Secret Science Of Wealth Consciousness Part 1(please Understand) by Nithyananda Paramahamsa Swamiji



Views:95|Rating:5.00|View Time:7:Minutes|Likes:3|Dislikes:0
Please Understand you don’t manifest your desires, you manifest your beliefs , by Swamiji Paramahamsa Nithyananda , Music by Outkast video produced by Profits and No Loss

Secrets Of Wealth Consciousness part 2 (No cunning Strategy) by Nithyananda Paramahamsa Swamiji

Secret Of Wealth Conciousness part 3 (Don’t be a fool) by Nithyananda Paramahamsa Swamiji

Luxembourg देश के बारे में जानिये – The Richest Country in the world – The Green heart of Europe



Views:162245|Rating:4.87|View Time:21:29Minutes|Likes:5561|Dislikes:149
#Pendrive_Courses for Various Govt. Exams. Click here to know more – or #Call_9580048004

Download All Videos PDFs – || Join #StudyIQ on Telegram –

Download UPSCIQ Magazine –

UPSC/CSE 2019 –

SSC & Bank –

UPSC Optionals –

State PSCs –

Defence Exams –

SSC JE Exams –

RBI Grade B –

NABARD Grade A –

DMRC Exams –

Insurance Exams –

CLAT 2019 –

Railway Jobs –

Teaching Jobs –

UPSC Prelim 2019Test Series –

Free PDFs – || Free Quiz – || Free Video Courses –
Follow us on Facebook –
Telegram –

The Hindu Editorial Analysis –
Current Affairs by Dr Gaurav Garg –
UPSC/IAS Burning Issues analysis-
World History for UPSC –
Indian History –

Follow us on Facebook –
Follow Dr Gaurav Garg on Facebook –

UPSC/IAS past papers questions –
SSC CGL + IBPS Quantitative tricks –
English Vocabulary –
Reasoning tricks for Bank PO + SSC CGL-
Error spotting / Sentence correction
Static GK complete-
Complete GK + Current Affairs for all exams-
World History – UPSC / IAS –
Learn English for SSC CGL, Bank PO
Science and Technology for UPSC/IAS –
Philosophy for UPSC/IAS –
Yojana Magazine analysis –
History for SSC CGL + Railways NTPC –

Why Planes Don't Fly Faster



Views:4384450|Rating:4.83|View Time:11:33Minutes|Likes:83297|Dislikes:2923
Get a free 30 day free trial and a free audiobook from Audible here:

Support Wendover Productions on Patreon:

Get a Wendover Productions t-shirt for $20:

Youtube:
Twitter:
Email: [email protected]
Reddit:

Select visuals courtesy

Sound by Graham Haerther
(

1970s first class image courtesy British Airways and used under fair use guidelines
Concorde interior photo courtesy ravas51
British Airways First Class Photo courtesy TravelingOtter
British Airways Business Class Photo courtesy Peter McCarthy and Tony Kent

“Prelude No. 7” and “Prelude No. 14” by Chris Zabriskie

Big thanks to Patreon supporters: Rob Harvey, Venkata Kaushik Nunna, Josh Berger, Paul Jihoon Choi, Huang MingLei, Dylan Benson, Maximillian van Kasbergen, Victor Zimmer, William Chappell, Eyal Matsliah, Sihien,Joseph Bull, Marcelo Alves Vieira, Jonah Paarman, maco2035, Hank Green, Plinio Correa, Connor J Smith, Brady Bellini

这是来自Wendover 出版商的视频,由Audible制作 最近我闲来无事,查看旧航班时刻表。 航空公司常常发行这些印有票价和飞行时间的时刻表小册子 当我看到美航1967年发行的时刻表时,
发现了一个很有意思的事 从时刻表上看,从纽约飞往洛杉矶的飞行时间是5小时43分钟 但可能并不是这样 美航3号航班,从中午12点从纽约肯尼迪机场起飞 并在下午2:43抵达洛杉矶。
其中存在3小时的时差 时至今日,
美航3号航班仍然在中午从纽约肯尼迪机场起飞 但不同的是,抵达洛杉矶的时间却是下午3:27 比1967年的时候还多了44分钟 其实,这是个全球性的普遍现象。
几乎所有的航班都比60年代时 的飞行时间要长一些。 通常来说,真正意义上的飞行时间,
也就是飞机真正在空中飞行的耗时是相同的。 但是现在,在机场和地面的拥挤和延误也已经算在飞行时间里面,才造成飞行时间的延长。 就算是这样,不管怎么说,
我们乘坐的飞机确实飞的更慢了。 在1967年,人类还没登月,
而且那时候的电脑看起来还像这样子占满整个房间。 但是那时我们无论飞往哪里都和现在一样快,
甚至比现在还要快。 在过去的50年为什么飞行速度都没提高,
反而变得更慢了呢? 先来看看三种常用的飞机发动机:
涡轮螺旋桨发动机(涡桨发动机),涡轮风扇发动机(涡扇发动机)和涡轮喷气发动机(涡喷发动机)。 每一种发动机都有一个最经济的飞行时速范围 你可以在大多数有螺旋桨的飞机上见到这种涡桨发动机 对于这种发动机来说,几乎所有的推力都来源于螺旋桨 用于驱动螺旋桨的涡轮虽然能够吸入并加速一部分空气的流动, 但是发动机排出的空气流速并不是很快,
所以发动机排气只能贡献不到10%的推力 就涡桨发动机而言,由于它的购买和运营成本很低,
所以很多短途支线通勤飞机 都使用涡桨发动机作为动力 当然,使用这种发动机的飞机都不能飞得很快。 涡桨发动机的最经济的飞行速度是
介于每小时325英里到每小时375英里之间。 如果需要飞得更快,那最好就用涡扇发动机 如今你到处都可以看到涡扇发动机 大多数商业飞机都是用涡扇发动机驱动的。 涡轮风扇,顾名思义,空气首先需要流过一个风扇 就像你在发动机前面看到的那样 然后,一部分空气会流进内部燃烧室 推动涡轮做功,用于驱动风扇。
还有一部分空气会从涡轮外围通过。 从涡轮外围通过的那一部分空气实际上是从外侧涵道通过的。
这一部分的空气也被加速了 而且涡扇发动机主要推力
就是从内涵道喷出的气流提供的 现代飞机飞行时速大多在每小时400-620英里之间,
这也是涡扇发动机最经济的时速 如果你想超音速飞行,也就是说飞行时速超过每小时767英里,那就需要涡轮喷气发动机(涡喷发动机)了。 涡喷发动机和涡扇发动机很像。不同点在于所有的空气都会流经涡轮。 没有外涵道 这样可以使飞机达到非常快的速度,
但代价是需要消耗大量的燃料 涡喷发动机在时速介于每小时1300-1400英里
才是经济时速 真正决定飞机发动机效率的,是一个数值,叫做“涵道比” 这是外涵道空气流量
和发动机核心机(内涵道)空气流量的比值 这是外涵道空气流量
和发动机核心机(内涵道)空气流量的比值 事情是这样的。实际上驱动大一点的风扇并不需要消耗太多的能源。 但如果需要更多的空气进入发动机内涵道
则需要增加非常多的燃油供应 也就是说,在消耗相同的能量下,如果能够让更多的空气流经外涵道,就可以获得更大的推力 所以,这像一条定律一样,即涵道比越大,发动机效率越高 看看这个通用电气GEnx发动机 这是一款用于波音787梦幻客机和波音747-8i洲际客机上的新型超高效率发动机。 你可以看到,风扇的尺寸比涡轮大得多 这是因为这款发动机拥有10:1的涵道比。
意味着流经涡轮周围(外涵道)的空气流量 是流进涡轮(内涵道)的10倍 相比较而言,CFM国际公司生产的,相对老旧的CFM56发动机的效率就低一些 你可以看到风扇的尺寸和涡轮比起来,差距没那么大了 因为这款发动机的涵道比只有5.9:1
但仍然属于大涵道比 如果和普惠公司的JT8D型发动机比起来
差距就会更明显 因为JT8D发动机的涵道比只有0.96:1
所以它的效率更加低下 但仍然比劳斯莱斯公司的奥林巴斯593发动机的效率
高得多 因为593发动机是涡喷发动机 我之前说过,就涡喷发动机而言,所有的空气必须经过涡轮 没有外涵道 所以,涡喷发动机的涵道比是0:1
也被称为“无外涵道发动机” 由于100%的空气会经过发动机内部并通过涡轮,这就导致 需要消耗更多燃料。燃料消耗比先前介绍的GEnx, CFM56, 甚至JT8D发动机都要高 协和式客机使用无涵道劳斯莱斯 奥林巴斯593发动机。
协和式飞机每飞行1英里(1.61公里) 就会烧掉21.25公斤的燃油。对比之下,
波音787梦幻客机使用涵道比为10:1的GEnx发动机 每飞行1英里(1.61公里)只烧掉8.5公斤的燃油。
但是,即使和波音787这样的中型飞机比起来,协和式飞机 也只能算是个小飞机 协和式飞机只能乘坐100人,
但787梦幻客机可以乘坐291人 这就可以算一下每个人消耗的燃油量
乘坐协和式飞机,每人每飞行100公里消耗17升的燃油 而乘坐波音787梦幻飞机,
每人每飞行100公里只消耗2.3升燃油 到头来,法航和英航
这仅有的两家运营协和式飞机的航空公司 也无力承担协和式飞机的飞行了 因为只有不到1/3的乘客
是真正买了机票搭乘协和式飞机的 剩下的乘客是使用累积旅程兑换
或者是从其他航班头等舱转过来的乘客 毕竟,搭乘协和式飞机至少花费相当于今天的7500美元才能买下一张从伦敦飞往纽约的单程票 飞行时间只有3小时。但是座位却是这样的 和当今飞机的经济舱的座位几乎没有区别 当协和式飞机刚问市的时候,
其他飞机的头等舱是这样的 虽然看起来很漂亮,
但是这只是加宽的经济舱座椅而已 在这样的座椅上睡觉确实比较困难 但是,当2003年协和式飞机退出运营时,
头等舱座椅却变成这样, 而且可以像一张床一样展开放平 所以很多人宁可选择在这样的座椅上度过7个小时,
而不是挤在协和式飞机那样狭小的座椅上 度过3个小时 在2000年,英航甚至在商务舱
也引入了这种能够完全平躺的座椅 但票价却比协和式飞机低得多。
在飞越大西洋上空时,旅客能够平躺着睡觉 所以乘坐协和式飞机已经不再是什么豪华享受了。 设计协和式飞机的初衷是为商务人士
提供一个高效的跨越大西洋的方式 但是,如果座椅能够完全平躺,那些飞往欧洲的乘客 就可以在晚上离开美国,在飞机上睡一觉,
醒来就到欧洲了 实际上并没有浪费时间 既不豪华又不高效,协和式飞机在2003年10月24日完成了最后一次商业飞行 并宣告了超音速商业飞行时代的结束 还有一点,航空公司真的不太在乎飞行速度 飞行速度只是吸引顾客的卖点而已 飞机本身的成本相对于总飞行成本来说
也只是一小部分。 所以航空公司并不会采用提高速度的办法
来增加飞机的使用次数 通常来说飞机的寿命和起降周期有关
就是说和飞机起飞和降落的次数有关 就波音787梦幻飞机可以承受44000次起降。
波音787的建议售价通常比实际销售价钱 高很多,每架飞机达到了2亿2460万美元 这就意味着每次起降就要花费超过5000美元。 再加上燃油费,从纽约到伦敦,燃油费也超过15000美元 因此,航空公司就让飞机尽可能在燃油最高效的速度飞行 这个速度几乎总是位于每小时500-550英里这一区间内 这样的后果就是飞行速度远低于音速–每小时767英里 为什么飞机不能贴近音速飞行呢? 这张图表显示飞机在不同速度下所受到的阻力 在0.8~1.2马赫之间属于“跨音速”范围
(1马赫相当于1倍音速) 在这个范围内,飞机周围的气流不完全是亚音速或超音速的。 本质上说,有些气流的流速已经超过音速,
但是也有一些气流仍然没达到音速 所以从0.8马赫的速度开始,部分气流已经超过音速,
这样会急剧增加阻力 并且降低飞机的操纵稳定性。
所以,以接近音速的速度飞行是非常危险的 你需要以远高出音速或远低于音速的速度飞行才安全 当飞机在跨音速飞行的时候, 你可以看到这样的现象 看这些条纹特别像照相机镜头上的划痕。
尽管这很难看到. 这些条纹实际上是微型的超音速激波 因为要破除气流相当大的阻力,所以在以0.8到1.2马赫的速度飞行时 实际上要比以1.2马赫以上的速度飞行消耗更多的燃油。这就是我们为什么有613.8英里/小时这个数字 这个数字几乎是现代亚音速喷气式飞机的速度极限 尽管搭乘超音速航班在3小时内横跨大西洋
是很炫酷很令人激动的事 但是就航空公司而言,真正想要的是快到像跳池塘那样
分分钟有100或200美金的利润进账 而且这在今天变得更加容易实现。 现今飞机的速度已经让我们在24小时之内飞去地球上的任何地方 这对大部分人来说已经足够快了 对大多数人来说,真正制约旅行的因素是成本,而不是速度。所以 飞机厂商和航空公司将继续致力于减少旅行成本,而不是减少旅行时间 最后再说一句。时间只是极少数特权人士的敌人。而成本才是大多数人的敌人 这个视频是由Audible做的。 Audible是领先的在线音频提供商,但我相信你之前已经听说过。 所以我只会告诉你我是怎么利用audible的 我喜欢阅读但是有很多时候我不能阅读纸质书籍 比如工作,做饭甚至编辑视频时。所以我下载了大量的音频书籍 通过Audible,我无论在干啥的时候都可以学习 如果你也像我这样喜欢在干活的时候听点什么,你就能把无聊的工作变得有趣一些 我最近开始听 Skyfaring,
这是一本由747飞行员Mark Vanhoenacker写的书 可以让你以飞行员的角度了解飞行,但是读起来更像读小说或回忆录 而不像读那些大量的专业书籍那样枯燥 最主要的是你现在可以免费听这本书。 Audible给了你30天免费试读的时间,可以登录Audible.com/Wendover这个链接领取 这是一本好书,而且Audible给了一个好看的链接,所以请去Audible.com/Wendover. 看看吧 除此之外,你也可以上atreon.com/wendoverproductions这个链接来支持 Wendover 出版商 在Twitter上关注我@WendoverPro,
我最新的视频是介绍美国总统如何出行的 也可以去下面这些栏目看看。
最重要的一点,请订阅该频道 这样就可以在未来新视频发布的时候第一时间收看 再次感谢您观看本视频,我们两周后见,
我会发布新视频的

