Joe Rogan Experience #1769 - Jordan Peterson

1. 0:00 – 2:18

   Mental endurance, conversational “rhythm,” and how Rogan prepares for guests

   1. JPJordan Peterson0:00

      (drumming music) Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. (rock music) That state of intense concentration on that-

   2. JRJoe Rogan0:15

      Mm-hmm.

   3. JPJordan Peterson0:15

      ... before you can really manage it, so.

   4. JRJoe Rogan0:17

      I think there's mental endurance involved too, 'cause I think that... Are we up?

   5. NANarrator0:21

      We're good.

   6. JRJoe Rogan0:21

      I think there's mental endurance that comes with, uh, anything that you do on a day-to-day basis, whether it's writing, whether it's, uh, doing podcasts, whether it's, uh, doing stand-up comedy. I think anything where you have to think and, and manage, like, complex ideas and manipulate your language and your... the way you're speaking, and, and be able to e- e- engage in the dance between two people, I think you gotta do it all the time. Uh, uh, I think if you just do it every now and again, like especially, like, if you took time off of speaking to people, like if you hadn't talked to anybody in a long time and then you talk... Have you ever done that, where you haven't talked to anybody in a long time, then you talk to them? It feels odd.

   7. JPJordan Peterson1:05

      Mm-hmm.

   8. JRJoe Rogan1:05

      It feels awkward.

   9. JPJordan Peterson1:06

      Mm-hmm.

   10. JRJoe Rogan1:06

       'Cause I think there's, like, a thing where you have to get used to it. You gotta get used to it.

   11. JPJordan Peterson1:10

       See, all I found that was particularly the case with the podcasts, is that it's hard to do that sporadically.

   12. JRJoe Rogan1:15

       Yeah.

   13. JPJordan Peterson1:16

       Um, you also g- lose that rhythm of preparation-

   14. JRJoe Rogan1:19

       Mm-hmm.

   15. JPJordan Peterson1:19

       ... because you get... Well, I, I did. I- I'm not sure. How do you prepare for your podcasts? Like, if you have an author come on-

   16. JRJoe Rogan1:25

       I usually read their book. It depends on-

   17. JPJordan Peterson1:27

       When?

   18. JRJoe Rogan1:27

       ... um, with- like, I'm on... I have two books that I'm reading right now that are future, uh, people that are coming in February.

   19. JPJordan Peterson1:35

       Hmm.

   20. JRJoe Rogan1:35

       So, they're-

   21. JPJordan Peterson1:35

       So a lot ahead.

   22. JRJoe Rogan1:36

       Yeah. They'll be... Well, you know, it's like one of them is a climate change book, and it's, it's intense. And so, it's requiring a lot of thinking, and then I have to, like, look at the criticisms of this guy and criticisms of the work and, you know, you know, who believes that in 10 years Miami's gonna be underwater, who believes that this is probably hyperbole and that it's a, a gross exaggeration, and the reality is, you know, the world sort of always goes through these cycles of change, but human beings are definitely having an effect on it, but a small effect compared to cows and other, other things. It's like, it's hard to sort out. The climate change one is a weird one, so that one, I'm-

2. 2:18 – 5:08

   Peterson’s critique of climate modeling: ‘climate’ as “everything” and compounding uncertainty

   1. JPJordan Peterson2:18

      Well, that's 'cause there's no such thing as climate, right? Climate and everything are the same word. And I... That's what bothers me about the climate change types. It's like... This is something that bothers me about it, technically. It's like climate is about everything. So, okay. But your models aren't based on everything. Your models are based on a set-

   2. JRJoe Rogan2:41

      Warming.

   3. JPJordan Peterson2:41

      ... number of variables.

   4. JRJoe Rogan2:42

      Yeah.

   5. JPJordan Peterson2:43

      So, that means you've reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well, how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation if it's about everything? And that's not just a criticism. That's like, if it's about everything, your models aren't right.

   6. JRJoe Rogan2:58

      Hmm.

   7. JPJordan Peterson2:59

      Because your models do not and cannot model everything.

   8. JRJoe Rogan3:02

      What do you mean by everything when you say models-

   9. JPJordan Peterson3:04

      Well, when... But that's what, that's what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim, in some sense. "We have to change everything."

   10. JRJoe Rogan3:11

       Hmm.

   11. JPJordan Peterson3:11

       It's like, "Everything, eh?" Okay. What... And the same with the word environment. That word doesn't mean... It, it means so much that it actually doesn't mean anything. Like, when you say everything, in a sense, that's meaningless, right? Because, well, what are you pointing to? "Well, I'm pointing to everything." Well, what's the difference between the environment and everything? There's no difference. What's the difference between climate and everything? Well, there's, there's no difference. So this is a crisis of everything? It's like, no, it's not. Or if it is, (laughs) well, if it really is, then we're done, 'cause we can't fix everything. Well, specifically-

   12. JRJoe Rogan3:46

       What they mean specifically is the human c- what, what human beings are doing that's causing the earth to warm.

   13. JPJordan Peterson3:56

       Right. Right.

   14. JRJoe Rogan3:57

       So, it's-

   15. JPJordan Peterson3:57

       But you have to include all these factors in the models to determine that.

   16. JRJoe Rogan4:01

       Yeah.

   17. JPJordan Peterson4:01

       All these factors. Well, what can you not include? Well, then by deciding what you don't include, you decide which set of variables are cardinal, and you have to make that decision in some sense before you even generate the models. This is a big problem. It's, it's partly... It's not the only reason, but this... There's another reason that... another problem that bedevils climate modeling too, which is that as you stretch out the models across time, the errors increase radically.

   18. JRJoe Rogan4:32

       Hmm.

   19. JPJordan Peterson4:32

       And so maybe you can predict out a week or three weeks or a month or a year, but the farther out you predict, the more your model's in error. And that's a huge problem when you're trying to model over 100 years, 'cause the errors compound, just like interest. And so at some point, it's all error. In fact, it's already the case that even if the climate models are right, the error bars are so wide by 100 years out that we'll never be able to measure the effects of the changes we're making now. We'll never know if the changes we're making, you know, to save the climate actually worked. We can't measure it. The errors are too large 100 years out.

   20. JRJoe Rogan5:06

       What do you mean by the errors? Like, what errors? Uh-

3. 5:08 – 9:32

   Discounting the future: why long-term prediction is computationally hard

   1. JPJordan Peterson5:08

      Well, prediction errors. So, look, um, imagine that you're gonna predict how your life goes.

