Q & A 2017 11 November (Ka1mO2CTCLU)

https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=Ka1mO2CTCLU

Hello everyone. Hello everyone. Way we go. Good to see all of you. So first question. Well I guess I could catch you up on what’s been happening first in case you’re vaguely interested. Most of you probably know or some of you know anyways about what happened at Wilfrid Laurier University this week or two weeks ago. A teaching assistant named Lindsay Shepherd was interrogated I would say by the typical suspects. The kind of postmodern neo-Marxists that I’ve been talking about hauled her into an inquisition and proceeded to rake her over the coals for having the gall to show a video that featured me about a year ago on a Canadian TV show called The Agenda. They accused her of violating the criminal code essentially and the Canadian Human Rights Code under the provisions of Bill C-16 which was the bill I warned about last year. And accused her of transphobia and making an unsafe environment and then they accused me of being Hitler which was really quite interesting because I’ve never been accused about being Hitler. So I modified my Kermit puppet here which you can probably see that I guess. And I’ve done a response video which I’m going to launch pretty soon. So this is Hitler the frog and the spokes frog by the way. And he… well this is what we’ve come to. So alright let’s answer some questions. I’m going to start with Pigeon Hole which is the site that allows people to vote on questions. So the top voted question is how do you identify a rejection of identitarianism when a pillar of the neo-Marxist strategy is to demographically replace the indigenous people of Europe? London is less than half ethnically English. Okay so let’s take that question apart. First of all it isn’t self-evident to me that it is specifically a neo-Marxist strategy to demographically replace the indigenous peoples of Europe. And I don’t think that’s the strategy anyways even if that’s the outcome because you have to distinguish between strategy and outcome. The strategy in principle is to bring in immigrants to balance out the declining birth rate. Now I’m not saying I agree with that. I’m just saying that that’s what the strategy is. And then the next part of the question is predicated on the assumption that identitarianism is necessarily the answer to the problem of… …the problem that’s being identified which is characterized as excess immigration. First of all we’d have to figure out exactly what identitarianism means because it isn’t clear if it means radical right-wing ethnic nationalism. I don’t think that that’s going to be particularly constructive if it means having a sensible discussion about what the appropriate limits might be on immigration. And to think about that over the long run and also to have a serious discussion about the degree to which say Islam and the West, the values of Islam and the West are actually commensurate. If you can answer it then that has to be, obviously has to be done. So I’m afraid that to answer that question I’d have to know more about exactly how these terms were being defined especially with regards to identitarianism. Because it’s a vague word and so that’s all I can do with that. Well, a couple I suppose. One is that when you get nervous in this kind of situation that you’re describing, what often happens to people is they start paying attention to themselves. They get self-conscious. So, you know, let’s say I got self-conscious all of a sudden during this Q&A. What would happen is that I’d stop paying attention to the questions and the screen and what I’m doing and I’d start paying attention to how I was feeling and to the nervousness. And then I’d start to get aware that I was not responding properly and that would make me more nervous and then I would get more aware of that. And that can just shut me down entirely. That’s happened to me now and then in a lecture and sometimes almost happened when I was talking to Sam Harris the first time. I paused for a long time and then became aware of the pause and then anyways, what you have to do in a situation like that is it’s not so much that you have to stop attending to yourself because if you start thinking I should stop attending to myself, then you’ll just think about yourself more. What you have to do instead is pay more attention to the situation and to the people that you’re talking to. So you have to increase the degree to which you’re attending outwardly and that’ll stop you from attending inwardly. That’s a very effective technique. You can practice that generally speaking every time you get nervous start paying more attention and that’ll help you out a lot. That’s a really good suggestion for social anxiety in general is that if you see most people, but not everyone, but most people have enough implicit social skill because they were reasonably socialized when they were children so that they do know how to act in social situations. But they get anxious and then that interferes with them implementing what they know just like if you’re a pianist and you get anxious and self-conscious while you’re playing you’ll forget what you know because while you’ve activated a different part of your brain. If you can remember to pay attention and you can direct your attention outward and you attend hard enough then what will happen and try to put the other person at ease and try to ask them questions then that’ll kick in the automatic. Because you’re paying attention to what the person is doing and to their facial expressions and all of that. That will clue in the automatic and implicit knowledge that you have and make things much more smooth and anxiety free. So attention really plays a huge role in regulating anxiety. I would, Lauren asks, I would love to hear you do a lecture series on raising children properly. Is that something you would consider? Well in my new book I’ve written a chapter on that called Don’t Let Your Children Do Anything That Makes You Dislike Them. And I’ve laid out a bunch of, I’ve laid out a philosophy of care and discipline that’s predicated partly on a French philosophical legal notion which is do not multiply rules beyond necessity. It’s sort of like a legal equivalent to Occam’s razor. And an English common law principle is which is use minimal necessary force. And I think the union of those two which is don’t have too many rules but make sure that you properly enforce the ones that you do have is a good start for how you might consider your attitude with regards to raising children. The other thing you have to figure out is exactly what’s your aim. And you know one of the aims that people have had most recently pushed by clueless psychologists I would say is that you want children to have high self-esteem. And that’s actually a large part trait neuroticism anyways. But, and it can be modified to some degree. Jerome Kagan has done some very interesting work on that. But the best thing to do, I think the best thing to orient yourself towards with regards to children is that you’re trying to make your child, your children or help your children to be delightful in the eyes of others. And so that means they have to be reasonably well socialized and that really takes place between the ages of two and four. Because what you want for your children is that when they go out into public, when they’re away from you or even with you for that matter, what you want for your children is for other people to genuinely like them. Because if they behave reasonably and they attend properly to adults and they know how to play with other children then wherever they go they’re going to be, unless they encounter someone truly malevolent, they’re going to be welcomed with smiles and open arms. And that’s not going to be fake because almost every human being actually likes children if they’re reasonably behaved. And so your job is to make your children highly socially desirable because that opens up the world to them. So there, that’s not a lecture series but it’s a little lecture. Looking at myself honestly, John says, I’m deeply envious and resentful of others happiness. How do I turn this around? Well, John, I would say you’ve started to turn it around already because you have at least come to the conclusion that you’re deeply envious and resentful of others happiness so you have the damn problem diagnosed. So one of the things you might do is figure out what you would like instead. Like how would you like to feel about the world? You know, because you’re implying that being deeply envious and resentful isn’t for the best. So let’s assume that you would rather be pleased about other people’s successes and not envious. Well, you know, the first thing you might think is, well, maybe you have to do some writing or at least some thinking. It’s like maybe the alternative would be to be happy about others success and happiness. Well, maybe you should start by thinking about why you might be happy about their happiness. It’s not like happiness is a zero-sum game. You know, it’s not like it’s not. And believe me, I’m taking your question seriously and I think that what you’re saying characterizes plenty of people. And I think that you’re being deeply honest noticing it. Happiness isn’t a zero-sum game, you know. Lots of people can be happy at the same time. And do you really want to live in a world where other people are less happy? In what possible manner would that be useful and good for you in the medium to long term? It might make you feel, you know, grudgingly satisfied, you know, in a dark way temporarily. But it’s not a very good long-term strategy. So I would say you got to think it through. You know, how is it that you would like to view the world? How do you think that would be best for you? I mean, as if you were taking care of yourself, like you’re someone who deserves to be taken care of. Think about how you’d like to have the world, how you’d like to view the world. And one of the ways you can do that too is to think about some people that you admire and try to figure out how they look at the world or even ask them, you know. Because maybe then you can find out what it is about your thought patterns that are driving you down this sort of dark road. So… Why are you now… Francois St. Onge asks, Why are you now hiding the amount you receive from Patreon? I found it very motivating to see the amount skyrocket and felt glad to be part of this as if you were an artist. I now feel more like I’m buying a product and I find it less appealing. Yeah, well, it’s one of those things where I’m kind of damned if I do and damned if I don’t, you know. And I don’t know what’s correct. I guess I probably got tired of the sort of more left-leaning, let’s say radical left-leaning press people jumping up and down on me every chance they got because people were donating money for services that I particularly rent, you know, that I render essentially for free. You know, there must have been ten articles in the last week following the Lindsay Shepherd incident pointing out that I’m somehow being manipulative and evil in a capitalist sort of way for daring to allow people to donate money to help support what I’m doing. And it gets kind of tiring. And so, I don’t know, I just… and I guess I also thought that maybe there’s a part of it that’s like… Well, I wouldn’t exactly call it bragging, but… because it’s not. But… That’s about good enough. I mean, it was an appeal to privacy, I suppose, in part two. I don’t know if it’s the right thing. I could do a poll on Twitter and find out, I guess. I did that for some other things this week. So, anyways, that’s the answer to that. User NOK says, I love you, man. Keep it up. Well, that’s a pretty good question. And I’m trying to keep it up. I’m actually feeling quite a bit better. I was actually happy today. And it’s been so rare for the last while that I could hardly even recognize what it felt like. But I’m definitely feeling better. I’m getting some energy in the