OSHO: I Am the Rich Man's Guru



Views:|Rating:|View Time:Minutes|Likes:[vid_likes]|Dislikes:[vid_dislikes]
Aren’t ‘guru’ and ‘wealth’ contradictory terms? Osho answers questions from the press. Excerpt from an interview with Good Morning America, ABC TV, United …

The Economics of Airline Class



Views:6801494|Rating:4.84|View Time:11:38Minutes|Likes:92207|Dislikes:3145
Check out Squarespace:
10% off code: Wendover

Support Wendover Productions on Patreon:

Get a Wendover Productions t-shirt for $20:

Youtube:
Twitter:
Email: [email protected]
Reddit:

Select visuals courtesy

Sound by Graham Haerther
(

Select visuals courtesy British Airways
Select visuals courtesy Etihad Airways
Select visuals courtesy Virgin Galactic

“Poldoro” by Milton Arias
“Summer Movement 1” by John Harrison with the Wichita State University Chamber Players

Big thanks to Patreon supporters: Rob Harvey, Venkata Kaushik Nunna, Josh Berger, Paul Jihoon Choi, Huang MingLei, Dylan Benson, Maximillian van Kasbergen, Victor Zimmer, William Chappell, Eyal Matsliah, Sihien,Joseph Bull, Marcelo Alves Vieira, Jonah Paarman, maco2035, Hank Green, Plinio Correa, Connor J Smith, Brady Bellini

大家好,我们是Wendover Production
感谢Squarespace赞助本期节目 Squarespace助您轻松创建漂亮网站 上期说到为什么客机的速度停滞不前 我着重介绍了超音速协和客机 但是上期没有讲到的是 就算协和经营上不成功 但是它对今天的民航运营依然有重大影响 请容我一一道来 航空公司是不靠经济舱赚钱的 真正的利润来自于高端舱段 比如说 英航执飞伦敦希思罗机场至华盛顿杜勒斯机场 航线的777客机有224个座位 一张 3月15日去22日回的经济舱机票价值876美元 就是说如果经济舱全部售罄 来回一趟经济舱总收入为106872美元 同样的航班高端经济舱价格为2633美元 舱段收入为105320美元 40个座位的高端经济舱比整个经济舱还要赚钱 来到公务舱 单价6723美元的48个座位能带来322704美元的收入 头等舱的14个座位总共能带来8715美元的收入 所以前面区区14个座位比后头122个座位还赚钱 高端经济 公务和头等这3个高端舱段加起来 共计550034美元的收入 这意味着45%的乘客贡献了84%的收入 我要提请你们注意的是 世界上不存在飞一趟跨大西洋航线就能赚50万美元的航空公司 否则数钱都要数到手软了 这条航线高价的原因在于 这是两个高收入国家热门城市间的直航航班 当然大部分旅客都飞更便宜的转机航线 比如说你从斯德哥尔摩出发 经伦敦乘该英航777前往华盛顿 经济舱降至392美元 高端经济1150美元 公务3025美元头等5564美元 但收入占比基本维持一致 收入大头还是来自小部分乘客 这个英航777飞机舱位布置更偏重高端舱位 因为英航主要做高端出行 即便如此 三分之二航空公司的营收主要来自于三个高端舱段 但情况并不总是这样 民航还在襁褓阶段的时候 舱段区别并不存在 所有座位都是高端座位 不是说当时的飞机很豪华 20年代的飞机是这样子的 而是机票如此昂贵 飞行本身即是豪华享受 就像维珍银河的太空观光旅行也不分舱段 因为上太空本身就已经是豪华体验了 如果哪天太空旅行平民化了 分舱肯定会出现 但是直到一种交通方式能够降到普通人能接受的价格范围内 坐它都是头等舱 1950年代纽约伦敦来回机票 价值675美元 根据通胀调整后约为6800美元 与今天的一张头等舱价格差不多 飞前排的人以前和现在都差不多 变化了的是后排的乘客 航空舱位的发展史不是航空公司如何提升客舱档次 而是他们通过降低成本让越来越多的人能够乘飞机出行 同时这也是经济学理论的直观体现 航空公司将同一种产品向不同的人卖出不同的价格 不管你在什么舱段 航空公司提供的都是 从A点到B点的运输服务 不同的是在运输过程中的体验 航空旅行第一次出现等级是在四五十年代 航空公司相当大比重的收入来自于美国邮政的航空邮件业务 这些通常都是通宵飞行 经停多地的红眼航班 虽然主要是运输邮件 但这些飞机也保留了一些客座 例如头等舱价格能买到纽约芝加哥直飞航班 而经济舱就只能坐凌晨两点出发经停匹兹堡和克利夫兰的航班 虽然价格更便宜 飞行时间更长 但在飞机上的体验基本相同 直到1952年航空公司才开始在同一个航班上收取不同票价 比如某航司纽约伦敦航线标准票395美元 旅游票270美元 航班飞机都是同一个 唯一不同的是票面 旅游票必须提前购买而且无法退换 你必须搭乘该航班 所以顾名思义 旅游票是针对游客的 旅行者通常会提前做好旅行计划 他们会搭乘计划好的航班 所以时间弹性不重要 全价的标准票是为商务旅客设计的 商务旅客一般不用自己买票 都是公司支付 所以他们对票价不敏感 商务出行通常需要灵活的时间 他们常常最后一刻才买票 常见情况是离起飞还有一小时才到柜台买票 全价票就是针对这种情况的 通过票价设计 航司根据人们的支付意愿 将市场分成了两部分 接下来的十几年 这是唯一的区别定价机制 然后 1969至1978年间 三件大事发生了 波音747首飞 协和客机首飞 美国民航业放松管制 民航业改革使得航司能利用747的空间和协和的噱头来试验高端出行 之前民航票价收政府调控 航空公司很难分舱定价 放松监管后航空公司能够自由定价 不过起初区别只是体现在票价上 某些航司头等舱会舒服一些 因为越来越多的商务客转去买旅行票 航司开始意识到得改善买全价票的商务人士的体验 将他们和买打折票的旅客区分开来 刚开始只是简单地打隔断 全价票在前打折票在后 然后一些航司会撤掉中间座椅 最后航司装上了豪华座椅和内饰 除了个别的,大部分航司不设头等舱 他们专注于中端旅客 协和将成为富贵人士出行的选择 普通客机就为普通人服务 至少他们起初是这么想的 我在上一个视频里说过 协和最终惨烈地失败了 那些因为协和而撤销头等舱航司开始 慢慢地在亚音速飞机内恢复头等舱 但直到今天 所有执飞跨大西洋航线的航司 只有6家设了头等舱 在六七十年代 面对协和的竞争 航空公司花大力气优化了商务舱 如果没有这样航空科技的突破性创新 但是新趋势是 头等舱又开始慢慢消失了 这是阿提哈德航空A380的座位图 经济舱人均占地0.35m² 商务舱人均占地0.94m² 头等舱人均占地3.25m² 从阿布扎比至纽约的航线往返票价 经济舱1253美元 商务舱6140美元 头等舱14128美元 就是说 经济舱地价332美元每平方呎 商务舱地价605美元每平方呎 头等舱地价403美元每平方呎 拥挤的经济舱座位 与可以平躺的商务舱座位差别是很大的 但是头等舱和商务舱的区别就是空间宽敞一些和精致一点的餐饮 航空公司很难说服旅客乘坐头等舱 因为体验基本差不多 可运营头等舱的成本明显更高 所以越来越多的航空公司选择取消头等舱 用更利润更高的商务舱来代替 有航司尝试过只设商务舱的航班 但是没有任何航线有这么多的高端需求来填满座位 所以经济舱的乘客们 只是被航空公司用来填满空位而已 所以经济舱的乘客们 只是被航空公司用来填满空位而已 Square Space 的广告 使用打折码 Wendover可以获得10%的折扣 Square Space 的广告 使用打折码 Wendover可以获得10%的折扣 Square Space 的广告 使用打折码 Wendover可以获得10%的折扣 Square Space 的广告 使用打折码 Wendover可以获得10%的折扣 Square Space 的广告 使用打折码 Wendover可以获得10%的折扣 Square Space 的广告 使用打折码 Wendover可以获得10%的折扣 Square Space 的广告 使用打折码 Wendover可以获得10%的折扣 Square Space 的广告 使用打折码 Wendover可以获得10%的折扣 Square Space 的广告 使用打折码 Wendover可以获得10%的折扣 请在Patreon上支持我们 请在推特上关注我们 你可以参与Reddit上的互动讨论 请点击订阅 多谢收看

Jordan Peterson: “There was plenty of motivation to take me out. It just didn't work" | British GQ



Views:6509271|Rating:4.74|View Time:1:42:14Minutes|Likes:144659|Dislikes:8021
As part of our 30th-anniversary dissection of masculinity, Helen Lewis interrogated controversial Canadian academic and bestselling author Jordan Peterson about the patriarchy, #MeToo, the alt-right, gay parenting, fascist ideologies, his all-beef diet and much more…

photographer: Nigel Parry

Subscribe to British GQ►►

CONNECT WITH BRITISH GQ
Web:
Twitter:
Facebook:
Google+:
Instagram:
Newsletter:

ABOUT BRITISH GQ
British GQ is the premier channel for men’s style, lifestyle and entertainment. Every week brand new series, original documentaries and essential style guides make it the first port of call for living well and looking good for men.

