0:07

alright guys, it's a wee different

0:10

today if you can't tell i

0:13

what they like to call the the

0:15

one the only vid19

0:17

i have indeed

0:19

contracted it i will say

0:22

is it has not been that bad for me at

0:24

least not yet knock on wood i'm

0:27

you know sort out little bit of a cough then

0:29

it became some congestion

0:31

and fatigue than it sorta morphed

0:33

into now it's like sore throat and my voice

0:35

sounds a little messed up them

0:38

but i was able to do my show the

0:40

other day able to do the

0:42

conference today and boy oh boy

0:44

do i vote amazing one for you today so

0:47

you know we talked about a back in the winter we were this

0:49

close happened or doctor jordan peterson on

0:51

the show at the last minute

0:54

he had to back out because he had a toward

0:56

that he was doing and he had overbooked all these

0:58

other things and so they said i'm

1:00

sorry but we have to cancel and we

1:02

we meet with olives and with when can we are mommy one at

1:04

more whenever and they said in they summer

1:06

so reached out to to his team the other

1:08

day and to their credit they got right

1:10

back to me and said look will let's

1:13

do it will do with this day and i was like okay

1:15

i'm in now even i have club and nineteen

1:18

i don't care if i had ebola i

1:20

would still show up to try to us to try

1:22

to have this conversation with doctor

1:24

jordan peterson summary looking forward to it as

1:27

i told you guys for very long time when

1:30

it comes to apology

1:33

stuff like when he's talking about freud

1:36

young the various

1:39

different schools of thought like phenomenology

1:41

your existential was existential money talks about that stuff i'm

1:45

an amd like i love a

1:47

lot of the stuff he says i watch his entire twenty seventeen

1:49

lecture series and it was brilliant sweaty

1:52

talking about psychology

1:54

we talk about philosophy them all and

1:56

i love it i'm but then when we

1:59

when we get to the topic of politics

2:02

the and religion oftentimes i find

2:05

i have really sharp disagreements

2:07

with it i'm like wow this guy lives

2:09

just i loved everything said here and over here i

2:11

disagree with him on a lot almost everything

2:14

and so that to me the

2:17

perfect situation where i want

2:19

to have a conversation like i wanna

2:21

talk it out i want to hear mount i want to flesh out the

2:23

ideas i want to go back and forth because

2:25

there's nothing more interesting than that and so

2:28

we're going to do that we're gonna get into

2:30

it about a bring up some of the recent

2:32

controversy that went on a with

2:34

twitter and and elliot page

2:37

or bring up you know we'll talk about trump

2:40

will talk about economics basically anything

2:42

that i can squeeze in i will squeeze in in

2:44

our limited time and i'm really

2:47

looking forward to this so everybody

2:49

please enjoy here's doctor jordan peterson

2:52

doctor jordan peterson thank you so much for joining me

2:54

joining really appreciate it i'm

2:57

we were close to doing it doing the winter

2:59

but then but then mean you have a very

3:01

busy schedule and you had done all

3:04

toward the you were doing and so we had

3:06

to put it off to the summer but thank you

3:08

again because your man your word you said hey by

3:10

the summer will be able to do it and and you came through

3:12

so thanks for joining time please

3:14

do i'm glad we're able to arrange yeah

3:17

so there's a bunch of stuff i want to talk to about

3:21

whenever i hear you talk about psychology

3:24

and philosophy i'm always

3:27

floored by it i watched your entire

3:30

twenty seventeen lecture serious i

3:32

base given like as a student in the class and

3:35

that was brilliant which one knows that

3:37

the the maps meaning or they biblical lectures

3:40

maps of mean so he where you

3:42

went through all the different psychologists and and

3:44

they're different philosophies and arms

3:46

there's a bunch stuff i want to ask you on that and then later

3:49

on maybe we'll get into more political

3:51

and religious realm where we have ah

3:53

some disagreements but let's

3:55

start with this i

3:57

took the you know how are we talk about the big five

3:59

traits

4:00

yeah

4:01

the am i took that test yeah

4:04

myself what's that the

4:06

understand myself test it yes

4:08

whatever the i think i just googled like big five

4:11

trait test or something and whatever the first one the came

4:13

up was i talk and and it's know what i'm probably

4:15

a mistake but that's okay oh that's not the

4:17

right test while i have a test

4:19

on line of understand myself dot com

4:21

and it's accurate and it gives you a good reported

4:24

that details the five traits down to

4:26

ten aspects to alcohol

4:28

portrait if you have a partner

4:31

and they do at that gives you couples report to

4:33

the tells you why your fight and i

4:35

do know you need to appreciate each other

4:38

for similarities and differences so any

4:40

go doesn't matter will ,

4:43

perhaps i took the wrong test but on

4:45

this particular test that i took it

4:47

said that said was very high and conscientiousness

4:51

moderately high in agreeableness which i was actually shocked

4:53

by i thought i was more disagreeable the agreeable but

4:55

apparently i'm not i'm it's and i'm

4:57

somewhat low and openness the

5:00

low an extra version and i'm very

5:02

low in or autism the

5:04

and so when i look at those traits

5:07

and correct me if i'm wrong that strikes me

5:09

like i've i lean more hamper

5:11

mentally conservative my

5:14

politics are actually more lest

5:16

so it seems to me like there's a little bit of a contradiction

5:18

they're so can you speak on that a little bit and then also

5:20

tell me what your results are on at us yeah

5:24

well generally the best predictor of

5:26

a more liberal orientation is high

5:28

openness i

5:30

it's hard for me to believe that you're not

5:32

extroverted or open given what you do

5:35

so i would say from take different

5:37

test although i don't know which when you talk

5:39

like any might have taken have valid one valid one i

5:41

believe for sure it's

5:45

easy to put tess up it's hard to

5:47

make a valid yeah

5:49

generally speaking the more entrepreneurial

5:52

creative types tend to lean more

5:54

liberal and reason for that

5:56

and that's especially true if they're lowered conscientiousness

5:58

especially orderliness the reason

6:00

for that seems to be that

6:03

imagine that people might differ in there

6:06

biologically predisposed attitude

6:08

towards information flow the

6:11

flow of of people as well and

6:13

more conservative types are

6:16

more concerned about the potential disruption

6:18

and danger of novel ideas and new

6:20

people and there's good reason for that

6:23

because new people a novel ideas can really

6:25

flip the applecart upside down and

6:28

whereas liberal people more liberal people

6:31

are the energized and

6:33

interested in the exchange

6:35

of ideas and they are willing

6:38

to take the risk of disruption to

6:40

gain the benefit of novelty

6:43

and the new learning you

6:46

can't say which ones right because sometimes

6:48

new ideas are absolutely dreadfully

6:50

destructive karl marx his ideas

6:53

might be a good case in point where

6:55

they make sense once you accept you accept set

6:57

of axioms but they're unbelievably destructive

7:00

when implemented in so that

7:02

deviation from tradition was an absolute dastardly

7:05

then you know only the

7:08

different well everybody's pretty happy they

7:10

have electric lights that's not a political

7:12

issue obviously but sometimes

7:15

if you welcome new ideas you're right and sometimes

7:17

if you resist of you're right and that's

7:19

partly why we have a political dialogue right

7:21

so that we can adjudicate

7:24

between these two different claims added

7:27

curiosity would you say that there are any

7:29

of of marks his ideas

7:31

or any of his critiques of capitalism

7:33

that you think have merit

7:36

well

7:37

the idea that capitalism produces

7:39

inequality is clearly true march

7:42

didn't think that up the next be known

7:45

forever it says in the gospels that

7:47

the poor will always be with us

7:49

in inequality is an unbelievably pervasive

7:52

economic problem the problem with marxist

7:54

critique and the left wingers should take this

7:57

seriously and i mean seriously and

7:59

they don't the man in that

8:01

part of the reason that you're left wing i don't mean

8:03

you specifically but possibly you because

8:05

you're also somewhat higher and compassion you said

8:08

in agreeableness the left

8:10

these are concerned about the

8:12

detrimental effects of inequality the

8:15

unequal distribution of capital and

8:17

financial resources in particular other there's

8:20

all sorts of inequalities of distribution and

8:23

they are right to be concerned about that

8:25

because when

8:27

he quality becomes excessive it tends

8:30

to destabilize society so

8:32

we know for example that it neighborhoods

8:34

where movement up the socio economic

8:37

hierarchy is blocked and difficult

8:40

and there's quite an extreme range between poor

8:42

and rich that young men tend to become violent

8:45

because that's one of the ways they can attain status

8:48

when they can attain it in a legitimate let's

8:50

say and productive staff of his competition

8:54

and so in every society

8:56

that's ever existed a have has had to deal

8:58

with the potential negative consequences

9:00

of inequality so back and old

9:02

testament times the hebrews have a jubilee

9:05

every seven years i think it was the jubilee but

9:07

it doesn't matter where deaths

9:10

were erased that

9:12

forgiven and reason for that was that capital

9:15

what else can to accumulate in

9:18

hands of a smaller and smaller number of people

9:21

that marx was right enough diagnosis

9:23

although he did not the was not the

9:25

originator of that idea by any stretch of the

9:27

imagination but laying

9:29

at the feet of capitalism is it's preposterous

9:32

and it's under states the magnitude

9:34

of the problem because if

9:37

you're concerned about inequality and thera reasons

9:39

to be concerned in an intelligent

9:41

manner then you want to get

9:43

the diagnosis right and if you blame it

9:45

on capitalism you've got the diagnosis wrong

9:48

because every the economic system ever devised

9:51

by human beings has produced inequality the

9:53

only one has produced on increase

9:56

in material prosperity

9:59

especially for party the nets

10:02

free market capitalism

10:04

so the lefties who follow marks

10:06

because they're concerned about an impala

10:09

are guilty of the sin of not taking the problem

10:11

is cardinal to the with anywhere near the requisite degree

10:14

of seriousness inequalities away the

10:16

problem than then mere

10:18

capitalism and getting rid of capitalism

10:20

is you think what you think the soviet union

10:23

or maoist china will was yeah

10:25

whatever you the will just as in

10:27

equal so as cuba so

10:29