   2. JRJoe Rogan5:13

      Okay.

   3. JPJordan Peterson5:14

      Well, you can kind of do that. Know- you kind of know that tomorrow is gonna be somewhat like today. Okay, but how much is next year's day gonna be like today? Well, somewhat, but less certainly because you might get sick, for example. The- and over- and then over a five-year period, well, there's much more that has to be accounted for. And so the probability that your prediction is correct decreases as you move forward in time. That's why we discount the future, right? So if you ask people, "You want $5 now, or do you want $5 in a month?" They're gonna say, "Well, I want $5 now." Well, you think, "Well, why is that?" Well, if I have it now, it's certain. A month, well, there's a lag in there and anything could happen. And you can play games with people this way and... Because people differ in the degree to which they discount the future.... because how seriously to take the future is actually a near computationally impossible task to solve. How ma- seriously should I take the future? Well, it depends on how uncertain things are. How uncertain things are, are they? Well, I don't know. Classic example, there's a chicken, and the farmer goes out every day and feeds the chicken. And the chicken thinks, "Man, I've got a good friend in this farmer." And then one day, it's dinner time, and the chicken's (laughs) the main course, right? And so, the chi- poor chicken used induction to derive certainty, the farmer comes every day. He didn't realize there was a massive flaw in his theory, and one day that flaw reveals itself and everything falls apart.

   4. JRJoe Rogan6:53

      Well, that makes a sense, that makes sense when you're talking about chickens and-

   5. JPJordan Peterson6:56

      Yeah.

   6. JRJoe Rogan6:56

      ... farmers.

   7. JPJordan Peterson6:57

      Yeah.

   8. JRJoe Rogan6:57

      But when you're talking-

   9. JPJordan Peterson6:58

      Okay. So-

   10. JRJoe Rogan6:59

       ... about human beings and-

   11. JPJordan Peterson6:59

       Okay. So we could play a future-

   12. JRJoe Rogan7:01

       ... CO2.

   13. JPJordan Peterson7:01

       Well, we could play a future discounting game. So this is how this sort of thing is calculated, this discount curve. So I could say, "I'll give you five dollars now or five dollars in a week. Which one do you want?" And people say, "Five dollars in a week." Then I say, "Okay, I'll give you five dollars now or I'll give you $10 in a month." It's like, "Hmm. Okay. $10 in a month." "Okay, I'll give you five dollars now or I'll give you $7.50 in two weeks, or I'll give you $50 now, or I'll give you $500 in 10 years." And so imagine you do that with all sorts of amounts-

   14. JRJoe Rogan7:34

       Okay.

   15. JPJordan Peterson7:34

       ... over all sorts of time frames.

   16. JRJoe Rogan7:36

       Okay.

   17. JPJordan Peterson7:37

       Then you can compute a discount curve, which is how much people devalue th- the amount, the amount a dollar is worth as it progresses out into the future. And what you generat- generally find is that impulsive people discount the future more heavily. That's actually the definition of impulsive. And you might think, "Well, the impulsive people are wrong." It's like the ant and the grasshopper. You know, the grasshopper's fiddling all summer, and then he starves to death in the winter, and the good old ant who packed away the, the supplies is, he's doing fine in the, in the winter. He sacrificed the present to the future, and isn't that sensible? Yeah, it's sensible. You should save. Except, well, what if it's 1920 in Germany, 1923 let's say, and you're, you're in a period of hyperinflation? It's like, grasshopper one, 'cause he spent all his money before it became worthless. So should you save or not? The answer is, it depends. And then there's a further answer which is, it depends on things that you actually can't predict. And so it's, it's actually a computationally impossible problem to figure out how much to discount the future. It's actually impossible, which is why we vary so much in it. Part of that reason is, is the magnitude of our prediction error increases the farther out we predict.

   18. JRJoe Rogan8:53

       Yeah. But the grasshopper and the ant analogy doesn't work, 'cause they're based i- on food, and the food that the ant supplied, and, and stored, and, and stocked away-

   19. JPJordan Peterson9:05

       Yeah.

   20. JRJoe Rogan9:05

       ... is still good. Inflation doesn't mean jack shit to an ant, 'cause they don't deal with currency. They, they don't-

   21. JPJordan Peterson9:11

       Well, the other way an ant could follow up is-

   22. JRJoe Rogan9:12

       But you, but you know what I'm saying?

   23. JPJordan Peterson9:13

       Uh, well, fair enough. But, I mean, you know, ants also, ant colonies also have wars. And so it's just as possible that the ant will store up all this food and another ant colony will move in, and that'll be the end of that. And th- this is a huge problem.

   24. JRJoe Rogan9:25

       (laughs)

   25. JPJordan Peterson9:26

       Well, uh, you're very unlikely to be robbed and pillaged unless you have wealth.

   26. JRJoe Rogan9:31

       Mm-hmm.

4. 9:32 – 15:00

   Sustainable development through poverty reduction: oceans, energy access, and COP26 skepticism

   1. JPJordan Peterson9:32

      Right? And so, so the ability to store wealth across time, to, to decrease the risk of the catastrophes of future, that's a huge, that's the, that's the problem in some sense that civilization set out to solve. How can we stabilize things over a long-term enough to make long-term investing a reasonable proposition? Here's a, here's a positive spin off of that. So I worked on the UN committee that wrote the Secretary-General's report on sustainable development. I worked on the Canadian sub-committee, to be technically accurate, and I was by no means the head of that. I worked with the team that worked on that. But we, we edited and wrote and rewrote a fair bit of the document. And so I did a lot of work in the background learning what I needed to learn to work on that committee with some degree of, what would you say, uh, qualification. I read maybe 200 books on ecological development and economic development, the relationship between the two, and tried-

   2. JRJoe Rogan10:32

      200 books?

   3. JPJordan Peterson10:33

      Oh, yeah, yeah.

   4. JRJoe Rogan10:33

      Wow.

   5. JPJordan Peterson10:33

      It took, it was over about a two-year period.

   6. JRJoe Rogan10:36

      Whew.

   7. JPJordan Peterson10:36

      And so ... And, uh, a lot of it was on oceanic management, uh, because I did realize that one thing we're doing that's extraordinarily stupid on the ecological front is destroying all the marine life within 40 miles of the shores, and all the marine life is withfor- within 40 miles of the shores. Like, you think the oceans, they're vast. It's like-

   8. JRJoe Rogan10:55

      Right.