morning. So, I’m really happy about that. So, thanks anyways. I appreciate it. Thoughts on the radical left and their superficial view, belief and value on the environment. How is this influenced by their own raw emotions? Inviting questionable, immoral and dangerous actions despite good intentions. Well, I don’t really buy the whole good intentions thing. I mean, I think that it’s really hard to have good intentions. Like John, the question I just answered. You know, John said, looking at myself, honestly, I’m deeply envious and resentful of others’ happiness. Well, if you listen to the Lindsay Shepherd recording at Wilfrid Laurier University, and you listen to the professors and the administrators, I think that it’s absurd to start with the presupposition that they have good intentions. I don’t think they have good intentions at all. But, you know, we could give the devil its due and say that there are people on the left end of the spectrum, like there are on all parts of the spectrum who are trying to do good things. But having good intentions and figuring out how to do well in the world are good intentions are only the beginning. And people are always influenced by raw emotions and fuzzy thinking. And it’s hard to think critically and it’s hard to plan strategically. And it’s hard to intervene in the world in a way that doesn’t cause trouble, which is partly why I recommend to people that they start local, you know. You can’t even trust your own good intentions to some degree because you have to test out what you do when you have good intentions and see if it actually produces the result that’s intended. But I wouldn’t make the case to begin with that, especially on the radical end of the left. I think it’s unbelievably motivated by resentment. So, how does one save a marriage when it seems that there is no longer attraction, both physically and intellectually? There are kids involved, which is the main reason for wanting to save the marriage. Huh. Well, alright. I know a couple of things about that. I mean, the first thing I would say is that if you haven’t had any intimate interaction with one another for quite some time, that can put both people into a stagnant state where desire starts to slip away. What sex therapists recommend under such conditions is to, well, essentially start in some way start dating again. So you could ask your partner to go out to a movie or something like that. And, you know, maybe when you come home, you could, you know, go out and have a drink. You could neck for a little while like teenagers. That’s probably a word that no one uses anymore. But kind of pull back and you’ve got to agree, say, not to engage in full sexual activity for a while, but to tease each other and to play a bit. Even if you’re not attracted, you have to act it out for a while and hopefully you can get the motor running again. The other thing I would say is that you guys might want to sit down and make a joint plan. It’s like what because a marriage is like a story that two people are acting out simultaneously and you have to have shared goals. And because you’re both rowing the same boat, let’s say, and if you don’t have a destination in mind, then, well, Maybe you’re rowing in circles or maybe you’re just standing still. So I would say work hard to put some romance back in the relationship. You know, you could say to each other, look, let’s try this for six months and just see how it goes. We’ll have two dates a week for the first month. We won’t have any sex, but we’ll play around. And then, you know, we’ll see how that goes. But we’ll try it out for the whole for the whole six months. There are reasons to save a marriage. I mean, it’s hard on kids. Divorce is really hard on kids and it’s hard on the adults involved, too. So I would say you have to negotiate an agreement and you know, you could try the future authoring program, both of you. What I would recommend is that you have to have a good relationship with your partner. What I would recommend, for example, is that you each do the future authoring program separately. So that’s at SelfAuthoring.com because then you both have a life plan. And then you could sit down and read each other’s future authoring plans and see if you have some things in common. And then see if you can figure out how to support each other with regards to each of you obtaining what you want. So Paul Maloney asks, you edited out a disagreement with Camille Paglia. What was it? No, no, that’s not the case. There was a piece edited out, but it wasn’t because there was a disagreement. It was because there was some glitch in the video or something like that. Generally speaking, and you know, I can’t say this with absolute certainty, but I do. And so does my crew do everything we possibly can to leave the videos alone, except for getting rid of things that would be of no interest to anyone that are mistakes. So there was no disagreement. Are you interested in coming to Australia? Yes, I’ve been invited a couple of times, but it hasn’t worked out yet. But my book will be published in Australia, I think sometime in January as well. And I imagine that I’ll be coming there at some point in order to talk about my book and so on. Trey says, how can a person go through the future authoring process of imagining a future for yourself as though you are someone you care about when you barely don’t care about yourself or even hate yourself? Yeah, well, I would say that go through the exercise anyways and act as like try to extend to yourself some courtesy. You know, sometimes you have to act something out before you can start to believe it. And so I would say sit down and pretend that you’re your friend. You know, Trey, the probability that there’s something so wrong with you that you don’t deserve any regard whatsoever is zero. You know, so and I would say if you just can’t get it together, you know, maybe you’re depressed and maybe you need to go talk to someone because you don’t have to be depressed. You talk to a physician, you know, there are treatments for depression if you happen to be depressed. If you actually hate yourself, then it’s a possibility that that’s what’s going on. I don’t know how old you are, but you know, there are effective treatments for that sort of thing. You might want to find out if there’s actually something wrong physically or or psychophysiologically, you know, because you don’t have to trudge through life absolutely miserable. Antidepressants, for example, work really well for some people, not for everyone, but for some people. So, OK. Were the Nazis left wing? That’s a good question. It depends. See, the problem with any question that says is a B is a equivalent to B is that it depends on how you define A and B. Right. And I’m not trying to weasel out of the question. I’m very, very serious about that. The Nazis regarded themselves as national socialists, you know, so they they they weren’t free market capitalists, let’s say. So they certainly weren’t right wingers in the way that free market capitalists are right wingers, even though they’re probably more centrist. They differed from the international socialists, which were the Marxists, because they were much more concerned with national identity and racial identity. And to the degree that you regard nationalism and racial identity as primarily right wing views than the Nazis would have been right wing. So let’s say that they maybe they pulled from the worst of both extremes, something like that. But I do think it’s reasonable to note that their extreme nationalism and ethnocentrism and racial identity probably has more in common with the radical right than it does with the radical left, which tends to be utopian universal. So one of the things I thought would be an interesting research project would be to take like a hundred Nazi policies and to turn them into a questionnaire and ask people either how much they agree with them after I figured out whether they were left or right wing to begin with, or whether they thought the policies were representative of the left or the right. Because that could be studied empirically and I don’t think anyone’s done it, but that would be a very interesting research project. Islefer Helgeson probably massacred that name, says who has a higher IQ, a really gifted mathematician or a really gifted painter. Very difficult to say. But I would say that gifted math, because if they’re both gifted, they both have high IQs, you can be certain of that. It’s very difficult to do anything that’s truly gifted, say above the average, above the norm, without being, without having a very high IQ in a creative realm. I mean you hear about these idiot savants who have like one area of extreme expertise, but generally in those cases it’s not so much that they have one area of extreme expertise, it’s that they have one area of above average expertise that really contrasts with the rest of their impairments. But they rarely, if ever, make it into the very short list of true geniuses. Mathematicians are kind of an odd bunch though, because they peak really, really early. Like if you’re going to be a mathematician and truly gifted, then you’re going to show signs of that when you’re like 17 to 20, something like that. Whereas painters can be creative through their entire lifespan. I would say probably on average, I would guess, this is a guess, that if you took 100 really gifted mathematicians and 100 really gifted painters, that the mathematicians would have far higher non-verbal IQs, but the painters might have higher verbal IQs. So that also complicates things. With IQ also, you know, there’s this factor called the G-factor, which is the central element of intelligence, and it seems to be associated with such things as head size and brain size relative to body and neural conduction speed and simple reaction time, like really basic physiological markers. And it’s a pretty tight single factor, say, as opposed to the personality domain, where there’s five quite clear factors. But I think it was Earl Hunt’s research indicated that as people get smarter and smarter, the variability between the subsets of their intelligence starts to increase. So it’s sort of like there’s a lot of ways to be really smart, but there’s only one way to be not very smart. So that’s another little tidbit of information with regards to IQ. So… Hello, doctor. I am a 23 year old male with paranoid schizophrenia. However, I feel like controlling 95% of it. Okay, so let’s say I think you mean that you’re controlling 95% of it. I desire to seek a partner, but I am afraid how to reveal it. Any advice on how to approach it? Oh, God, Stephen, that’s a really hard question. Well, look, you’re not under any obligation when you first meet someone to drown them in information about your identity. So I would say… The devil’s in the details, fundamentally. If you have a relationship with someone and it’s progressing, and you’re being honest, my suspicions are that it will come up with its own accord. You know, that you’ll be able to tell in the situation when the right way to introduce it is. You know, if you’re asking me this because you’ve been in a relationship for a long time and you haven’t revealed it, then I don’t know what to tell you about that. Because I wouldn’t give someone general advice about that. You know, if… Sorry. If I was speaking to a client and I had some real detailed information about their current situation, I would sit down and help them strategize about that. Ask about the person you’re telling, figure out how long you’ve gone out with them, figure out a way that it might be revealed that you would be comfortable with. I suspect probably what you should do is find someone you trust to talk about it, if you’re already in a relationship. And if you’re not, then assume that if going into the relationship your basic goal is honesty, that you’ll handle it appropriately when the situation comes up. So… How would you address accusations that you are creating another