we venezuela be nice places

10:32

that purport to be egalitarian or anything

10:34

but a problem

10:38

the qualities very very deep problem so

10:41

yeah so a smartphone right to point

10:43

to it as a problem but completely wrong and his diagnosis

10:46

right i mean i accept a lot of what you say there

10:48

and you know a lot of the government you brought up

10:50

like venezuela for example i would definitely categorize

10:53

them as authoritarian and

10:55

not egalitarian but to

10:57

accept your premise further here when you talk

11:00

about capitalism we

11:02

know that inequality can exist no matter

11:04

what system or under is effectively the argument how

11:06

would you respond to the point that there have

11:09

been times throughout us history where

11:11

that inequality has been the give you

11:13

can be less and then that also led

11:15

to what was called the golden age of economic

11:18

expansion in the us so for example under

11:20

fdr and the new deal i'm

11:23

they did a lot of redistribution of wealth

11:25

through social programs on these new deal

11:27

projects are had shovel

11:29

ready jobs and they put the country to work

11:31

in the midst of the great depression and

11:33

they also increase taxes on the wealthy

11:36

for example the

11:38

you look at a model like that and think it makes

11:40

sense in other words like a a regulator version

11:42

of capitalism as opposed to capital

11:44

there has to be there has to be regulations

11:47

okay your has to be there has to be a

11:50

the system of law in place

11:52

worry a free market to even work

11:55

right been so for example so

11:58

the you have to guaranteed

12:00

property rights for example you have to be guaranteed

12:03

freedom of association you

12:05

have to be treated as if you

12:07

have intrinsic worth all

12:10

of those things have to be enshrined in law

12:12

so you need an underlying operating system

12:14

in some sense that axiomatic

12:16

and constitutional in order for a

12:18

free market economy to even

12:21

get off the ground and we don't exactly

12:23

know what those prerequisites are

12:26

some of them appear to be theological and

12:28

some of them appear to be philosophical

12:30

and and legal so the theological

12:33

presuppositions would be what

12:35

the the founders of the american

12:38

enterprise were referring to when he

12:40

said that they held these truths to be self

12:42

evident the

12:44

same and those self evident

12:46

truths had to do with the dignity and value

12:48

of each individual and their intrinsic

12:51

worth before the law and

12:53

stay in some sense before god the

12:56

self evident in some that is a consequence

12:58

of a theological underpinning and

13:01

then out of that arises a constitutional

13:03

framework it guarantees

13:05

people the liberty and autonomy

13:08

the and

13:09

and security especially with regards

13:11

to property rights that enables free

13:13

enterprise and the acquisition of wealth to

13:16

begin

13:17

that would also

13:18

the involve prohibitions

13:20

against arbitrary seizure

13:22

the

13:23

the property because

13:26

otherwise see of some people if we

13:29

, up a system where no one can get rich

13:32

like exceptionally rich let's say

13:35

we also set up a system

13:37

where no one can where everyone can

13:39

become wealthy some people have to become

13:41

wealthy first you know that

13:43

already you know leg when something like

13:45

flat screen tv's were introduced or

13:47

or a cell phones for that matter for

13:50

the first cell phones for the first five

13:52

years they were the the way things

13:54

are extremely wealthy billionaires and

13:57

the reason for that was the technology was extremely

13:59

expensive to begin

14:01

and unless there was a market that

14:03

was supplied by people with access capital

14:07

the marketing of the product

14:10

wouldn't have

14:11

begun and a price couldn't

14:13

the lowered that's true but didn't nasa

14:15

also do a lot of the original investing that

14:18

gave us the internet the

14:20

or a splitter i'm responsible for lot of the red zone other words

14:22

it's it's sort of a hybrid of both public

14:24

and private sector what you see

14:27

that hybrid model in places like canada

14:29

you see it added plate redevelop luxury scandinavian

14:31

countries but we should ride out with regard to the

14:33

scandinavian countries that and if you look

14:35

out it's international rankings of the

14:37

degree to which it is easy to do

14:39

business as in a given country right

14:42

scandinavian countries constantly rank

14:45

in the top ten or twenty and how they

14:47

have a the have a social net

14:49

put in place but they're monumentally free

14:51

market capitalist economies so and

14:53

you know we have to fight all the time about the balance

14:55

between providing people

14:58

with equality of opportunity and

15:00

also providing them with the requisite

15:02

security that also aids and abets

15:04

that some we're is an example so

15:07

canada has our our healthcare

15:09

system that's more socialized than the

15:12

system in the us and are some advantages

15:14

and disadvantages to that canada

15:16

spend the last on hospital

15:18

administration than the u s deaths so

15:21

that's an interesting and somewhat

15:23

unexpected fact we

15:26

rush and healthcare in canada by waiting

15:28

times and it can be quite brutal though

15:31

my daughter for example had to get to

15:33

her ankle replaced at one point in the waiting list in

15:35

canada was three years he was

15:37

walking around are broken ankle the three

15:39

years was untenable

15:41

though

15:42

there it's rational

15:44

by waiting time in a manner analogous

15:46

to the manner in which healthcare is rationed

15:49

by wells in countries that have less

15:51

socialist system correct however it's

15:53

also the case that canada has a higher

15:55

per capita entrepreneurial rates

15:58

than the u s and one of them reasons

16:00

for that appears to be that people can step

16:02

outside of their

16:05

the current jobs and the security

16:07

that those jobs offer them and

16:09

undertake the risk of establishing a new venture

16:11

because they don't have to worry that their family

16:14

now has lost its health care of security

16:16

ah so these things are complicated right they

16:18

have to be dealt with honor in some sense

16:20

at a detailed level and on the case by case basis

16:23

that if you want to point to the scandinavian countries

16:25

what you see there is well add

16:27

up a free markets capitalist

16:30

framework with a constitutional underpinning

16:33

and in some arguments about

16:35

how much of a social security that can be

16:37

cast out of that free enterprise

16:39

web to provide people with a reasonable

16:41

amount of security yeah you know

16:44

i'm i'm very interested do you say this doctor peterson

16:46

because i do think it flies in the face of how a lot of

16:48

people myself included maybe are

16:50

viewed your politics because the

16:53

i ah people generally don't have any idea what

16:55

i think because they just make the youngsters based

16:57

on idiot journalists and that's the end of that

16:59

i mean i guess that's a fair point because i'm

17:02

like i often mention the

17:04

scandinavian countries in many respects

17:07

as sort of an idea

17:09

like i like social democracy and that i think it's

17:11

a healthy mix of socialism

17:13

and capitalism and i like the

17:15

idea of thinking of

17:17

an ideal government as trying to create

17:20

a better meritocracy and in order for there

17:22

to be a better meritocracy i

17:24

think in a civilized society you can take

17:26

certain things off the table you can take healthcare

17:29

off the table you can take education off the table

17:31

the and i mean look at it this

17:33

way if we're having one hundred yard

17:36

dash kind of want everybody to start

17:38

at the same place rise often tell

17:40

know you do you don't want them to started the same

17:42

place why you wanna start them with

17:44

the same lack of barriers

17:46

to the their movement forward so

17:48

that no negative naughty the same thing do you

17:50

believe in a positive rights too because we

17:52

all agree there negative liberties of the government needs

17:54

to leave me the hell alone in these respects but

17:56

are there are also some positive rights isn't there

17:59

a right to healthcare regret own

18:01

there's no right to healthcare delete or any

18:03

without so do you remember the us

18:05

citizens her to the socialized medicine systems

18:07

to single payer healthcare countries

18:10

well let's start with the first question first

18:12

with forget positive rates very

18:15

rare that you have a right that requires someone

18:18

else to provided for you the

18:20

other day and they have been friends for example favourite

18:22

healthcare in their cars wells are they they arguably

18:25

have that right mean it depends

18:27

first of all i don't like this friend civil system

18:29

i think it's a catastrophe and well it's

18:31

a western catastrophe so it's not that big catastrophe

18:34

but it's nothing it it

18:36

has virtually no merit compared the english

18:38

common law system and i don't think the french

18:40

civil system would have been possible without the english

18:42

common law system have been there first

18:45

and other english common law you have

18:47

all the rights there are you're

18:49

not granted to you by the government there

18:52

an intrinsic part of your being an

18:54

unnecessary corrective to the of reach

18:56

of the state and those are only be

18:58

limited by necessity when people engage

19:00

in conflict an inner conflict

19:02

is adjudicated in the english common law system

19:05

president by president and what

19:08

would you call negotiation as

19:10

to the borders of rights are undertaken at

19:12

the level of extreme high detail that's

19:15

a brilliant system the french suffer

19:17

from the same delusion and they've

19:19

always suffered from the solution this french intellectual

19:22

delusion that intellect

19:24

and central planning and can

19:26

can substitute for incrementally

19:29

incremental movement of free market system

19:31

including free market systems in the in

19:34

the area of jurisprudence the not

19:36

just not the case and the idea

19:38

that you have you have to healthcare is mike while who's gonna

19:40

provided for starters

19:42

to do learn and hurried can

19:44

do that exact

19:46

the force

19:48

and so so i'm really wondering

19:50

how reason desirable uh-huh given

19:53

the right issue here that's what we're talking

19:55

we're not talking but whether not the government

19:58

can ensure intervene

20:01

so that a health care minimum

20:03

is provided to the populace at large

20:05

that's a different issue the issue here

20:07

is the issue of right the

20:10

rights are very you don't want to multiply

20:12

rights beyond necessity because every right

20:14

that you multiply puts the onus of

20:16

responsibility on every one is well

20:18

