from the world's big
Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan: The gender paradox and the importance of competition
The Canadian professor has been on the Joe Rogan Experience six times. There's a lot of material to discuss.
- Jordan Peterson has constantly been in the headlines for his ideas on gender over the last three years.
- While on Joe Rogan's podcast, he explains his thoughts on the gender differences in society.
- On another episode, Peterson discusses the development of character through competition.
Like many people, I first discovered Jordan Peterson on the Joe Rogan Experience. Since Episode 877, the Canadian professor has been on at least five more times, making him one of the more popular recurring guests.
Peterson is one of the most polarizing thinkers of our day. This is apparent from my own articles on him. When I criticized his ideas on gun control, I received numerous negative emails, tweets, and comments, most of them grammatical nightmares (as trolling goes). Yet when I shared his tips for better writing, liberals derided me for entertaining anything the man says. If nothing else, Peterson is a perfect example of how you simply can't make everyone happy (nor should you desire to).
More importantly, it is possible to appreciate certain aspects of a person's ideology while being critical of others. Many fans of Peterson seem to be "all in," while critics won't take seriously anything the man says. It makes you wonder how either "side" can be in any sort of relationship at all. If Kellyanne and George Conway can maintain a marriage, it is certainly possible to hold conflicting thoughts about a philosopher in your mind and still contemplate value.
Alas, Twitter demolishes all subtleties. Regardless, here are two moments from JRE worthy of discussion.
Jordan Peterson Explains the Gender Paradox - Joe Rogan
Jordan Peterson rose to prominence (and to some, infamy) for his ideas on gender-neutral pronouns. In the above clip, he discusses the "gender paradox" in depth, which he defines thus: "As societies become more gender-equal in their social and political policies, men and women become more different in certain aspects, rather than more similar."
Peterson is pulling data from the contested "Nordic paradox," which states that as societies promote gender rights, less gender balance is observed in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) careers and upper management positions in certain sectors.
Peterson believes there are two types of equality you can pursue. The first is equality of opportunity. He notes that talent is distributed everywhere. Some differences between men and women have been minimized, while some industries, such as academia and health care, are now dominated by women. Though this might place stress on family structure, he concludes that one of the best indicators of economic health in developing countries is their attitudes toward equal rights.
The second is equality of outcome, or equity. Peterson claims the ultimate equity is utopia, but there's an issue. If you were to break down humans into twenty categories (he says there are many more) such as gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, attractiveness, and intelligence, it would be impossible to represent everyone equally everywhere.
"There's no way you can regulate a society so tightly that every single one of those groups is equally represented in every single one of those occupations at every single level of the hierarchy."
Are discrepancies between men and women socialization or biological? The relationship between biology and culture is culturally dependent, he continues, then offers a hypothesis: If the differences are primarily social, men and women will become more alike the more egalitarian the society. Yet that's not what happens, according to the Scandinavian research.
Men are more interested in non-animate things, such as technology, gadgets, and automobiles, while women are more interested in people. Societies are better off economically the more equal rights are emphasized, yet Peterson points to the Nordic research.
Interestingly, David Brooks points out a different phenomenon in America: Millennials are divided not by occupation but by political leaning. He attributes this to female mobilization and male backlash, given the 21-point gender gap between Democratic-voting women and GOP-leaning men under age 35.
Brooks does not claim war or even a paradox. He concludes the disparity is more the product of politics than gender:
"I have to say that this rising war between the sexes feels phony to me. Millennials seem to be in fundamental agreement on how to live. I detect less day-to-day difference between men and women than in earlier generations."
Not that Peterson's data are off, necessarily, but building an argument from one geographical region alone is suspect. As Nima Sanandaji, author of Nordic Paradox, points out, the discrepancy between male and female professional roles is attributable to welfare state policies, which, while well-intentioned, paradoxically hold women back from achieving many positions Peterson cite as evidence of gender discrepancies.
On this topic, it appears Peterson is picking and choosing studies to bolster his preexisting belief, which, of course, never makes for good science.
Joe Rogan - Jordan Peterson on the Importance of Competition
In this clip, Peterson points out that the world is "functioning unbelievably well, even though it has its problems." Joe Rogan has often pointed out that societies battled less upon realizing that trading with enemies is more beneficial. This obviously isn't always the case; populism is also reversing this trend. But Peterson is right. We are better off today than likely at any point in history, regardless of how terrible the news becomes—and we need to recognize climate change will greatly affect this upward trend.
Peterson also claims systemic prejudice is decreasing, which might not hold as much water. Nevertheless, developing economies are increasing rapidly thanks to access to clean water, medicine, and cellular technologies. Opportunities are spreading out globally.