ideological group identity which is equal in its capacity for destruction to postmodern neo-Marxism? Well, I would address it the way I’ve been addressing it for the whole last year. Which is that I’m not trying to produce a group identity of any sort. I’m trying to get people to act locally in the confines of their own environment and to sort things out that are under their direct control. So it’s an elaboration of one of the ideas, I suppose, that’s in the New Testament. Which is that you should take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the dust speck in your neighbor’s eye. Which I think is a really good general maxim. And so there’s nothing about that that’s associated with group identity. Now, people have tried to, what would you call it, attribute to me some identity with the right or the alt-right or even the far-right more recently. Even Hitler, which is what came up at Wilfrid Laurier. But I think the reason for that is twofold. One is, look, imagine that there’s a radical left. That’s not very difficult to imagine. And then imagine that everyone to the right of the radical left are all in opposition to the radical left. So then you have a group, and the group is all those in opposition to the radical left. And that will include people on the radical right. And so then when you look at that entire group, so let’s say a thousand people or fifteen hundred people come and hear a talk that I give on free speech. That happened on November 11th. First of all, if there’s fifteen hundred people in a room, like fifteen of them are going to be completely out of their mind. Probably more like thirty, but at least fifteen. And that’s just base rate. And so to demonstrate that the group was somehow pathological, you’d have to show that the base rate of pathology was higher in the group than it would be in a randomly selected group. And I’ve seen no evidence of that. But also, even if there are a number of people, say, on the far right in that group, that doesn’t indicate at all that that’s characteristic of the group. But it’s very hard to distinguish that, because what tends to happen is that a group is defined by the most egregious behaviour of its most extreme members. So anyways, the other way I’d address the accusation is that, and I have done this as well, and I think it’s what really protected me this whole year, is that I have all these YouTube videos online, you know, six hundred hours of them, and the message is pretty stable. The newer manifestation is, you know, a fairly focused critique of the university, which I think is entirely justified. But everything around that is focused on the individual, and the role of the individual, and the responsibility of the individual. And so, I don’t believe that that is an ideological group identity. So, that’s how I would address it. So… Alright, let’s see what else we’ve got here. What is the evolutionary reason for having consciousness? I think that was Toby who asked that. God only knows. That’s been a problem that people have been hammering on for a long time. I mean, that’s the so-called zombie problem that David Chalmers has described, which is something like, how do you know that other people aren’t exactly like you, except acting in a completely determined manner and devoid of consciousnesses? I don’t know what the evolutionary reason is for consciousness. I mean, I can speculate. What consciousness seems to be, at least in part, is a mechanism of repair. So, a lot of the things that you do are unconscious, you know, like when you’re driving, if you’re an expert driver. You’re using your eyes to watch the road, and your eyes are moving your hands and your arms. But, you’re not really thinking about what you’re doing. You’re not attending to it consciously, because you’ve built circuitry already, specialized circuitry that handles all those tasks. Now, what happens when you’re driving, let’s say that you make a mistake. Well, then what happens is you consciously attend to the mistake, and you attempt to revise the part of the automatic structure that produced the error. So, imagine this. Imagine you’re playing the piano, and you’re playing a very complicated sequence. And you stumble over part of it. So, you’re zooming along, and you stumble over part of it. And then you attend to that, and you go back, and you slow down, and you move your fingers slowly, and you try to reprogram those little automatic units that have handled that part of it. You repair them and reprogram them, and you get faster and faster at it as they automatize, and then you go. So, consciousness seems to be something that watches what you do automatically, checks for errors, and then repairs it. And so, that’s its function. Now, you might ask why a repair mechanism like that would have to be associated with awareness. And the answer to that is, not only do I not know, I don’t think anyone knows. If I was speculating, which I’ve done, I think consciousness actually plays an integral role in being itself, because I’m not convinced that there would be any being of any recognizable sort without a conscious observer. So, I think consciousness is actually like a center point of the cosmos in some sense. And I think it’s because of ideas like that, that the grand archetypal idea of the soul has emerged. And I think it’s correct. But how to precisely integrate that with evolutionary theory, apart from the description that I already provided, I just don’t know. So, let’s see, what else have we got here? Would you consider a more official consultancy role with Andrew Scheer’s Conservative Party? It’s very difficult to say what I would consider. It isn’t obvious to me that Andrew Scheer would particularly like to have me as an official consultant. I’m kind of what might you describe, controversial. Yes, that’s the word right now. And so, you know, it’s funny though, because I was making this new video today, which I alluded to earlier using good old, what’s this character here? Hitler, the Hitler, the spokesfrog. And I went back and looked at my comments on Bill C-16 last year, which were the comments that originally got me in hot water and had me accused of all the things I’ve been accused of. Transphobia, bigotry, racism. What else? Oh, fascism being on the far right. And then finally, and to top it all off, Hitler himself. And one of the things that I realized was that I was really calm during that video. You couldn’t have really, I couldn’t have offered a more mild mannered criticism of Bill C-16. And it’s pretty funny because, you know, this scandal that engulfed Wilfrid Laurier this week is the worst scandal that I remember involving university in my memory going back to the 1970s. And what happened at Laurier was exactly what I predicted would happen, except it was actually worse because they did accuse Lindsay of breaking the law, Bill C-16 specifically, and of contravening the Ontario Human Rights Code, which I, you know, for all I know, she might have done. So we’re at this situation where a TA showing a video of someone discussing pronouns in Canada can now be termed a hate crime and illegal provincially and federally. Like all the usual suspects have come out of their caves, let’s say, like Brenda Cosman, the lawyer I debated last year, and said, well, it’s a real stretch to assume that what Lindsay Sheppard did was, you know, sufficiently reprehensible to actually constitute a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Commission guidelines, policies. It’s a stretch, so I guess we’re supposed to feel good about that. But I’m probably a little bit too hot right now to serve in any official consultant role. That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t be happy to speak to, you know, political figures who might be interested in speaking with me because, you know, I generally speak to people who ask me to speak to them. So as reprehensible as that might be. Recently moved up and was promoted and not liking it because I have to adjust massively. Is there a difference between liking your job and the lack of discipline to perform a change? Are they connected? Yeah, well, they’re definitely connected. It’s a tough one. The first thing I would say is that if it was a real radical change, you know, it takes people, unless they’re very young, it takes people about a year to adjust to a really radical change, like to move to a new city, to adjust to being married, that can take longer than a year, to adjust to having a new baby, to getting over a relatively serious loss like a death in the family, a year, you know. And so the first thing you might ask yourself is, are there things that are good about the promotion? The second is, do you have the capacity to do the job or to learn how to do it? You could talk to someone about that. And then the third thing is, have you given yourself enough time to adjust? Because one of the things I often recommend to people when they’ve made a radical change, like going, leaving home and going to university, is don’t pay any attention to how you feel for a year, because everything is so much up in the air that you can’t really trust your own judgment. So you have to give yourself time to adapt and you can’t expect that that’s going to happen overnight. It’s certainly not. And to put that expectation on yourself increases the probability that you’re going to feel bad about it. So let’s see. Atomic Carlos says, my IQ is north of 130, yet I question my own intelligence all the time. I feel a big cognitive dissonance between what people expect of me and what I consider myself capable to do. Well, you know, Carlos, what I would recommend there is that if you haven’t done it, just go do the personality test at understandmyself.com, because what you’re describing sounds very much like high levels of negative emotionality or neuroticism. And you might want to find out if that’s the case, because if you’re much higher than average in neuroticism, then you’re going to be questioning yourself all the time. And you might want to figure out if that’s actually a trait. And if it is a trait, well, then that gives you an explanation of it. And then you might also note that your levels of negative emotion are not well matched to your likely skill. Now, that doesn’t necessarily help you learn to cope with it, but sometimes identifying the reason is useful. And there’s another possibility, too, is that your mood is dysregulated and that you’re depressed. So that’s another thing to consider. If you do find that you have high levels of neuroticism, but you’re not depressed, then one of the things you might do is write down all the reasons, like really think them out. You know, I mean, really get serious about this. Write down all the reasons why you might give yourself more credit for intelligence than you have. And part of that could be like a really deep reconsideration of successes you’ve had in the past with complex intellectual issues. Because imagine that you’re serving as your own defense attorney against a very critical part of your mind. That can help a lot. That can help. Marlene Hibb says, My little girl loves you. Well, that’s that’s good, I guess. You can say hi to her for me. I hope that she has a great little life. So give her a pat on the head and tell her that cognizant of the modern art scene. So it isn’t easy to figure out how to answer that question. So I haven’t been thinking also about art for quite a long time because I’ve been so engaged in all this political and philosophical material. So but music as far as music goes, I really like the last recordings of Johnny Cash. Who else springs to mind? I like a very large variety of and a lot of different genres of music as well. So I have to leave it at that, I think. Richard Boyle says, Hi, Dr. Peterson, how does this score of 91 for compassion and one for politeness equals a score of 35 for agreeable intelligence? Yeah, well, it’s because 91 and one aren’t ordinary numbers. They’re percentiles. And you can’t just average percentiles. It