Jordan Peterson: “There was plenty of motivation to take me out. It just didn’t work”

how much responsibility do you feel you have particular it's the OLT right who as you say some of them have enjoyed your work and so now I'm not one of you I'm not one of you guys I'm not with you can they haven't enjoyed my work I've definitely read bits on the Indian War you've sold two million copies of 12 rolls for life you have 800,000 followers on Twitter 1.4 million followers on YouTube what is it that you're selling that so many people want to buy I don't think I'm selling anything well I went to a show where you were swear you were selling tickets to your show so people are willing to pay a lot of money to see you speak you know what is it that you think that people are hungry for they want to hear from you they are hungry for a discussion of the relationship between responsibility and meaning and we haven't had that discussion in our culture for 50 years we've concentrated on rights and privileges of freedom and impulsive pleasure those are all useful in their place but they're shallow and that's not good because if people are more shallowly than storms wreck them and storms come along so I'm talking to people about how they can build a foundation underneath and that works and and people need to know that because otherwise their lives are harder than they need to be well what is it but you have that no one else has what are you offering that no one else's right now well I think I think that is what I'm offering that that's not part of the public discussion you know when it's grounded in my clinical knowledge so I've been a clinician for a very long time and I'm familiar with the works of most of the great 20th century clinicians and a reasonable amount of philosophy and a good swath of literature and I'm a credible scientist and so I can bring that all together and I've tried to bring it all together and to make a case for the significance of individual life and the psychological necessity of courage and nobility and responsibility these things that sound old-fashioned our old fashioned in the best sense their old-fashioned because they've lasted forever and they're absolutely necessary and people need a call to responsibility because they need to mature they need to want to be adults you know and I don't think we do a very good job in our culture of making a case for why it's a good thing to be an adult and two things really made you famous which is first of all is the book twelve rules for life the second one I think was an interview went viral Kathy Newman of Channel four News which she talked about all right he's got a big big following but that was I think really fascinating that interview because it was specifically about men and women and you said at the time you know YouTube skews very male and your fan base is very male is that still the case are you still mostly primarily talking to men I would say the stalks are probably 6040 6535 male to female the book sales I don't know I doubt it because it usually it's women who buy books although men do buy them nonfiction if they buy books we don't know the demographics on the books but the book has definitely expanded my audience I would say and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned I mean I never set out specifically to talk to men my students for most years at the university have been primarily female I think most of my graduate students have been female it might be about 50/50 but I think it would probably tilt more in the direction of female so it wasn't like wasn't something I set out to do I think though that as I said earlier well I can't tell how much of it is merely a consequence of the fact that YouTube skews so male it might also be something to do with the call to take on voluntary responsibility I'm not exactly sure why that would be more necessary for men right now I think it might be because our culture confuses men's desire for achievement and competence with the patriarchal desire for tyrannical power and that's a big mistake those aren't the same thing even a bit so and it's very inappropriate psychologically and sociologically to confuse them so well one of the things I want to come back to is this idea so that you say in the book you know there is masculine or and feminine chaos that's no actually I say that those are symbolic representations of the two things all right okay so why why is order masculine um I think it's because our primary social hierarchy structures are fundamentally masculine and that's not the patriarchy well it's not the modern idea of the patriarchy that's for sure I mean that's oh that's my idea of the patriarchy which is a system of male dominance of society yeah but that's not my sense of the patriarchy so what's yours well in what sense is our society male-dominated the fact that the vast majority of wealth is owned by men the vast majority of capital and is owned by men women do more unpaid labor every tiny proportion of men and a huge proportion of people who are seriously disaffected or men most people in prison are men most people who are on the street are men most victims of violent crime are men most people who commit suicide are men most men most people who die in wars are men people who do worse in school are men it's like where's the dominance here precisely what you're doing is you're taking a tiny substrata of hyper successful men and using that to represent the entire structure of the of Western society there's nothing about that that's vaguely appropriate and I could say equally want the most rape victims are women you know terrible things happen to people of both sexes and you could say that with perfect utility but that doesn't provide any evidence for the existence of a male-dominated patriarchy well that just means that terrible things happen to both genders which they certainly do but there are almost no women who rape men for example so that is an asymmetry there in sexual violence well yes there's a nice if there's an asymmetry in all sorts of places but that doesn't mean that Western culture is a male-dominated patriarchy the fact that there are a symmetries has nothing to do with your basic argument no but you might be this is a trope that people just accept Western societies of male-dominated patriarchy it's like no it's not that's not true and and even if it even if it has a patriarchal structure to some degree the the fundamental basis of that structure is not power its competence that's why our society works it's only one is when a structure degenerates into tyranny that the fun mental relationships between people become dependent on power it's not power if you hire a plumber who's likely to be male it's not because there's roving bands of tyrannical plumbers forcing you to make that choice and it's the case with almost every interaction that you have at the face of our culture you're dealing with people who are offering a service of one form or another who are usually part of the broad middle class and who offer and what you're looking for is the person who can offer the best service and you can find it it's not a consequence of being dominated by anything that's tyrannical and and then again our culture Western culture which is by no means perfect and certainly has tyrannical elements like all cultures do is the least tyrannical society that's ever been produced and certainly the least tyrannical society that exists now so where's the patriarchy exactly you know well saying that it's the least technical society is not the same as saying it's not a tyrannical society that's exactly why I said it was the land to run it but that's what I mean so you haven't debunked the existence of patriarchy then you said that actually now is better women to demonstrate its existence okay well let's go through it I'm writing a book about feminism in the moment until 1919 there were professions that women were barred from they simply were not allowed to do it until 1880s why would you blame men for that because who was in those professions who was guarding entry to those professions who was worried about losing their status if women became doctors the demands of women in the 20th century just out of curiosity well a couple of different things I think it was technology I think was the pill helped enormously was one in the 60s great so that wasn't 1919 no but I also think it was a series of legal changes that started in Britain with the married women's Property Act which said for the first time women are full legal beings under the law they can own property and that to me is a structure that has continued throughout from a time when women didn't have the same legal rights as men to now when they mostly do but culture still lags behind it I don't think you and I are necessarily talking at such cross-purposes it's just that your conception of patriarchy as I see it in the book is that quite a lot of men are quite nice and they're do nice things for women and that's not my conception of Pidgeon well you know I don't require men or advise them to be nice well you do talk about the guy who's the tampon King the sanitary towel king of India right wouldn't call that nice okay well we're gonna breathe okay did you read his life when he was trying to develop that yeah god it was absolutely miserable and he did it anyways what read all sorts of women as a consequence and I think that was nice that's courageous that's Noble that's visionary it's not nice I think it is also nice I think it is also something that is recent you know it is honoring your social obligations I'm not so sure that that's a social obligation because many other people would have done it had it been a social obligation it said what he was concerned about he saw that his wife was suffering with her monthly period and had to choose between feeding her family and taking care of herself properly and chose to feed her family and thought he would do something about that that goes way past nice especially given what he had to suffer through to do all the experimentation that produced his his eventual technology so like I this whole patriarchy thing I think you have no idea how pernicious and dangerous it is well no I don't never go throughout history have fundamentally cooperated to push back against the absolute catastrophe of existence a terrible death rate that the probability of chronic starvation early death disease the difficulty of raising children with all the death that was associated with that and to look backwards in time and say well basically what happened was men took the upper hand and persecuted women in this tyrannical patriarchy is it's absolutely dreadful miss reading of history it's a terrible thing to teach young women and it's a horrible thing to inflict upon men I mean I absolutely disagree with you I think that's like saying slavery in the u.s. was actually most people cooperate well no you didn't you had a system where one set of people owned another set of people and until women got full legal rights they could own property themselves they could work essentially they were owned they were owned by their fathers and their mothers to the domination by men yeah and they said that you thought that what emancipated women primarily in the 20th century was technological revolution no no primarily but that's one of two I think there's new things 'verily I know I think the pill was a primary force in the emancipation of women I think an extension of of tampons let's say or there are the provision of proper sanitary facilities toilets and that sort of thing you're thinking instead it was the action of courage feminists in the 1920s that produced a social revolution that overthrew the patriarchy that's your theory yeah that's a foolish theory well I'm very sorry to hear you say that but I think to quote you in the Kathy Newman interview I think it's a multivariate right I think there were lots of different things that all contributed too well all right assuming that Western society was a tyrannical Patriot unabated one of them and then other things happened as well so you have the pale you have the dishwasher and white goods labor-saving devices in the home I think all of those were really important but you also have things like campaigns for the vote yes you also have things like that yes so how when in a system that existed in England until 1918 when I what do you even want to look at history like that like what what's your what's your goal because I think the people who don't look at history are condemned to repeat it and I think that we are we're gonna what are we gonna do repeat the persecution of women you think that's a realistic possibility here you see that we're sitting here in America right well we've just had a fifth judge appointed to the Supreme Court who is now aunt abortions now can't conservative I think that abortion rights are accidentally fundamental to women being able to function as full humans in society and I think that is now under threat in America I think it is extremely smug and complacent to think civilization has peaked it's all upwards from here yeah well good luck with that it's a living like you know I there are lots of people who grieve me there are lots of people clearly who agree with you I want to go there just a lot of people I would say who are coming to listen to what I say because they're sick and tired of having their desire to move forward in the world and to achieve something and to take their place as adult males let's say who are under the weight of accusations that their ambition and forthrightness is a manifestation of something that's fundamentally tyrannical they're not happy with that it's not doing anyone any good and it's also not true it's really a terrible thing to do to young men and it's happening all the time that's why they're bailing out of universities like mad from be a man left in the social sciences in ten years in the Universities and there's no bloody wonder it's an unsuitable place and it's unhospitable precisely because of this doctrine said that throughout history the fundamental relationship between men and women was one power essentially slavery it's like fine believe it if you want it's not gonna do your relationships any good I can tell you that so okay well well we'll see how that one goes on I'm currently married but it new oh well I'm raising with him um I think the universities example is a really fascinating one because you talk in the book about the fact that now women are a majority on two-thirds of college courses in the US and you know I've also seen you saying would you believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome maybe but only that I don't believe in equality of outcome I think it's an unbelievably pathological wish and dr. Wright but the dangerous history has demonstrated exactly how dangerous it is equality of opportunity is something that anyone with any sense would support but equality of outcome it's so what's your problem with then not doing beyond belief to choose to support equality of outcome okay so what's your problem were there not being enough men in the social sciences perhaps women are just cleverer perhaps that's why there are more women at university right under your doctrine I don't think that but that's I think the logical extension your daughter isn't the fact that there's an unequal distribution the problem I have with it is that the reason that men are bailing out is because of the prevalence of the doctrine that you're exposing that's the problem I have with it but doesn't matter that much they will be allowed I don't see any way that the universities who are going to redeem themselves in the next decade so and maybe that will be fine but I doubt it let's see that seems extremely pessimistic when the majority of numbers of people going to university just generally are going up yeah well that's not going to last for very long why not because it's too expensive and the universities are doing all sorts of things that aren't acceptable mostly racking up the price ratcheting up the price so and decreasing the quality of what they're offering and playing into the hands of the people who are ideological acolytes of the identity politics routines and playing postmodern stunts and pushing neo Marxism and all these things that are characteristic of of the social sciences and the humanities primarily see this is what I find you you fascinating to me because you know you talk in these apocalyptic terms I think that you know someone who will listen to that and think wow there's a really big problem but what we're really talking about is some irritatingly postmodern professors and some students with blue hair and funny about gender in a handful of courses around America Western about no one would have paid attention to me for more than about 15 minutes so you might see this as some surface manifestation that's irrelevant but that isn't how most people view it ah I already the case to that this identity politics battle of ideas was a determining factor in the last American election if Hillary wouldn't have played identity politics played cozy with the identity politics type she would have kept the working-class and she would be president now so these aren't trivial issues by any stretch of the imagination it's not just some kids having a decent time while they're being creatively rebellious at university it's a much deeper problem than that the doctrine the doctors that I'm opposed to are predicated on well one assumption they're predicated on is probably the primary assumption is that the best way to view history is as the domination of a tyrannical male patriarchy and that's true also particularly of the West which is a doctrine I find absolutely unpalatable and historically absurd the biologically ridiculous and ungrateful among other things his Lord whose ungrateful sorry and that who is being ungrateful look at what you have Ryan lived in the best society that's ever been created you know I was reading about something