familiar with the field will know that these are fairly divergent approaches to human personality. Yet Peterson is knowledgeable about both and blends them to good effect. To understand Peterson’s approach and larger message, it is helpful to recognize that both approaches are profoundly psychological rather than sociological in nature. That is, they emphasize the structure, nature, and architecture of human psychology that bind us as a species and, at the same time, they include awareness of the character building processes that make us different from one another. And both positions orient us to see society largely as a reflection of our underlying psychological architectures (AKA human nature), rather than the reverse. This is a “psychology first” perspective, and it is antithetical to (or at least in strong tension with) the postmodern and sociological views that tend to see our human psychological make-up emerging largely as a consequence of the socio-cultural-industrial context we find ourselves in. The conflict between the notions that human society constructs human psychology versus the idea that our societies reflect our psychological natures is one of the deepest disputes in the academy.

Carl Jung’s notion of archetypes is a fascinating way to consider the “deep architecture” of the human mind. Archetypes refer to universal themes or prototypes that serve as frames and guides for the human experience. Consider, for example, the hero archetype. This is the image or pattern of a strong courageous individual who faces villains and adversities and ultimately triumphs. Such a “character” is presented over and over again in the stories that organize human societies. Captain America, discussed in the first blog, is an exemplar of a hero archetype. In his lecture on the Disney Movie, The Lion King , Peterson does a fine job providing examples of common archetypes and how they can be used to convey deep seated themes.

The concept of archetypes leads us to a key aspect of Peterson’s message, and a source of a major point of controversy, which refers to the nature and the source of the differences between men and women. The postmodern-sociological view is that humans are very plastic and much of the differences between men and women are the result of social norms and constructed realities.

In contrast, there are evolutionary psychological views that view men and women having different psychosocial architectures that result in different tendencies, abilities, and interests. Peterson believes that the idea that sex / gender differences are wholly constructed by social norms to be ridiculous. He argues that both theory and data point to important differences in a number of key domains. Men are more likely to be aggressive (especially physically), dominant, and interested in things (e.g., tools and engineering projects), whereas women are more likely to be agreeable, nurturing and interested in people. This is not completely fixed (i.e., it is malleable to some extent), but nor is it completely constructed by modern social norms.

This idea is important because it relates to a key point he makes about outcomes. We should NOT expect, according to this view, equal outcomes between men and women in all contexts. For example, we should expect to see more men interested in mechanical engineering and more women interested in early childhood education . And it means that if we see women underrepresented in engineering, we should not automatically conclude that it is a function of a sexist culture ( as the famous Damore Google Memo incident makes clear) , any more than we should presume that the relative infrequency of men in early childhood education is a consequence of a form of discrimination . In the next blog, we will see how this attitude intersected with some media personalities to contribute to his fame.

Peterson’s Conception of the Ultimate Reality: The Redemptive Christian Archetype as Central to His Identity

It is important to be aware of the fact that Jordan Peterson is deeply concerned with living a meaningful life, one that conforms to core values and is part of a larger dynamic. Indeed, his primary in-depth work is called Maps of Meaning . It tells the story of how he is striving to connect the dots between our subjective lives and the themes and struggles of the universe at large. In that book, he lays out the view that many humans throughout the eons have represented the mythic nature of the universe through archetypal lenses of the dialectic between feminine/chaos and masculine/order. He also finds compelling the archetypal narratives of suffering, sacrifice and redemption. He loathes what he sees as the ethos that emerges from a truly relativistic postmodern philosophy , which is the idea that reality is what people say it is and really the best ethic is to try not to harm or shame others. Rather, he encourages people to dive into what the great thinkers of the past have said about power, suffering and morality (he loves rich, philosophical-psychological-narrative thinkers like Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky) and to reference their lives accordingly.

Indeed, it is this rather stern fatherly call to traditional values of character, honor, respect, and order that is drawing so many people, but especially young (white) men to him. He shines a light on a bygone age of order and clarity at a time when many are feeling confused and overwhelmed. In short, he is offers himself as the antidote to the chaos of our times.