doesn’t work that way. What it says is that. Let’s see, I don’t know if I can generate a description on the fly because I’m not I wouldn’t say I’m particularly mathematically gifted, although I know that the answer I just gave you is correct. Let’s see, there’s a one in there’s a one in 10 chance that a person would be that compassionate and a one in 100 percent chance that a person would be that that that no, I can’t generate it on the fly. But that’s the answer. So if you want to point to the proper literature, you’d look up how to transform percentiles into zero percentiles. How to transform percentiles into Z scores. They’re called Z scores. Then you can if you oh, that’s how it works. You convert the percentiles into Z scores. You sum the Z scores and then you reconvert them into percentiles. And so if you take the Z score for not for compassion 91 and the Z score for politeness one, add them, divide them in two and reconvert them to a percentile, you’ll get 35. I know it’s weird, but that’s that’s how it that’s how it is. That’s how it’s done. So let’s see. The opioid crisis, this is army hatto or hate. Oh, the opioid crisis in my community in the Midwest of America greatly bothers me. I have been thinking about becoming a police officer. The culture hasn’t been very favorable towards cops lately. Maybe maybe majoring in law and grad school instead. Advice, please. Thanks. Well, if you’re if you’re going to be a police officer, you should be very emotionally stable. So low in neuroticism and very high in conscientiousness. If you’re going to be a lawyer, you better be very bright first. You need to be extremely bright verbally in particular. You need to be extremely conscientious. You need to be emotionally stable and you need to be fairly disagreeable. That’s that’s what characterizes lawyers. If you’re high in openness and creativity, let’s say I would say neither cop nor law is a good occupation for you. So I wouldn’t worry about the culture not being too favorable towards cops. That’s I don’t think it’s really any worse than it was. It’s probably not as bad as it was in the 60s. And I don’t think that it’ll necessarily continue. I don’t think you should let that stop you because you know, the police have their own brotherhood and you’d find your community within that. I would say you should think more about what you want than how other people view the occupation. I know that’s relevant, but you should think about what you want and think of see if you can figure out if the life of a policeman would actually interest you or the life of a lawyer. Lots of people go into law and don’t like it. You have to be argumentative. You have to really be literate because there’s so much reading and writing. You have to be able to write. You have to be able to lay out clear arguments. You have to be really orderly and detail oriented because there’s so many things to keep track of. So you got to make sure you got the right temperament for that so you could try the big five personality scale. Understand myself. Like I said, the good lawyers are high in conscientiousness, low in neuroticism, pretty disagreeable. And then extroversion helps to some degree because it makes you better in the court and it also makes you better at generating sales leads which you know growing your business which is super important if you’re a lawyer. Like lots of people are competent lawyers, but only a small set of competent lawyers are also good at generating new business and that makes you extremely valuable. So if you’ve got a salesman aspect to you as well as those other traits which makes you a pretty rare person then you know you could be a bang up lawyer. So Link with a lightsaber says, hey man as a Canadian I just wanted to say thanks. Canada is short on heroes these days and I’m glad to see you fill that role. Thanks again bud. Hey well thanks a lot. Man I don’t really think of myself as a hero. I think of myself as someone who’s on a relatively small raft perched on a relatively large wave paddling like a mad dog and trying not to be submerged. So and so far, well I haven’t drowned yet. So you know hooray for that. So hey guys I’m going to read you a little bit of my book if you don’t mind somewhere near the end of this. It’s let’s see I’ll probably go for about two hours. So we got about another hour. So I figured I’d read something to you for about 15 minutes. If you’re interested in that why don’t you just say so in the comments section that would be good. Then I could see what people think of that idea. Let’s see here. Sorry it’s taken me just a little while to. Good. Someone says well I’ll go for that. Let’s see. Hi Jordan. What are feelings and why do we have them? Well here’s a way of thinking about it. So look let’s say you’re walking down a pathway. I actually saw this happen one day so I’ll tell you the story. So I was walking along the cliffs near I think it was San Diego or LA. I don’t remember. I think it was San Diego. Anyways I was walking along there with some friends and a brother of a friend of mine who was quite a tall guy. He’s about six foot five something like that. And he was walking along the path on the edge of the cliff kind of sandy and with scrub pine around overlooking the Pacific Ocean. And it was March I think so it was warm but not too warm. We were walking along and all of a sudden his little girl who I think was like four or five. She was walking in front of him and in front of me and I guess we were going around a little bit of a corner and all of a sudden she jumped right up on his shoulders. Which I’d never seen a child do that. It was like watching you know if a cat’s asleep and you go pfft at it it’ll like jump up and puff out its hair and can jump straight up. Well that’s what this kid did. And there was a rattlesnake at the side of the path. Now it was cold which was probably good. But you know there’s a guy named uh oh I can’t read he wrote a great book on fear. It’ll come to me it’ll come to me. It’s a book that I should have on my book list actually. And he showed that there are circuits in your brain. They’re reflex circuits so this has been demonstrated to some degree much earlier that map. So imagine that a snake is a pattern and then imagine that there’s a pattern on your retina that constitutes the snake and then imagine that that can be transformed into another pattern which is a muscular output pattern. And that muscular output pattern is to jump you in the air. So your eyes make your your make your muscles move in a particular way. And that happens before you see the snake and before you’re afraid. And the reason for that is that so it’s there are not many neural connections between snake detection and leaping in the air. And that’s because if you waited to feel fear and waited to see the snake that would take between a quarter and half a second something like that. And the snake would have already bitten you. So unless you had those really short neural pathways that have been conserved in the evolutionary process since like the beginning of time. Anything super fast and simple would be able to kill you. So now so let’s say that you do encounter something unexpected. Well first you have these bodily reflexes that are really fast and then the next thing that happens generally speaking is that you feel an emotion like maybe you’re frozen. So if you hear a real growl behind you you’ll freeze and then you’ll feel fear and that’ll keep you frozen. And so the fear is an indication of that physiological state and then only after that will you start to think and strategize. And so you need reactions at multiple levels of temporal resolution in order to keep you safe in the world. And the fast reactions are muscular and reflexive. And then the next ones generally speaking are something like emotions. And they’re low resolution but quick. You know like if you’re afraid it means there’s something that may be dangerous. It’s vague. It’s not till you explore it that you know exactly what the danger is but the fear is a good enough initial category. So you can think about feelings as instinctual categories. Things to love, things to eat, things to run away from, things to run towards. They’re low resolution categories and that’s how animals categorize the world. They use emotion and motivation to categorize the world. So we have them to keep ourselves properly oriented in the world and to react quickly and so that we can stay alive. So okay let’s see here. What else have we got? Recently I took a job working at a camp with at-risk boys. While there I will live and work as a counselor in a house with the kids. Any advice for working with young people with behavioral issues? Yeah, it depends on what the behavioral issues are. So I don’t know what at-risk means. So I can’t be too specific. But what I can tell you is that almost nothing beats listening. You know like take a kid for a walk. Let him talk. Like listen to him. Ask him questions. You know because most disturbed people and maybe even most people don’t actually have anyone they can talk to. And they need to talk first of all to find out that someone actually cares enough to listen. So it’s sort of like a validation of the fact that they exist. And second so that they can sort out their own thoughts. So as a beginning counselor the best thing you can do is listen. You don’t want to give advice really you know because what you want you can ask questions that might lead someone in an advisable direction. But the problem with giving advice is that people are much more likely to remember something and to implement it if they’ve thought it up in their own words. I think that actually produces a kind of neurological transformation. The idea has to be engendered from within. It’s one of the prime dicta of psychoanalytic theory for example. And I think it’s a really good one. So yeah and with regards to Brendan Tristil says trippy snakes and retinas. Yeah like it’s really specific. So this woman named, no I probably can’t remember her name either. She wrote a book about trees and serpents. She’s a UCLA professor. The fruit, the tree and the serpent I think it’s called. She showed quite clearly that not only do our retinas say directly detect snakes but they do a better job in the bottom half of the retina. And that we’re really good at detecting the camouflage patterns that are characteristic of snakes. Because snakes have these like diamond patterns which are very very rare. And we have specialized circuitry for detecting those. And there was recent research conducted that showed that children six months old who had never been exposed to anything even resembling a snake had an automatic response to snakes. And so it actually seems to be innate not just easily learned. So that’s really quite interesting. So. Okay let’s go back to the pigeonhole thing here. How do you clean your room when your spouse doesn’t share that goal? Huh. Well that’s another one of those questions that’s really hard to answer because I don’t have the details you know. How do you clean your room? What goals does your spouse have? That’s the first thing. I mean is there some commonality? I mean it might be. Maybe your spouse is much more disorderly than you or less conscientious or irritated at you for all sorts of reasons. You know the first thing you could do is try to lead by example and see how that works. But you may have to argue and fight it out. You know break it down into sub tasks and see if you can distribute the tasks and negotiate. You have to negotiate. And without further information I can’t say much more than that. You know you can say why you’re doing it, what you think the goal was and that you’d like some help and maybe there’s something you could offer in return. If you can’t negotiate it all with your spouse then you have a much broader problem than how do you clean your room when your spouse doesn’t share that goal. Because the real problem would be how do you learn to negotiate with your spouse? I could