https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=O6-zTxWXnCo
Well, I’ll tell you a couple of strange things, that are things that I don’t really understand. The first is, when we’ve done the analysis of the effects of the Future Authoring Program, it has had a different, differential impact on men. And it’s had a particularly differential impact on what I would call excluded men. And so that would be non-Western ethnic minority men, or, or, what, majority men who aren’t doing very well. So for example, at Mohawk College, the Future Authoring Program had a particularly robust effect on Mohawk College students, who were men who hadn’t done very well in high school, and who hadn’t picked a major that had a destination, a career destination at its end. So you can imagine those people are, they have an ambiguous relationship with the idea of education. And they’re not oriented specifically towards a goal. They’re not very motivated. Now, why did it have a differential effect on men? That’s a good question. Well, first of all, the women are doing better. So it might just be a matter of the fact that it does better for people who aren’t doing as well, and at the moment most of them are men. I don’t believe, I think that might be part of it. But I don’t believe that’s all of it. I think that part of the reason that women are doing better is because they’re agreeable. And so if a system sets out a structure and says, here’s a pathway to attainment, the women won’t rebel against that, they’ll go along with it. And that’s working very well for them at the moment. The men, especially the men on the disagreeable end of the distribution, and there’s way more men on the disagreeable end of the distribution than there are women, right? That’s what you get from, if you look at overlapping normal distributions. So there’s the male distribution, female distribution for agreeableness, male distribution for agreeableness. Tremendous overlap. Okay, women are higher. All the really agreeable people are women. All the really disagreeable people are men. And maybe the real differences occur at the extremes, right? So, and it’s a very interesting side effect of overlapping distributions. So people can be mostly the same, but that can still produce radical differences. Disagreeable men won’t do anything they don’t want to do. They just say, up yours. I’ll go home and play video games. I’m not listening to your stupid classes. And why should I work for you? I’ll just go have fun. I’ll do my own thing. I don’t think they’re motivated. And so then if you take the men who are like that and you say, okay, what do you want? You can have what you want, but you have to figure out what it is. So then they write down what they want and they think, oh, hey, well, that might be worth having, so maybe I’ll put some effort into it. That’s what it looks like to me. Now, you know, that’s weak evidence. And this is a weak argument. But I’m trying to stretch out my understanding to account for this, but I’ll tell you something else that’s really weird. I don’t understand this either. So more than 90% of the people who watch my videos on YouTube are men. Now, that’s weird because about 80% of psychology students are women. So that is not what you would expect, right? You’d expect that the majority of them would be women. And you might say, well, it’s because of the political stance I’ve taken. And I thought, well, that’s possible. So I went and looked at the demographic data because I have that. Well, before I did any of the political videos, 85% of my viewers were men. So it’s actually increased a bit. It’s increased by 6%. And that’s not trivial, but it was still overwhelmingly men. So that was interesting. I thought, what the hell? Why is that exactly? And then now I’ve been watching crowds when I’ve been talking to them. And the crowds that have come to see me in person. This happened at the University of Toronto free speech debate. And I actually noticed it and commented on it before the debate took place because I was talking about intrinsic differences between men and women. And I looked around the room and I thought, hmm, hey, 80% of the people in this room are men. So I had all the women stand up and then all the men stand up. I said, look, like, here’s a natural experiment. For some reason, 80% of the people who showed up to this are men. Now everybody thought I was kind of cracked to do that. And it was a risk, you know. But I thought, no, there’s something going on here. And then what’s interesting now is that every public appearance that I’ve made that’s related to the sort of topics that we’re discussing is overwhelmingly men. It’s like 85 to 90%. And so I thought, wow, that’s weird. Like, what the hell’s going on here exactly? And then the other thing I’ve noticed is that I’ve been talking a lot to the crowds that I’ve been talking to not about rights but about responsibility, right? Because