Dragons, Monsters, and Men is a 4-part series taught by clinical psychologist, Jordan B. Peterson, aimed at teaching men how to discover their purpose, overcome challenges, raise their masculinity, and effectively pursue greatness.
- Develop a vision for yourself and start taking on more responsibility: to develop your skills and character
- Only take on worthy challenges: avoid foolhardy behavior
- Arm yourself with words: your social power is more important than the coercive power of “toughness”
About The Author: Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist and former professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.
He rose to fame when he objected to a new rule to address trans women as “she” and has become a thought leader of conservative and alt-right movements and, in part, for red-pill communities.
Episode #1: “What Makes a Man?”
#1: Start Working On Yourself
- Don’t be too disheartened by your lack of competence and authority—especially, if you’re young: because gaining power is difficult.
- Don’t ask yourself, “What should I do with my life,” because that’s a poor question that invites an answer too broad for any productive action (because one can—and, if they’re driven, often does—many things in their life): a better question is, “What do other people who appear to give their lives significance and meaning do?”
Then, Peterson outlines what most people with a life of significance and meaning want/have, the main example being an intimate partner.
And, he recommends you work on getting an intimate partner by working on yourself. Ask yourself, “What do I bring to the table?”
Note: this points to Peterson’s Beyond Order Rule 1 that humans are part of value-based exchanges and a good life means establishing win-win relationships. And, at the same time, certain aspects of this section also point to his 12 Rules for Life Rule 6 to “Set Your House in Perfect Order Before You Criticize the World” (work on yourself and, as per Lucio’s note, “seek improvement at all costs”).
- There are advantages to being a young man: two of the biggest ones being youth and possibility (and, here, Peterson emphasizes youth as a form of wealth with the example that you wouldn’t trade “young and poor” for “decrepit and rich”).
#1.2: How to Start Working On Yourself
Ask yourself, “Am I good at anything?” If not, start practicing being good at one thing.
What matters most here isn’t what you choose to start practicing, it’s that you choose something because the sooner you get started, the sooner you start developing your skills and character.
- Develop a vision for yourself: what would it look like if you could have the life you wanted?
Note: many of the questions Peterson recommends you ask yourself to develop your vision point to questions you can find in the Self-Authoring Suite program and are similar to the question he asks his clients to better assess them (see Beyond Order Rule 1: “Community and social ties are crucial to your well-being”).
- Develop (in addition to your vision) answers to questions that give you responsibility and character: for example, can you get a job or a career? Can you educate yourself? Can you regulate the draw of temptation (be it drugs, alcohol, or sex)? Do you do anything that remotely represents civic responsibility (e.g. being a member of a political party or going to church)?
#2.: Embrace “productive generosity”
Peterson teaches that productivity requires aim, orientation, responsibility, discipline, and maturity (with the willingness to work and make sacrifices in the service of a higher goal being defined by Peterson as the hallmark of maturity).
The generosity aspect is, in a nutshell, about giving.
#2.3: Embrace “productive responsibility”
Be responsible to yourself and your future selves (the community of selves that you are across time). (See 12 Rules For Life’s Rule 2.)
Then, be responsible (and productive) for as many people as you can manage.
Note: Peterson says here that this will orient you solidly in the world and give you a dragon to fight which is where the gold is. However, I wish he would’ve also clarified (in that same line) that a part of one’s responsibility to themself is the rest and recovery required for continued productivity. By leaving that part out, Peterson makes it sound as if “more responsibility is always better”, which I disagree with. (More improvement is always better. And, the attainment and management of more responsibility should be a part of your improvement, but it shouldn’t be the whole of it—unless you invite the risk of negative consequences like burnout.)
#3: Arm Yourself
Peterson says you should arm yourself with words:
- Be precise in your language: see 12 Rules For Life’s Rule 10
- Say what you mean
- Read: from and about great men and women
- Make yourself literate
- Get your tongue in order / under your own control: manage your anxiety, shyness, and embarrassment
- Remove filler words and pauses
- Remove “proving yourself to others” communication: stop trying to impress others
- Say (only) what you believe to be true
Note: pauses can be good and socially powerful depending on how you utilize them. Know the exceptions.
Also, keep in mind that many people are afraid to ask questions because of the status loss of admitting that there was something they didn’t know.
But, Peterson says that if you ask enough stupid questions (because you’re honest that you don’t know something), you’re not stupid anymore since after you get the answer, you now know better and don’t have to ask that question again.
Peterson describes staying quiet when one doesn’t know something as more than dishonest, but an act of “cowardice”.
Note: it depends on the situation, sometimes it’s best to keep your mouth shut if you’re in strategic cases where, for the time being, being high status is more important than being a learner (and your status isn’t directly tied to your knowledgeability).
Then, Peterson teaches that beauty, tradition, community, and responsibility are classic virtues that serve as more than qualities that develop your character, but tools that can be used to challenge and win against the “dragons” (challenges) that stand in your path.
Note: I (mostly) agree. Better than memorizing scripts (picking up external tools that only work contextually) is to develop a quality of character that can withstand the highs and lows of a life committed to meaning. However, I say “mostly” agree because, as with any tool, they (virtues) can backfire if used improperly, ineffectively, or unwell.
#4: Live like you have everything at stake
Peterson says that this attitude makes for an adventure with no regrets looking back (a life of dragons encountered and conquered, beasts faced and tamed).