talk about that a little bit. I mean the first thing that you have to do if you want to negotiate with someone is be able to say no. The second thing is to have something to offer. The third thing is to find out what they want and to know what you want. You know because often people, especially with people that love them, they say well if you really knew, if you really loved me then you’d know what I want. It’s like no that’s just wrong. The person that you are in love with or that living with isn’t any smarter than you. And so you pretty much always have to tell people straight out what you want. And then you have to let them be really stupid about giving it to you for quite a while. You know so sometimes I’ve recommended to my clients that they take their wife or husband out on a date and of course they’re all skeptical about that and cynical about it. And then they go on a date and they have a terrible time and they come back and say oh I told you that was a stupid idea. And I tell them that’s it then eh, you’re not going to do anything romantic with your spouse for the next 40 years. That’s your plan. That’s the plan. It’s like you might have to go out to a movie after you haven’t been good to each other for like five years. You might have to go out to a movie ten times, movie and dinner say, before it starts to become fun again. It’s like it’s hard to do that sort of thing right. You know people think those things are easy and they’re not. So anyways you have to you have to learn to negotiate with your spouse. And that’s a very difficult thing to do. So figuring out what you want is a good way to start. So okay. What advice would you give the parent of an only child? Well make sure that the child, your child has lots of time for free play with other kids. And by free play I mean play with no electronic gadgets not sitting in front of the TV. The kids have to be able to learn how to amuse themselves and to especially to engage in pretend play say if they’re between three and probably 11 damn near. That time with other kids is extremely important and kids don’t get enough time for free play. So that’s what I would say is get them around other kids as much as you can and not under situations where the parents are going to just sit them in front of the TV or something like that. To amuse them so they don’t make too much noise. It’s not like there’s anything wrong with seeing them and letting them watch a movie. But there’s nothing wrong with the movie. But there is something wrong with not giving the kids enough time to engage in spontaneous play. It’s a catastrophe. So how’s the grandpaing going? I think it’s going pretty well. It’s quite a lot of fun to have a little baby around again. I mean I think like most men I’m somewhat nonplussed let’s say by infants. It’s easier for me to deal with kids after they’re about once they get mobile. Once I can sort of throw them around a bit more then I know what to do with them once I can play with them. But it’s really fun to watch my daughter be a mother. She’s really good at it. And it’s good to have another young thing in the family. And you know because babies are very they’re kind of like fire. You can’t help but watch them. And it’s great. It’s great. And she seems healthy. And you know she’s cute as can be. Of course babies are sneaky that way. But it’s working. So yeah I think it’s really going well. So I constantly cannot verbalize my thoughts written and vocal regardless of topic and my level of knowledge. Tips for verbalizing thoughts to get them into writing. Well what I would say Lauren is do this. Read something. Put it aside. Try to summarize it in writing. And talk while you’re doing it. And then write down what you say. And don’t edit while you’re doing that. See one of the problems that people have when they’re trying to write is they try to write a good sentence. They not only try to write a sentence but they try to write a good sentence. And you can’t do that. You have to write a sentence. That’s hard enough. And then you have to edit it. So allow yourself to write badly. I’m dead serious about this. Like write a bad bad bad first draft. And then edit it. If you get rid of 70 percent of it so what? That’s exactly what should happen. So like if you want to write a thousand word essay you should start by writing a really bad two thousand word essay. And then you should get rid of the worst 50 percent. You can do that iteratively. I have a document online. If you go to my website under courses there’s psychology 430 is the course. I should make this more public. But under psychology 430 there’s a template for writing. And if you went and looked at that template it tells you it answers your question. I produced this little guidebook for writing that will help. And if you write enough you’ll learn to speak. The other thing I would say too is that it might be anxiety that’s doing. You might think about joining a club like Toastmasters or maybe if you’re a university student of public speaking. Something where you get in front of people and then when you’re in front of people don’t talk to the group. Talk to the individuals within the group and let yourself be bad at it. You’ll get better as you practice. It defeats your account. I caused as much trouble as I possibly could. And I don’t think they will. I do have it. I do have most of my videos on Vimeo. I think I haven’t had. I did try to do that. I set up an automated service to duplicate them. I’ve never checked to see if it worked which is probably stupid. I’m so overwhelmed with this surreal position that I found myself in that I haven’t been able to be sufficiently diligent. So how to be less afraid of death. I have a better suggestion. You should be more afraid of not living properly. I don’t know if you can be less afraid of death exactly. But I think that here’s a hypothesis and this is a Socratic hypothesis. I write about this in my book too by the way. Maybe if you live your life thoroughly, thoroughly, right? You take use of the advantages, make use of the advantages that are put in front of you, make use of your talents, say yes to things, tell the truth. Stand up and get at it. Assuming that you can do that. Because some people are very ill and hurt. But assuming you can do that. I think the only way to combat fear of death is to live fully. And I think that that might actually work. I kind of wonder. I talked about this with my father too who’s getting pretty old. I’ve asked him if, for example, if he could be transformed back into an 18 year old knowing what he knows now, would he do it? And he was ambivalent about that. He didn’t say no, but he didn’t say yes. And we talked about this idea that if you lived your life fully, maybe that would be good enough. Because I loved having kids, but I don’t feel that I would have kids again. Because in some sense I’ve already done that. And so maybe there’s a set number of adventures that you have to go on in your life. Let’s say you have to be married, you have to have kids, you have to have a career, you have to have friends. You have to have something useful to do with your time outside of work. Those are all things that are covered in the Future Authoring Program, by the way. Maybe if you do all those, it’s like that’s good enough. You’ve had your life and that’s enough. I mean, I don’t know. Ten years ago I thought, you know, if I could extend my life radically, then I would. And I’m not so sure about that now that I’m 55, you know, I’m getting older. I kind of have a suspicion that you might come to an end, you know. That’s what it looks like. I mean, I don’t want that to be soon, but maybe you exhaust yourself in your life. You know, maybe you can so that there’s nothing left of you, really. It’s a good goal anyways. So, okay, let’s find out. Let’s go back to this other. Dr. Peterson, I have an interview for medicine coming up very soon. It’s structured in the MMI format and it’s intensely competitive. Any tips on how to stand out from the rest? Well, the only thing I could say is that two things. One is really pay attention to the interviewers, right? Super attention. Like, don’t glare at them like you’re aggressively paranoid, but like make sure you’re focused on them. And then the other thing I would say is say what you really think. Like, tell the truth. It’ll make you… First of all, if you tell the truth and it doesn’t work, then you know, you’re going to be a failure. If you tell the truth and it doesn’t work, then you know, maybe that’s not the school for you. That’s something to really think about. And if it doesn’t work anywhere and you tell the truth, maybe medicine isn’t for you. And I know that might be a terrible shock. But let’s assume that you are genuinely, properly motivated to study medicine. Then tell them what you think. You know, so many people when they go into an interview, try and they do this when they write essays too, is try to tell the interviewers what you think they want to hear. But you can bloody well be sure that virtually everybody who’s being interviewed is going to do that. And I don’t think that’s very advisable because if you don’t manifest yourself the way you are, then there’s no way that the path that’s proper for you can reveal itself. I know that sounds sort of mystical, but I don’t know how to put it any better. The best way to stand out in an interview, always assuming you’re competent and that you’ve done the preparation, you know, and that you’re not living a lie, is to actually say what you think. And hopefully what will happen is that there will be other people on the panel that are looking at you who are of the same type. And that would characterize a good position for you, a good place to be if there are people like that. And they’ll note what you’re doing and then they’ll think, you know, that person, you know, they’d be good. They’d be good. They’re straightforward. They’re honest. They’re tough. They can say what they think. And if there aren’t people like that on the panel, then I would say you probably don’t want to go there anyways. So that’s what I would do. Be true to yourself, you know, but that also assumes that you’ve done your homework and that you’re prepared in all of that. Because if you’re a useless jackass and you’re yourself, well, obviously that isn’t going to work. So good luck. Good luck with your interview. But I always think that like the other thing, too, is don’t treat the interviewers as enemies. You know, if that’s hard, because if you’re kind of petrified about the potential outcome and you feel intense judgment, then you’re likely to go in there kind of afraid and nervous and and and maybe even resentful. It’s like you’ve already done enough so that you’re going to get interviewed. So in some sense, the interviewers are hoping that you’ll be great already. You know, there might be the odd cynic in there who’s trying to figure out a reason to give you an X and check you off the list. But most of the people sitting there, if they have a clue, are going to be looking for good candidates. And they’re going to assume that you’re you’ve hit threshold. And so it’s not like they’re not on your side. And so that’s a good thing to keep in mind, too. You’re not going in there to to face a panel of enemies. You’re going in there to face a panel of the sort of people that you’re likely to be in 10 years. So that’s another thing that’s really useful to keep in mind with interviews in general, I would say. So. OK, many of my friends sing the wonders of diversity. I try to tell them diversity isn’t a moral good, but I end up looking like some terrible racist. Why isn’t diversity a moral good? Well, diversity is a moral good, but you can’t. Diversity by race doesn’t produce diversity. That’s that’s called racism, that idea, or diversity of gender doesn’t produce diversity unless that’s how you define diversity. Look, let’s say that you get diversity partly as a consequence of personality, which is a good way of looking at it. There is