do you mean me as a woman or me as a 21st century person in the world I mean us yeah I mean I'm incredibly grateful what I have but to me the politics instruction of the tyrannical patriarchy you're grateful for the productions of a tyrannical patriarchy how does that make sense because I think life is good I think it could be better that that's their main reasonable proposition but I guess that isn't commensurate with your claim that you're the beneficiary of the tyrannical patriarchy why no how can it be good if it's the consequence of a tyrannical patriarchy tyranny isn't good is it I mean that's the definition of tyranny something that isn't good and yet it's produced all these things that you're grateful for like doesn't that contradict in contradiction bother you where did where did what was good come from where is well I think from I think I'm benefiting actually from a lot of things that I don't support that are unearned privileges in my life I think that's absolutely change your job like I have a very good job I had of loving family I don't think that's gonna do the world any good is that's a hell of a fine rationalization for your privileged position oh well fair enough but now you know if you could trade it off with someone who's less privileged I can't you start I could I could do that and and but I don't I don't want to and I won't and I don't want to be expected to why not is it okay for you to occupy a position of privilege in the patriarchal tyranny and if it is is it because you're female or is it just because it's convenient let me tell you my political philosophy I'm a I guess I'm a Social Democrat so what I believe is that you should if you have a good life you should try and pass that on I believe in a progressive redistribute of tax system for example it was once said by Lord Mandelson in British politics you know but New Labour was okay with people being filthy rich as long as they paid their taxes now I'm kind of less okay with people being filthy rich but if wanted to be rich well I think it would leave it's probably in the top one-tenth of 1% of people who've ever lived on the planet that would constitute filthy rich by historical standards okay but I'm not aware that every line exactly able to help the Neanderthals at this point really by giving up some money but this is my point is that what I believe is and I believe in a structure in which people who have had a good life and had lots of advantages should pay that back pay that forwards which i think is the message that you preach as well right you have responsibilities and if you've had like us a very advanced civilization as a tyrannical patriarchy it's not purely a tyrannical business purely not and that's exactly the issue but why do you live as a tyrannical patriarchy then you make a case that it's purely that and that's exactly what's ungrateful why not purely that at all why saying something has elements of this medicine what is it easy self humanely that isn't what's being said merely to define it as a patriarchal implies unit unit unit dimensionality and to insist that that's also tyrannical doesn't offer a balanced viewpoint at all well I think that's probably where yeah I think that's probably where your disagreement comes with this which is because I do not see it in that way I do not see that is univariate at all I see is white white for the patriarchy because it describes an overarching structure does it and what if the patriarchy is fundamentally composed of women is it still patriarchy no that would be a matriarchy would it so let's say we take a patriarchal structure yeah the medical profession and we fill it primarily with women is it then a matriarchal structure what makes it a patriarchy begin with at the hierarchical structures that is it the fact that it's mostly men is it the sociological structure or is it the fact that it's mostly men well I think that's really interesting because male primary school teachers for example only 15% of them are men and I interviewed some of them for my book and you know what they report exactly the same things that women do in male-dominated offices right they say people have conversations that I feel excluded from I feel stigmatized like I shouldn't be here people look at me askance when I say I'm a primary school teacher and I'm a man you know they kind of reel back we will make those implicit associations sense so if it is if it is a structure that's dominated by women that it's also a tyrannical patriarchy I think in that case then men have a way of they should be able to complain about the fact that a very female dominated office leaves them feeling out – yeah being left out so how do we get something that isn't a tyrannical patriarchy if it's composed of women and it's a tyrannical patriarchy and if it's composed of man it's a tyrannical patriarchy we're kind of out of options all right but well you can have a blend and office than which a blend of people of both so 5050 then it's not a tyrannical picture no 5050 I'm saying that 40/60 I'm saying that son there is clearly when it is only 15% of male primary teachers they do feel marginalized and excluded so you think the defining hallmark of tyrannical social structures the predominance of one gender and if that was if that was relatively quiet and all of a sudden it would be a free and an open institution I don't think that the male primary school teachers been terrorized I do think they have been marginalized and I do think that they feel excluded and so what to do about that well this is what I mean I think actually and I'm surprised you don't agree with me on this that actually having more male primary school teachers would be a really good thing because boys need role models actually people particularly boys who don't have a father figure in their life that's really important them to have a stable adult who shows them what it's like to be a man around the place could be but you shouldn't achieve it as a consequence of preferential hiring no I don't even need necessarily need to be preferential hiring I think it would nest down the stigma to entering that job I think teaching is a really interesting example it was seen at the Turner's when I was 18 19 right there were no men in it and how did that make you feel I loved it ya know what the kids I used to wrestle with the kids which of course can't do now because everybody knows that that would just be a catastrophe and I used to draw them pictures of monsters and they'd line up for that and I like working with kids quite a lot and I didn't care whether it was a female-dominated I've been in female-dominated my profession is my whole life very I think it felt marginalized as a consequence well then you have been lucky and I have total favor I'd be like the opposite I'd be careful can conduct as well explain that more to me well why would you assume that it would be luck well if I say that you know there is a statistical analysis and I talk to a broad range of people and you know you can always expect outliers at either end some people who had a really terrible time some people who had a really brilliant time everyone else and things that I strive to do is not to become resentful well okay that's very good I have to say that your Twitter feed does not give me that impression you come across as somebody who takes criticism very much to heart is that true I don't think you have any grounds for that suggestion I mean you see my interviews online if I was someone who took criticism at heart I'd be in a lot more trouble than I am now in what way well I've been criticized endlessly for two years I've been in scandals I probably been in I don't know how many scandals in the last two years and had unbelievably contentious interviews with journalists online on TV on radio in podcasts if I was someone who couldn't tolerate criticism the evidence for that would already be clear I Twitter is a strange social network I've kind of pulled myself away from it so it's not an easy place to conduct yourself with as much grace as you might and I think it's it sort of rewards impulsivity because it's maybe it's because of the constraint on on characters or something like that so I think that people tend to show their worst on Twitter and and some of that's a consequence of the of the structure of the technology I think I said any agree with you I think that's something that we agree on that I think people are rarely at their best on Twitter no and you know I pulled myself away from it quite a lot in the last month mostly for to see why you know I kind of kept an eye on Twitter all the social medias media networks for the last few years partly to see well I'm trying to monitor what's happening around me I suppose is probably the right way of thinking about it and to see if I'm making mistakes and how they might be rectified but I don't think Twitter's been good for me and I don't think it's I don't think the reply function on Twitter is useful and I think the fact that so many people on Twitter are anonymous is not a good thing at all do you think you'd be less angry if you went on Twitter that's something I think quite a lot I've been dissed I would be coming to contact with less things that annoyed me on a daily basis oh I think there's no doubt about that yeah yeah I I think that's definitely the case and I've talked to other people who've pulled back from Twitter and experienced the same thing I don't know what it is exactly but there's a there's something about Twitter that seems to really heighten the desire of people to be provocative and maybe it's the case that only people who are feeling irritable respond you know we don't know you know like if you put up a post and a thousand people read it certainly a thousand people don't respond a few people respond well maybe maybe it's skews way over to those people who had a bad day like we have no idea right because it's a communication channel that no one understands we're not evolved to understand it we're not evolved to use it we don't we can't interpret it plus you're interacting with random strangers which is something you never ever do and it's never the same set of random strangers and you don't react to Twitter like it's random strangers Iraq to Twitter like it's a person that you know and it isn't you right in 12 rules for life about having had violent impulses that you didn't act on and I think in maps of meaning you elaborate on that you sabes fantasize about stabbing a classmate in the neck and you submit you're very clear about the fact that you you know you've never ever thought you would take those seriously but it just does make me think whether or not are you somebody who thrives on anger who finds anger to be something that they need in their life that they find motivates them to do the things that they need to do those are two different questions okay you can answer them but one is whether I thrive on it then the answer to that is most certainly not so I actually don't like conflict how are you ended up doing this as a job which is arguing with people right just because you know that's not my job it's not to argue with people okay so my job is to not do things that I think I should do right and my government made the mistake of assuming that compelled speech was acceptable as long as motivated by hypothetical compassion and that's not happen for me so I made that point it wasn't because I wanted to or because I enjoyed it I don't really like conflict I'm actually a rather agreeable person which is partly why I'm a clinician and so I find the the constant conflict exhausting but that's not the issue and you're not morally obligated you're morally obligated to do things other than that which you like so now I really do enjoy the lecture series that I'm doing and the reason for that is that it's not political in its essence I'm trying to do everything I can to bring people who are trying to develop a vision for their life together and to encourage them to act more responsibly but but not in a finger wagging sort of way but because I come to understand that the meaning that sustains you in life is mostly to be found through responsibility and through the voluntary adoption of responsibility you're very likely to find your fundamental strength and I think that that's clinically unassailable observation and so and that's all very good and I'm very pleased to be doing it and it seems to be having a salutary effect as far as I can tell and but but it's not because I thrive on anger I mean you were at my show what – on Thursday night yeah how much anger was there in there well I thought it was fascinating because it was in Long Island I drove we drove to it and we went past a Lamborghini dealership a Porsche dealership this is not a poor area the audience was I would say very liked as I was surprised how many women there was pretty mix it was overwhelmingly white and I thought you talked you know you said that we ni there's more incoherent than I normally am you ranged across quite a range of subjects from you know status in monkeys to perception but the things that the crowd clapped and they applauded where you where you went oh you can't say that that's a microaggression or multiculturalism is a you know it's discouraged that is sweeping Canada and what I got was the strong scent that has swept Canada okay well what I got was a very strong sense of people whose lives ever said that it was a scourge that swept Canada either I wouldn't have said that okay well sure I will go back and check your exact wording what you said but you definitely not in favor of it as a fundamental doctrine right I don't think it's a scourge so I wonder if you and I didn't mean the same thing when we talk about multiculturalism because you have a First Nations room in your house right you have a lot of First Nations stuff how is the coexistence of the honorary member of a First Nations family isn't it wonderful I have a First Nations artist and when I'm from when I went to Canada last year but that to me is the essence of Canadian multiculturalism living that culture being preserved and living alongside the Anglophone culture that in some sense is supplanted it how is that not multiculturalism well multiculturalism is the idea that the cultures can all be put together in a single place with no overarching structure or undergirding structures like that's not the case how can that possibly be the case that defines the situation in the world and the world is full of war so how does the how can that possibly work if you're going to bring people together and they're going to be and they're going to exist together in harmony they have to be playing a game that everyone plays that everyone knows the rules for it can't be ten different sets of rules for different people how's it going to work so it's absolutely naive to believe how if that worked the world wouldn't be full of war well before we had you know multiculturalism we still did have war or in fact war is Steven Pinker I'm sure you register even pinger says you and this is the least violent time in human history so something is a consequence working Oracle tyranny well if you think the patriarch he's been eroded over the last hundred years maybe that's what it's down to maybe you could give some credit to it for that yeah I actually didn't say that the patriarchy being eroded well and you know because you don't believe it exists in the first place fair enough but I my definition of multiculturalism is citizenship based right so you can be both Canadian and First Nations you can be both québécois and also Canadian you know what that means that everybody in the multi cultural milieu is one thing and another they're all one thing and another yeah minister said well there is no Canadian identity it's like well okay what is it that unites us well nothing we all protect our cultures it's like well that leads to war okay it doesn't only lead to war obviously but unless you have people operating within a shared framework of perception and value they can't cooperate and compete peacefully there's I don't understand how that's even a disputable topic that's how you organize people okay I I think if that's what he said that's what Reno said that is a dumb thing for the Prime Minister of Canada to say when you are Prime Minister of Canada oh yeah you might you might say that would agree much more with what Barack Obama said when he said you know I'm trying not to make her red states America or blue states America or a white America black mare I'm trying to make a united states wreck and that to me the Democrats are very good at that well maybe they tried identity politics for the last 20 years well they've done is inflamed tribal tribal tendencies as far as I can tell so he could say that but it isn't obvious that it's the case and it's not obvious to me and all that one of the consequences of Barack Obama's presidency was a reduction in racial tension in the United States no I wouldn't agree with that either I think a lot of people friend having a black college-educated professor very alarming and threatening to their ideas is there to stop them from voting for him twice no that is very true but again it's fundamentally true right it's it's really the crucial issue at hand here no but he built a big coalition of white well-educated liberals and people of color I mean none is that that is the Democrats alike how do you explain the rise of racial tension in the United States then well I think it's caused by a lot of things not released in one of which is the Republican Party in flaming it you talk about the left plain identity politics I think the right play identity politics all the time the right doesn't dominate the universities no but it dominates Donald Trump is president so really stormy Trump is hardly a typical Republican no he iced and say that he hosted for most of his life if I remember correctly he was a Democrat right I don't think he's going to blame allegiance tweet wing okay but I'm gonna say the rest of