   9. JPJordan Peterson10:55

      ... yeah, but they're empty-

   10. JRJoe Rogan10:57

       Yeah.

   11. JPJordan Peterson10:57

       ... except for where the sun can shine to the bottom, and that's the 40 to 200 miles, say, on the coastal shelves. And we've, like, trawled those bare, like, seven times.

   12. JRJoe Rogan11:08

       Isn't that wild?

   13. JPJordan Peterson11:08

       It was a catastrophe. So, but that was the only real environmental catastrophe that I encountered in all that work that I thought was both credible and addressable. We know how to fix that. You make marine protected areas, like national parks, that you need about 15% of the total coastal territory really protected. And that solves that problem, essentially. And then everybody has fish, because the fish, they don't just stay there, they, they move around. You can have your cake and eat it too with marine protected areas. But mostly what I learned, and this was really cool, was that ... This was so cool, and I really believe it's true, uh, the fastest way to make the planet sustainably green and ecologically viable is to make poor people as rich as possible as fast as we possibly can. Because the thing about poor people is that, well, first of all they live in ... They're not resource-efficient. They use a lot of resources to produce very, very little outcome. And so that's a problem. Slash and burn agriculture, for example. But even more importantly, when you're...... insecure on a day-to-day basis, you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you're not paying attention to the broader environment, that hated word, around you.

   14. JRJoe Rogan12:22

       Mm-hmm.

   15. JPJordan Peterson12:23

       And you can't even really worry about your children's future in some real sense because like, "No, no, you don't understand. Lunch is the future. We don't have lunch, we're hungry and that goes on for like a month, we're dead. That's the future." So what happens? You... if you can get resources to the poorest section of the population, as soon as they get to the point where they have some hope of a genuine future, especially for their children, they immediately become concerned about broader environmental considerations. And then the attempt to make the environment habitable and sustainable, that comes up of its own accord at a grassroots level and spreads everywhere. And the evidence for that is clear. And so this is one of the things that really bo- bothered me about COP26. So... and that was based in part on this-

   16. JRJoe Rogan13:11

       What is that?

   17. JPJordan Peterson13:12

       That was the- the big climate, uh, meeting in- in the UK just a few months ago. You know, the one where all the COVID rules were suspended so the important people could talk about important things. Any- in anyway, any case, I thought if the politicians who were discussing environmental sustainability were serious, especially the left-wing ones, and I say especially because the left-wing ones always say, "Well, we care about the poor and dispossessed." It's like, do you really when push comes to shove? It's like, is it the environment or poor people if your idea is that we have to limit growth to save the planet? If we limit growth, poor people starve. Because whenever we put limits on economic development, who suffers?

   18. JRJoe Rogan13:55

       Mm-hmm.

   19. JPJordan Peterson13:55

       The rich? Are you n- are you... Really? That's what you think and you're on the left? You think if you put limits on economic development, the rich will suffer? That's g- runs contrary to every theory that your whole political philosophy is based on. You put limits to growth on, the poor stay poor or get worse. Doesn't matter because the planet has too many people on it anyways, which it most certainly does not. If you are serious about the environment and even vaguely concerned about poor people, all of your policies would be donate- devoted to making the poor rich as fast as possible. But that would violate the anti-capitalist presumption, let's say, that the reason for environmental degradation in the first place is, say, entrepreneurial and free market development, which it most certainly isn't. That's actually completely backwards. Make poor people rich. So what should have COP26 been about? That's fairly straightforward. It should've been about trying to generate as much energy as we possibly can to be distributed as widely as possible in the cheapest possible manner.

5. 15:00 – 25:30

   Energy tradeoffs: nuclear, fracking, and the reality of pollution and unintended consequences

   1. JRJoe Rogan15:00

      And what would that be? Nuclear?

   2. JPJordan Peterson15:02

      No. Well, I would say ultimately, likely nuclear and not- probably not fusion because it's so... you know, fusion has always been a year away, 10 years away for the last 50 years. We haven't man- managed it. Nuclear, likely. France managed that very effectively. We can do it. And-

   3. JRJoe Rogan15:21

      And we still have a weird idea of nuclear because of the several, you know, whether it's, uh, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, there's been a few disasters.

   4. JPJordan Peterson15:31

      Yeah.

   5. JRJoe Rogan15:31

      You know, Fukushima.

   6. JPJordan Peterson15:31

      More people die every year from solar energy than die from nuclear.

   7. JRJoe Rogan15:35

      Who dies from solar?

   8. JPJordan Peterson15:36

      (laughs)

   9. JRJoe Rogan15:37

      Well, of course because-

   10. JPJordan Peterson15:38

       Guess, guess, guess how you die from solar?

   11. JRJoe Rogan15:40

       S- uh, sunburn?

   12. JPJordan Peterson15:41

       No. You fall off the roofs when you're installing it.

   13. JRJoe Rogan15:44

       Oh.

   14. JPJordan Peterson15:44

       Yeah. Oh.

   15. JRJoe Rogan15:45

       That's gravity, right?

   16. JPJordan Peterson15:46

       Yeah, gravity. Gravity.

   17. JRJoe Rogan15:47

       Yeah.

   18. JPJordan Peterson15:47

       And, you know, that's a good example of unintended consequences. Because systems are complex and when you change them, you think only good things will happen. It's like, well, you know... Oh, so I was gonna... You asked about energy.

   19. JRJoe Rogan15:59

       Yeah.

   20. JPJordan Peterson16:00

       There's also a environmental progression towards clean energy.

   21. JRJoe Rogan16:04

       Yeah.

   22. JPJordan Peterson16:04

       And so poor- the poorest people burn wood. Well, that's not so good because first of all, they cut down the trees and burn the trees. And second, if you're concerned about pollution, especially particulate pollution, especially indoors, which kills I think seven million children a year. Seven million children a year are killed by indoor particulate pollution.

   23. JRJoe Rogan16:27

       What?

   24. JPJordan Peterson16:28

       Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well-

   25. JRJoe Rogan16:29

       How is that possible?

   26. JPJordan Peterson16:30

       Well, the- pe-

   27. JRJoe Rogan16:31

       Seven million?

   28. JPJordan Peterson16:32

       Yeah.