they're not they're not cost free so

20:21

what constitutes race is very difficult thing

20:23

to determine i'm also not a fan of bills

20:25

have rights i think they're generally a mistake really

20:28

i like the the system much better pluto

20:31

like the bill of rights and our in our own within like

20:33

that not particularly no i

20:35

think it's and while the elegant solution and the reason

20:37

from out is that under the english

20:39

common law system from which to build

20:41

rights was derived you have

20:44

all the rights there are where

20:46

is under a french civil system which is

20:49

and and derivative of that is the american

20:51

bill of rights the government grants you

20:53

the rights and i don't believe the government grants

20:55

you rights i don't think that's how

20:57

it works i don't think rates are a secondary derivative

20:59

of a social contract that's

21:02

wrong way of looking at it because it it

21:04

makes the government and the social contract

21:06

the source of the right i think

21:08

that's a big mistake so you're

21:10

not a fan of basically any positive rights

21:13

you think we have negative rights and that's

21:15

basically the end of it correct though you'd

21:17

have to tell me exactly what positive breaks you're

21:19

thinking about i don't believe that you have a right

21:21

to healthcare even though obviously the

21:24

more healthcare we can provide the people in

21:26

the most efficient possible manner the better that

21:28

is for everyone now healthcare is healthcare tricky

21:30

one because it's because it's an unlimited

21:33

domain because almost everything

21:35

can be shoehorned into the category

21:37

of health

21:38

so that's also a problem with regards to

21:40

let's say

21:42

the limiting what might constitute the right

21:44

mean you have a right to healthcare you have a right

21:46

to mental health you have a right to physical health

21:49

of course you don't obviously not

21:51

how could you possibly have a right to those things

21:54

the more than you have a right to food

21:57

the takes effort and time to produce food then

21:59

it takes

21:59

the effort and time for people to care for you when

22:02

so

22:02

there's no there's no right to have

22:05

no right to that well i guess what

22:07

i'm talking about it i'm just referring to it as a

22:09

matter of funding so do we have

22:11

private companies that are interested in profit

22:14

the in the ones who provide daycare or

22:17

do we have it as a matter of public funding

22:19

so instead of our tax dollars going to i

22:22

don't know war corporate bailouts

22:24

etc our tax dollars would go towards

22:27

funding people so all i can tell you what

22:29

can't canadians do when they're in a canoe in

22:31

a healthcare crisis who if they

22:33

have money they go to

22:35

the dates lawyers

22:37

the other way to though there are plenty ongoing

22:39

article tired on trees cause they can afford healthcare

22:41

here right i know that's why so right it was

22:43

people with money that right right

22:46

okay yeah yeah i

22:48

i didn't say everyone could do it an account but

22:51

that

22:53

the push comes to shove

22:55

you want to think very hard but whether you want to be in

22:57

a situation where you

23:00

cannot no matter what resources

23:02

you have at your disposal get

23:04

timely treatment for your wife's cancer

23:07

that's true but to your point before

23:11

the we do a wallet biopsy here

23:13

though you're rationing care by

23:16

one metric or another the question is do you met

23:18

and direction of based on need or the irrational

23:20

based on well you can rest

23:22

in peace on need

23:24

you can't rush anything based on me nuts

23:26

another misapprehension on the marks side

23:29

who the hell determines need

23:30

world you out from and need some an

23:32

accounting our emergency room i think they've

23:35

take precedence a facile answer

23:37

is it i'm asking a serious question

23:40

i thought i was given a serious answer know you're not

23:42

because there's when

23:44

you're trying to parcel out need

23:46

who you're dealing with multiple

23:50

serious stance

23:52

or catastrophe simile tiniest and

23:55

we don't know how to adjudicate the

23:57

provision of resources based on need

23:59

so i can give an example of that

24:02

you mention you have a kid who's

24:04

ah

24:06

single parent mother

24:08

minority

24:11

the bride's family unbelievably

24:14

academically gifted and capable

24:16

of benefiting from

24:18

ah high quality

24:21

publicly funded education or

24:24

you have a kid who's

24:27

god

24:28

the form of cancer that

24:30

the likely to

24:31

be painful and

24:33

it's

24:35

protracted suffering or wrong lengthy period

24:38

of time we've got a finite pool of money

24:41

how in the world you would you to kate between those two situations

24:45

an answer is you can't and

24:47

, only two situations not the

24:49

million situations that actually exists

24:52

and the way we do adjudicate the

24:54

to be no says situations as we use money

24:57

that is the mechanism for due to case and

25:00

you might say what produces all sorts of unfair consequences

25:02

and the response

25:04

to that is yeah that's for sure

25:07

that

25:09

that's not the issue the issue

25:11

is what what makes you think you can

25:13

do better there is

25:15

no evidence that you can do better and so

25:18

the idea that need ,

25:20

take precedence like that's that's

25:22

fine in principle though it's not not

25:25

in the world could possibly

25:27

adjudicate need you know that's

25:29

what they tried to do with the central planning committees

25:32

planning the soviet union when they returned make pricing

25:34

decisions and sometimes have the soviets

25:37

central planners had to make like five thousand

25:39

pricing decisions a day they

25:41

are trying to adjudicate need to we need

25:43

more nails or do we need more hypodermic

25:47

needles

25:48

well how in the world next like

25:50

to decisions not five thousand how

25:52

in the world are you possibly going to compute

25:55

that

25:56

and this is this is the other problem

25:59

that the marxist

25:59

in particular

26:02

the free market system is a giant

26:05

compute computational device distributed

26:08

computational device

26:11

involving billions of calculations per

26:13

second trying to compute

26:15

the transforming horizon of the future

26:18

and it can't be replaced by central planning

26:21

not even in principle but don't you think

26:23

there are some issues with that because profits

26:25

at the core of it so just to push back a little bit

26:27

a study came out scientific american reported

26:29

on this recently if the united states

26:32

had a universal healthcare system like

26:34

canada for example during the coven

26:36

nineteen pandemic three hundred and thirty thousand

26:39

more lives could have been saved so in some

26:41

ways i agree well i am minorities who is very

26:43

like that enhancing no one no one in

26:45

the world know there's no one in the world who could possibly

26:48

the study like that with valid outcomes

26:51

you don't like that and the family scientific american

26:53

reported it's not in the least i don't really

26:55

see if i did one hundred published studies i know

26:57

exactly how they were there's no

27:00

possible way that you can produce a scientific

27:02

study with that kind of complete not

27:04

less you build it in from the beginning was too many

27:06

variables take into account so

27:08

and were not also debated whether nord in

27:11

some circumstances the public

27:13

health care system is a desirable good that

27:15

that's something that needs to be discussed at

27:17

the level of detail the maybe

27:19

situations where it's an entirely good

27:22

i'm telling you some of the downsides one of the

27:24

downsides of telling you what happens in canada that

27:27

if you're in a dire situation it's

27:30

not like having to wait two years my

27:32

dad waited two years for knee replacements to

27:34

half years that i was exacerbated by kobe is not

27:36

like that isn't expensive

27:38

the couldn't move

27:40

that's expensive

27:41

in money there was nothing

27:43

we could do about it he was to elderly

27:45

to be taken down to the states

27:48

the was two logistically complex

27:51

so he was basically crippled for two years

27:53

now that's that's costly

27:56

then you think was not money it's like yes it is

27:58

it's money and time

28:00

the lot of people in canada are talking about a hybrid

28:03

private public model

28:05

that would have to be done experimentally and

28:07

locally and carefully

28:08

the see what he he advantages and

28:10

disadvantages would be and metrics would have to

28:12

be established properly night so you

28:15

have figure out what is your trying to measure wait

28:17

times might be one of them because wait times

28:19

are basically are proxy for expense already

28:21

said that canadian public health system

28:25

seems to be more efficient than the american system in some

28:27

ways his american hospital spend about thirty

28:29

percent of their budgets collecting

28:31

money right because having

28:33

to keep track of everything that's being

28:36

the offered

28:37

having to charge for that it's actually a tremendous

28:40

administrative burden and that does

28:42

seem to be somewhat lessened for

28:44

example when the canadian system

28:46

and the big problem with canadian system first

28:48

of all we don't know if it's sustainable that's

28:50

a problem but the wait times

28:52

or catastrophic and it's chronically underfunded

28:55

now that may be an intractable problem

28:57

because healthcare has an infinite

29:00

hope your as an infinite amount

29:02

people are pretty much spent everything the hell

29:04

out or die i mean i would you say

29:06

we have we times here too cause forty five thousand

29:08

people die every year in the us cause they don't have healthcare

29:11

that's a weird nine it's littered with dead bodies

29:13

so i'm not making a game on are not

29:15

making the case that the american system is prefer

29:18

canadian system

29:19

molina case okay so

29:21

i'm saying that we don't exactly

29:23

know how to negotiate this going forward

29:26

started down there are some people and us

29:29

that face terrible way times and can't get access

29:31

to hospitals and all i'm saying that there

29:33

are people in the us who don't face

29:35

that and every one in canada faces

29:38

and he doesn't seem right it's the least bit reasonable

29:40

that if i have excess reserves is even

29:43

those that could be them voted to

29:45

subsidizing they have health care

29:47

for poor people if

29:50

i was willing to pay a premium for

29:53

more rapid healthcare delivery and one

29:55

of the points this

29:57

is about it would be that i would subsidize

30:00

my own fans the surgery

30:02

or medical treatment as someone who was in more

30:04

dire economic straits why should not be allowed

30:06

to do that why not set up the system so

30:08

that both of those because i

30:10