you can’t have the bloody conversation. What are you doing? You can’t have the conversation about rights without the conversation about responsibility because your rights are my responsibility. That’s what they are, technically. So you just can’t have only half of that discussion. And we’re only having half that discussion. The question is, well, what the hell are you leaving out if you only have that half of the discussion? And the answer is, well, you’re leaving out responsibility. And then the question is, well, what are you leaving out if you’re leaving out responsibility? And the answer might be, well, maybe you’re leaving out the meaning of life. That’s what it looks like to me. It’s like, here you are, suffering away. What makes it worthwhile? Rights? You know, you’re completely out… You’re completely… You have no idea what you’re… It’s almost impossible to describe how bad an idea that is. Responsibility. That’s what gives life meaning. It’s like lift a load. Then you can tolerate yourself, right? Because look at you, you’re useless, easily hurt, easily killed. Why should you have any self-respect? That’s the story of the fall. Pick something up and carry it. Make it heavy enough so that you can think, yeah, well, useless as I am, at least I could move that from there to there. Well, what’s really cool about that is that when I talk to these crowds about this, the men’s eyes light up. And that’s very… Like, I’ve seen that phenomena because I’ve been talking about this mythological material for a long time. And I can see when I’m watching crowds, people, you know, their eyebrows lift, their eyes light up, because I put something together for them. And that’s what mythological stories do. So I’m not taking responsibility for that. That’s what the stories do. So I say the story and people go click, click, click. You know, and their eyes light up. But this responsibility thing, that’s a whole new order of this, is that young men are so hungry for that, it is unbelievable. And one of the things I’ve been talking to some of the people who’ve been running for the conservative leadership in Canada, and I’ve been talking to them about, well, the difficulties they have communicating with young people, because conservatives, what the hell are they going to sell to young people, right? Because being conservative is something that happens when you’re older. They can sell responsibility. No one’s selling it. And the thing is, for men, there’s nothing but responsibility. You know, I was watching The Simpsons the other day. I watched the first Simpsons episode, and I deconstructed it. And so it’s really interesting. So what happens in the first Simpsons episode is that it’s Christmas, and Homer and Marge are going to buy some Christmas presents, but Homer doesn’t get his Christmas bonus. And so he’s absolutely crushed by that. And that actually is a recurring theme in The Simpsons, where Homer loses his job or something like that, or can’t make enough money. He’s completely crushed. Even though he’s kind of useless, bumbling, laughing fool of a guy, you know, the thing that gives that show its soul is that he’s still oriented towards his family. That’s what makes him honorable, is that, foolish as he is, he’s decided to adopt responsibility for his family and to try to bear that. And so he’s not, he’s a holy fool. He’s not a complete fool. And it’s so interesting watching the story, because he suffers dreadfully as a consequence of not being able to fulfill his responsibility. Well, that’s for men. Women have their sets of responsibilities. They’re not the same. Right? Because they’re complicated, because women, of course, have to take primary responsibility for having infants, at least, but then also for caring for them. They’re structured differently than men. For biological necessity, even if it’s not a psychological issue, and it’s also partly a psychological issue. Women know what they have to do. Men have to figure out what they have to do. And if they have nothing worth living for, then they stay Peter Pan. And why the hell not? Because the alternative to valued responsibility is impulsive, low-class pleasure. And you saw that in the Pinocchio story, right? That’s Pleasure Island. It’s like, well, why lift the load if there’s nothing in it for you? That’s another thing that we’re doing to men that’s a very bad idea. And to boys. It’s like, you’re pathological and oppressive. It’s like, fine then, why the hell am I going to play? If that’s the situation, if I get no credit for bearing responsibility, I could bloody well be sure I’m not going to bear any. But then, you know, your life is useless and meaningless, and you’re full of self-contempt and nihilism, and that’s not good. And so that’s why I think, that’s what I think is going on at a deeper level with regards to men needing this direction. A man has to decide that he’s going to do something. He has to decide that.