the Republican Party are also quite happy to play I would say white identity politics they go they did not dump him as their candidate when he said Mexicans they're not sending us their best people here they're rapists right the whole idea of the United States it said I think a beautiful all men are created equal but it meant men and it meant specifically white men women and black people could not vote the US was founded on identity politics this is not some new concept that has come along in the last 20 years the United States wasn't founded on ideas yes it was that's absolutely absurd proposition the United States was founded on the same principles that what would you say that that played their powerful role through the development of English democracy and that was nested inside the judeo-christian view that fundamentally presumed that both men and women were made in the image of God and that all people had divine value and it took a long time for that set of ideas to fully manifest itself in the political realm but to consider that a manifestation of identity politics is I I can't imagine why you would possibly do that I don't consider that a manifestation might enter politics I consider having a constitution that says only some people are citizens to be a manifestation of identity politics well what do you think changed it across time and look let's get our definitions straight here you can't lump all occurrences of non equal treatment into the category of identity politics identity politics this is very specific thing it's really only existed since the 1970s you can't go back into 1770 and say that the founders of the American Constitution were playing identity politics my politics that was based on identity that's my definition of identity that's the north the definition of identity politics unless you pay play fast and loose with the definition identity politics is something that's in no one talked about identity politics 20 years ago or 30 years ago it's a new term you can't say that people's proclivity to identify with their group is identity politics that's just tribalism and that's like who knows how old that is a million years old five hundred thousand years old and you're gonna call tribalism identity politics well that's not helpful if you want to talk about tribalism we could talk about tribalism but identity politics is something that's nested inside a particular political view of the world it's got a Marxist basis and it manifests itself in post-modernism and it emerged in the American unit first in the 1970s and then has swept through the American Universities and increasingly the rest of the West since then that's identity politics if you want to talk about tribalism that's fine I'm not a fan of tribalism which is why I don't like the identity politics types and I don't care if they're on the right or the left I think the right wing use of identity as the primary marker for human categorization is as reprehensible and dangerous as it is on the left my problem with the left at the moment the fundamental problem with the radical left is that they're hyper dominant in academia and that's not good and that's not my opinion you can go and look at Jonathan Heights data and see for yourself and he's as martyr to person as you could hope to find and probably less prone to anger than me and I agree with you I find a lot of students phenomenally irritating but I would question how much power they have it's a contrast to the things I find more worrying that happening in the world today right or even the professor's right even for 20 year-olds don't have that much power but they're not twenty forever ten years later they're thirty and one years later they're 40 right and whatever happens in the university happens everywhere five years later and very very sadly for people in my politics left-wing politics what happens people as they get older is that they traditionally got more conservative so I don't think you can make a case that the the current where people are where they're twenty today is actually going to be the ideology that takes them all the way through their life that's never been it'll be around long enough to do plenty of damage like it already is okay but even if we accept that students and their pomo professors are quite annoying which i think is probably I agree something I dunno just annoying like they're destroying the universities and that's not a good thing and they're particularly destroying the social sciences and the humanities the sciences are saved so far but not for long because the scientists in particular are terrible at politics and the left-wing activists are great at politics and so they'll win eventually the National Science Foundation is already introducing diversity requirements for hiring in mathematics and universities it's like good luck with that that's not going to work there are hardly any mathematical geniuses if you start putting all sorts of arbitrary restrictions on their hiring you're just going to not and you're going to end up not the ones that there are so besides I totally wasn't really because if you say there were very few months magical gene molded well I'm next year I'm gonna be a fellow Oxford University so I spend time talking to academics I've talked to a lot of academics for my book I do agree with you there is an illiberal strain that is sweeping through a lot of universities I don't think it's an existential threat and I certainly don't think it is to me the biggest issue in world politics today it's the one that I would choose personally what do you think is the biggest issue I think that the rise of strongmen authoritarians around the world is very worrying and that's one the reasons I find the subtitle of your book listen editing because you're it's called an antidote to chaos why isn't it an antidote to order which you also say in its excessive manifestations is bad well you can't write a book about everything no no but you've specifically chosen antidote to chaos so why is chaos 300 lectures online and I talked plenty about the pathology of order in those lectures okay but I'm just a fan of authoritarian strongmen that's for sure well that's good but I do think that the way that you talk about order in the book is something that people will take away from it be specific okay so let me think the way that you talk about natural dominance hierarchies and lobster's let's get on to the lobsters because I think that the thing that people take away from that is male lobsters compete for female upstairs and that says something about society now that's that men need to be dominant in in society because if lobsters do it then there is something that we can read about humans from there's nothing in their chapter at all that suggests that the way that men should succeed in human hierarchies is a consequence of the exercise of power there's not one line in that entire book that's that claims that because it's not what I believe most human hierarchies as already pointed out our hierarchies of competence not power okay so that's why we don't live in a patriarchal tyranny and so if you want to be a successful man then you should be competent and that will move you up to the hierarchy and that will make you attractive and for good reason unless you want an incompetent mate which is possible and and and happens but isn't something that I would recommend people will sometimes choose an incompetent mate because they're intimidated by competence and so they'll settle for someone who they don't respect because they feel that they can master them and they won't be intimidated but it's not a recipe for a happy life I can tell you that so there isn't a line in that chapter that talks about power as as as the proper means of conducting yourself in life there's not a line in the book and there's nothing in anything I've ever said that suggests that okay no I'm so that it's really important because people have read this chapter and they make exactly the argument that you make and it's a misapprehension so it's it's a misapprehension of the book okay but if so many people are getting the same miss out branching could there are so many people than we're getting it there's two million people that have bought the book and there's a very small handful of people who have a particular ideological perspective who enjoyed developing that perspective because it indicates just what sort of reprehensible individual I am but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote or what I've said or what I believe I don't believe that our fundamental hierarchies are based on power I don't believe that the way that you move up our hierarchies is as a consequence of manifesting power its competence okay might be problem with the lobsters is that it's scientifically bollocks right it's just you cannot read across from lobsters and what they do to what humans share had that's why serotonin works on lobsters it was in two different ways so if serotonin makes a lobsters more aggressive it makes you know what makes them less aggressive right that's not that's not right that serotonin makes human beings more dominant but less aggressive and the only reason it makes the more dominant is because they're less irritable and they're less defensively aggressive so it's not bollocks I know my neuro chemistry so if you're gonna play in neural chemistry let's go and do it okay we use the antidepressants work on lobsters yes they do any make a lobster that's been defeated in a fight more likely to fight again that's not the same mechanism that that's the same humans depressed as the way the human I think your anthropomorphizing intuitive ridiculous degree these are creatures that urinate out of their faces I think that the fundamental issue among knowledgeable animal behaviorists is that anthropomorphize ation with animals is generally the appropriate tactic unless you have reason to doubt it which is because there's continuity between us and animals rather than discontinuity and the idea that the anthropomorphize ation of animals is inappropriate is something derived from nineteen these behaviorism the highly trained effective neuroscientists and people who studied motivation and emotion as well as neural chemistry know perfectly well that there is biological and behavioral continuity across the animal kingdom and way down into the kingdom as well which is exactly why I chose lobsters to indicate that there is so much continuity in the systems that allow us to estimate status position that we share it with creatures that are a third of the billion years old and the reason that I made that argument was to put paid at least into part in part to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of Western civilization and free market economies which is as preposterous a perspective as you could possibly develop about anything hierarchies are third of a billion years old you can't blame them on the West or men or capitalism and we're wired for hierarchical perception in ways that you can hardly possibly imagine even our ability to rank order a set of objects seems to be tightly linked to our ability to assess the relative status of people in our in our social millou's so and the biochemistry is very very similar and the reason we know that is because most of the drugs that are used on people are first tested on animals now it's not often animals as primitive as lobsters but it is plenty so a lot of what we know about neurological structure for example is a consequence of studying the flat room worm which is much more primitive organism than the lobster continuities they is the rule okay so what can we learn from killer whales that live in matriarchal pods often led by a grandmother someone who's been through a menopause why isn't that an example you pick to talk about in the book it's because lobsters say the thing ideologically you want to talk about which is your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology to say that the point that I was making the point that I was making with lobsters I just said what it was that hierarchies have been thrown for who genuinely really today is arguing apart from maybe three mad Marxist academics that there is no such thing as hierarchy hierarchies they're not they're not that there's no such thing as hard oh there's anything as hierarchies oh they're plenty of them argue really because I see that almost never in the wild as an as an argument I see people think that hierarchy should be based on merit and they say what do you call the demand for equality of outcome is if it's not an attempt to flatten hierarchies or to have to eliminate them what else could it possibly be and you don't think the neo-marxists and the postmodernist think that hierarchy is a social construction okay you're not talking about the same people that I know that's for sure and everything's a social construction for the social constructionist including hierarchies but I just don't think that is a very widely held view in the world it might be much liberal a percent 20 percent of social scientists identify as Marxist and abandoned that statistic from look it up but look it up in in Heights work okay you know I'm interested I know I've checked it out quite yeah yeah I'm just I'm perfectly valid statistic I don't have the reference at hand yeah so it's one in five and they're the the number of conservatives or even liberals for that matter in the social sciences and humanities is not only vanishingly small but getting smaller and you think the social constructionist believe that hierarchy is built into biology they're not very good social construction is if that was if that's what they believe and the post modernists and the neo-marxists are radical social constructionist because they wouldn't believe that human beings are infinitely malleable and and and that we can be recreated in in whatever image the ideologue might want to recreate us in if they didn't think that and it's much more prevalent than you're admitting I mean there there isn't a competing position on campuses except among the evolutionary biologists and the evolutionary psychologists let's say and they're under a complete attack they're certainly next on the chopping block as far as I can tell I've been warning them for the last two years social constructionist don't like evolutionary psychologists and they don't like biology and I I really don't understand why except that it interferes with this idea that human beings are infinitely malleable and stops them from being able to blame hierarchy on the West look if you're really concerned about the poor as a social democrat let's say the first thing you should do is abandon your presupposition that the dispossession produced by hierarchies is a consequence of the patriarchal structure of the West it's a way deeper problem than so there'd be maybe dispossessed forever way before capitalism okay I think I would agree with that so if if it is way deeper problem than that's how do you tackle it I don't know well that's a bit I mean that for someone who's intelligent you that just throw their hands up and go maybe something lots of things I don't hold tackle I don't know how to tackle the fact that people range range extremely widely in their cognitive ability either these are big problems but we can start with a register beauty of tax policy right where people who earn a lot pay more tax than people lower down the income scale to reduce treat income that was a fairly obvious way that you could make poor people less poor it's something that you know the Labour government did they almost I think they have child poverty it is possible to do things and we do have mechanism well I wouldn't I wouldn't make the immediate presumption that it was the redistribute of tax policy that have child poverty you know that absolute poverty in the world has halved between near 2000 and 2012 and you can't attribute that to redistributive policies no I can't how many talking about Britain on took him in that particular government which had you know then there are fiscal analysis that have been done but I think let's move on from from lobsters I mean in that chapter is about people becoming responsible and confident not about them becoming like dominant and powerful okay not at all but my problem is I think you got criticized by a lot of marine biologists by and by a lot of geneticists for one okay well I can name it PZ Myers is one who's criticized you I'm Adam Rutherford who's former editor of nature as criticize that chapter there are you know that is not but what I think biologists dispute the fact that most or organisms organize themselves into hierarchies and that the fundamental biological mechanism for the regulation of hierarchy is the serotonin system that's not disputable now you can find animal organizational structures that vary from that from that what would you call it fundamental pattern but the existence of variants isn't proof against the existence of a fundamental pattern like I don't I don't know how you can sit there and be skeptical about this if you know the literature on hierarchical structure you understand that across the entire animal kingdom animals tend to organize themselves into hierarchies and at the neural chemistry different types of hierarchies right so there's up you haven't we know they're hiring yeah but the putt like you say the pattern is if that you know the hierarchy is the pattern right okay and that's fine so chimps have one very obvious social structure and bonobos haven't it's not as different as people have made it out to be the bonobos are a lot more violent than the right and then you'd be much slower right observers of the bonobos have admitted okay but nonetheless you say that as if the deep lows these little details don't matter is if there can't be such a thing as a hierarchy that is much worse than another okay that's why I understand that at all there's clearly hierarchies that are worse than other right baboons have terrible hierarchies for example