Links to the Series:

Part I: On the concept of Identity

Part II: Identity Politics and Political Polarization

Part IV: Controversial Sparks and the Emergence of the 100-foot Wave

Part V: What the Peterson Controversy Means for Our Culture

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D. , is a professor of psychology at James Madison University.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Self Authoring

The Writing Assignment That Changes Lives

Why do you do what you do? What is the engine that keeps you up late at night or gets you going in the morning? Where is your happy place? What stands between you and your ultimate dream?

Heavy questions. One researcher believes that writing down the answers can be decisive for students.

He co-authored a paper that demonstrates a startling effect: nearly erasing the gender and ethnic minority achievement gap for 700 students over the course of two years with a short written exercise in setting goals.

Jordan Peterson teaches in the department of psychology at the University of Toronto. For decades, he has been fascinated by the effects of writing on organizing thoughts and emotions.

Experiments going back to the 1980s have shown that “therapeutic” or “expressive” writing can reduce depression, increase productivity and even cut down on visits to the doctor.

“The act of writing is more powerful than people think,” Peterson says.

Most people grapple at some time or another with free-floating anxiety that saps energy and increases stress. Through written reflection, you may realize that a certain unpleasant feeling ties back to, say, a difficult interaction with your mother. That type of insight, research has shown, can help locate, ground and ultimately resolve the emotion and the associated stress.

At the same time, “goal-setting theory” holds that writing down concrete, specific goals and strategies can help people overcome obstacles and achieve.

Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App: Write Persuasive Essays

My name is Debbie, and I am passionate about developing a love for the written word and planting a seed that will grow into a powerful voice that can inspire many.

Attention all students and aspiring wordsmiths! Are you tired of staring at a blank screen, desperately searching for the perfect words to jumpstart your essay? Look no further, because the highly acclaimed professor and thought leader, Dr. Jordan Peterson, has just revolutionized the world of essay writing with his groundbreaking app. Yes, you read that right! Picture this – an app that not only assists you in crafting essays, but also enhances your persuasive writing skills, all while encompassing Dr. Peterson’s invaluable insights. With this revolutionary tool at your fingertips, you’ll be unleashing the power of your words like never before. So, buckle up and get ready to embark on a writing journey unlike any other, as we delve deeper into the extraordinary world of the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App.

Introducing the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App: A Game Changer for Persuasive Essays

Enhance your persuasive writing skills with jordan peterson’s essay writing app, unleash the power of persuasion with jordan peterson’s essay writing app, craft compelling arguments with guidance from jordan peterson’s essay writing app, unlock your potential as a persuasive writer with the jordan peterson essay writing app, discover the secrets to writing persuasive essays with the jordan peterson app, master the art of persuasion with the jordan peterson essay writing app, elevate your essay writing to new heights with jordan peterson’s app, frequently asked questions, in conclusion.

The Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App is revolutionizing the way students approach persuasive essays. With its user-friendly interface and innovative features, this app is truly a game changer in the world of academic writing.

One of the standout features of this app is its comprehensive library of essay templates. Whether you’re writing an argumentative essay, a compare and contrast essay, or a persuasive speech, this app has got you covered. Each template is carefully crafted to provide a clear structure and guide you through the essay-writing process. With just a few taps, you can have a well-organized essay outline ready to be filled with your own thoughts and arguments.

• Access a wide variety of essay templates, covering different essay types and structures.
• Easily create a clear and logical outline for your essay, saving you time and effort.
• Ensure your essay follows a well-structured format, which greatly enhances its persuasiveness.

In addition to the impressive template library, the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App also offers valuable writing tips and techniques. From how to craft a compelling thesis statement to integrating credible sources effectively, this app provides actionable advice to help you improve your persuasive writing skills. Whether you’re a beginner or an experienced writer, these tips will undoubtedly elevate the quality of your essays.

• Learn how to develop a strong thesis statement that captures your main argument.
• Discover strategies for organizing your ideas coherently to maximize persuasive impact.
• Master the art of incorporating evidence and research to strengthen your arguments.

Don’t let essay writing overwhelm you any longer. The Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App is here to simplify the process and empower you to create outstanding persuasive essays. Try it today and experience the difference it can make in your academic journey!

If you’re looking to elevate your persuasive writing skills to new levels, look no further than Jordan Peterson’s Essay Writing App. Designed with the aim of helping students and professionals alike, this app offers a comprehensive set of tools and resources to enhance your persuasive writing abilities.