   29. JRJoe Rogan16:32

       Indoor particulate pollution, you meaning from starting fires in homes like to keep warm?

   30. JPJordan Peterson16:36

       Yeah, without-
6. 25:30 – 30:56

   Capitalism, inequality dynamics, and why wealth tends to concentrate (even with random exchange)

   1. JPJordan Peterson25:30

      ... the- the pro-environment stance is contaminated by an anti-capitalist rhetoric. Now the problem with the socialists... So let- let's take this apart a little bit.

   2. JRJoe Rogan25:40

      Okay.

   3. JPJordan Peterson25:40

      I mean, the socialists are, always point out something that's true, and Marx pointed this out, but it wasn't Marx's discovery. And he's like seriously wrong about it in an important way. So Marx- Marx observed that money tends to aggregate in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Okay, the first question is, is that true? And the answer is, not only is that true, it's so true that you can model the distribution of money in a population using equations derived from physics. Like it's really unbelievably true. But then Marx said, "That's capitalism." That is not true, and it's actually an underestimation of the problem because if the problem of inequality, which is an actual problem, was as simple as, "Let's change capitalism," well yeah, let's change capitalism. Unfortunately the problem is so deep that changing capitalism won't change the problem at all. And in fact, in most of the places where it's been attempted, especially the more radical forms of communism, let's say, rather than socialism, 'cause we can distinguish the two and should, it's important to do so, in- in countries that became communist, it wasn't like a small percentage of the people still didn't own all the resources. It's just that there were hardly any resources, and almost everyone had nothing. There was still a tiny fraction of people who were the privileged elite. And so you know if you play Monopoly, what happens when you play Monopoly?

   4. JRJoe Rogan27:12

      Somebody gets all the money.

   5. JPJordan Peterson27:13

      Everybody starts out equal and one... Yeah, exactly.

   6. JRJoe Rogan27:16

      Yeah.

   7. JPJordan Peterson27:16

      And so you can, you can actually model this pr- problem with something as simple as a Monopoly game. That's actually a fairly good model of how money distributes itself in the environment. And you can blame that on capitalism but you can get the same, you can get exactly the same result if you have people trade because they flip a dice. So if you took 100 people, let's say you gave 100 people $10 each, and then they had to trade with each other. If I, you- you flip a coin and I- I flip a coin, and if it's uh, we flip a coin, if it's heads you get a dollar, and so that's your game. Heads gives you a dollar. If you play that out till it concludes what happens is some people lose, let's say 10, they have $10, they lose 10 times in a row. Well then what happens? At zero, well they can't trade anymore. So what happens is people lose at different rates, but if you lose enough even if it takes you 100 trades to lose all your money, as soon as you hit zero you're done. If you play that out to its conclusion even though it's random, completely random, the trading, one person ends up with all the money and everyone else ends up with zero. And so the- the- the- I'm a member of a native Canadian family, west coast Indian family, native family, and uh this particular culture had a tradition, the potlatch, and they had the same problem in their culture. And the problem was that some of the big chiefs over some period of time would end up with like all the stuff, all of it, and that wasn't good because well for obvious reasons, (laughs) you know? It would destabilize the society, that- that's in some sense the least of the problems. And so they evolved this mechanism, they'd have these big celebrations that rich people would put on where status was determined by how much of that wealth you would give away.

   8. JRJoe Rogan29:05

      Hmm.

   9. JPJordan Peterson29:06

      Right, right.

   10. JRJoe Rogan29:07

       Interesting.

   11. JPJordan Peterson29:07

       And that was the potlatch. Yeah, yeah, they had to do it.

   12. JRJoe Rogan29:09

       Mm-hmm.

   13. JPJordan Peterson29:09

       And back and- and you know I-

   14. JRJoe Rogan29:11

       Well that's philanthropy, right?

   15. JPJordan Peterson29:12

       Right.

   16. JRJoe Rogan29:12

       Like people really look very highly upon very wealthy people that engage in a lot of philanthropy.

   17. JPJordan Peterson29:17

       Yeah well then I haven't n- this might be a biased sample but I don't think so, and if it is, it's biased towards entrepreneur conservative types who you would think in the parody sense would be the least likely to do this. I haven't met anyone who has a vast fortune whose primary concern is- isn't what the hell can I do with all this money that's beneficial as fast as possible? They're not sitting around thinking I need another super yacht and now look there's gonna be people like that you know but, hmm, but I haven't met any of them. All the people-

   18. JRJoe Rogan29:50

       Have you met Jeff Bezos?

   19. JPJordan Peterson29:51

       No I haven't, I haven't met Bezos, but as he's-

   20. JRJoe Rogan29:54

       I bet he's got a couple super yachts.

   21. JPJordan Peterson29:55

       I'm sure he does, I'm sure he does but like I'm pretty happy about-

   22. JRJoe Rogan29:58

       Yeah.

   23. JPJordan Peterson29:58

       ... the fact that he's building rocket ships and that actually takes a lot of capital.

   24. JRJoe Rogan30:02

       Yeah.

   25. JPJordan Peterson30:02

       You know and the other thing that there's a couple of other things about capitalism that are worth thinking about. One is...... all the evidence suggests that relatively f- free markets are the best way to make the absolutely poor richer. That's not an inequality-

   26. JRJoe Rogan30:17

       Mm-hmm.

   27. JPJordan Peterson30:17

       ... issue. It's just that, well, they're not starving, and that's something. We've lifted more people out of poverty in the last 15 years than in the entire course of human history.

   28. JRJoe Rogan30:26

       Can I pause you for a second there?

   29. JPJordan Peterson30:27

       Yep.

   30. JRJoe Rogan30:28

       Um, oh, one point that I forgot that, uh, we need, uh, I, I, I read this the other day that where Karl Marx is buried, they have to charge money because they have to maintain it.
7. 30:56 – 41:55

   Globalization’s winners and losers: China’s rise, Detroit’s fall, and the knowledge-economy problem

   1. JRJoe Rogan30:56

      Th- th- here's when, when people start talking about capitalism-

   2. JPJordan Peterson30:59

      Mm-hmm.

   3. JRJoe Rogan31:00

      ... and we talk about capitalism uplifting poor people-

   4. JPJordan Peterson31:03

      Mm-hmm.

   5. JRJoe Rogan31:04

      One of the issues that a lot of people have in this country is when you ship jobs overseas, and you ship companies start manufacturing things overseas for essentially pennies on the dollar.