guess arbitrary idea that why it's gotta be

30:12

public or it's gotta be private so

30:14

well no first of all healthcare

30:17

isn't one thing it's three hundred thousand

30:19

things each of them differential and complicated

30:22

and each of them it goes cheated

30:24

necessarily by people who are wise

30:27

out a level of detail and into

30:29

work out and with regards these

30:31

scandinavian countries these models

30:33

have to remember these countries

30:36

have fewer people have been some of your cities

30:39

very homogenous societies their much simpler

30:41

societies that the u m which is slick

30:43

staggeringly complex complex

30:46

complex society so a

30:48

lot of the solutions that work in scandinavia

30:50

it's not obvious that still scale to a country

30:53

the size of us maybe they'd scale

30:55

at the state level possibly and

30:57

in some of your states are experimenting with more

30:59

left wing approaches to problems of education

31:02

and healthcare and so forth a

31:04

good that's another this big advantage to the of were

31:06

system is that because you

31:08

the

31:10

federated system and the states have a

31:12

fair bit of autonomy you can run experiments

31:14

at the local level and see what works it gives

31:16

you get your metrics right minutes complicated

31:19

emily advantageous nasa free

31:21

market system to it's just a free market system

31:23

of states

31:24

the let some let's move on from

31:26

health out only get bogged down and healthcare wasn't my intent

31:28

for us to go hit thirty minutes on this but there

31:31

because there's so many other things i want to talking about i'm

31:33

let's let's go real simple

31:36

here if you are an american citizen

31:38

you were here in the twenty twenty election

31:40

would you have voted for trump

31:43

biden nobody or third

31:45

party candidate

31:46

i don't know you know you did sir are the

31:49

answer questions until you're actually in the situation

31:52

when clinton was facing off against

31:54

trump the very long time

31:57

i felt that i would have voted for clinton

31:59

i

31:59

the she had the at least

32:02

the administrative background and

32:04

a governmental experience

32:06

to know what the job was

32:08

to handle it i felt the trump

32:10

was is a wild card which he most

32:13

definitely was then i went to this

32:15

her the night of the election i will

32:17

add to this republican the

32:19

our in canada at a private

32:22

club

32:23

the

32:24

watching the election and they did a straw

32:26

both fair

32:27

and

32:29

industrial vote i cast my vote for

32:31

trump the no

32:33

surprise me and it

32:35

was something i sorta switched on last minute

32:37

and the reason i switched i would say

32:39

is because i thought clinton betrayed

32:42

the working class in

32:44

fact our for she lost the election it isn't something

32:46

i just felt that's definitely what happened

32:48

and so i thought to hell with you you know

32:50

i'd rather have this wild card in

32:53

here with his spontaneous lies than have

32:55

you in here with the earth programatic

32:57

powered mad driven ah

33:00

pre authorized lies so

33:02

i don't know it's hard to tell what you do in a

33:04

situation so you're actually in

33:06

do you think trump as president in

33:09

his for years also betrayed the working class

33:13

them

33:14

nord in the same manner know really

33:16

i think trump did some things that were written quite

33:19

spectacular i'm i'm not i'm

33:21

like what well how about no war

33:25

well he did assassinated top iranian

33:27

can oh no no no hiding i didn't have a say

33:29

that about i didn't say anything about assassination

33:31

i said something very specific he

33:34

i would say that cannot do not no

33:36

it's not an act of words and assess nation

33:38

an article in iranian commander i

33:41

don't understand the point you're make alarm try

33:43

to say if in iraq if the iranians

33:45

killed one of our generals we would call

33:48

that an act of war we do to them aniston

33:50

nectar war or right then i guess we have to differentiate

33:52

between an act of war and a war what

33:55

you have right now with russia

33:57

there's a war

33:59

right did nord and be engaged us

34:02

in war of that sort so that

34:04

was a signal contribution he also

34:06

established abraham and accords which

34:08

you've got nowhere near enough attention not new

34:10

nearer the attention they deserve

34:12

in

34:13

and the people who negotiated that should have won

34:15

a nobel peace prize because that

34:18

brings the possibility of peace to the middle

34:20

east and i consider a d or

34:22

there was a big accomplishment both of those things

34:24

you consider the the giant increasing

34:27

drone strikes under trump problematic

34:31

what you mean problematic you mean desirable

34:34

the duke as you said i'll he didn't get us in a new

34:36

war but i would consider all those bombings

34:39

which are illegal by the way an act of war you

34:41

think you know either trump i didn't say that trump

34:44

record was unblemished more that there

34:46

weren't skirmishes of various sorts

34:48

not trying to paint him i'm

34:51

not trying to pay him beige and

34:53

or i'm not trying to whitewash the perfectly

34:56

aware of trump's flaws and disadvantages

34:59

that he didn't embroil the us

35:01

in a war and you guys have been embroiled in

35:03

a pointless war for for what how long

35:05

now since the nineteen sixties one

35:07

after another and then the abraham

35:09

records are a big deal

35:11

so and did he betrayed the working class

35:14

well i think just in some sense evade

35:17

it's a vague question hillary definitely

35:19

betrayed the working class because she decided to go

35:21

with the whoop mob instead of her typical

35:24

in typically and instead of the typical base of

35:26

power that the democrats it always relied on so

35:28

can i gathered cornell decision you're

35:30

going example on trump betraying the working class to there's

35:32

a few things you the point to first father was net

35:35

outsourcing of jobs under his administration

35:37

when he campaigned as the opposite the second

35:39

thing is is number one legislative accomplishments

35:41

was a twenty seventeen tax cut were eighty three

35:43

percent of the benefits went to the top one percent those

35:46

are two examples of your we campaigned

35:48

as the anti outsourcing guide and there was net outsourcing

35:51

under his administration and fact that same tax

35:53

bill incentivized outsourcing and

35:55

then again that tax bill mostly benefit of the wealthy

35:58

and it didn't help the working class oh that's i mean by

36:00

be trying the working class i think he campaigned in a

36:02

very populist way but in terms

36:05

of how he governed it was very sort

36:07

of standard establishment republican just like george

36:09

w bush for example

36:11

well i don't have any real comments on not

36:13

like i said i'm not trying to whitewash trump

36:15

administration i'm just pointing to a couple of

36:17

things that he did that allows got credit for

36:20

yet and shouting and got credit for

36:22

i actually enjoyed you are on the pbt

36:24

patasse i think it was recently and for

36:26

you made a comment that you found trump whiny

36:28

particularly over the you

36:31

know common refrain

36:33

that he can't stop saying he thinks the election was stolen

36:35

and it's where i mean i'm on your commentary

36:38

was like move on well i think

36:40

i think it's a strategic error on his part

36:43

at minimum

36:44

mint trump

36:45

portrays himself and thinks of themselves

36:48

the winter and part of his attractiveness

36:51

on the populist front was his

36:54

unabashedly

36:56

victorious persona

36:58

let's say

36:59

and he's the guy that gets things

37:02

done and he's the guy that wins

37:04

the

37:06

apparently

37:08

the election was stolen from him

37:09

so that begs the question

37:12

are you that and with a winner and the guy that gets

37:15

things done or are you the guy that lets

37:17

things be stolen from you and

37:19

the and so the trumpet always had was while

37:21

i'm not the guy or not that guy i don't

37:23

know who else i am but i'm definitely the winner

37:25

here

37:26

and i think that now campaign

37:29

eating as if he was the ah

37:32

victim let's say alba

37:34

plot isn't

37:36

going to do him any good i think it

37:38

was probably a fatal decision from the strategic

37:40

perspective because so off brand

37:43

that has nothing that's completely independent

37:45

of

37:46

whatever virtue the argument about the still lex

37:48

might have well i don't believe that the that

37:51

the judiciary in the united states is so

37:53

corrupt that the the possibility

37:55

of are valid finding

37:58

on the election fraud fraud front

37:59

been reduced to zero i don't find that credible

38:02

then i do think so i also think that that's

38:05

it's a mistake on that front and it's a mistake

38:07

for conservatives there a mistake

38:09

for conservatives take that route because

38:12

conservatives can't say all

38:14

the institutions are corrupted untrustworthy

38:17

that's what the radical leftists say and

38:20

populace conservatives tend to do that

38:22

and not really leaves them with nothing except

38:24

maybe an appeal to public whim nelson

38:26

a way to govern so i think that was

38:28

a mistake to the

38:32

you don't you in your commentary

38:35

i'd you often hear a strong defense

38:37

i'm of our institutions

38:40

and i do feel like one of the common

38:42

things that defines the current political era

38:44

is definitely populism the

38:47

bubbles up on the left up through

38:49

the vessel of say a bernie sanders and even

38:51

what i would argue was a fake populism that came

38:53

up on the right with donald trump where the agreement

38:55

does seem to be will hold on these institutions

38:58

are really not working for us and they're broken

39:01

and they're fundamentally corrupt and

39:03

you know the genesis of it being you

39:05

have this donor class of

39:07

corporations and billionaires that donates

39:10

to politicians and then they get elected

39:12

and do the bidding of that donor class

39:14

and the corporations the

39:17

do you disagree with that analysis do think that that's

39:20

just overwhelm the problem in the institution

39:22

where a healthier

39:23

well

39:25

i think it's partly a tower of babel

39:28

prob so i've been listening

39:30

a fair bit to russell brand who i quite like

39:32

the brothel is very very smart

39:34

he's definitely one of the smartest people i've ever

39:36

met his unbelievably sharp and

39:39

he differs in his

39:41

political utterances from me

39:44

a substantial degree although there's a fair bit

39:46

of commonality as well

39:48

these more beating

39:51

the anti capitalism drum

39:53

in a manner that i tend not to but

39:55

there's a specific reason for that and the reason

39:57

is that

39:58

russell has realize

39:59

that

40:00

size is a problem and

40:03

you know the the lefties tend to

40:05