Here Peterson dives into liberal notions of an equal playing field, opening the discussion of competition. To frame the argument, he points out many people that claim they want an equal playing field default to listening to a very limited range of music—they want the "best of the best" and don't invest time to discover a wide range of musicians. Thanks to streaming services' pro rata payment system, the best make more per stream than everyone else, which is not healthy from a competitive standpoint.
Competition, however, is healthy, and also necessary. It's encoded in our biology. Rogan mentions a favorite subject of his: participation trophies. Every child receiving a trophy for playing is a terrible way to teach them about life. Not keeping score, even when it's obvious one team has beaten the other, sets a dangerous precedent. Competition does not have to be brutal, but it does have to exist.
Peterson counters with an issue Paul Bloom brilliantly wrote about: Empathy can also be dangerous. Over-emoting often points to emotional lacking. No one argues for complete abstinence from empathy—it is arguably a quality that helped us ascend to the peak of the animal kingdom—but it also softens you. It blinds parents to the struggles existence demand. Enter snowplowing parents whose children can do no wrong.
Peterson then contemplates the idea that "it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game." The sentiment confuses children. Holding the idea that they're supposed to be a good sport who doesn't care about the outcome and try to win is illogical to a developing (and many developed) minds. Focusing on a single game instead of the bigger picture is what drives parents to miss the larger point.
Which is this: You could give the star player the ball every time if you want to win a game. A good coach, however, teaches the star how to make his teammates better. The goal is the championship, not a single game. Life, Peterson continues, is not a single game, nor even a single championship—it is a series of championships. The way to train to win the series is to develop your character.
That occurs by focusing on winning the largest number of games across the span of a lifetime, which Peterson claims by reciting the most fundamental kindergarten lesson imaginable: Play well with others. This means you want to win, but you want to train others to play well together. Then the kid becomes fun to play with, setting them up for a lifetime of teammates to play with and coaches to learn from.
"Don't forget, kid, that what you're trying to do here is to do well at life. And you need to practice the strategies that enable you to do well at life while you're in any specific game. And you never want to compromise your ability to do well at life for the sake of winning a single game."
Peterson recommends teaching this between the ages of two and four, but really, this applies to all of us at any age. And this lesson—play well with others—is one that we could all work on at this point in our history together.
Sallie Krawcheck and Bob Kulhan will be talking money, jobs, and how the pandemic will disproportionally affect women's finances.
How can we promote the creation of new neurons - and why is it so important?
- Neurogenesis, the birth of neurons from stem cells, happens mostly before we are born - as we are formed in the womb, we are generating most of what we need after birth.
- After birth, neurogenesis is still possible in two parts of the brain: the olfactory bulb (which is responsible for our sense of smell) and the hippocampus (which is responsible for memory, spatial navigation, and emotional processing).
- Research from the 1960s proves creating new neurons as adults is possible, and modern-day research explains how (and why) we should promote new neuron growth.
Two parts of the brain can continue growing through neurogenesis<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkyMzk2NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwOTAwODc1MH0.4GDLlZmkwuD0-pJ0s0UWcUoYXMy95a-AM61a_QAlAeA/img.jpg?width=980" id="2e77e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="4e23499fdf3b2185533979083fd02db7" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="brain made of twigs and plants concept of neurogenesis" />
Neurogenesis is still possible well into adulthood in two very important parts of the human brain.
Image by EtiAmmos on Shutterstock<p>Although most people are aware that aging or bad habits such as heavy alcohol use can contribute to the deterioration of our brains, not many of us give thought to how we can generate new brain cells.</p><p>Neurogenesis, the birth of neurons from stem cells, happens mostly before we are born - as we are formed in the womb, we are generating most of what we need after birth. </p><p><strong>After birth, however, neurogenesis is still possible in two parts of the brain:</strong></p><ul><li>The olfactory bulb, which is a structure of the forebrain that's responsible for our sense of smell. </li><li>The hippocampus, which is a structure of the brain located within the temporal lobe (just above your ears) - this area is important for learning, memory, regulation, of emotions and spatial navigation. </li></ul><p>Of course, when this information first came to light <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13860748" target="_blank">back in the 1960s</a>, the next natural question was: How do we promote neurogenesis in those areas where it's still possible? </p><p>Researchers today believe there are activities you can do (some of them may be things you already do on a daily basis) that can promote neurogenesis in your brain. </p><p><strong>Why is it important to promote the growth of new neurons in adulthood?</strong></p><p>We produce an estimated 700 million neurons per day in the hippocampus - this means by the time we reach the age of 50, we will have exchanged the neurons we were born within that area of the brain with new (adult-generated) neurons. </p><p>If we don't promote this exchange with the growth of new neurons, we may block certain abilities these new neurons help us with (such as keeping our memory sharp, for example). </p>
4 ways to promote neurogenesis in your brain<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjkyMzk2Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNTE3NjczNH0.qyzh_AIUPKfaQIa1QEq4yTNCAAK9nYkH3HFV9vWXwww/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C104&height=700" id="64a68" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ee1307fe2dd61ae425552da56db3c5ff" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="child playing trumpet concept of learning a new instrument neurogenesis" />
Learning a new instrument helps promote neurogenesis.