With a user-friendly interface and intuitive design, Jordan Peterson’s Essay Writing App makes it easy for you to organize your thoughts, craft compelling arguments, and structure your essays effectively. The app provides a range of features that will empower you to excel in your writing:

• Thesis Builder: Craft a strong and focused thesis statement that sets the foundation for your essay.
• Argument Analyzer: Analyze the strength of your arguments and identify any weaknesses or gaps in your reasoning.
• Structure Planner: Use the app’s visual planner to map out the flow of your essay, ensuring a logical and coherent structure.
• Style Enhancer: Access a variety of writing tips and suggestions to improve the overall style and clarity of your writing.

Whether you’re a student seeking to excel in your academic writing or a professional looking to enhance your persuasive communication skills, Jordan Peterson’s Essay Writing App is the ultimate tool to guide you towards success. With its unparalleled features and user-friendly approach, this app will empower you to become a persuasive writing master.

In today’s competitive world, effective communication and persuasive writing skills have become more important than ever. Whether you are a student looking to improve your essay writing abilities or a professional aiming to enhance your persuasive techniques, Jordan Peterson’s Essay Writing App is here to help you unleash the power of persuasion.

With this innovative and user-friendly app, you’ll gain access to a comprehensive toolkit that will transform your writing prowess. Developed by renowned psychologist and professor, Jordan Peterson, this app combines his vast knowledge and expertise in the art of persuasion with cutting-edge technology to provide you with a writing experience like no other.

Key features of the Jordan Peterson’s Essay Writing App:

• Powerful Editing Tools: With a variety of tools at your disposal, you can easily edit and refine your essays. From spell-check and grammar suggestions to intelligent paragraph restructuring, this app ensures your writing is polished and error-free.
• Structural Guidance: Crafting a compelling argument can be challenging, but fear not! Our app offers pre-built templates and structures that guide you through the essay writing process. Say goodbye to writer’s block and hello to coherent and logical essays.
• Persuasive Techniques: Learn the art of persuasion from one of the best. Jordan Peterson’s app provides insightful tips and strategies to captivate your readers and make a lasting impact. From rhetorical devices to persuasive language, you’ll have all the tools to win over any audience.

Whether you’re aiming for academic success, professional growth, or simply want to improve your writing skills, Jordan Peterson’s Essay Writing App is the ultimate companion. Don’t let your words go unnoticed – unleash the power of persuasion today!

Jordan Peterson’s Essay Writing App is an invaluable tool for anyone seeking to craft compelling arguments in their writing. With Peterson’s guidance, you can enhance your essay-writing skills, impressing your professors or employers with well-crafted, persuasive arguments. Whether you’re a student, an aspiring writer, or simply seeking to improve your communication skills, this app provides a step-by-step approach to developing and articulating your ideas effectively.

One of the key features of the app is its emphasis on structure. Peterson’s app breaks down the essay-writing process into manageable steps, helping you organize your thoughts and arguments logically. You’ll learn how to create a strong introduction that immediately captures your readers’ attention, **how to develop a thesis statement that clearly articulates your main argument**, and how to structure the body paragraphs to provide solid evidence and supporting examples. By following this structured approach, you’ll be able to present your ideas in a clear and systematic manner, making your argument more persuasive and compelling.

In addition to structure, the app also teaches you how to refine your writing style. Peterson’s app provides practical tips on improving your grammar, sentence structure, and vocabulary, making your essays more impactful and engaging. **You’ll learn how to avoid common writing pitfalls** and how to craft well-reasoned and articulate arguments that captivate your readers. With regular practice using the app, you’ll refine your skills and develop a writing style that is uniquely your own.

In conclusion, Jordan Peterson’s Essay Writing App is a valuable resource for honing your argumentative writing skills. With its emphasis on structure, grammar, and style, this app will guide you in crafting compelling essays that leave a lasting impact on your readers. Whether you’re a student, professional, or simply an individual seeking to enhance your communication abilities, this app is sure to provide you with the tools you need to excel in your writing endeavors. So don’t wait any longer – download the app today and start crafting unforgettable arguments.