animation radical hierarchies aren't my cup of tea that isn't the point I was making the point I was making was that hierarchies can't be blamed on capitalism or the West they're built into our biology that the neural the neural chemistry is so old that we share it with with crustaceans so that's a third of a billion years which is the proof that hierarchies aren't a recent constructive proof like that needs to be needed needs to be provided and that the best way for people to adopt a strategy that will move them up the hierarchy which is a desirable thing in most regards is to face the suffering of the world forthrightly that's what that chapter is about and the people who've been criticizing it read it as if it's a defense of the Western patriarchy it's like there's there's no defense of the Western I drug I don't know it's true I think the way that people criticize it is the and I think this happens a lot with evolutionary psychology is a which is not quite what the lobsters are but is where other stuff in the book is other things you said for example like women wear Rouge because it reminds men of ripe fruit right well first time do you think women wear Rouge I have absolutely no idea right okay that's really not a very good answer well yeah you said before there were a lot of things you don't know the answer to but I tell you I think you're I'm most right sizing your perspective on this you're criticizing mine so I mean alternative idea what women why do you think where women wear makeup they're enormous not let me let's let's go back to why women marriage because it reminds men of not ripe fruit okay first of all not all ripe fruit is red why would you want color vision to detect ripe fruit do you want to eat women no I unless men having sex marries them that's not really where and where is the evidence that women who are redder in the cheeks are more have more offspring what do you think happens during that sexual flush but that's the key point isn't it is that you would expect actually if this is a sexual selection that women who are ready for children we've got progressively ready by the time hallmarks of youthful skin is the proclivity for it to flush red and yes use youthful women have more children it's a primary sign of fertility that I think your wait a second here what do you think women wear makeup for come on if you're gonna go after me on this okay let's let's let women people say well women wear makeup to feel better about themselves that's not very deep analysis why make up a facial makeup I'll tell you why I'm wear makeup which is to stop the comments that are again if I didn't wear makeup am i gender I always say my gender is low maintenance right I don't particular particularly like a woman inside I don't really know what that would mean but what I try and do is try and look you know in the same way that you get black women you talk about the problem with natural hair is it seen as unprofessional right and as a woman if you don't wear makeup that is seen as a political choice that is seen as something that you know you want so you wear makeup to protect yourself from from what from judging men but in achill women as well I would say I think women don't very harshly judged each other's appearance and there are very good reasons for that probably because they've learned that from oppressive men no I don't think so I don't why do you think it is then I think that women are encouraged to be seen as being in competition with each other encouraged you don't think that there's anything about that that's naturally well I would be reluctant to get into that because I think you could talk about sexual intrasexual competition and that's a very big deal among the social sciences and evolutionary science it's not my particular competence but yeah I wouldn't my conception the patriarchy is not that men are beastly to women it is that there is a structure in which women participate to that overall privileges and benefits men in order to control female reproduction and I think those are two very different things you write in twelve roles that you skipped a grade in school and you were small for your age do you think that shaped your personality in your experiences of life I did to some degree made it difficult for me to participate in sports I didn't really do anything that was fundamentally athletic till I was in graduate school so my parents are guilty about that because they felt that it wasn't good for me but I'm not unhappy about it I go through school faster I wasn't a fan of school and the faster I got to it the better I think it might have encouraged me to do two other things which was I probably hung around with rougher kids that I might have otherwise as a partly as a compensation I suppose for being smart and academically able and also small so I probably exaggerated my roughness I suppose and it made me more verbally more capable of verbally defending myself but other than that I don't think it had much of an effect I think I pretty much left all of that behind that's very good oh so on the other thing I was really interested in was that you married your teenage sweetheart mm-hmm yeah well I met her when I was eight so we've known each other for 50 years yeah so this is I think really fascinating so I read that and I thought that was quite moving and then I was reading the bit about um you know the animal kingdom and it's bit free take away from the lobster section is that you know what happens if your top Lobster is that you get to impregnate all the female so that as being evolutionary successful as a lobster right um your that's proclivity towards polygamy which is one of the things that pulls on human society all right and you're now the pretty big lobster and yet you are monogamous you're faithful to your wife you don't you know you don't want to go around impregnating every woman that you see right no no woman trouble right so so I think that's really to me that was really interesting because that's a way in which we are very obviously very different from Animal Society and tomato takes that different I mean there there are plenty of societies where exactly that happens right but you've been able to overcome that biological urge right and so in the sense that maybe there are other biological urge such as men's propensity towards violence that might also be overcome well it's not self-evident that you want it to be overcome I mean you don't know what goes along with it you know I mean obviously first of all defining violence isn't that straightforward how about use of force in self-defense does that constitute violence I think to me that's a separate category well but it's not that easy to distinguish them like if you're what what you want to do with a child who's aggressive is socialize them so that they become sophisticated in their manifestation of their aggression you don't want to inhibit it you certainly don't want to socialize little boys to be more like little girls that's first of all you don't know how to do it to begin with but second of all it's not very it's not an advisable strategy so well I find that really really interesting because in the book you say that HT if you feminized men that might give them more of having more of an allure towards you know there's very fascist about that that's that's standard psychoanalytic that's like psychoanalysis 101 if you repress something it comes back with a vengeance okay so tell me what you mean by feminizing in that sense because to me if you don't mind me saying so you are a man who is quite feminine you are in touch with your feminine side you are very well-dressed you talk a lot about you die you've talked about your emotions you're talking about my diet right but you cry in public you you enjoy spending time with your kids you know all of these things that are much no no sad isn't it but they're not stereotypically male and I think that's very admirable pretty strange behavior for a patriarchal tyrant well that's why I think that you're probably in some ways you're not a patriarchal tyrant although actually all of our programming if you want to call it that in biology is it's overcome a ball because you are not integratable right but you are a man who some people would say has a lot of feminine traits like that and I don't do you think that means that you are now being in the allure of authoritarian fascistic ideologies because you've you know you're baking cakes oh I notice the allure and then what do you do with that work to live such that there's no temptation in that which is also what I recommend to everyone else right if you see any temptation in that then you should straighten yourself up real quick so and that's what I've done for decades so of course you have to see the allure in that if you don't see the allure in that you're a fool just like if you don't see the allure in the radical leftist ideas I mean if they didn't have if if you didn't understand the allure you couldn't understand the ideas they're dangerously alluring you know it would be lovely if there was a strong man who could solve all our problems and those who deserved it got exactly what was coming to them it's not something that I would recommend as a wish so but that doesn't mean you you know you want to be blind to its attraction you want to see what the dark parts of you are attracted to it helps you keep an eye on where things can go if they go badly sideways so I don't think it has anything to do though with my with my what would you say more classically feminine interests not as far as I can tell I mean I have all sorts of classically masculine interests too so right and it seems to be reasonably well balanced all right so you talking about socially efficient socialized little boys like little girls but actually you know I have lots of starett I'm interested in politics which is overwhelmingly male-dominated you have lots of classically feminine interests why we know what is the problem here with people having personalities that are a mixture that there's no problem with that at all the problem is when it's dictated by Fiat well I mean who's who's Fiat about the education system so in in in schools you think you know that there is a lie outlined I can't remember the psychologists name at the moment but he was quite influential in the 1980s who recommended as a control for male violence that boys be socialized more like little girls and I don't think that that's a particularly unpopular viewpoint so on that the the emphasis on competition for example in in games the increase in in in the rise of competitive games where scores aren't kept that sort of thing is all a manifestation of that kind of theory as far as I'm concerned the idea that there's something intrinsically wrong with competition it's a very foolish idea especially if you want to motivate relatively aggressive boys because they're competitive while competition that's not good someone has to lose it's like well you're not gonna get very far looking at the world that way I'm afraid you know maybe you want to generate a plethora of games so that everybody has a shot of winning that's a good idea but you surf ik don't want to devalue the notion of winning if you're doing something necessary you should reward people who are particularly good at it it's part of the definition that being necessary so and that the continue don't want to control aggression any more than you want to control sex you want to integrate it and and if it's integrated that's the integration of the shadow from the Union perspective and something I talked a lot about in my lectures it's like you need to have the capacity for danger you need to be dangerous but you need to learn how to not use it except when it's necessary and that is not the same as being harmless harmless that's a terrible virtue it's like a rabbit there's nothing virtuous about harmlessness it just means you're ineffectual I mean I think I would agree well I think there are some people who through the homelessness become iconic and they become symbols I think the Ghandi in the principle of non-violence not harmless he just transcended his deep violence that is completely different thing I thought his without that capacity there would have been no way he would have had the strength of character that he had he was an integrated person not a harmless person okay that's a very very different thing did you have different ambitions for your daughter and for your son some of them were different I encouraged my daughter in her desire to be a mother which is not something I did with my son did you encourage him in his desire to be a father absolutely right so you encouraged both of them to be a parent right but those are different yeah so I know and yeah I mean and in some sense I think it's it's harder for young women because of course the the problem of integrating family with career is a more complex problem for women to solve so and I spend a lot of time talking to her about how she might solve that I wouldn't say that we came up with anything that was spectacularly original or successful but I at least let her know that whatever pathway she chose was fine with me if she as long as she was being honest with herself about what it was that she wanted but also that you know I'm not a fan of the idea that the most fundamental orientation that a person is likely to have in their life is career I don't believe that's true for most people I certainly don't believe it's true for most women and I think the evidence supports that claim quite straightforwardly so however it is the only thing that you get paid for under capitalism right man live but that's how can you say something like that it's so cliched what's so painful to hear that maybe cliche but it didn't nonetheless it struck women do my capitalism well for God's sake no it isn't you have to invest into a child for 18 years before they have any economic utility it's a consequence of delayed economic utility we don't know how to monetize it it's not a consequence of capitalism it's a consequence of the fact that human beings have an 18-year dependency how do you monetize that even in principle well we don't know we did used to send them up chimneys to be fair and at that point well grew really interesting is at that point children was seen has been much more the property of the man I mean has the became economically useless all the legal studies show but that's when we start moving to a model of female custody right because it was about caring labour but this is the point I'm making is model look I'll tell you there are plenty of men who are not very happy about the model of female custody and that would yes and that would include the what is it 85% of men who were essentially denied 50/50 custody when they divorce and have young children so I wouldn't think that one of our major problems or at least a major unit dimensional problem is the proclivity of men to foist off the custody of their children on to women there's certainly another side of that argument there II know there is and I do think that actually a lot of anger has been generated by the way we haven't in Britain any way we have in England and Wales we have an adversarial fault based or system that's something that's changing but what it does is encourage people to come in on day one and say if you want to get divorced you're gonna have to make out a case that the other person has been a bomb it doesn't matter because if you move to an on fault based divorce system then all that happens is the fault shifts to who should get custody so it doesn't remove the acrimony by any stretch of the imagination it just shifts it to custody of the children and that's what's happened in Canada right when in Britain we actually talked about access rather than custody because it's the idea is not that you own the children it's that you actually want to be able to see the children and spend time with them and I think that's really important but fault-based divorce is is something that increases the chances of couples having a bad divorce right that's the problem is it it sets people against each other from the start they have to go into court and contest that the other purse has done something wrong which is not a great base on which to start then an argument about you think you should be encouraged to divorce even if no one's done anything wrong no I think that having to prove that in a court of law is not something that is going to lead you to a better arbitration about settling money and settling you know access to children I think that's the point you have a ridiculous situation where couples who say well actually we've just grown apart nonetheless unless they want to wait five years or two years for separation they have to go in and plead unreasonable behavior to get a divorce and start splitting up their assets that's the joy of no-fault divorce is that you don't have to make those contested case you can simply say our marriage is no longer working and part ways without going into all of the acrimony that seems quite sensible to me it also seems quite naive to me well I've seen very few non acrimonious divorces they're very hard on kids so I don't think anything that makes them easier is a very good idea it might be good in the short term but it's not good in the long term unless unless you don't think that marriage is a useful institution and if you think that it's part of the patriarchal tyranny then you might think that as well so but it's a very useful institution mostly for kids so I agree that I I'm married I'm modern marriage has a lot to recommend it I do also think it is a patriotic uns institution it is literally why don't you think that well because you think virtually everything that occurs in our society is a patriarchal institution it's easy to think that because then you only have to think one thing you could get a one thing answer for everything you could let part of the patriarchal institution I don't think you're obeying the rule that says maybe