Photo by DenisProduction.com on Shutterstock<p><strong>Intermittent fasting</strong></p><p><a href="https://law.stanford.edu/2015/01/09/lawandbiosciences-2015-01-09-intermittent-fasting-try-this-at-home-for-brain-health/" target="_blank">A 2015 Stanford study</a> examined the link between <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-ways-to-do-intermittent-fasting#section1" target="_blank">intermittent fasting</a> and neurogenesis. Calorie restriction and fasting can not only increase synaptic plasticity and promote neuron growth but it can also decrease your risk of developing neurodegenerative diseases and boost cognitive function. </p><p><u>Two of the most common ways you can intermittently fast are: </u></p><ul><li>16 hours per day every day - this is a method where you are able to eat for an 8 hour period of the day and fast for 16 hours of the day. Many people begin their "fast" after dinner, pushing their morning meal far enough towards lunch that most of their "off" eating time happens while they are asleep anyways. </li></ul><ul><li>24 hours every week - this is a method where once a week you fast for an entire day. Some people prefer this method because the rest of the week can resume as normal - but for many, this is a difficult way to fast. </li></ul><p><strong>Traveling to new places</strong></p><p>While traveling is something many of us enjoy — scenic routes and new fun experiences — these things also promote neurogenesis while we're on vacation. <a href="https://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/ct-xpm-2014-01-28-sc-trav-0128-travel-mechanic-20140128-story.html" target="_blank">Paul Nussbaum</a>, a clinical neuropsychologist at the University of Pittsburgh, explains that the mental benefits of traveling are very clear.<br></p><p><em>"When you expose your brain to an environment that's novel and complex or new and difficult, the brain literally reacts. Those new and challenging situations cause the brain to sprout dendrites (dangling extensions) which grow the brain's capacity." </em></p><p><strong>Learning a new instrument</strong></p><p>The mental health benefits of music have long been studied, but did you know that learning a new instrument can promote new neuron growth? </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2996135/" target="_blank">this 2010 study</a>, learning to play a new musical instrument is an intense, multisensory motor experience that requires that acquisition and maintenance of skills over your entire lifetime - which of course, promotes the new formation of new neural networks. </p><p>When is the best time to begin learning a new instrument? Childhood, of course. </p><p><em>"Learning to play a new musical instrument in childhood can result in long-lasting changes in brain organization," </em>according to the study mentioned above. </p><p>While learning an instrument in adulthood will also promote neurogenesis, children who began training with a musical instrument before the age of 7 have shown that they have a significantly larger corpus callosum (the area of the brain the allows communication between the two hemispheres of the brain) than many adults. </p><p><strong>Reading novels</strong></p><p>A study from <a href="http://esciencecommons.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-novel-look-at-how-stories-may-change.html" target="_blank">Emory University</a> showed there was an increase in ongoing connectivity in the brains of participants after reading the same (fiction) novel. </p><p>In this study, enhanced brain activity was observed in the region that control physical sensations and movement. Reading a novel, according to lead researcher Gregory Berns, can transport you into the body of the protagonist. </p><p>This ability to shift into another mental state is a vital skill that promotes healthy neurogenesis in those areas of the brain. </p>
The coronavirus pandemic has brought out the perception of selfishness among many.
- Selfish behavior has been analyzed by philosophers and psychologists for centuries.
- New research shows people may be wired for altruistic behavior and get more benefits from it.
- Crisis times tend to increase self-centered acts.
Paul Krugman on the Virtues of Selfishness<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="7ZtAkm6C" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="828936bf6953080e9018307354c0c02b"> <div id="botr_7ZtAkm6C_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/7ZtAkm6C-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/7ZtAkm6C-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/7ZtAkm6C-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> The Nobel Prize-winning economist on the virtues of selfishness.
Evolution Is Moving Us Away from Selfishness. But Where Is It Taking ...<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="cyeqmYCb" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="6c5efecb56456e9acc25cf36935b1826"> <div id="botr_cyeqmYCb_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/cyeqmYCb-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/cyeqmYCb-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/cyeqmYCb-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div>
Exploring Morality and Selfishness in Modern Times<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="02eX1Cag" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="45cc6180db791f32683988fb52faff26"> <div id="botr_02eX1Cag_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/02eX1Cag-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/02eX1Cag-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/02eX1Cag-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> Philosopher Peter Singer discusses the state of global ethics.
Parenting could be a distraction from what mattered most to him: his writing.
Ernest Hemingway was affectionately called “Papa," but what kind of dad was he?