   6. JPJordan Peterson31:16

      Yeah.

   7. JRJoe Rogan31:16

      I mean, this is like th- it's, it's one of the great contradictions-

   8. JPJordan Peterson31:20

      Right.

   9. JRJoe Rogan31:20

      ... to the progressives in America that they complain about capitalism on a fucking iPhone.

   10. JPJordan Peterson31:26

       Mm-hmm. Right.

   11. JRJoe Rogan31:26

       Because if you knew where that iPhone was ... If you went down to the factory where that iPhone was manufactured, you'd be heartbroken. If you went further to where the minerals are dug out of the ground in the Congo, you'd be devastated.

   12. JPJordan Peterson31:39

       Mm-hmm.

   13. JRJoe Rogan31:39

       Like, that's the reality of capitalism. That's the reality of sending jobs overseas. The cure to that is a more even distribution of wealth within the company, meaning that the company would have to ... and I'm not picking on Apple, like any company, name them. They would have to pay the people that work there a, a decent living wage with great, uh, benefits and health insurance and dental and all the stuff that people want and need in order to feel secure and safe, give them a great working environment, don't overwork them, and now how much money do you have? Because y- y- the amount of money that Apple has put aside, and obviously I'm an Apple fan-

   14. JPJordan Peterson32:16

       Mm-hmm.

   15. JRJoe Rogan32:16

       ... I have an Apple w- phone right here. I'm not picking on Apple. But they are one of the richest companies that's ever existed on the face of planet Earth. But how are they doing that? One of the ways they're doing that is by paying people very little to make their products that they sell for a, a giant amount of money.

   16. JPJordan Peterson32:30

       Yeah. Well-

   17. JRJoe Rogan32:30

       So what, what's the solution to that?

   18. JPJordan Peterson32:31

       Okay. Well, let's take-

   19. JRJoe Rogan32:32

       Is the solution-

   20. JPJordan Peterson32:33

       Yeah.

   21. JRJoe Rogan32:33

       ... to pay people a fair amount? And if you do that, is the solution to pay people a fair amount in another country, or is the solution to pay people a fair amount here where we can regulate it? Because we do manufacture some things here, but we manufacture way less than we used to because it costs too much money to do so. But that word too much or that phrase too much is bullshit. It's not that it costs too much. It's just that it costs more, and they don't wanna pay it. They would rather just reap in profits, and the way they do that is on the backs of poor people.

   22. JPJordan Peterson33:03

       Yeah. Well, we could-

   23. JRJoe Rogan33:03

       Now, if you do that-

   24. JPJordan Peterson33:04

       ... we could talk-

   25. JRJoe Rogan33:04

       ... on the backs of poor people ...

   26. JPJordan Peterson33:05

       We can take that apart a bit.

   27. JRJoe Rogan33:06

       Right.

   28. JPJordan Peterson33:06

       And so-

   29. JRJoe Rogan33:07

       But here's my question.

   30. JPJordan Peterson33:08

       Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep.
8. 41:55 – 51:50

   Addiction, environment, and individual differences: from cocaine clients to ‘Rat Park’

   1. JPJordan Peterson41:55

      And the idea that we could just somehow give them money, you can't solve people's problems by giving ... I had a client-... um, who had a cocaine problem. And he was, he was rather intellectually limited, this client, and would have agreed with that assessment, by the way. I'm not being rude.

   2. JRJoe Rogan42:12

      That's an adorable statement.

   3. JPJordan Peterson42:13

      Well-

   4. JRJoe Rogan42:14

      I'm gonna use it from now on.

   5. JPJordan Peterson42:15

      But I, I've dealt with, I, I've dealt with many people in my life who, who, who were ... they weren't going to university.

   6. JRJoe Rogan42:21

      Right.

   7. JPJordan Peterson42:21

      They probably weren't going through high school. And it isn't because they didn't work hard. Sometimes that was why, but it was because, no, they couldn't do that. They couldn't do it. And so they struggled, man. And this guy in particular, it was so interesting because he was o- he wasn't doing too bad when he had almost no money, but he'd get in ... he, he got a, a disability check because he'd been hurt at work. And every time he had the disability check, he was gone for three days on a cocaine and alcohol binge, and he'd just drink up all his money. Then he'd end up in a ditch somewhere, like really 80% dead, and then eventually dead because eventually, it was that kind of behavior that killed him. But more money, he would have just died sooner. You need to be able to handle money. It's a tremendously destabilizing technology.

   8. JRJoe Rogan43:08

      But, okay, now about that man, do you believe that that was a genetic situation, or was that a situation of nurture? It was the way he was raised? This is the environment that he grew up in?

   9. JPJordan Peterson43:17

      Oh, it was a couple of things. I mean, he really liked alcohol, and there's a huge biological contributor to that. Some people ... I, I worked with a researcher in Montreal who had a monkey farm on Saint Kitts, green monkeys, and, uh, he was interested in studying alcoholism, and he would capture monkeys in the wild and bring them to his compound and then allow them to access a pretty sweetened mixture of rum and, and water. Well, they used something else other than water. And, um, most of the monkeys could take it or leave it. 5% of them would drink themselves into a coma on first exposure. And he has videotapes of this. It was like watching The Frat House, you know, on Saturday night.

   10. JRJoe Rogan43:59

       Mm-hmm.

   11. JPJordan Peterson43:59

       It was ... So it's really ... it's comical, you know? (laughs) Drunk monkeys are actually pretty funny, as you might imagine, but 5% of them would drink themselves to coma on first exposure, and those are the monkeys that would become alcohol-dependent if you, if you gave them unlimited access. Th-

   12. JRJoe Rogan44:14

       Right, but you know the problem with those monkey studies, right? Th- those monkey studies, th- is the same as, uh, rat farm studies.

   13. JPJordan Peterson44:21

       Mm-hmm.

   14. JRJoe Rogan44:21

       When they've done studies on rats, they've done studies with rats in cages with cocaine.

   15. JPJordan Peterson44:25

       Yeah, these were monkey ... Yeah, these were monkeys in natural environments.

   16. JRJoe Rogan44:28

       Natural environment, how so?

   17. JPJordan Peterson44:29

       Yeah, y- we knew about that. Well, they were housed in colonies.

   18. JRJoe Rogan44:32

       Housed in colonies?