more diversity within groups of people than between. So like men and women differ to some degree in their personalities. But there’s far more difference between men within the male group and women within the male group than there is between the average or typical male and female. So it’s a stupid way. Let’s assume that what you want. The organization is pursuing a complex goal and you want a variety of skills that would be suited to that goal. Then you want there to be enough diversity of ability within the group so that the goal can be achieved in a efficient and and and inexpensive manner. Right. Because what do you want? Unefficient and expensive? Obviously not. So there’s a presumption that you get diversity by using identity politics categories, but there’s absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever. So that’s why diversity defined by race or ethnicity or gender is not only not a moral good, it’s actually a moral evil. Because it dispenses with the whole idea of the individual dispenses with the idea of competence. It just replaces it with the assumption that if you randomly select from the population, because that’s how you would get real equity, you randomly select from the population, that that gives you the best qualified group of people. Well, that’s just that’s you wouldn’t do that to select the plumber. It’s it’s the stupidest possible way of selecting for anything randomly. You know, there’s no difference between selecting randomly and selecting accidentally. So it’s moral diversity defined properly is a moral good. Diversity based on identity politics categories is a positive evil. You know, true to our our prime minister is a great example of that. So back, I think it was in 2015, he announced that half of his cabinet was going to be women because it was 2015 or some like muddle headed virtue signalling excuse for not thinking. I think only 20 percent or 25 percent of the elected MPs were female. So the proper balance on average would it be 25 percent female, 75 percent male? What he should have done was figured out who what qualities would make for a competent cabinet minister because it’s actually quite important to have competent cabinet ministers and then selected from among his people for nothing other than competence. But he could virtue signal and then he set up the most important board, let’s say, of the entire country on a quasi random basis. Jesus, how pathetic. He should have been pilloried by Canadians for that. But we’re so clued out. And also in the situation that you described, it’s like if I say, well, 50 percent of Trudeau’s cabinet shouldn’t have been women. It’s like, oh, you’re a misogynist. It’s like, no, only 25 percent of the elected officials were women. Now, you might say, well, it would be better if 50 percent of them were elected. It’s like, maybe it would be better, but it didn’t happen. So you can’t you can’t fix it at the top end. It was appalling. So it’s a hard argument to make, you know, because you need to know that there’s more difference within groups than between them in order to be able to come up with a credible argument, you know. And then so, yeah. Yeah. How does one distinguish a statement coming from oneself rather than from ideology? Hey, I got a good hint about that. If you’re saying something that almost anyone else could say, then it’s likely to be either cliched or ideological. Where is if you’re speaking from yourself, then in some sense, you’re the only person who could be saying that. And so what that means in some sense is that you’ve taken ideas, philosophical, even ideological, and you’ve made them personal so that you’re speaking from a position that only you can speak from. And then then you have something original to offer in Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. He talked about the radical communists who were thrown into the Gulag and they used to play comrade with them. It was a game. And what they would do is bait them into making continual propagandistic communist statements. It was an attempt to try to educate them out of their possession. But it’s a good see if you can predict what someone is going to say on the basis of their set of beliefs, then they’re not speaking. The ideology is speaking. And if the ideology is speaking, you don’t even have to listen to them. You could just read about the ideology and make up your own mind. Now, so that’s that’s sort of the what would you call it? That’s the objective view of this. The subjective view is that statements come from yourself that come from yourself. I think, first of all, frighten you to some degree because you actually open yourself up to the world by saying something genuine. But they also make you stronger. They make you feel stronger. But because I think you’re confronting your vulnerability properly, you know, because if I tell you something that I really don’t believe and you criticize, it’s like, who cares? Because I don’t really believe it anyways. So maybe I have an ideology that’s like a mask or a persona, which is generally the case. Persona is a Jungian concept that means mask. And it’s often the thing that people confuse with their real identity. Well, if I have a persona and someone criticizes it, it’s like, well, you haven’t got to the real me. But if I say something that I really believe, deeply believe, and then it gets criticized, like I’ve really put myself on the line. And so people don’t do that. It’s kind of frightening, but it’s still the way to genuine strength because you need and also not just strength, but also value. You need to manifest yourself in the world because you’re a unique thing. And people might need what’s unique about you. Everybody else might really need that. I believe that, you know, because each person has something that’s unique to them to bring into being. And if they hide that, they hide their light under a bushel that everyone is poor for it. And you do that in part, as Solzhenitsyn says, by turning in your turning over your God given soul to human dogma. It’s a very bad idea. Very bad idea. So, OK, let’s see what else we’ve got here. What time is it? 221. Someone said, Daddy, read for us. Yeah, no problem, man. I’m going to do it. David Maxwell. I scored the 0th percentile for conscientiousness and the 84th for neuroticism. How do I improve these scores? Well, OK, so the first thing, David, you might want to think about is like if all of your scores were low, then there’s some possibility that you’re being too hard on yourself. And what I would recommend then is get a couple of friends to fill out the questionnaire for you to describe you. And then see if, first of all, if there’s any agreement, see if they are easier on you than you are yourself. So, but let’s assume that you are rather low in conscientiousness. The next question would be, well, how young are you? Because younger people tend to be lower in conscientiousness. So if you’re like 16, well, that’s low, but it’s not catastrophic. If you’re like 40 and you’re not depressed, then 0th is, you know, that’s low. Anyways, if you are that low in conscientiousness, one of the things I would recommend is A, make a plan and B, learn how to use a schedule, a calendar and do it badly to begin with, like electronic calendar, like Google Calendar. That’s the best thing I know of to improve conscientiousness. Make a plan so that you’ve got something to aim at and use a scheduler. And maybe you have to, you know, talk to someone to help keep you on track. Now, the other question would be, do you have other personality traits that are really high, like openness? Because if you’re really high in openness, then it might be that you’re more inclined towards being motivated by spontaneous interest and in the artistic direction. And if you’re really high in extroversion, then you’re going to be motivated by being around people. You know, so it also may be that in order to be conscientious about something, you have to pick a domain that you’re suited to, like socializing or artistic endeavor, and try to work on being conscientious in those domains. So that’s it. So. So. Help. Well, look, you’re confident about some things. You said you were very creative. So you’re confident enough to say that. And, you know, you. I don’t see the problem with questions like this. By the way, is that you’re linking your lack of confidence and courage to the absence of your father and his narcissism and also associating it with your mother being a people pleaser. So and, you know, there may be something to that. It could be, James, that you could stand to talk to somebody, you know, for a while on a regular basis and see if they can help you sort this out. You obviously seem to think that this is a problem with you moving forward in your life. If you don’t want to talk to someone about it, then I would say the other thing you need a plan. I know I always refer to that, but it’s the case. You need a plan. And then you need to break the plan down into this into small steps that are somewhat challenging that you have a high probability of nonetheless obtaining. And then I would say by observing yourself move forward properly that your confidence will increase. You’re only 21, you know, so you’re not that old. But that’s the best I can do without having more information about the specifics of your situation. Can’t increase your IQ in any significant way. Eat healthy, do the right thing, best potential. Well, one of the things you can do, if not to increase it, is at least to maintain it. Is that because your IQ tends to decline as you age, it’s quite depressing if you read the relevant literature. Your crystallized IQ, which is an indication of your accumulated knowledge, doesn’t decline. And sometimes it even increases, you know, unless you get dementia or something like that. But your fluid IQ, which is more like the programmer of the brain, declines a lot. The best way to deal with that is to exercise. Both aerobic and weightlifting can really stave off cognitive decline. And that’s because your brain is a very, it’s very demanding. It has a very demanding set of cardiovascular requirements. And so if your cardiovascular system is in good shape, then your brain is healthier. And since at least in principle, your IQ depends on your brain, then having a healthy brain is really a good idea. So. Jerry Newton says, I often don’t do very well, don’t very well and doubt my ability to stand up for myself in discussions and aggressive situations. How do I know when I’ve incorporated my shadow? I guess I would say, Jerry, that practice makes perfect. You know, one thing you could do is start keeping track of situations like that, you know, where you walk away thinking that you should have said something. So then I would say write down the situation and then think through and write down what you think you should have done. And then because that’s going to help you be sharper on the draw and more ready. And then so so write down the situation, write down what you think you should have done, then sit and imagine the situation as vividly as you can. Right. Get the pictures in your head and imagine yourself doing that. And try to get the psychophysiological responses up as well so that you make it as realistic as possible. And that will actually help you practice. So Edna Foa, who’s a very good clinical psychologist, has demonstrated quite clearly that when treating post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, if you get people to sit and imagine being back in the stressful situation, they have to do that voluntarily. And after at least 18 months after the trauma, she did psychophysiological recording of heart rate and skin conductance and that kind of thing. She showed that the people who showed the highest levels of stress reactivity to the reimagining were the ones who got better, fastest and stayed better, longest. So you have a situation that you know you haven’t mastered. Define the situation repeatedly. Define your proper action