be skeptical of big government and the right

40:07

wingers tend to be

40:09

sorry the lefties tend to be skate skeptical

40:11

of big companies brand that right

40:14

wingers tend to be skeptical of big government

40:16

right and i think the right way forward through

40:18

all that mess is that we should be skeptical

40:20

of big you know american

40:23

two thousand and eight there was this mantra that

40:25

was

40:26

what

40:27

the down from on high

40:29

too big to fail that

40:31

was not only wrong but anti

40:33

true so something anti true is literally

40:36

the opposite of what's true not just

40:38

a lie not just a misstatement and

40:40

the real ah the

40:42

proper response to the two thousand and

40:45

eight crisis should have been so

40:47

big that it inevitably

40:49

must fail

40:51

so when people are skeptical of institutions

40:55

that the skepticism should be levied

40:58

somewhat more carefully at to in

41:00

two ways one should be lol

41:03

all institutions tend towards

41:05

anachronism and corruption as they age

41:07

and they have to be constantly update there

41:10

you have a civic responsibility

41:13

who attend who the organizations

41:16

of your society

41:17

the local organizations political parties

41:20

churches

41:21

the business organizations in your community

41:23

you should be a member of those and participating

41:25

in them to improve the nastiest

41:28

a lot of mankind the old dad

41:30

uncles the very common mythological

41:32

motif and then the other problem is

41:34

the problem of scale it

41:37

seems highly probable that

41:39

once institutions reach

41:41

a certain magnitude

41:44

the their mirror size some

41:47

towards an authoritarian egotism

41:50

that seizure

41:52

and so i can't see why the right

41:55

and left can't agree on is that what we have

41:57

here is a problem of scale so

41:59

would you have responded to that two thousand and eight

42:02

crash by breaking up the big banks

42:04

that i don't know knowing i don't i don't something the

42:06

right the left to agree on anti monopolists

42:08

would agree on that yeah well

42:11

i mean i have an objection

42:13

in principle to overweening

42:16

and large i don't like centralized

42:18

arises i think they're inefficient an

42:20

authoritarian and i don't know what i would have done

42:22

in that specific situation because generally

42:25

in complex circumstances

42:28

like that the devils in the details

42:30

the

42:31

by get germany thoughts on the bailouts

42:34

oh you know it any

42:37

thoughts

42:38

yeah like how basically the government came

42:40

in rushed in propped up wall

42:42

street as everything was crumbling and

42:44

sort out the homeowners together with them so well that

42:47

you know it seems to me that the money

42:49

went to the wrong people are right it would have

42:51

been lot more it would be more difficult

42:54

to prop up the mortgage holders

42:57

the would have had the same effect eventually or on the

42:59

banks the i think that

43:02

yeah that the the their

43:04

the fastest element to that a so

43:06

fascism who fascism

43:08

the word is derived from the word sassy's

43:11

and that means to bind together

43:14

and so fascism is the

43:16

unholy alliance let's say of media

43:19

corporation and governments

43:21

and i think the two thousand and eight

43:23

bailouts like so much of the

43:26

globalist idiocy that pervades

43:28

our society today is essentially

43:30

fastest in its nature then

43:32

i think that's extremely unfortunate than extremely

43:34

dangerous so

43:37

you know the two thousand eight financial crisis

43:39

was a strange bird because

43:41

it was the consequence of a brilliant technological

43:44

innovation no one expected

43:47

the consequences of that innovation to

43:49

be as dramatic as they were

43:51

so basically what happened was that you

43:53

know every mortgage has a risk right and some

43:56

people are read less

43:58

risky than others

44:00

the get mad at each mortgage has a specific

44:02

risk then you could imagine bundling together

44:04

mortgages of a certain risk

44:07

the be a two percent three percent default

44:10

rate on average bundle a thousand

44:12

of them together you average across

44:15

the risk

44:16

the disagree and then theoretically

44:18

you can discount the risk

44:20

that was the idea of putting these mortgage trenches

44:23

together bundle risky

44:25

investments together

44:26

stabilize the risk offset

44:29

it financially and sell the resulting

44:32

france the the grouping brilliant

44:34

bloody brilliant idea what

44:37

no one expected was that linking mortgages

44:39

together like that would link

44:41

housing prices together across the entire

44:43

country rights but no one saw

44:45

that coming and we were subprime

44:48

so they should have been really about those low well

44:50

as play all that nord to say no no that's

44:52

hard to say you don't want to say that too quickly

44:54

because remember that

44:56

for decades before that it had been government

44:58

policy on the left and on the right

45:01

try to facilitate the

45:03

purchase of homes by people who were who

45:05

were doing so well economically

45:07

and what that meant that was was that mortgages

45:09

were going to be extended to people who are hiring who

45:12

had a higher credit risk and part of

45:14

him purpose

45:16

aggregating the more just mortgages together

45:18

in these trenches was to decrease

45:20

that risk so that more people could

45:22

have houses

45:24

now you could argue that it was a bad

45:26

idea try to ensure

45:28

that people who are economically

45:30

unsustainable or unreliable

45:32

for whatever reason had access to

45:34

enough money to buy a house that's a different issue

45:37

but both democrats and republicans decided

45:39

that was a good idea at and a big issue

45:41

is the ratings agencies lied they

45:44

were bought off so they would say oh these are rated

45:46

aaa which means they're the safest investment you

45:48

can do when very clearly on it's face it

45:50

was not a safe investment while they were investment

45:53

well they looked safe to begin with

45:55

because when they bundled the when they bundled

45:57

the mortgages together they did discount the rest

45:59

but what happened this is another unexpected

46:02

consequences

46:03

once the risk was lowered the

46:06

banks are incentivized to take on even

46:08

more risky mortgages because they believe

46:10

they could now discount the risk

46:12

the not just got out of control yeah

46:14

and some of that was corrupt in obviously

46:16

in some of it as in cinema with

46:18

collusion with rating agencies but you

46:20

also have to understand that running

46:23

a rating agency is no simple matter and

46:25

if you're smart enough to rate the reliability

46:27

of investments you're smart enough to go

46:30

develop your own investment portfolio make a fortune

46:32

on your own and so the regulators

46:34

are always going to be pit the regulators

46:36

are always going to be playing be playing

46:39

catch up game with the real financial

46:41

geniuses and innovators volt they

46:43

they were paid by the people they were supposed

46:45

to be raining so there was a grub without interest

46:48

rate that were they were they are incentivized to say oh

46:50

yeah these are rated aaa and really

46:52

was just a big rubes people were playing hop

46:54

on well with very tight was as i wasn't

46:56

just the big bruise if there's a moral hazard

46:58

there and it's not trivial

47:00

right i mean the the you shouldn't

47:02

use your raiders should be independent

47:05

obviously and so your points well taken

47:07

their but there are many factors that

47:09

went into that catastrophe and some

47:11

of them words if you can't you

47:13

can't talk it all up to corruption

47:16

i wouldn't because it was complicated

47:19

and like i said that bound

47:21

bundling the more we just that was really smart idea

47:23

and one did think that cuz

47:25

i the theory was that housing

47:27

prices across the country were going to remain on

47:29

correlated and

47:30

the always has it

47:32

wasn't the mortgages were linked together with

47:34

these new financial instruments that housing prices

47:37

the started to move in sync and that's

47:39

what sunk the market no

47:41

one is no one saw that coming to that's remember

47:43

at the beginning the conversation talk about the danger of new

47:45

ideas you've learned an

47:47

idea like that you say look we figured out a way to

47:50

specify risk and to decrease

47:52

the investment risk

47:55

of moans

47:57

given to people who are less financially

47:59

stable

47:59

she does everybody be clapping about that because

48:02

it means you can get poor people into houses

48:04

then the unintended consequence was the whole housing

48:07

market collapse

48:08

no yeah know that coming

48:10

the yeah yeah me i guess i'd i

48:12

struggle with that in this sense i don't want

48:14

to presuppose and end of history analysis

48:16

where we assume that we already sort

48:18

of maxed out on our potential

48:20

in a sense so we always have to be open a new ideas

48:23

it as they have to be intelligent new ideas

48:25

that are that can be tested and verify

48:28

yeah well that's the big just

48:30

the court yeah that's all the devil is in

48:32

those details i target well it's

48:34

also why we have free speech by the way

48:36

it is ranked yeah we an obvious these

48:38

ideas before we implement them in principle

48:41

i'm as staunch defender of that as

48:43

you can get in fact a while we have talk

48:46

about that so i notice

48:49

you just the other day you were banned from

48:51

twitter now you know i'm

48:53

somebody nobody can argue

48:55

against my lefty credentials everybody

48:57

knows i'm a man of the left having

49:00

said that my that my

49:02

on this issue of social media censorship has

49:04

always been look we need to expand

49:07

first amendment protections and the way you

49:09

do that is to regulate these

49:11

big social media companies like their

49:14

public utilities though if you do that

49:16

than you you know basically you're saying this

49:18

is the new public square and people

49:20

can speak their mind you're not a doesn't mean of course you can't

49:23

you know docs people are do direct

49:25

threats of violence or anything or anything it's actually

49:27

illegal will remain illegal but outside

49:29

of that you can't censor people just based

49:31

on some political opinion

49:34

so you know i definitely wouldn't know where'd

49:36

you suspended you etc but i do

49:38

have a question about that specific tweet

49:40

that did get you in trouble because

49:42

you know you've said something to the effect of more

49:45

i don't know if it got me in trouble you

49:47

know i don't think i'm in trouble twitter ban me

49:50

but i don't consider that trouble doesn't

49:52

have fair enough fair point but

49:54

you said some of the effect of remember when pride was

49:56

a sand and dumb the

50:00

the criminals and alienates just had her breasts

50:02