   19. JPJordan Peterson44:33

       Yeah.

   20. JRJoe Rogan44:33

       Uh, how large are these colonies, and what kind of land are they on?

   21. JPJordan Peterson44:36

       Well, okay, let- let's separate this. It's very hard to get rats addicted to cocaine if they live in a natural environment.

   22. JRJoe Rogan44:42

       Right.

   23. JPJordan Peterson44:42

       If you put them in a cage and bore them to death-

   24. JRJoe Rogan44:44

       Let's explain that to people, what we're talking about, because there were studies that were done where i- initially, people thought that cocaine was so addictive that if you gave it to rats, they would just take the cocaine until they died.

   25. JPJordan Peterson44:55

       Right.

   26. JRJoe Rogan44:56

       And-

   27. JPJordan Peterson44:56

       And they would even, i-

   28. JRJoe Rogan44:57

       Right.

   29. JPJordan Peterson44:57

       They wouldn't even engage in sex.

   30. JRJoe Rogan44:58

       But then they realized that if you take these rat ... uh, that w- you were doing this, you're taking these rats in these highly stressed out environments, you're putting them in cages, nothing's natural.
9. 51:50 – 53:30

   Freedom requires structure: games, rules, and the ‘edge’ between chaos and order

   1. JRJoe Rogan51:50

      So, that is the dance over there, right? The, the totalitarianism versus innovation, versus giving people the freedom and, and also r- removing the fear of that totalitarian government so they have the ability to take risks.

   2. JPJordan Peterson52:04

      Mm-hmm. No, it's the dance here too, right? It's... In some senses, the... It's the eternal dance. It's the eternal dance. It's the part of the eternal dance between freedom and structure, even. And that's a tough one because there's no freedom without structure. Like, I used to play a game with my students when we were talking about Jean Piaget, who was very interested in the development of morality through games. So, I'd say to them, "So, we're talking about freedom." It's like, okay, freedom. It's, uh... Freedom from constraint is freedom. All right, fine. Let's play a game. You want... Do you wanna play this game?

   3. JRJoe Rogan52:40

      Sure.

   4. JPJordan Peterson52:41

      Okay. You move first.

   5. JRJoe Rogan52:45

      What do you mean?

   6. JPJordan Peterson52:47

      That's the game. You can do anything you want. You move first. You think, "Well, that's not much of a game." It's like, no, it's, it's a complete... It's the perfect game. You're absolutely free to do anything you want.

   7. JRJoe Rogan52:58

      Okay.

   8. JPJordan Peterson52:59

      Well, everybody does what you did. They just sit there. The, the, the right amount of rules for freedom is not zero. Say now I put a chess board in front of you and you think, "Oh my God, all the limitations. I can't throw a basketball on the chessboard," which you certainly can't, not if you're playing chess. But now you know you move first, so I move the pawn two, two s- two spaces forward.

   9. JRJoe Rogan53:22

      I see what you're saying.

   10. JPJordan Peterson53:22

       So, so, so-

   11. JRJoe Rogan53:23

       Having some structure and some rules to follow gives people more of a path to-

   12. JPJordan Peterson53:29

       To everything.

   13. JRJoe Rogan53:30

       ... to grow. Yeah.

10. 53:30 – 1:03:28

    Music as meaning: patterns, dance, and why art resists nihilism

    1. JPJordan Peterson53:30

       Yeah, yeah. And it's so... So, when I think this is modeled by music, and this is really worth knowing. This, this, like, almost took the top of my head off when I realized it, and it took me about four months of thinking to figure this out 'cause when, when I was in graduate school at McGill, I was really interested... I became really interested in the reality of evil and I was very interested in the viability of nihilistic beliefs, you know? What... Why bother if everything's going to disappear in 100 years? Who cares? Life, you know, it's meaningless.

    2. JRJoe Rogan54:05

       Mm-hmm.

    3. JPJordan Peterson54:05

       In the final analysis, life is meaningless.

    4. JRJoe Rogan54:07

       Right.

    5. JPJordan Peterson54:08

       Okay, well, you know, you can make a credible case for that. Now, it's a upsetting case.... 'cause once you accept that, first of all, you're anxious and hurt by it. So that's not so good. And second, it kinda makes you aimless. And that's part of nihilism. It's like, you know, you're anxious and upset, but you're also aimless, 'cause why bother? And fair enough, but you can make a credible case for it. But then I thought, "Well, when that gets out of hand, maybe you're nihilistic because life, because you're mortal and life ends in death." So you're sorta nihilistic because of suffering. And so then you become nihilistic as a logical response to that, and then what happens? And then what you see is that nihilistic people definitely make suffering worse, definitely. They make it worse for themselves, for sure. But then they get bitter because their lives are so unbearable, and then they start to take it out on other people. So if you are nihilistic, that's not neutral. It gets bad real fast. So then I thought, "Well, what are, are there any antidotes to meaninglessness?" And rational antidotes are hard to come by, because you can just say, "Well, who cares if in 1,000 years we're all gonna be dead? What, why get out of bed in the morning?" You can't really make, mount a rational case why that's not reasonable. Now, I'm not saying it is reasonable, but ... I thought about music. Music is a very strange art form. I had a great journalist friend of mine, he said to me the other day, he said, "All art aspires to the condition of music," which I thought was great. But music, it's, you think about the revitalizing effect mu- music continues to have on our culture, especially among young people, and that's really, really been the case since the beginning of the '60s. It's like we got more nihilistic and less religious and all of that as our culture became more secular and more rational, more materialistic, and at the same time, the power of music as a cultural phenomena just grew and grew and grew and grew. See, music gives you the intimation of meaning, right? Directly. So I used to watch punk rockers. (laughs) I went to a Ramones concert once, which was really fun. (laughs) We were up in the second floor of this theater in Montreal and, uh, the Ramones were playing on stage, like 100 feet away with their c- with their s- like, their, uh, their, their huge stu- not their studio, uh, stadium equipment. It was so loud in there, like I had to listen (laughs) to the whole concert with my ears plugged, and I was still, like, three-quarters deaf for three days. And beneath us on, uh, the stage sort of, in front of the stage, there was a flat place and all these punks were down there smashing into each other (laughs) and, and, and, and doing this, this really rough dance and I thought, "This is so cool. We got all these nihilistic punks in here, like, half-beating themselves up, dancing." And in, and, and being taken in by this rough music that gave them, even in their aggressive nihilism, a sense of meaning. I thought that was so cool. So why does music do that? That's a good question 'cause people think of music as a non-representational art. It doesn't represent anything. It's not like a drawing or a picture, or even dance where you can act something out.