repeatedly. Practice implementing that in your imagination and then start to do that in your real life. And that’ll… see, if you write down what you should have said, you’ll find out what you really want and what you really think. And that’ll be your shadow talking. That’s the best way to think about it. Is that the part of your brain that wishes it would have done something different is the shadow associated with the aggression whose integration would strengthen your character. That’s a very good way of thinking about it. So… Matt says… oh, this is N.O.K. Oh, Matt says, I need to ask you something. Can you please release your new book as an audiobook as well in your own voice? Yes, I’m doing that. I’m starting to record it on Monday. I’m kind of surprised that people want me to record it in my own voice, which is kind of scratchy at the moment. But I’m looking forward to it. I’ve been practicing reading it with my wife. Puts her to sleep at night. Hopefully that’s not because of the book. She does get quite tired at night. So… let’s see here. Would you ever consider having a dialogue with a legitimate Muslim scholar? Yes, absolutely. And I know a number of them and I’m hoping that I’ll get to that. It’s a big thing to take on, you know, and I’m trying to deal with this biblical lecture series and with, well, all the other things that I’m involved in, including starting to lay the groundwork for this online university, which is… And I’ve started looking for an office where a team could work on that. We’ve sketched out some of the ideas. We’re going to use competitive writing exercises to help teach people to write, which I think would really be fun. So one idea is… so imagine… and remember this is just the outline of idea. Imagine we present you with a paragraph that someone else wrote and then you have the opportunity to do a better job of writing it. And then people get the opportunity to vote on whose is better. You can see that the paragraphs could compete and that you could get academic points based on the quality of your writing. Anyways, that’s all to say, especially also with this book coming out, is that I’m going to be very occupied. And I want to start a dialogue with legitimate Muslim scholars because I would also like to learn more about Islam. So hopefully that’ll happen in the relatively near future. Jake says, I’ve been incredibly inspired by you. Love what you do and would like to enlighten people in a similar manner. Be careful what you wish for. Is it appropriate to aim to have as much as an impact as you or more so? I think the idea is formulated wrong in some sense. I think. I mean, it’s good to have people that you admire, let’s say, who can serve as models. And I’m not claiming that I’m necessarily in that category, but it’s good to have people like that. But what you want to figure out to do is how to manifest the ideal within the confines of your own life. Because you’re a particular sort of person. And so the way that you’re going to live your life best, it’s very unlikely that it would be associated in any important way with the way that I’ve chosen to live my life. Unless we have very similar temperaments, which is possible, but relatively unlikely. Because the odds against that are extraordinarily high. The odds of any two people having the same temperament are very high. So what you can do is aim to orient yourself towards a high good that you can conceive of, to discipline yourself, to tell the truth and all of that. And then what I would say is that as your life unfolds, you’ll have the amount of influence that you should have, whatever that happens to be. You know, some people live pretty local lives. Like my life, for example, is much more public than my wife’s life. But that doesn’t mean that her contribution is somehow lesser. I mean, she’s been unbelievably good with her kids. My daughter was very ill and my wife was extraordinarily good with her and was a great mother. And it’s been a tremendous help to me as a very honest person and a wise person. And you know, that all has an impact. It’s just not as obvious because, well, the kids really love her and now she’s got grandkids. And God only knows what the consequence of that is going to be across successive generations. And, you know, she isn’t interested in a public life. Journalists have asked to interview her, like quite recently, about what the last year has been like. And her preference is to not do that. And that’s fine. Like she has her own destiny and her own way of being in the world. And there’s nothing to say that it’s lesser in any sense of the word at all. So should artists waste their time in art school? No, you shouldn’t waste your time ever. I think your question is, is it necessarily a waste of time to go to art school? And I would say it depends very much on the art school and on what you do while you’re there. If you go to art school and you really work at it, like mad, and you devote yourself to it, and you’re in the library and you’re studying the great masters and you’re crafting your technique and you’re at a school where that’s actually possible, then you can educate yourself. And going to art school can give you an identity that allows you to investigate that possibility free from undue social pressure for some period of time, which is really the case with an arts degree or something like that as well. So if you can take advantage of it, if you’re disciplined enough, and if you can find a school that isn’t completely appallingly postmodern and social justice oriented instead of oriented towards art, then I don’t think it has to be a waste of time. But I think there’s a high probability that it will. So… Serious respectful question. Why did you have a problem with Lindsay Shepard being criticized for being non-critical, but you criticized Faith Goldie for being non-critical? Well, the fundamental issue… I really listened carefully to Faith’s interview, the interview that was conducted, I think, with the Daily Stormer. I really listened to it, and I sat down and listened to it with my son, whose judgment I respect a lot. And the thing that differentiates the two is that Faith is a journalist. And my sense was that in the situation that she found herself, it was incumbent on her as a journalist to ask at least one or two probing questions, given the nature of the people, the known nature, and the fact that she knew the nature of the people that she was talking to. And I don’t feel that she did it. And, you know, I was obviously not alone in my assessment of that, so her employer, who was very favorably predisposed towards her, also let her go as a consequence of that. And so I know that… and I’ve been accused of being hypocritical as a consequence, and I should also say that the decision to restructure the panel wasn’t mine alone. It was actually… well, it was divided up amongst the panel members, essentially. But that’s what we decided. That’s what we decided. And, you know, Faith herself had offered to bow out of the panel because she knew that her presence would be controversial in a way that might not be productive. So, whereas Lindsay was just a student, you know, and she was doing what she was supposed to do. Now, I’m not trying to denigrate Faith as a journalist in some general sense, but, you know, Charlottesville was very touchy, and it required an unbelievably deft hand to go into that sort of rat’s nest and come out unscathed. And, you know, maybe we should thank kudos to her for having the courage to even attempt it, but there’s a difference between… it’s not that easy to distinguish between brave and foolhardy, and you know what they say… well… Anyways, like I said, we thought about it a lot, I listened to it a lot, we made the decision we made. I’m not trying to say that, you know, it was right in some omniscient sense, but I don’t think that the situation that Lindsay Shepherd found herself in is sufficiently comparable to that of Faith to make the question… to make the comparison fundamentally valid. So, Ethan Bianchi says, I’m a liberal. Hi, hey, Ethan. You know, I’ve considered myself a liberal for a very long time. So, welcome. Do you think I publicly disassociate yourself enough with my Neo-Nazi followers that use your work as justification for violence and propaganda? Well, you know, what kind of question is that? First of all, you’re making the unwarranted assumption that I definitely have Neo-Nazi followers, followers, you know, and that they use my work as a justification, and that they’re engaged in violence and propaganda. It’s like, how about a specific example? Or how about 10 specific examples? You know, I already pointed out that… imagine that… So 30 million people have watched my videos, so let’s… and 500,000 of them are YouTube subscribers. So let’s say I have 500,000 followers, just for the sake of argument. Okay, like, a thousand of them are going to be completely out of their minds, because that’s one in 500. So what does that prove? You know, you’d have to demonstrate that there’s a higher rate than average of pathology among the people who claim in some manner to be my followers. You know, you have to do that, because, as I said, everyone who’s to the right of the radical left is a group, and in that group, there’s going to be people on the far right. That doesn’t mean everyone in the group of non-radical leftists is a radical right-winger. Obviously! So, anyways, you know, I don’t… I think that that’s a loaded question. I think it’s loaded in a bunch of ways. Do you think you publicly dissociate yourself enough? Well, that’s a loaded question, because the implication is that I don’t publicly dissociate myself enough. Then the next implication is that I have more neo-Nazi followers than a random person with 500,000 followers would have. And then the next, like, loaded bit is that they use my work as justification. I’d like to see that happen, because I can’t see how it can possibly be used as justification, and that they use it as a justification for both propaganda and violence. It’s like, really? Come on. That… you know, maybe it’s possible, and if this is the case, I apologize. It’s possible that you wrote that question because you’re favorably disposed towards me, and, you know, wanted to give me an opportunity to address that question. And, you know, I can’t tell, but it is definitely the kind of question that the sort of journalists who’ve been coming after me have been, you know, it’s like, have you stopped beating your wife yet? It’s like, how are you going to answer a question like that? You lose either way. So… okay. Well, I think what I’m going to do, I’m starting to run out of energy here. So I’m going to read some of this. Okay, alright, what the hell. Address the Jewish question. That’s a hell of a thing to ask. So that’s Jack Linter, you know? I mean, really, that’s a hell of a thing to ask. But I will say something about it, you know? And I’ve thought about this a lot. So there is evidence that Ashkenazi Jews, so those are Jews of European heritage, have IQs that are about 15 points higher than the population average. So that’s a lot, 15 points. It’s about the average difference between the typical high school student and the typical state college student. It’s a lot. And one of the things that means is, so imagine there’s two distributions and that they overlap. And that the Jewish one is, the mean is 115, so the whole distribution is shifted to the right. What that means is that if you go up into the higher IQ strata, 130, 145, way the hell up there, that Jewish people are overwhelmingly overrepresented at the high end of the IQ distribution. Now the price they pay for that is some increased propensity for neurological diseases that seems to be associated in some sense with that heightened IQ. Now, you know, the science on this isn’t settled, but it’s reasonably solid, you know, given the standards of such things. Okay, so Jews are going to be overrepresented at the high end of cognitively complex