cut off by a criminal subliminal physician exactly

50:04

so my question is

50:06

the position really criminal if you agree

50:09

that adults can decide to transition

50:11

than why would the physician be criminal stone

50:13

adults have that right if they want to transition

50:21

not everything legal isn't criminal

50:25

and do they have that right see

50:27

i would have lived ellen page alone if she hadn't been

50:29

parading her new abs in assassin magazine

50:33

how many kids you think she can convince

50:36

to convert

50:37

one yet so i wasn't no

50:40

no it's yeah no no i wanna i

50:42

wanna respond to that i think the

50:44

with the trans community it's very similar to the

50:46

gay community where back when that first

50:48

became a big issue people thought oh

50:51

we talk about it if it's in magazines or whatever

50:53

we're promoting kids to go down that

50:55

path the really what happened is people

50:58

are who they are and other day they just decided

51:00

to be little yeah i'm gay and they were just more

51:03

open and honest with themselves sort of the you're promoting

51:05

people to do that about his name would happen if you

51:07

are that it you'll read okay learn

51:10

are totally unwilling still listening

51:12

about that sits right so it exploded

51:14

others in an absolute look one of the reasons

51:16

that i

51:17

suppose bill see sixteen and candidate

51:19

to begin with this pronoun compelled speech

51:21

bill was because i knew perfectly

51:24

well what was going to happen when we introduced

51:26

confusion about gender identity

51:28

into the public sphere the

51:31

argument was that if we

51:33

the left

51:34

people with gender dysphoria alone

51:36

to make their own way stop

51:38

torturing

51:40

that

51:41

we would decrease the mental health

51:43

load on those individuals

51:46

and my a analysis as a clinician was

51:48

that for every one person of

51:50

that sort that we hypothetically

51:52

save we do my thousand

51:54

more the consequence of confusion

51:57

and then social contagion i

51:59

knew literature or and psychogenic

52:02

epidemics the used to call that mass

52:04

hysteria and solider sure the goes back about

52:06

three hundred years and whenever

52:08

you introduce often when you

52:10

introduce social confusion you

52:13

can produce the psychogenic epidemic especially

52:15

among generally it's adolescent

52:17

females who are most susceptible to

52:19

so i thought oh well what's going to happen

52:21

is will produce a psychogenic epidemic of gender

52:24

dysphoria among adolescents emails

52:26

and that is exactly what's

52:28

happened

52:30

and it isn't the fact that we've freed

52:32

up people who are

52:33

what

52:34

in doubt about their identity

52:36

to be who they are

52:38

that may have happened in a tiny minority cases

52:41

it's absolutely a definitely the case that

52:43

we've doom thousands of kids too brutal

52:46

mutilating surgery and premature

52:48

sterility and we've done that on

52:50

the altar of our hypothetical moral

52:52

virtue and compassion

52:55

what i read a call

52:57

but analysis of the trans surgery

52:59

industry last week growth

53:01

rate projection for you lefty

53:03

types and you're anti corporatism

53:06

read projection fifteen percent

53:08

per year invest now

53:10

at three hundred and fifty million dollar business

53:13

as of twenty twenty two

53:15

projected to expand his seven hundred

53:17

and fifty million by twenty twenty seven

53:20

no moral hazard there twenty

53:23

of moral hazard lawyer what a massive surgery

53:25

is absolutely brutal so

53:28

what percentage of the population do you

53:30

think in your conception of how this is

53:32

unfolding what percentage of the population

53:34

do you think is gonna end up being trans

53:37

at the end of this do you think like a million

53:39

seventy percent know if we know and renaissance

53:42

we know already that about one in five

53:45

adolescence now identifies

53:47

to use that heated word identifies

53:50

as part of the hypothetical lgbtq

53:52

plus community so

53:55

it's one in five of us don't know what

53:57

the upper limit is this a consulting group

53:59

in the hey now this claiming there is one hundred and fifty

54:01

different genders it actually

54:04

i suppose seven billion different genders

54:06

if you want to get technical about it because everybody's

54:08

temperament efforts

54:09

that i don't know what the upper limit is

54:12

and i have no idea what the upper limit is for this

54:14

surgical intervention will see doesn't

54:16

but i don't find it i don't find it the least

54:18

bit acceptable and if you think that your compassion

54:21

is demanding

54:23

did you extend your ah

54:25

pity

54:26

the ldp btc do

54:28

was community

54:30

the cost of sterilized and killed

54:34

you should think again you're on the wrong

54:36

side of this an ornate it's runway don't

54:39

i died , would appreciate if you

54:41

don't ascribe believed me that i don't have remember

54:43

my original question was why i said

54:45

earlier licensed in i said you know

54:47

your pages an adult and so do think

54:49

that he has the right now but added that

54:52

was the original question comments after that

54:54

yeah but as a star and

54:57

, figure and a model for

54:59

emulation

55:00

the

55:01

he also has the responsibility

55:03

not to entice confused

55:05

adolescence into a catastrophic

55:08

decision before they have the maturity

55:10

to make that decision

55:11

i just have to

55:12

the jordan i think it's a little bit of a moral

55:14

panic i just don't see some sort

55:17

of that you know renzi

55:19

okay what would you consider them trans what's

55:21

first of all that's a hell of a way to put it why

55:24

why don't you take a look at the increases

55:26

in surgical interventions and see what you

55:29

think mean how many do you think our many

55:32

nice were like if we're talking all answer

55:34

your question i'll answer questions the argument is

55:36

a the used to be very repressed

55:38

biggest that's very outside of the tradition and

55:40

the norm in the standard and that now

55:43

when i don't have much of a mood all at a national anyway oppressed

55:45

what used to be surprised all the as anti

55:47

your lgbtq community i mean it was very

55:49

recently regular out of all marijuana united

55:51

source of all they're not a community well

55:55

you and what are your point i'm a unity

55:57

no i'm know actually

55:59

neither

55:59

i understand it nor you and

56:02

that's why we're delving into a first

56:04

of all they're not a community

56:06

that's just a catchphrase

56:09

it's a buzzword and i'll tell you something

56:11

else that almost all the kids who are

56:14

undergoing surgical intervention the

56:16

clinical literature is absolutely clear on

56:18

this eighty percent of kids

56:20

with gender dysphoria

56:22

identify as homosexual when they mature

56:26

eighty percent

56:28

and that means the vast majority of people who

56:30

are being converted

56:32

surgically are gay

56:35

know how is that an advantage to the gay

56:37

community precisely now

56:40

i see i'm not i'm not taking a position in

56:42

any way shape or form on the

56:45

kids because i don't know that

56:47

you showed up this to comment on a kids' school but

56:49

see that's why we're having this conversation those because

56:52

my original question was about kids the adults

56:55

and what's your take his on the adult and it sounds

56:57

to me like that let me ask as would you ban

56:59

transition surgery for adults

57:09

really

57:11

yeah really good paneling price for it

57:13

and i hope that i think that it was

57:16

it was an an active stunning hubris

57:19

to conduct the first trans

57:21

surgery procedure without it's not obvious

57:24

to me at all that it's been a net social good

57:26

are there some people that are obviously

57:28

trans who were born in one body they feel

57:31

like they're in the other body and when they're an adult they can make

57:33

the decision and then even from just a freedom and liberty

57:35

perspective since they have that right

57:37

even if they do it and then they regret it should they have

57:39

the right to try

57:41

good question i mean it's tricky one

57:43

right because there's all sorts of surgical

57:45

enhancement procedures that are obviously not

57:48

obviously appropriate make the be legal

57:50

and i don't know exactly where that cut off line

57:52

is so to speak and that's partly why we're having

57:55

we're having discussion about

57:56

but

57:58

it is or this entire

57:59

the

58:01

in many ways is stated so idiotically

58:03

that it almost defies description in

58:06

what do you mean feel like you're

58:08

in the wrong body

58:10

measurement is but no hang on a sir

58:12

i was gonna rule the cells for these sorts

58:14

of diagnostic decisions even okay

58:17

the rule is that you have to make a valid

58:19

and reliable diagnosis

58:21

that's if you diagnosing depression or anxiety

58:23

of obsessive compulsive disorder or

58:25

cancer anything like that their standards

58:28

that you have to abide by in

58:30

order to make to make in order to facility

58:32

obligations of your professional call

58:35

if someone comes to says

58:38

i feel like i have lung cancer

58:41

that is not sufficient grounds put on which

58:43

to formulate diagnosis much less proceed

58:45

to surgery and so the

58:47

question is

58:48

what do you mean by feel

58:51

what is that is that an emotion is it

58:53

a motivation is it the philosophical solution

58:56

what is it limp like salem explain

58:58

to you what i mean them expense want to be so i've been do my chauffeur

59:00

about a decade and about two or three years

59:02

into doing my show there were some stories

59:04

here in their thy covered about the transition

59:07

somebody who is trans reached out to me

59:09

and explained to me and a very straightforward way look

59:12

i was bored biologically female

59:15

i feel like i'm biologically male

59:17

my reality that my up we'll we'll

59:20

i'm just explaining what they said and then you can respond to

59:22

our be like to respond and they told me

59:24

as soon as i got the surgery

59:26

change the way i dressed change the way i peered

59:28

i felt for nominally better and so

59:31

that's why at least for me this was

59:33

the answer now i think you would be incredibly

59:35

arrogant for me to say back to that person

59:38

no you shouldn't do that or i know better

59:40

than you do for yourself and i thought to say

59:42

that every time somebody does this it works out well

59:44

of course because everybody's an individual putting

59:47

some instances that's the answer though

59:49

you know me as a simple outsider i just

59:51

look at it and say hey whatever floats your boat method works

59:53

it were not most of the time my attitude

59:56

is you can go to hell and handbasket anywhere you

59:58

choose if you're an adult

59:59

now the problem this problem

1:00:02

is complicated and compounded by the

1:00:04

fact of the necessity of medical involvement

1:00:06