    6. JRJoe Rogan57:20

       Really? Or-

    7. JPJordan Peterson57:20

       Non-representational.

    8. JRJoe Rogan57:22

       I don't, I don't agree with that. Like, what do you mean by music being non-rep- representational?

    9. JPJordan Peterson57:26

       Well, it's not a picture of anything.

    10. JRJoe Rogan57:28

        Right, but it represents the feeling of the person who puts out the, the lyrics-

    11. JPJordan Peterson57:32

        Yeah, it's got e-

    12. JRJoe Rogan57:33

        ... or, or feeling of the person-

    13. JPJordan Peterson57:33

        True.

    14. JRJoe Rogan57:34

        ... who proposes the music.

    15. JPJordan Peterson57:35

        It's got e- True. It's got emotional content. That's, that's fair enough.

    16. JRJoe Rogan57:37

        Yeah.

    17. JPJordan Peterson57:37

        Because there's, there's unhappy music and there's happy music-

    18. JRJoe Rogan57:40

        Yeah.

    19. JPJordan Peterson57:40

        ... minor keys and major.

    20. JRJoe Rogan57:41

        And-

    21. JPJordan Peterson57:41

        Definitely. It plays on emotions, for sure. But, but it still d- it doesn't represent anything like a picture represents-

    22. JRJoe Rogan57:48

        Okay.

    23. JPJordan Peterson57:48

        ... let's say, or a sculpture.

    24. JRJoe Rogan57:49

        I see what you're saying.

    25. JPJordan Peterson57:49

        That's all I mean.

    26. JRJoe Rogan57:49

        Okay.

    27. JPJordan Peterson57:50

        Not that it's, I didn't say it was without content.

    28. JRJoe Rogan57:52

        I see what you're saying.

    29. JPJordan Peterson57:53

        Right.

    30. JRJoe Rogan57:53

        But you said representation.
11. 1:03:28 – 1:08:03

    Comedy, sacred cows, and cultural taboos: why humor threatens authoritarian impulses

    1. JPJordan Peterson1:03:28

       Well, it's also, th- the good comedians are right ... they're like musicians. Y- they're right on the border between order and chaos, 'cause the place of maximal funny is when you're just about pushing it too far. Right? You think, "Oh, do I have to say this?" (laughs)

    2. JRJoe Rogan1:03:47

       Hmm.

    3. JPJordan Peterson1:03:48

       You know, "Do I have to say this?" Like, "Yeah, you have to say this." "Okay, I'm gonna say it." And everyone cracks up. And they crack up, you know, and it blows apart their sterile preconceptions. That's part of cracking up-

    4. JRJoe Rogan1:03:59

       Mm-hmm.

    5. JPJordan Peterson1:03:59

       ... you know, when you laugh. And it's so cool because it's the antidote to their totalitarianism, comedy. And that's why you can tell, anybody who goes after a comedian, it's like, "Oh, yeah, I know who you are. You're the king who can't stand the fool." That's the tyrant. So, you v- you reveal yourself. Same as people who go after musicians or dancers. It's like-

    6. JRJoe Rogan1:04:20

       Well, I think people are going after comedy for a different thing today, because they're going after comedy for a literal, literal representation of what the words mean if you put 'em in print. And that's nonsense.

    7. JPJordan Peterson1:04:31

       Yeah, but they're-

    8. JRJoe Rogan1:04:32

       That's not what a comedian is doing.

    9. JPJordan Peterson1:04:32

       Yeah. Well, they're doing that. No, they're doing that because there are some things they believe that can't be made fun of.

    10. JRJoe Rogan1:04:38

        Yeah, but they're, really what they're doing is just looking for targets. They're playing a game. The game, the rules of the game have been established. Comedy violates the rules of the game-

    11. JPJordan Peterson1:04:47

        Yeah, what are the rules?

    12. JRJoe Rogan1:04:48

        ... because comedy take those things... Well, there's a lot of things you can't joke about.

    13. JPJordan Peterson1:04:51

        Mm-hmm.

    14. JRJoe Rogan1:04:51

        You can't joke about-

    15. JPJordan Peterson1:04:52

        Sacred things.

    16. JRJoe Rogan1:04:52

        Yeah. There's-

    17. JPJordan Peterson1:04:53

        Hmm.

    18. JRJoe Rogan1:04:53

        ... there's protected classes now.

    19. JPJordan Peterson1:04:55

        Mm-hmm.

    20. JRJoe Rogan1:04:55

        W- we all know what they are. We don't have to bring them up, you know? Whether it's trans people, gay people, uh, people of color, Asian people, whatever those things are. Um, one thing you can mock relentlessly is white people, s- specifically white males. It's one of the-

    21. JPJordan Peterson1:05:10

        Well, they are pretty funny, you know?

    22. JRJoe Rogan1:05:11

        Oh, sure.

    23. JPJordan Peterson1:05:12

        (laughs)

    24. JRJoe Rogan1:05:12

        We're ridiculous. But there's a funny pejorative that people will say about, like, a group of folks: they're primarily white males. Like that is, that's a pejorative. Like that's, like you-

    25. JPJordan Peterson1:05:23

        It's my audience.

    26. JRJoe Rogan1:05:24

        Yeah.

    27. JPJordan Peterson1:05:24

        That's what everyone says.

    28. JRJoe Rogan1:05:25

        That's, yeah.

    29. JPJordan Peterson1:05:25

        "Oh, you're talking to those, those young, angry young white males."

    30. JRJoe Rogan1:05:28

        But isn't that funny, that that is, that that means something negative? That it s-
12. 1:08:03 – 1:17:43

    Trans identity debates: confusion, contagion, creativity, and personality vs ‘wrong body’ claims

    1. JRJoe Rogan1:08:03

       So what do you think is happening with trans people then?

    2. JPJordan Peterson1:08:07

       Well, there's a lot of different kinds of trans people, first of all.

    3. JRJoe Rogan1:08:09

       Okay. Trans men. Or, or excuse me, trans women. Men to female.