disciplines. So then I would say, and that’s the case, like they’re way overrepresented among outstanding scientists and among Nobel Prize winners and so forth. And so, you know, people look and they think, well, why are there a disproportionate number of Jewish people in positions of authority? And they say, well, it must be a conspiracy. You know, it must be systemic in some sense. It’s like, no, it can be simply accounted for by that relatively large IQ differential. Now, the next criticism would be, well, don’t the Jews tend to lean left? Well, first you might say, well, you know, given what happened in Nazi Germany, to the degree that that was right-wing, as we discussed earlier, that’s the nationalism and ethnocentrism. It’s hardly surprising that they might, you know, in this historical period of time tend to move towards the left. But more importantly than that, IQ is associated with trade openness. And trade openness is a strong predictor of political liberalism. And it’s the strongest predictor of political liberalism. So, you know, it’s very difficult. So that’s what I have to say about that. It’s like, and the other thing I would say is, you know, the fact that there’s a population, a subpopulation of people who are much smarter than average, not on average, right? On average, you’ve got to get that straight. On average, it’s actually of great benefit to the rest of us, because what do you want? Fewer geniuses? Fewer people with IQs of 145 or 160? And it’s no conspiracy that puts people who are smarter higher up in competence hierarchies, because IQ is the best predictor of movement up in a complex competence hierarchy. So there, I’ve addressed the Jewish question. It’s like it’s a confusion between ethnicity and IQ, as far as I’m concerned. So I’ll probably get like painted six different shades of black for that answer. But it’s, I’ve thought about it a long time. It’s the best that I can manage. So, okay, I’m going to read this. Oh, one more. Huckleberry says, Yes, the way that you wrote that indicates very clearly that you should do the past authoring first, because you already know that you have unpleasant incidences, incidents in your past that are impairing your function. So, all right, so I’m going to read, I’m going to read this. Hopefully you can see that there’s an illustration there. I’m going to hold it up so that I can see it. There’s a lag, so I don’t know if it’s in focus. So give me about 10 seconds. Okay, so this is chapter four, rule four. So the book has 12 rules in it. The book is called 12 Rules for Life. And it’s published by Penguin Random House, and it’ll be out January 23rd. And so this is a book, this is chapter, rule six. There’s 12 rules, hence the title, and they’re taken from a subset of 42 rules that I wrote for a Quora article called What are the most important things that everyone should know? Something like that, a very popular Quora article. Now, the illustration was done by Ethan Van Schuyver, who’s a comic book artist and a good one. So you can look up his work if you want. It’s V-A-N-S-C-I-V-E-R, Ethan. This chapter is about the motivation behind the actions of people like the Columbine killers. And the illustration is of a very, very criminally oriented individual called, named Karl Panzram. You could look him up, P-A-N-Z-R-A-M, who was a very resentful, vicious, violent, destructive, and intelligent person, because those things can all go together. So, rule six is called Set Your House in Perfect Order Before You Criticize the World. And the chapters all have little sub-chapters, so the title of this sub-chapter is A Religious Problem. It does not seem reasonable to describe the young man who shot 20 children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, in 2012, as a religious person. This is equally true for the Colorado Theatre gunmen and the Columbine High School killers. But these murderous individuals had a problem with reality that existed at a religious depth. As one of the members of the Columbine duo wrote, People who view, people who think such things view being itself as iniquitable and harsh to the point of corruption, and human being in particular, as contemptible. They appoint themselves supreme adjudicators of reality and find it wanting. They are the ultimate critics. The deeply cynical writer continues, If you recall your history, the Nazis came up with a quote, final solution, end quote, to the Jewish problem. Kill them all! Well, in case you haven’t figured it out, I say, kill mankind. No one should survive. For such individuals, the world of experience is insufficient and evil. So to hell with everything. What is happening when someone comes to think in this manner? A great German play, Faust, a tragedy written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe addresses that issue. The play’s main character, a scholar named Heinrich Faust, trades his immortal soul to the devil, Mephistopheles. In return, he receives whatever he desires while still alive on Earth. In Goethe’s play, Mephistopheles is the eternal adversary of being. He has a central defining credo. I am the spirit who negates, and rightly so, for all that comes to be deserves to perish wretchedly. It were better nothing would begin. Thus, everything that you term sin, destruction, and evil represent. That’s my proper element. Goethe considered this hateful sentiment so important, so key to the central element of vengeful human destructiveness, that he had Mephistopheles repeated a second time, phrased somewhat differently, in part two of the play, written many years later. People think often in the Mephistophelian manner, although they seldom act upon their thoughts as brutally as the mass murderers of school, college, and theatre. Whenever we experience injustice, real or imagined, whenever we encounter tragedy or fall prey to the machinations of others, whenever we experience the horror and pain of our own apparently arbitrary limitations, the temptation to question being and then to curse it rises foully from the darkness. Why must innocent people suffer so terribly? What kind of bloody horrible place is this, anyways? Life is in truth very hard. Everyone is destined for pain and slated for destruction. Sometimes suffering is clearly the result of personal faults such as willful blindness, poor decision making, or malevolence. In such cases, when it appears to be self-inflicted, it may even seem just. People get what they deserve, you might contend. That’s cold comfort, however, even when true. Sometimes, if those who are suffering changed their behaviour, then their lives would unfold less tragically. But human control is limited. Susceptibility to despair, disease, aging, and death is universal. In the final analysis, we do not appear to be the architects of our own fragility. Whose fault is it, then? People who are very ill or worse, who have a sick child, will inevitably find themselves asking this question, whether they are religious believers or not. The same is true of someone who finds his shirt sleeve caught in the gears of a giant bureaucracy, who is suffering through a tax audit or fighting an interminable lawsuit or divorce. And it’s not only the obviously suffering who are tormented by the need to blame someone or something for the intolerable state of their being. At the very height of his fame, influence, and creative power, for example, the towering Leo Tolstoy began to question the value of human existence. He reasoned in this way. According to rational knowledge, it followed that life is evil. People know it. They do not have to live. Yet they have lived and they do live, just as I myself have lived, even though I had known for a long time that life is meaningless and evil. Try as he might, Tolstoy could only identify four means of escaping from such thoughts. One was retreating into childlike ignorance of the problem. Another was pursuing mindless pleasure. The third was continuing to drag out a life that is evil and meaningless, knowing beforehand that nothing can come of it. He identified that particular form of escape with weakness. The people in this category know that death is better than life, but they do not have the strength to act rationally and quickly put an end to the delusion by killing themselves. Only the fourth and final mode of escape involved, open quote, strength and energy. It consists of destroying life. Once one has realized that life is evil and meaningless, close quote, Tolstoy relentlessly followed his thoughts. Only unusually strong and logically consistent people act in this manner. Having realized all the stupidity of the joke that is being played on us and seeing that the blessings of the dead are greater than those of the living and that it is better not to exist. They act and put an end to this stupid joke. They use any means of doing it. A rope around the neck, water, a knife in the heart, a train. Tolstoy wasn’t pessimistic enough. The stupidity of the joke being played on us does not merely motivate suicide. It motivates murder, mass murder, often followed by suicide. That’s a far more effective existential protest. By June of 2016, unbelievable as it may seem, there had been 1,000 mass killings defined as four or more people shot in a single incident, excluding the shooter, in the US in 1,260 days. That’s one such event on five of every six days for more than three years. Everyone says, we don’t understand. How can we still pretend that? Tolstoy understood more than a century ago. The ancient authors of the biblical story of Cain and Abel understood as well more than 20 centuries ago. They describe murder as the first act of post-Edenic history. And not just murder, but fratricidal murder. And murder not only of someone innocent, but of someone ideal and good. And murder done consciously despite the creator of the universe. Today’s killers tell us the same thing in their own words. Who would dare say that this is not the worm at the core of the apple? But we will not listen, because the truth cuts too close to the bone. Even for a mind as profound as that of the celebrated Russian author, there was no way out. How can the rest of us manage when a man of Tolstoy’s stature admits defeat? For years he hid his guns from himself and would not walk with a rope in his hand in case he hanged himself. How can a person who is awake avoid outrage at the world? The next sub-chapter is called Vengeance or Transformation. Well, the rest of the chapter attempts to answer the questions that I posed in that beginning. And hopefully I’ve managed it at least in some small way. Anyways, that’s a bit from one chapter of this book, 12 Rules for Life, an Antidote to Chaos. It comes out January 23rd. It’s available for pre-order for those of you who might be interested on Amazon.com and Amazon.ca. And it’s quite heavily discounted at the moment. I think it’s 50% off on the Canadian site and 35% off on the American site. Maybe I’ll put a link in the description. I hope that the book is helpful. I put a lot of work into it and I think it’s advanced my thinking quite a bit. And I think it’s readable. A lot of people have looked at it now and I’ve had good editors and so on. And I think that I tried to make it as accessible as possible. I mean it deals with ideas that are pretty sophisticated. But I’m hoping I got the balance between complexity and sophistication and ease of access right. I certainly hope so. And I hope it’s kind of poetic, you know, because I tried to make each sentence scan properly and have a rhythm and all of that. Anyways, my wife has made Thanksgiving. It’s not Canadian Thanksgiving. It’s American Thanksgiving. But we celebrate both of them because my son is American and we lived in the States for quite a few years. So I’m going to go and see my grandkid and my son and my daughter and all the other people that are around me. Thank God. And thanks for listening, guys, and for being interested in. I hope you get your acts together and fix up the world. Till next time. Bye bye.