Are you looking to take your writing skills to the next level and become a persuasive writer? Look no further than the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App! Designed to unlock your full potential as a writer, this innovative app offers a range of features and resources to help you master the art of persuasive writing.

With the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App, you’ll have access to a comprehensive library of writing techniques and strategies curated by the renowned psychologist and author himself, Dr. Jordan Peterson. Whether you’re a student, a professional, or simply someone who wants to improve their writing skills, this app is your ultimate companion on the journey to becoming a persuasive writer.

• Gain valuable insights on how to structure your essays effectively, ensuring maximum impact on your readers.
• Explore a wide range of persuasive techniques, from logical reasoning to emotional appeals, that will help you engage and convince your audience.
• Learn how to craft compelling arguments and counterarguments that anticipate and address potential objections from your readers.
• Access a collection of sample essays written by expert writers, giving you a solid foundation to build upon in your own writing.

Become a master in the art of persuasion with the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App. Unlock your potential and watch as your writing skills soar to new heights!

Are you tired of struggling to write persuasive essays that captivate your readers and earn you top grades? Look no further than the Jordan Peterson App, the ultimate tool for mastering the art of persuasive writing. With our app, you will unlock the secrets and techniques used by renowned psychologist and educator, Dr. Jordan Peterson, to create compelling and persuasive essays.

By using the app, you will gain access to a comprehensive library of resources designed to help you enhance your writing skills. From expertly crafted essay examples to interactive writing exercises, the Jordan Peterson App offers a unique and engaging learning experience. Whether you are a beginner or an advanced writer, this app will equip you with the tools and strategies you need to master the art of persuasion.

Take a look at what you can expect to find when using the Jordan Peterson App:

• A vast collection of persuasive essay topics to choose from, ensuring you never run out of inspiration.
• In-depth video tutorials featuring Dr. Jordan Peterson himself, where he shares his invaluable insights and tips on crafting persuasive essays.
• Step-by-step guides on building strong arguments and supporting them with credible evidence.
• Interactive quizzes and writing prompts to test your knowledge and practice your skills in real-time.

Don’t settle for mediocre essays when you can impress your professors and peers with well-crafted and persuasive arguments. Download the Jordan Peterson App today and discover the secrets that will set your writing apart!

If you’ve ever struggled with writing persuasive essays, fret no more! Introducing the revolutionary Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App, designed to help you master the art of persuasion in your writing. Whether you’re a student trying to excel in your academics or a professional looking to enhance your writing skills, this app is a game-changer.

With the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App, you’ll have access to a multitude of powerful features that will guide you towards crafting compelling and convincing arguments. Here’s what makes this app your ultimate writing ally:

• Step-by-step guidance: The app provides a structured framework, walking you through each stage of essay writing, from brainstorming ideas to refining your thesis statement. No more writer’s block or feeling lost in the writing process.
• In-depth analysis: Gain valuable insights into the techniques employed by renowned persuasive writers. The app offers comprehensive breakdowns of essays written by Jordan Peterson himself, dissecting the strategies used to captivate readers and win them over.
• Customized feedback: Receive personalized feedback on your own essays, guiding you on how to strengthen your arguments, improve your writing style, and make a lasting impact on your audience.

Prepare to become a persuasive writing virtuoso with the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App. Unleash your creativity, develop critical thinking skills , and confidently articulate your ideas to influence others effectively. Whether you aspire to be a world-class debater or simply want to improve your everyday communication, this app will transform you into a persuasive powerhouse.

Are you tired of staring at a blank screen, struggling to find the right words for your essays? Look no further—Jordan Peterson’s App is here to revolutionize your writing experience. With this innovative tool, you can take your essay writing skills to new heights and unleash your full potential as a writer.

So, what sets Jordan Peterson’s App apart from other writing apps? First and foremost, it offers a range of practical and insightful writing tips from the renowned professor himself. From crafting compelling introductions to mastering the art of persuasive arguments, you’ll gain invaluable advice directly from a respected authority in the field. With just a few taps, you can access Peterson’s expert guidance and elevate your essay writing game.