and the ethics on the medical front so

1:00:09

, you ask me about how that should be regulated

1:00:11

my answer was i'm not exactly sure about that

1:00:14

yeah although it isn't obvious to me that the

1:00:16

that it's obvious to me that the trend

1:00:18

surgery enterprise has gone way

1:00:21

too far way to for thousands of

1:00:23

people to before and i'm

1:00:25

certain that it's harm

1:00:29

exponentially more people than it's help move

1:00:31

now and i was it also say with regards to that

1:00:33

story

1:00:35

an anecdote is north data and it's not something

1:00:37

that you base diagnostic decision on inferno

1:00:40

cake aired off selling torture anecdotes that's

1:00:42

true yeah well well and that's especially

1:00:44

true when you're talking about diagnosis know

1:00:46

we're in this weird situation where this

1:00:49

is andy conversion bill legislation

1:00:52

let's say it's now illegal

1:00:54

essentially for mental health professionals

1:00:57

position as as well to

1:00:59

talk to anyone the young

1:01:01

about their so called gender identity

1:01:04

which is by the way a complete load of

1:01:06

rubbish for all sorts of reasons which

1:01:08

we kept also get into it's

1:01:10

illegal to talk to them about that unless you're

1:01:12

going to affirm what they feel

1:01:15

but you can convert them surgically

1:01:19

don't think about that we've made talking

1:01:22

about conversion illegal

1:01:24

but we made but we're promoting surgical

1:01:27

conversion and everyone

1:01:29

thinks that's moral and decent why i don't

1:01:31

think so no not even not in the lease i

1:01:33

think it's appalling

1:01:35

the worst which level of paul and there's

1:01:37

no excuse for and certainly

1:01:40

on the diagnostic front they're actually

1:01:42

rules for psychologists there and the rules

1:01:44

are written by

1:01:45

the requisite organizations like the american

1:01:47

psychological association you are required

1:01:50

by the laws that govern your kaunda

1:01:52

act as a profession

1:01:54

the use only valid and reliable

1:01:56

means of diagnosis period and

1:01:58

it among psychologist or what that

1:02:00

means is extremely well delineated

1:02:02

and what your client feels

1:02:05

that is not a valid or

1:02:07

reliable measure there's

1:02:09

all sorts of examples of people

1:02:11

anorexic sick field if they're too fat why

1:02:15

not strip the remaining flesh

1:02:17

off the surgically

1:02:19

why is that different

1:02:22

they definitely feel like if i mean i've had and rex

1:02:24

clients and i spent some time with

1:02:26

one clients six

1:02:28

months she came to lunch with me to

1:02:31

eat i watched street and encouraged

1:02:33

her to eat and

1:02:35

i did this i did this

1:02:37

this or routine with her at one point i

1:02:40

had a look at her size use quite a slight woman

1:02:42

small in about five feet tall so

1:02:44

small one and extraordinarily thin because

1:02:46

she was anorexic and i had to sit

1:02:48

beside me and to look

1:02:50

at her thigh and mine and

1:02:52

i asked her which of them was margin

1:02:55

and mine was like at least fifty

1:02:57

percent

1:02:58

wider audience like visually

1:03:01

absolutely op is and see

1:03:03

lot a lot ten minutes i

1:03:05

would say she said well i think she start

1:03:07

hers was larger and so i said okay

1:03:09

i'm going to do something you watch be very very carefully

1:03:12

to make sure that are not

1:03:13

performing any trick on you so i put a piece of paper

1:03:16

under my leg and a piece paper under

1:03:18

hers and i just trace my thigh

1:03:20

i put a trace my thigh on the peace paper first

1:03:22

and i put it under hers and trace

1:03:24

her thigh and then i showed her the

1:03:27

to traces

1:03:28

and or size were

1:03:30

an inch and a half the and on mine or both sides

1:03:32

and she probably looked at that piece of paper for

1:03:34

fifteen minutes

1:03:37

there are not only did she feel that she was fat

1:03:39

when she looked at her own body

1:03:41

that's what she saw anders

1:03:44

complicated reasons for that like anorexics

1:03:46

don't seem to be able to look at the whole body they

1:03:48

look pieces of nobody and

1:03:51

then they can't tell if the musculature

1:03:53

in the skin there is is fat or if

1:03:55

it's thin they lose the ability

1:03:58

to see themselves as a guest salt and now

1:04:00

only do they feel that they're fat they see

1:04:02

that the what is that

1:04:04

does that mean right and even if

1:04:06

they're not right then

1:04:09

how is it that ceiling me as a valid

1:04:11

indicator of identity and also

1:04:13

by the way ceiling has never been a valid indicator

1:04:15

identity because your identity

1:04:18

is not based on who you on who

1:04:20

you feel you are that

1:04:22

is the that is us are noted as

1:04:24

theory of identity that is so shallow

1:04:27

that anyone with a shred of intellectual

1:04:30

pretension who utters it should instantly

1:04:32

be ashamed of themselves

1:04:33

who your own think it is her identities as

1:04:35

what they feel i mean it's more of

1:04:38

a default defense of freedom

1:04:40

and liberty people make their own choices

1:04:42

even like you said he even if you're going to hell in a handbasket

1:04:45

so i don't think it's a crazy position i

1:04:47

understand people disagreeing with a but i certainly don't think

1:04:49

is a crazy position

1:04:51

crazy position the american psychological

1:04:53

association adopted it's crazy position

1:04:56

because it violates the diagnostic regulations

1:04:58

privileges validity and reliability and

1:05:00

if the arguments you

1:05:02

have the right to go to hell and and basket

1:05:05

in your own manner as an adult

1:05:07

well we could have a discussion about that that

1:05:09

still begs the question of do surgeons

1:05:12

gets to help you and still

1:05:14

abide by their medical ethics that's

1:05:16

a different issue so art work i

1:05:18

bet i think everybody understand your position on this

1:05:20

now you're you're on the record and and and

1:05:22

you flush it out i will ask you i mean

1:05:24

so to speak i saw you talked to

1:05:26

was dave rubin the other day and

1:05:29

i'm you made you made that you don't

1:05:31

think that gay conversion therapy

1:05:34

should be banned the also conceded

1:05:36

that you don't think it works though

1:05:39

why could have been allowed him i don't think it was an issue

1:05:42

we just how many

1:05:44

people would enjoy ferguson's that while said

1:05:46

he said well as anybody successfully d

1:05:48

jade and your response was like

1:05:50

i don't think so it could be allowed

1:05:53

which strikes know what my of is

1:05:55

very highly unlikely that those particular

1:05:58

words were my response to right choose

1:06:00

my words lot more carefully than that so

1:06:03

yes i don't believe that there isn't there evidence

1:06:05

that people have been successfully d dade

1:06:07

album i don't know the studies and

1:06:10

it's tricky issue because

1:06:12

it through our bisexuals let's say

1:06:14

which we seem to all agree on that there are borderline

1:06:17

cases and i suspect that there are bisexuals

1:06:19

who decide to live

1:06:22

street life yes

1:06:25

or no is that true or not easy

1:06:27

yeah but if they're by they still have the attraction to

1:06:29

the same sex too that's always

1:06:31

there

1:06:32

it's more about how he is it a continuum

1:06:35

is it a continuum are these discreet category

1:06:38

i think it's all spectrum yes

1:06:40

okay then there's gonna be some people who are

1:06:43

mostly gay who are slightly bisexual

1:06:45

who decide deliver straight line

1:06:47

sure

1:06:48

the what we don't have that same

1:06:51

there will always have some sexual attraction to the same

1:06:53

sex is the point so thereby no matter

1:06:55

how they relax your

1:06:56

header a search to monogamous men generally

1:06:59

have some attraction to other women

1:07:02

group that's right so you can later that

1:07:04

i believe me

1:07:05

the i got married because neither neither here

1:07:07

nor there are a lot of this is decision and the

1:07:09

degree to which people can decide which lifestyle

1:07:12

so to speak they're going to choose that's an open question

1:07:15

as all this rush to ban conversion

1:07:17

therapy well first of all was an absolute catastrophic

1:07:20

mistake not because there's something good

1:07:22

about conversion therapy but because

1:07:25

banning discussion of identity

1:07:27

with a therapist completely

1:07:30

this rates the therapeutic process

1:07:32

oh you do is

1:07:34

a therapist is talk about someone's identity

1:07:38

so if you come to me let's say you're

1:07:40

confused and you're young

1:07:42

the

1:07:44

just for example in

1:07:47

you come to come for the

1:07:49

therapeutic conversation

1:07:52

if i affirm your identity

1:07:55

i'm doing you a colossal disservice

1:07:58

first of all you know very happy with your

1:08:00

identity because otherwise you wouldn't be coming

1:08:03

to see a therapist

1:08:04

certain my role as a therapist is

1:08:06

not to affirm

1:08:08

or to deny

1:08:11

it's to in choir

1:08:12

right

1:08:14

very difficult for any of us to figure

1:08:16

out who we are and

1:08:18

unless we're it's possible

1:08:20

for us to have a difficult decision discussion

1:08:23

about who you are how

1:08:25

in the world are we going to engage in a therapeutic

1:08:28

darla

1:08:29

yep just say well you know you feel

1:08:31

that way and therefore i will be stripped

1:08:33

of my license by my governing body if

1:08:35

i even raise a question

1:08:38

they're not the end of that and

1:08:40

and what one why did we pass this

1:08:42

legislation because legislation handful of fundamentalists

1:08:44

in the us where hypothetically attempting to convert

1:08:46

gay people how many times did that happen

1:08:49

in the last twenty years

1:08:51

one hundred number they attempt er how many times

1:08:53

did it work no attempt bow

1:08:55

attempt i have no idea man really

1:08:57

does anyone else right right a

1:08:59

tiny tiny minority of

1:09:01

people

1:09:02

first of all certainly virtually no one

1:09:04

from the mainstream psychotherapy to community would

1:09:06

ever do that are you had

1:09:09

a handful of fundamentalists perhaps who

1:09:11

are doing this now and then in some

1:09:13

situations and now we've made

1:09:15

laws everywhere

1:09:17

that basically made it impossible it

1:09:19

made it impossible for everyone to have an honest conversation

1:09:21

with any of their target

1:09:23

and that's supposed to be an improvement it's not

1:09:25

improve

1:09:26

the probably decimated the psychotherapeutic

1:09:29

the enterprise and possibly the medical and

1:09:31

prices well

1:09:32

that you cannot ask know the

1:09:35

kind of questions you have to ask if your therapist

1:09:38

you know what you came to me and you're confused about sexuality

1:09:42

maybe your promiscuity has gotten out of hand

1:09:44

i don't have what it is or maybe you haven't had

1:09:46

sex with anyone for five years you know

1:09:48