treat people as if they have something worth hearing so I'm not making a case for the patriarchal tyranny I mean I don't think you are either I think that you're making a case that that's like a universally cliched case for the patriarchal tyranny I don't I don't see too why should we change the names at all why do women change the names on marriage traditionally I don't know exactly why do you think they do because it was to symbolise the transfer of their ownership from one family to another family that's why in the handmade sale you have off Warren Oh God Margaret Atwood well she was just about devoured by the feminists last year so that was something interesting to observe I think she made a very good but she wasn't / all feminist I'm a feminist I thought what she said about due process in cases like that is perfectly reasonable well many people didn't know but then you know guess what this is the on the Internet you can find someone who disagrees pretty much anything but so why do you think women changing the name so when they get married traditionally if it's not about transfer of property ownership traditionally I don't know if I have an opinion about that the specific reasons for that I'd have to look into it for a fair amount of time before I decided it but I certainly wouldn't boil it down to a unit dimensional argument about the ownership of women by men so ok I just you know the part of the problem too is with this sort of discussion is that it's and this is why I consider it a manifestation of ideological possession it's predictable well that's what knowing yours and so on but having a coherent ideology doesn't mean that it is predictable because it is an ideology this is one logical thing that flows from another and all those pieces tessellate together that's what I find very interesting about your thinking I find it quite slightly baffling is that I don't really see how all the pieces fit together you know you say that you're not you don't you believe in God but there's a lot of act as if God exists right but it is actually my definition of belief ok when that's so but that's in it but that then doesn't to me tessellate very obviously with your insistence that we know actually it's just about pure science and there's not a you know that you because well what what insistence that is just above pure science well you are wrote maps of meaning there's no insistence in that that is just about pure sorry different you make appeals to science all the time you say well this is that what the literature says and the trouble with God is ultimately you can't say this is what the reason which is why I don't don't say anything about this scientific status of God apart from what can be experienced maybe under certain conditions of what would you call chemical induced mysticism or it seems to be something that you can say something scientifically about but I see that there's two different realms right there's a realm of values in a realm of facts and in the realm of facts science reigns supreme but it doesn't in the realm of values you have to look elsewhere that was what the humanities were for before they got what would you say hijacked by ideologue x' and you know the the idea that that that some that something should be consistent you were talking about the necessity for consistency and ideology it's like I'm not hearing what you think I'm hearing what how you're able to represent the ideology you were taught and it's not that interesting because I don't know anything about you I could replace you with someone else who thinks the same way and that means you're not here that's what it means it's not pleasant so you're not you're not you're not drawing you're not integrating the specifics of your personal experience with what you've been taught to synthesize something that's genuine and surprising and engaging in a narrative sense as a consequence and that's the pathology of ideological possession it's not good and it's not good that I I know where you stand on things once I know a few things it's like why have a conversation I already know where you stand on things I bet you don't know where I stand on all things I would hope that that that was true okay let's talk about list of about transgender issues that's from what do you think I think about transgender issues I suspect that you think that gender expression gender identity are fundamentally social constructs but I could be wrong no I believe that there are definitely some biological differences between the sexes we've observed them I do believe that gender is a hugely powerful social structure that we have built on top of that it is largely but not entirely socially constructed I think when you look back through the history you know biological differences have consistently shrunk and like we were talking they haven't in Scandinavia they've magnified okay but we were talking about that's actually an important exception because Scandinavia has gone farther than any other area the Scandinavian countries in establishing egalitarian social policy and the differences in interest and career choice and personality between men and women have grown as a consequence not shrunk which is exactly the opposite of what the social construction is predict but also just suggest that the amount of malleable actually rather than fixed well of course they're malleable no one would ever suggest otherwise so that's what I mean it's not malleable in the direction that the social constructionist presumed as you flatten out the sociological lens gave you maximize the biological differences no one saw that coming and you might think well it's a handful of right-wing scientists who are pushing that's like no it's not it's mainstream psychology and there aren't any radical right wingers in mainstream psychology and everyone who discovered that was absolutely shocked by it and these papers have been cited by thousands of people and they have tens of thousands of subjects and they've been done on virtually national level samples cross-culturally but I also think the behavior in Scandinavia has changed for example a lot more men take paternity leave now that there is a portion that is reserved purely for men that doesn't seem for making them wildly unhappy so I think there are definitely behavioral things that are susceptible to nudges by society by government and by the state and that do change the way that people behave so we can possible meet in the middle of my hope that people can be educated and that we can develop as a consequence of learning that's that's certainly not a disputable proposition and I also believe that there is no evidence for gender identity in the way that it is used and by you know as an idea of a soul I think that's the way that it's often used to me by who by by transgender activists yes what they can do about having a female soul and that to me seems strange I don't see how you some something like biological determinism right and I just very it's one of the things that's so perversely amusing about these sorts of arguments is that well but I I attributed to the lack of demand for logical consistency as a consequence of postmodern thinking you can believe one thing when it's convenient in one situation and another thing when it's convenient for another so we're in the perverse position where if you're a man born in a woman's body that's biologically determined but if you're a woman born in a woman's body that's socially constructed it's like okay good luck with that theory right I don't believe you can be a man born in a woman's body a woman born in a man's body what I believe isn't there are some people who feel alienation towards their bodies and they want to remove what everybody feels that right but they'd feel it to such an extent that the best clinically the best treatment for them is to transition and live as if they were they yeah well I don't think that there's any evidence that that's clinically the best treatment we certainly don't know enough to make that presupposition and I think we're playing with fire assuming that that's the case the long-term outcome studies certainly don't demonstrate that so it's not so so I would make a very big distinction there between adults and between children I think that would be a good distinction to make okay but I think we are very quick to diagnose and treat children in a way that I find we're not waiting for the research and that I find concerning yeah say well the lawsuits will put it into that in about 15 years so there's there's there's one place that we found from which that is something that gets me a lot of hate I'm sure it does a turf and a bigot for that so all right I don't think that's something that you would been able to predict and I think because that is not now the orthodox feminist position I agree completely we will learn something um I just wanted to talk quickly about my behalf meaty movement mhm tell me your reaction to what's happened pulled it over the last year I won't put words in your mouth you tell me well there's certainly no shortage of evidence for reprehensible sexual behavior on the part of people who can use power to get away with it so that's not so good the me to movement I suspect it probably did some good things and some terrible things so I would say that there is a dangerous proclivity to abandon the concept of the presumption of innocence so in university campuses for example we're moving towards a preponderance of evidence model I'm not very heart being with that model I think that's a very big mistake the presumption of innocence is nothing short of a miracle and we abandon it at our extreme peril so I'm not happy with that I think the believe the victim idea is something that only a fool could could could conjure up because it opens the door to to unbelievable opportunity for manipulation I think I was disagree with you in slightly on that because I think what that means is what people are arguing for is don't instantly dismiss or disbelieve the victim right which is very matter and that's partly whatever there's plenty of people who are arguing for the fundamental attitude to be believed the victim so some people are arguing to not automatically disbelieve the victim which is a perfectly reasonable thing to argue for but that isn't where it ends so ok climate change I saw you posting a link to a study suggesting that you know a lot of the the weather it's talked about has been overhyped what do you what do you what are your beliefs about well I spent a lot of time I don't really have beliefs about climate change I wouldn't say I mean I think the climate is probably warming but it's been warming since the last ice age so I don't accelerated in a lot even in the last yeah maybe possibly it's not so obvious I spent quite a bit of time going through the relevant literature ice I read about 200 books on ecological what would you call it on ecology and economy when I worked for the UN for about a two-year period and it's not so obvious what's happening just like with any complex system the problem I have fundamentally isn't really the climate change issue it's that I find it very difficult to distinguish valid environmental claims from environmental claims that are made as a what would you call it secondary anti-capitalist front essentially so it's so politicized that it's very difficult to parse out the data from the politicization so I saw there's a line in 12 rules which says people stricken with poverty don't care about carbon dioxide yeah there's that's definitely the case and I think that's not an unreasonable point to make because you think about Maslow's hierarchy of needs right people if you can't eat then actually you can't really worry about what's happening in 50 years to the planet however I don't think that's a reason not to tackle climate change because those same people people in the global science it's partly a reason is it though because people in the global several generated plants stop people from starving so yes it's partly a reason and it's certainly the case that making energy more expensive obviously makes things more difficult for poor people so yes it's definitely an issue and I would say you know it's kind of a conundrum for those on the left it's like what's it gonna be clean air or hungry people think well we don't have to choose it's like okay oh renewable energy or whoo good luck with that Oh nuclear power happy find oh well we doesn't look like we're moving in that direct very fast but that is it that is a solution and then while it worked for the French yeah I was fascinated David Adom is something kind of close to a national religion in Britain so there's a bit where you say population control advocates like him you can fend to Eric Harris one of the Columbine killers why then is it virtuous to propose that the planet might be better off if there are fewer people on it and I found that completely boggling that you have elided their population control through people not to being born and the mass slaughter of people who are already alive motivation that I question right tell me more about that well what kind of statement is the planet would be better off with fewer people on it first of all there's an easy solution to that you could leave unfortunately much the best efforts of Elon Musk that is not yet an option permanently I mean that's what I meant yes if you're very concerned about your carbon footprint there's a very fast solution to that so and I think it's disingenuous to what's the other people or maybe it's the people who haven't been born yet it's like I don't I'm there's a this is also the problem I have with much of the environmentalist movement is there's a powerful stream of anti human sentiment that motivates it and masquerading under the guise of virtue on a planetary scale it's like could be I mean it's not like we're not fouling our own nest you know but that's why I'm fascinated by where you come from is because the book you know is so much about things being in balance and harmony right an order and chaos outweigh each other well what overpopulation has done is got to this which says we have overpopulation well I think it's very difficult to see under the current model of fossil fuel based capitalism sorry to use that word I know I'm set to you but that is what you until we've until we've run it when we run out of fossil fuel yeah that's not gonna happen well it will happen yeah because they're people I'm saying that's going to happen for 50 years and now that now the United States is a net exporter of fossil fuel all right and so no one saw that coming did they but it happened and you're right that might be the case but at the moment I would say that you know China is putting up new coal-fired power stations you know by the bucketload it was entirely possible that the stuff that the developed nations did that nidavellir nations did and then it concerned about clean air when they get richer that's what the data indicate once you get GDP up to about $5,000 per year people start to become concerned with environmental issues so if we make that might have enough I don't think so it'll happen too late for some things it looks like we're gonna top out at about 9 billion I think we can handle that I think probably people one of the problems that will be set us in a hundred years assuming there are even creatures like us around in a hundred years is that there'll be too few people not too many you know the projections talk about at about nine billion it's only two billion more than we have now or there's every reason to assume that we can cope with that especially given the rapid decreases in poverty around the world at the moment there's a bit of a bottleneck they'll probably be some more extinction what we're doing to the oceans by overfishing doesn't seem very smart but we've only been aware of our role as planetary stewards since 1960 I would say and we're not doing too bad for people who just woke up to the fact that we actually have that were actually a planetary force and I don't think that we're overpopulated I think all the arguments that all that all the people who made those arguments in the 1960s like Paul Ehrlich I think he wrote the Population Bomb predicted mass starvation by the year 2000 he was absolutely and completely wrong we've been very lucky with things like golden rice for example genetic engineering of crops I think maybe that's not luck well no it is it is I agree there a human ingenuity is a huge part of that death right well then more people you know more ingenuity you know in Bjorn long burg who I really admire The Skeptical environmentalist who's actually going a very long ways to trying to figure out what we could do at a planetary level that would actually be useful and productive his research has indicated the best the best possible investment isn't carbon tax isn't cessation of utilization of carbon-based fuel it's probably investment in early infant care around the world especially in developing countries seems right to me he's done the analysis very carefully one more area that you talked about that's caused controversies gay parenting you said the devil is in the detail you want to see more studies on that what do you think might be the adverse effects of having same-sex parents well I don't think we know what modeling is optimal for children that's really the issue I mean I suspect that two parents are better than one suspect right I don't know one parent is definitely worse than two we know that but we don't know what exposure to role model saying is necessary for the continuity of maternal behavior or for the adoption of functional gender roles we don't know any of that and so that's the variable obviously you don't no one knows what the consequence of being raised with two people of the same sex is maybe none right so there doesn't seem to be any evidence so far that's that's what all the literature review suggests that absolute there wasn't there were a couple that work did show problems but