• Personalized feedback: Improve your writing through tailored feedback, as the app analyzes your essays and highlights areas for improvement. Say goodbye to vague suggestions and say hello to specific recommendations that will truly make a difference.
• User-friendly interface: Forget about clunky interfaces that hinder your creativity. Jordan Peterson’s App features a clean and intuitive design, allowing you to focus on your writing without any distractions.
• Extensive library: Gain access to an extensive library of essay examples and templates, covering a wide range of topics. Whether you need inspiration or a starting point, this app has got you covered.
• Progress tracking: Monitor your progress and track your improvements over time. Set goals, receive badges, and celebrate your accomplishments as you witness your essay writing skills reach new heights.

With Jordan Peterson’s App, you can kiss writer’s block goodbye and effortlessly unlock your writing potential. So why wait? Take the leap and embrace a new era of essay writing success. Download the app today and start crafting exceptional essays that will captivate your readers.

Q: What is the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App? A: The Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App is a digital tool designed to assist individuals in crafting persuasive essays according to the principles put forth by renowned Canadian psychologist and professor, Jordan Peterson.

Q: How does the app work? A: The app provides users with a step-by-step guide to essay writing, helping them develop well-structured arguments, articulate ideas effectively, and strengthen their overall persuasive writing skills. It offers a systematic approach that covers aspects such as thesis formation, outlining, supporting evidence, and counterarguments.

Q: Who is Jordan Peterson? A: Jordan Peterson is a highly influential psychologist and professor who has gained worldwide recognition for his lectures, books, and controversial perspectives on various societal issues. He is known for his emphasis on personal responsibility, free speech advocacy, and the importance of rational argumentation.

Q: What makes this app unique? A: The Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App is unique because it leverages the expertise of Jordan Peterson himself, who provides insights into persuasive writing through the app. It combines Peterson’s renowned intellectual rigor with the convenience of modern technology, making it an invaluable tool for individuals seeking to refine their essay writing skills.

Q: Can this app benefit both beginners and experienced writers? A: Absolutely! The app caters to the needs of both beginners and experienced writers. For beginners, it acts as a comprehensive guide, teaching them the fundamentals of persuasive essay writing. Experienced writers can also benefit from the app by refining their techniques and embracing Peterson’s insights to elevate their writing to a more compelling level.

Q: Are there any additional resources provided by the app? A: Yes, the app offers a variety of supporting resources such as writing tips, sample essays, and annotated examples from Jordan Peterson himself. These resources aim to provide further guidance and inspiration to users as they navigate through the essay writing process.

Q: Is the app compatible with different writing styles and subjects? A: Absolutely! The app is designed to be flexible and adaptable to various writing styles and subjects. Whether you are tasked with crafting a persuasive essay on a scientific topic, a social issue, or a literary analysis, the app’s principles and techniques can be applied across disciplines.

Q: Can the app be used for academic purposes? A: Yes, the app is well-suited for academic purposes. Its rigorous approach to argumentation and persuasive writing aligns with the expectations of many academic institutions. By utilizing this app, students can enhance their ability to communicate their ideas persuasively in various academic contexts.

Q: Is the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App available for all devices? A: While the availability may vary, the app is generally accessible across various platforms, including desktop computers, tablets, and smartphones. Users can conveniently access and utilize its features based on their preferred devices and operating systems.

Q: Are updates and improvements regularly implemented for the app? A: Yes, the development team behind the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App is dedicated to consistently improving and updating the app’s features. These updates often incorporate feedback from users, ensuring that the app remains relevant and effective in helping individuals become better writers.

In conclusion, the Jordan Peterson Essay Writing App is a valuable tool for students looking to improve their persuasive writing skills.

Halloween Writing Prompts 4th Grade: Spooktacular Writing

4th Grade End of Year Writing Prompts: Reflect and Write

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Reach out to us for sponsorship opportunities.

Welcome to Creative Writing Prompts

At Creative Writing Prompts, we believe in the power of words to shape worlds. Our platform is a sanctuary for aspiring writers, seasoned wordsmiths, and everyone. Here, storytelling finds its home, and your creative journey begins its captivating voyage.

© 2024 Creativewriting-prompts.com

https://essay.app/

© 2023 Jordan Peterson

Subscribe To My Newsletter

Join ‘Mondays of Meaning’ Get updates and notifications about new articles, videos, and more