there's the two opposite ends of the spectrum

1:09:51

i'm not disturbing you some

1:09:53

pretty damn difficult conversations but

1:09:55

your identity the up

1:09:58

the well now we can

1:10:00

yeah that's very strange by that's that's certainly

1:10:02

not in august it's catastrophic and

1:10:04

and will do no good whatsoever and to

1:10:07

a to ally that with the allowance

1:10:10

and insistence now that the surgical

1:10:12

conversion route is both appropriate and

1:10:14

effective indeed it will somehow

1:10:16

reduce suicide rates there's absolutely no

1:10:19

evidence whatsoever for that claimed by the

1:10:21

way outright lie

1:10:23

that claim i'm doug peterson i

1:10:25

don't wanna take up too much more your time you've been very kind

1:10:27

with your time with me and i really appreciate that i

1:10:29

guess i'll ask one more question i'm very

1:10:31

curious your thoughts on i'm obviously we

1:10:33

just had this big supreme court

1:10:35

case here in the us were real vs wade

1:10:37

was overturned and now gets thrown

1:10:39

back to the states and the individual states will decide

1:10:42

what to do with abortion and now as

1:10:44

we speak at least thirteen states has

1:10:46

fully band abortion i'm what's

1:10:49

your take on role vs wade you think it should have been upheld

1:10:51

or do you think it should have been overturned and

1:10:53

what your feelings more generally on

1:10:55

the issue of abortion

1:10:57

well

1:11:03

i don't think anybody regards abortion as

1:11:05

a positive good

1:11:09

so i make a terrible joke you know

1:11:12

you wouldn't get one as a gift for your sister

1:11:14

for christmas

1:11:16

it's not a good

1:11:17

no it's a last ditch attempt

1:11:19

to stave off her impending moral

1:11:22

catastrophe so

1:11:24

i think that policy should be put in place

1:11:28

in the broadest possible sense with

1:11:30

the aim of lowering the overall

1:11:32

abortion and i don't

1:11:34

think that can be done effectively

1:11:37

with compulsion

1:11:39

i'm not an advocate for compulsion in

1:11:41

the realm of policy in general maybe

1:11:43

there have to be exceptions made in the case of

1:11:45

criminals

1:11:47

that complicated to but generally if

1:11:49

or as our policy requires compulsion

1:11:52

then it's bad policy and is counter

1:11:54

productive i know i've been talking

1:11:56

to people in hungary partly

1:11:58

as a consequence of the

1:11:59

one versus wade decision and hungry

1:12:02

, institute a lot of family friendly policies

1:12:05

in the last ten years it's been their fundamental

1:12:07

policy focus and one

1:12:09

of the things they've done which is quite interesting

1:12:11

is

1:12:13

his

1:12:14

exempt women from paying income tax

1:12:16

at different levels as they have children

1:12:19

so the have one child i think

1:12:22

your income tax load goes down

1:12:24

i don't remember if it's ten or twenty percent and

1:12:26

so on up till four children and

1:12:28

at the point of having for children

1:12:31

if you're the mother you

1:12:33

are then exempt from paying into tax for the rest

1:12:36

of your life and that's in the context

1:12:38

of a broad range of

1:12:40

policies designed to the

1:12:42

support stable heterosexual

1:12:45

monogamy and to provide a stable

1:12:48

basis for the raising of children

1:12:50

and one of the consequences of that is that although

1:12:53

abortion is legal in hungary up

1:12:55

to twelve weeks

1:12:57

the a variety of reasons the

1:12:59

part they rate abortion rate

1:13:01

by forty percent

1:13:03

you know thumbs up to that as far as

1:13:05

i'm concerned and i think that

1:13:07

we should use their certain markers and we should

1:13:09

be using the to to

1:13:11

test the health of our society

1:13:14

that we're not using we use

1:13:16

unemployment we use inflation

1:13:18

those are the two major major economic

1:13:20

metrics

1:13:23

rick

1:13:26

we don't use it almost every western

1:13:29

country is way below replacement terms

1:13:31

birthrate and i think that's catastrophe

1:13:34

and i think abortion rates another matter

1:13:38

well designed policy

1:13:40

should aim at driving the rate down as low

1:13:42

as possible with a minimum amount of

1:13:44

course of force

1:13:46

no in principle i'm pleased

1:13:48

because i'm a d centralist in in

1:13:50

a most fundamental sense with that decision to

1:13:52

kick the be decisions back down to the states

1:13:55

the battle house for a multiple do

1:13:57

a multitude of experiments to be

1:14:00

simultaneously run and

1:14:02

i'd been working with fingers

1:14:05

on the liberal left to try to also

1:14:08

determine what a reasonable pathway

1:14:10

forward mighty

1:14:11

in terms of protecting minimal rights to

1:14:14

healthy to safe

1:14:17

and medically revised abortions

1:14:20

though

1:14:22

anyways the monumentally issue is we should

1:14:24

we should reconfigure family policy in

1:14:27

in in a fundamental way so that

1:14:30

so that one of the aims is the reduction of the

1:14:32

abortion rate because why wouldn't people

1:14:34

want that

1:14:36

no one thing it's good what was

1:14:38

the old mantra on the democrat side

1:14:41

the really rare right

1:14:43

yeah we could concentrate on the rear part

1:14:45

you know the and wouldn't that be better

1:14:48

so we we tend

1:14:50

to get our heads lost in the clouds in discussions

1:14:53

like this and i think that's a big mistake you

1:14:55

have to go back do a careful

1:14:57

analysis and try to figure out exactly what

1:14:59

problem you're trying to solve here

1:15:02

well doctor gordon pearson i want to

1:15:04

thank you so much for your time you've been very generous

1:15:06

with your time and thank you again

1:15:08

for you know jousting with me here

1:15:11

it's always more interesting to me when you

1:15:13

have some competing ideologies

1:15:15

and we kid disagree here and there and

1:15:17

hopefully was hoping you had fun hopefully

1:15:20

the audience enjoyed it and dumb again

1:15:22

i want to thank you

1:15:24

well thanks for the invitation i don't

1:15:26

get an invitation very often you

1:15:28

know people criticize me for not talking to lefties

1:15:31

although i do from time to time and a lot my

1:15:33

private life but most of the reason

1:15:35

for that is they don't talk to me and

1:15:38

if i mean very did i did to say yes not

1:15:40

always depends on who's asking but

1:15:43

i'm just pleased that you decided to talk

1:15:45

with me and so about a be my pleasure

1:15:47

to do it again on whatever topic you'd

1:15:49

like to do it on and also while we're

1:15:52

wrap it up here just tell everybody where they can find you

1:15:54

the various shows you're hosting etc

1:15:58

well i suppose most people familiarize

1:16:00

themselves with what i have to say on you tube

1:16:03

the couple of books twelve rules for life

1:16:06

beyond order they're

1:16:08

popular books people have found them useful

1:16:11

if they're trying to put the lives together and that was what

1:16:13

they were designed for i have an academic book

1:16:15

called maps a meeting which is heavy going back

1:16:17

for people are philosophically inclined they might

1:16:20

find that interesting

1:16:21

the hard read

1:16:23

youtube is probably the best access points for

1:16:26

people looking for something relatively straightforward

1:16:29

so

1:16:30

more than welcome to do that

1:16:32

all right well thank you very much doc i really appreciate

1:16:34

it the dog with

1:16:37

yeah right everybody

1:16:39

that was the one the only doctor jordan peterson

1:16:42

i'm going into this interview

1:16:45

i had to

1:16:47

try to figure out which things are

1:16:49

going to prioritize which things i'm gonna talk

1:16:51

about and what should we focus more

1:16:54

on and less on because you

1:16:56

know it's difficult there's so many things you are talking about

1:16:58

there's you know he's you had so

1:17:00

many big stories written about i'm

1:17:02

there's so many criticisms of hit from the left

1:17:04

and you know i had to try to balance

1:17:07

had balance white try to have to have conversation

1:17:09

that him at ease get myself in the flow

1:17:11

but also pushed back in certain ways and

1:17:14

i think i did a a pretty decent job

1:17:17

i brought up some the recent controversies would people

1:17:19

are probably most interested in somehow

1:17:21

we ended up talk about health care for thirty minutes

1:17:23

i'm in there were you know the part on trump

1:17:25

i thought was very interesting and maybe got some stuff

1:17:28

out of him that maybe he's not that anywhere

1:17:30

else yet so it's some new stuff the

1:17:32

new i hope people on enjoyed

1:17:34

that i certainly had a good time doing it i'm

1:17:37

i will say for sure from my perspective when

1:17:41

you watch him on you tube or

1:17:43

listen him on a podcast

1:17:46

like easy easy to listen to when

1:17:48

you're talking directly to him he has

1:17:50

a very the very strong

1:17:52

presence to the like

1:17:54

a deer were definitely times i wanted to like

1:17:56

inter jackson and make a point real quick

1:17:59

and like cut him off then say something to like clarify

1:18:01

something anything he makes it so

1:18:03

difficult to do that do that have to wait

1:18:06

for an opportunity where you can hop

1:18:08

in and then try to address the a

1:18:10

however many things you were waiting on three four

1:18:12

things so anyway

1:18:14

i hope i did a good job i pushed back

1:18:17

however i could wherever i could

1:18:19

while still keeping it cordial i'm

1:18:22

if you're somebody who's a fan of doctor toward

1:18:24

pearson is watching this is not chris

1:18:26

kyle and friends original i welcome

1:18:28

you i'm i assure

1:18:30

you all of us lefties do not have

1:18:32

cooties i'm we can

1:18:34

also be very thoughtful as well

1:18:37

and i'm yeah i wanted to go

1:18:40

down a path with jordan peterson that i

1:18:42

don't think anybody else is really gone

1:18:44

down him with and i

1:18:47

think i think we succeeded are obviously i'll leave

1:18:49

that up to you guys you guys tell me how you

1:18:51

thought it was i certainly had fun doing

1:18:53

it i'm there were times or was contentious

1:18:56

but i thought it was contentious and cordial

1:18:58

at the same time and look i

1:19:00

deftly do it again so ,

1:19:02

love you guys by the way subscribe

1:19:05

on subset who get

1:19:07

the video versions of the show a day

1:19:09

early five dollars a month and

1:19:11

then you can also sign up for free on subset

1:19:14

of you want to pay the five dollars and get the audio

1:19:16

version of the show or as soon as it drops

1:19:18

a day later on saturdays so thank you

1:19:20

for everybody who is a subset member and

1:19:22

for everybody who isn't please consider doing

1:19:24

it because we don't take

1:19:27

any advertiser money for this podcast

1:19:29

we've never spoken to an advertiser we've

1:19:31

never run an ad before we're

1:19:33

very proud of that so that you told a small

1:19:36

dollar donors you guys build they show

1:19:38

and again i hope you enjoyed this and

1:19:41

rocky next week