they were in in in my couple domes that had already broken down right so so there is no as net no evidence maybe there will be some fine but at the moment there is no evidence that there is any problem with having gay parents yeah I never said there was I somebody asked me I believe it was a question like if there was a problem what would it be it's something like that no I mean you can make a very strong conservative case for gay marriage I think yeah not that I would necessarily be motivated to make a conservative argument David Cameron our former prime minister said I'm support gay marriage because I'm a concern yes right right so you know it's it it's obviously homosexuality is it's been around forever also what's the appropriate social response to that well conceivably bringing as many people as possible into something approximating the same game I think you could make a reasonable case for that what's the consequence of that for children in those families I don't know I mean what I would say is while the obvious risk is that there's no one of the opposite sex around I mean it doesn't take up what do you hear doesn't take the perception of genius to come up with the observation that that might be a problem now maybe it's not and my suspicions are there's probably far more relevant problems with regards to what happens to children that isn't good than that so this is a way in which you know that is now conserved addition to hold I think it's about 20 years ago that would have been another mature mainstream well people were concerned with the deterioration of marriage and believed that any additional transformations would further weaken it and I think that that's not an unreasonable position given how weak it's become and I don't think that that's been good for people overall okay let's talk about free speech to finish on you wrote in your book about Nietzsche who became the Nazis favorite intellectual and you also talked about a professor he threw his sister's mistranslations of his work right but you talked a little bit as well about another professor whose ideas you thought led inevitably to kind of maoism and you said I don't know how he can't be more worried about where his ideas lead do you worry about wait you know where your work might be taken and used by the people I saw you propose II worry about that all the time with a Pepe flag I can't believe you brought that up right but I just think it's seriously I can't believe you brought that up you should go online yeah I do there there's a believe me I do there's a video called I think it's called is Jordan Peterson and darling of the all right have you have you written have you watched the video of the person who put up that Pepe flag with me he's online but I got watch it I have seen what you wouldn't I would say why are you concerned about Pepe anyways Jesus he disappeared like three years ago it is and most of that was trolling by young guys who were trying to drag the media into idiot accusations like the idea that this was a white supremacist gesture which I was asked about on CBC it's like no it wasn't it was Fortran trolls playing the media for fools which worked and much of the pepe thing was that as well but the problem with people ironically pretending to be Nazis on the internet they weren't pretending to be nice but no this is a separate phenomenon and a fortune definitely do ironically return to be all the worst things they can possibly be is that some people take that very seriously there was a case in America recently of a guy who stabbed his because he had thought that his father was a Democrat he'd got better he was writing stuff for a conservative website he'd got very into the pizza gate conspiracy theory who's probably paranoid right so there are people very very seriously I mean latch on to it what's your point I'm I saying that you know how much responsibility do you feel you have particular it's the OLT right as you say some of them have enjoyed your work and I'm not one of you I'm not one of you guys I'm not with you can they haven't enjoyed my work I've definitely read bits on the integrate more okay find some evidence I'm extraordinarily sick and tired of this particular accusation slash line of questioning I'm no fan of the identitarian right the ethno nationalist the all right first of all what do you mean by all right exactly do you mean ethno-nationalism eat white supremacists no I mean people who are on the right but have got their power base outside the traditional media they see themselves as an alternative so I see them comes a pretty loose definition that straight Rush Limbaugh kind of talk radio right people who see themselves in opposition to Rush Limbaugh's not the alt-right have been around for 30 years right so he's the progenitor of what I see now Breitbart and things like that other new media version of that very old media well let's define what constitutes all right first for me there ethno-nationalism M assists and generally when people tar me with an alright epithet the reason they're doing that is to associate me with those people they don't like me and the reason for that is that as me I've made it very clear not only in my videos but on Twitter that I don't like them I don't like their anti-semitism I don't like their use of identity politics I don't agree with their aims I think that their notion is something like well if everybody's going to play identity politics we're going to play it too and we're going to win and I can certainly understand that motivation but I think it's a bad game all around and I think the only reason that I was ever associated in any sense whatsoever with anything to do with the alt-right was because it was extremely convenient of the radical leftists who I fundamentally detest to paint me as a representative of that viewpoint right there other than that zero now there's no what I did you say it so I no point did I say well you brought up the whole price and I did bring that but there was a reason I did that which is that Nietzsche that I'm an auntie auntie see my right and yet his ideology and his philosophy ended up being used by the Nazis so my question to you is how much responsibility do you feel about what I feel it's not how much responsibility I feel it's how much responsibility I take right right and I take as much responsibility as I possibly can right which is why I'm doing what I'm doing but I'm going around the world I'm talking in different cities I'm talking to people as much as I can I'm putting out content that I think is useful for people online and I'm clarifying what I think I have 300 videos on YouTube virtually for all intents and purposes every single word I've said to students in a professional capacity since 1992 and despite the fact that I have innumerable highly motivated enemies they haven't been able to find one thing I've said in 30 years that what would you say justifies any of those accusations or any other accusations for that matter so it's uh it's it's quite the phenomena I mean I understand it to some degree you know you can you can help me explains why why did you pose with it what were your reasons for doing it do people just come up and bring it to you and yeah I was like posing with I probably been photographed with I don't know five thousand people in the last two years and you know it's one after the other often in groups of a hundred 150 or 200 people and it just it's like 15 seconds right and they brought this flag one of them had spoken at the event they were doing it ironically they unfurled the flag and we took a picture and that was that would you oppose ironically with a hammer and sickle flag I'd I don't know under the circumstances how what I would have done I have all sorts of Soviet art in my house anybody could get caught out and social embarrassment is a huge factor and you don't want to kind of tell people who've been very nice to you that actual you don't want to do the thing I just wonder if that's something that you regret now that you wouldn't do again if you if you have the opportunity well I don't think it did me any good ah I don't think I'll betray my former self we'll just leave it where it is I made the decision that I made under the circumstances and took what was there into consideration I think that I think that the Pepe formulators did a wonderful job of trolling the standard media I don't think that they were what everyone presumed them to be I think we did a wonderful job of trolling you as well in a sense right recruiting you and your image and your appeal to people to to their kind of cause which is ironic I don't really think so it is not actually under you know underneath it all I don't find it very ironic actually what don't you find out Roenick then a lot of the kind of 4chan culture which is saying I'm just gonna say the worst possible thing that I can say just to prove that I can say it because free speech is still alive I think that in itself is quite poisonous to the discourse I think I try and conduct myself online in a relatively civilized manner I do not always succeed but I do not think just going into a room and screaming epithets is something that I need to do on a daily basis to prove that free speech isn't dead right I think we could probably agree okay it's a reasonable reasonable a rare note of consensus I but I have to come back to the free speech idea because I think that whole idea the intellectual dark web and this came up a couple of times at your event on Thursday it's predicated on the idea that you have been marginalized for your opinions or a press for your pain predicated on my claim of that right it's predicated on well I don't know I'm not claiming I've been marginalized I would never use that word first of all that's for sure so but the idea of Adar don't feel oppressed good I'm pleased to hear it but I do think that the way that you you've got the cheers from that crowd was very much about there was an idea of taboo breaking right that all this is a microaggression but I'm gonna say it anyway that you know hard work is the way to succeed and I thought that was fascinating because to me you don't look like somebody who has particularly suffered an outrageous amount for your opinions people have certainly disagreed they've been rude they've met me or they've in some cases the only reason I haven't suffered an outrageous amount for my opinions is because I've handled the consequence of their utterance exceptionally my job was at risk my career was at risk my family stability was at risk so I wouldn't push that one too far and what way was your job at risk Jesus last year 200 of my fellow faculty members signed a petition to get me fired that was only one of a dozen things that happened the university wrote me two letters to cease and desist letters from their HR departments with their legal staff three of those in you're done they just fired Rick Maeda in Canada at Acadia University for talking about many of the same things that I've talked about so the fact that I've come through this relatively unscathed has very little to do with the vitriol of the attacks there was plenty of motivation to take me out it just didn't work right and I think the fact that it didn't work to me makes me ultimately optimistic about where we are because I've why because I have to work I went on I did a panel a while ago with zarg Inara a Burmese comedian who was imprisoned for making a joke right and we are not yet at that stage I think undoubtedly I cannot we're damn close really um how about the guy with the pug in the UK count dunk EULA that's the one right but he did actually I mean that was a joke i and might not have liked it I didn't say it was a good joke I didn't say it was an appropriate joke I didn't say any of that I didn't say it was a well thought through joke but it was a joke yeah I don't I just fundamentally not don't believe that it was a joke I believe that it was coming out as a joke and that's what it kind of cares right well that's exactly what you would believe if you were inclined to persecute comedians no I'm not inclined to persecute something well you're inclined to persecute him I don't think he's a comedian and I don't think III I would have to go and look at the circumstances of that case but I I think he didn't like his girlfriend's pug and thought he would teach it to do something reprehensible as a joke right but I see you getting involved say tweeting Douglas Murray's asked all that Tommy Robinson and I think you see that as a free speech issue and that's not how I see Tommy Robinson's case at all I see that as contempt of court someone who endangered a grooming trial how do you see that case I see it as very fortunate that Tommy Robinson didn't die in prison I think I would say that about a lot people and president I think it's very hard to be in prison if you are a sex offender for example I think our British prisons are less inhumane an American presence but there are still brutal places to be however I do think that was an appropriate punishment for somebody who tried to collapse a grooming trial well but you and I guess you have Tory you have prison abolitionist no oh right okay so you do believe that some people there are offenses for which people need to go to prison why would you ask me a question like that I'm someone who isn't interested in meeting out appropriate punishment no but I just thought maybe I versus made an assumption about you and I didn't want to make an assumption about you um I'm just gonna in with a quick fire round so I know that this isn't well this is YouTube so we have been able to talk for a really long time but I just want quick answers from you who is your favorite author Dostoyevsky who's your favorite female author Margaret Laurence I think I don't know her she's a Canadian author kind of an antidote to Margaret Atwood in my estimation okay when did you last cry Oh God who knows last week probably who is your smartest opponent hmm Sam Harris is pretty smart because you had debates about atheism with him and about rationality yeah I don't really regard him exactly as an opponent you know I mean we disagree on things I don't really tend to think of people as opponents generally I mean but Harris is you know Harris is smart he's good at making his case and so that's been that's been interesting what big question don't you know the answer to what big question don't I know the answer to well god that's a tough one there's so many of them well personally it's what I should do in two years when did you last change your mind about something important I'm changing my mind about things all the time every time I do a lecture I changed my mind about something but something important something big oh well all right well I can tell you I mean one thing I've learned in the last two years is that I think I overestimated there's an obesity epidemic in North America perhaps throughout the Western world I think I overestimated the degree to which that was a consequence of a sedentary lifestyle and overestimated the degree to which a lack of discipline was contributing to it I think I think much more now that it's an illness those are two different things I want they discipline is self-control and illness isn't something I interview well let's say you're overweight you should exercise it's like well actually the evidence that exercise will thin you down isn't that great and maybe the reason that you're not exercising is because you're ill not that you're ill because you're not exercising so I've I have a lot more sympathy for the hypothesis that the obesity epidemic is actually a consequence of a of an illness of a broad scale illness isn't exactly right it's a dietary problem fundamentally and their deep causes for that are you still eating your old beef diet unfortunately yes really just just beef nope can you have like ketchup on it nothing right yes I wouldn't it isn't something I would lightly recommend it's a little hard on your social life makes travelling quite difficult and it's dull as hell but but but what's it what has it done for you well I lost 50 pounds in seven months I stopped snoring I had some autoimmune conditions that seemed to have gone away I'm not taking antidepressants my mood isn't perfectly regulated but I'm under a fair bit of stress that might have something to do with it I sleep much less I can work more imaginary you're insane I don't I drink shape I don't think there's any evidence that that I don't think we have any idea what causes arteriosclerosis I think all of the dietary knowledge we have is is rubbish and if partly because it's unbelievably difficult to do proper dietary studies you can't do controlled studies say it's all correlational and there's so many variables I think the correlational studies are useless so also the this all meat diet this all beef diet has apparently cured my daughter so you can that rheumatoid arthritis well that was the original diagnosis then it was idiopathic which means we don't know it was causing it yeah but she's completely symptom free so that sort of thing makes you sit up and take notice because it doesn't make any sense well miss the last time you lied because the book says no lying do you still lie everybody lies as dr. house himself told us mm-hmm what is most important pretty damn careful about it what is most important to you in life not being stupid how would you like making foolish mistakes not being in cautious yeah that's tough one yourself life's tough man right how would your life have been different if you've been born female multiple orgasms it's not a bad one what's your biggest regret that I didn't take advantage of the opportunity to learn to play the organ when I was seven if that's your biggest regret this isn't going to be a great death bed because that's yeah well I know I would have liked it would have been better for me if I would have been better musician and finally how would you like to be remembered as someone honest dr. Jordan Pearson thank you very much