    4. JPJordan Peterson1:08:14

       Well, then I would say it depends on what period of time you're asking that question about. Right now, if you look at teenagers, for example, who want to switch genders, 95% of them are unbearably confused. That's what's causing that. And I think there's other reasons too. I think this is a conjecture. When the, when the trans teenagers came after me, when I opposed Bill C-16 in Canada on compelled speech grounds, I, I spent quite a bit of time watching them and I already kind of knew about that fluid identity crowd. So when I was at Harvard, piercing and, and tattooing started to become a cultural rage. And I was interested in, well, who's doing this? Because I knew it was... It was a practice that was limited to criminal subtypes and outcasts for a long time. So for example, if you worked in the circus, you were likely to be tattooed, you know, when you toured around the circus. And that was a kind of carny life and it was an outsider life. And if you were a prisoner, same thing. But then all of a sudden it started to make its inroads into the popular culture. So we studied a group of early adopters of tattooing and piercing from the perspective of personality. Like who are these people? And they were all highly creative people. Well, what i- And creativity is a trait, and all people who aren't creative, that's wrong. In fact, most people aren't creative at all, and I can explain that later, but they're not. We c- we developed a scale called the Creative Achievement Questionnaire, which assesses lifetime contribution to 13 different creative domains. And that your scores would range from zero, "I have no training or talent in this area," to, I think it was eight, um, "I'm an internationally recognized expert in this area." Right? And so 70% of people, if you sum their scores across all 13 domains, scored zero. And I ask audiences like, "How many portraits have you painted?" Zero. "How many songs have you composed?" Zero. "How many plays have you written?" Zero. "How many recipes have you invented?"

    5. JRJoe Rogan1:10:27

       Okay. Let me, let me stop you. Let me stop you. How-

    6. JPJordan Peterson1:10:28

       Okay. So the tattooed types are high... They were high in creativity.

    7. JRJoe Rogan1:10:32

       Okay.

    8. JPJordan Peterson1:10:32

       And a lot of these people who are fluid in their identity are actually high in trait openness and they do have fluid identities, and some of them are feminine men and masculine women. So yeah, but that doesn't mean that surgery is the cure for that. That d- does not mean that. Not at all.

    9. JRJoe Rogan1:10:52

       Well, what do you think it means when someone is so attracted to the idea that they were born in the wrong body? They're... It means so much, they're so compelled that they're willing to go through surgery to change, gotta change something.

    10. JPJordan Peterson1:11:07

        It means all sorts of things. I knew a kid in Toronto who was on the autistic spectrum, and a lot of the people who were manifesting serious issues with gender identity are on the autistic spectrum, by the way.

    11. JRJoe Rogan1:11:18

        This is like Abigail Shrier's work in-

    12. JPJordan Peterson1:11:20

        Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

    13. JRJoe Rogan1:11:20

        ... rapid onset gender dysphoria amongst women.

    14. JPJordan Peterson1:11:23

        Yeah. Well that's a different thing, the rapid onset, that's more like... S- so part of the reason I objected to Bill C-16 to begin with was because I knew full well as a clinician that as soon as we messed with fundamental sex categories and changed the terminology, we would fatally confuse thousands of young girls. I knew that because I knew the literature on psychological contagion and it stretches back like 500 years, that literature, 300 years. It's all outlined in a book by Henri Ellenberger called History of, History Of... What's the name of the book? History of Psychoanalytic Ideas. It doesn't matter. It's Henri Ellenberger and it's his main work if you wanna look it up. And so psychological contagions are very common. And so one of them, for example, was the Satanic, uh, ritual abuse accusations that emerged in daycares in the 1980s. And that was a consequence of women going into the workforce en masse, leaving their children with strangers and starting to have pathological fantasies about it, especially if they were borderline schizophrenic and those fantasies propagated into the population.

    15. JRJoe Rogan1:12:22

        So what does this have to do with creativity? You were talking about-

    16. JPJordan Peterson1:12:25

        Hmm.

    17. JRJoe Rogan1:12:25

        ... creativity in people that are-

    18. JPJordan Peterson1:12:27

        Well, okay, so you see people with blue hair, the blue haired crowd.

    19. JRJoe Rogan1:12:31

        Uh-huh.

    20. JPJordan Peterson1:12:31

        Well, they're the same people that were doing tattooing and piercing and they often are literally the same people 'cause they have piercings. It's like, well, they have mutable identities. They're not s- they're not stable in their identities. That's their, their creative...Creative people, by definition, aren't stable in their identities; that's what makes them creative. Now, the downside of that is you can ... Creativity is a high-risk, high-return strategy. Your new idea is probably stupid and wrong, and maybe it's fatal. But now and then, it's unbelievably successful, and also now and then, our culture would die without it. So we have, we always have this problem, 'cause we have to maintain stability, because o- otherwise, everything degenerates into chaos. But mere stability won't work because the future's different from the past. Like, technically different, different in a non-deterministic way. It's actually different. And so then we have to figure out, well, how do we modify our memories or our traditions at a rate that enables us to keep up with the culture? And the answer to this is, in part, we let creative people play multiple games on the fringe, and some of them are radically successful, and then we copy them.

    21. JRJoe Rogan1:13:49

        So you think that a lot of what's going on with people that wanna change their gender identity is creativity?

    22. JPJordan Peterson1:13:56

        No, I don't think so.

    23. JRJoe Rogan1:13:57

        So what do you-

    24. JPJordan Peterson1:13:58

        I know so.

    25. JRJoe Rogan1:13:58

        You know so.

    26. JPJordan Peterson1:13:59

        Yeah, that's not all of it, but that's definitely part of it.

    27. JRJoe Rogan1:14:01

        But there are for sure a lot of people that transition, um, and there has been work on this, that shows that if they didn't transition, they wanted to transition at one point in time, and then they eventually wound up becoming gay men.

    28. JPJordan Peterson1:14:15

        Yeah, that's definitely the case.

    29. JRJoe Rogan1:14:15

        This is males to females, right?

    30. JPJordan Peterson1:14:16

        Yeah, well, it's confusing. Look, I mean, I also think, by the way, that part of what we're seeing in late adolescence with this insistence on the primacy of felt identity-
13. 1:17:43 – 1:26:50

    Jungian framing: persona, shadow, autogynephilia, and integrating aggression and sexuality

    1. JPJordan Peterson1:17:43

       types, they're playing. They just don't know it. Now, they're often people who have a kind of a rigid identity.

Episode duration: 4:13:01