Note: given how close this sounds to the popular mantra of, “Live every day like it’s your last,” I’d add the caveat here: “Live like you have everything at stake…while also being mindful of your future selves to take care of.”
#5: Choose your dragons carefully
For example, don’t foolhardily play in dangerous oncoming traffic and think because it’s challenging you must be slaying a dragon.
A dragon worth slaying is a dragon you encounter on your way to a worthy goal.
You only want to fight the dragons that guard the gates of the treasure you want to attain (the treasure that you envision).
Here, Peterson also teaches that facing dragons does more than begin the process of removing them, it begins the process of your own development into the kind of person who is capable of attaining the treasure you seek.
We all have the capacity for great transformation.
Plus, women want a man who’s competent (who can keep the “dragons” away from the infants, in an evolutionary psychology lens).
Episode #2: “Arm Yourself”
#1: “We’re properly governed by the spirit of voluntary play”
Here, Peterson makes the argument that men are becoming more passive today:
- Boys don’t do as well in school: they’re less likely to enroll in a university, more likely to drop out, and less likely to graduate
Peterson says, “There’s some indication that young men aren’t even masturbating as much as they used to. That’s how emasculated and demoralized they are.”
He also says that the idea in society that power and masculinity are wrong leads to the demoralization of young men. Young men are taught that ambition is intrinsically corrupt.
Note: Peterson tells an emotional story of a friend of his that committed suicide because he believed all of that (that that power and masculinity are wrong and ambition is intrinsically corrupt).
This leads to men suppressing their shadow which leads to explosive violent crimes and gang crime.
#2: Follow the rules. But, don’t follow stupid rules.
Peterson says that you know it’s time to break a rule when it becomes pathological.
So, if you’re going to stand up and break a rule (one which you ideally believe to be unfit to follow), before you do, follow this step-by-step process:
- Think about it.
- Acknowledge the consequences of both options (following the rule vs breaking it).
- Ask yourself if you’re willing to take and accept the consequences of standing up for what you believe.
#3: It’s OK to be tough, so long as you’re also literate.
A few drops of the major points of this section:
- Everybody gets rejected 95% of the time, you only have to succeed once.
- Be willing to confront your mental and emotional dragons (such as self-consciousness, neuroticism, feelings of miserableness, and so on).
And, a process Peterson recommends you follow for increasing your toughness and literacy:
- Decide what sort of man you want to be: develop a vision of who you could be (you can do that by finding people you admire and uncovering what they’re like, then practicing their behavior and communication)
- Develop the (necessary) skills: and make literacy (precise and eloquent communication) one of them
Also, on the point of being tougher, the capacity for aggression is also the capacity for competition. A man with aggression who also has it under control is a far more useful man than one who’s only passive or uncontrollably aggressive.
Episode #3: “Be the Prince, You’ll Find the Princess”
#1: Dating, relationships, and children.
Peterson says not to ask, “How do I find the partner that’s right for me?”
Ask yourself instead, “How do I become the partner who’s right for someone else?” (Figure out what women want then start from that list.)
The idea is that if you concentrate on being the prince, you’ll (eventually) find the princess.
Note: I disagree here. Yes, if you concentrate on being or becoming a prince, you’ll attract the princess once you find her. Yet, there is that added step of finding her, which is a separate and different task that may require its own separate set of strategies (assuming that by “princess” we’re referring to a high-quality woman who’s LTR-material, which can be a rare find that requires some dating strategy, depending on your situation).
He also makes the case that enjoying too much short-term sex with too many different partners is ultimately unrewarding and psychopathic.
Peterson: “Some boys—young men—are in the hypothetically fortunate position now, partly because of dating technology, that they can enjoy an endless buffet of willing young women. But, there’s something really psychopathic about that…and so you sleep with a different girl every two nights. Well, you don’t really sleep with a different girl. You sleep with the shallow representation of a different girl every two nights because you don’t know her [them]. And, you might think that doesn’t matter. It’s like, well, what are you practicing here? You’re practicing to use other people in the most intimate possible manner as nothing but an instrumental ends to your own short-term, hedonistic pleasure? That’s psychopathy. That’s what that is. Practice that a hundred times, guess what you are?”
From there, Peterson states that psychopaths live lives that don’t serve them very well in the end and, therefore, constant, quick, short-term sex with multiple different women is to be avoided.
A few more drops of the main points from this section:
- How fast should a relationship progress physically?: as a rule of thumb, don’t do anything with someone that you couldn’t talk to them about beforehand (if you can’t have that communicative intimacy, it may be too early for that level of physical intimacy).
- People in monogamous relationships have much better sex lives: if you disagree because “it’s the same person all the time”, Peterson says you might lack imagination both in your approach and your rituals (you can use your imagination and play if you have a willing partner, you shouldn’t restrict yourself from experiencing your sexual fantasies). Plus, sex is simply better with love than without.
- Being more vulnerable doesn’t mean being weaker: it means being more carefully honest.
- Vulnerability is the basis for genuine intimacy and a stable and expanding relationship.
- It’s very hard to grow up without having children: because you’re not mature until someone else clearly matters more than you do. As long as that other person is now something you would die or live for, you’re an adult (mature).
Note: I disagree with Peterson on this point. I agree with him that “sacrifice is the hallmark of maturity”. However, I also believe that the sacrifice can be for something that matters more than your immediate pleasure, gain, or gratification (such as a higher goal or mission). It doesn’t always necessarily need to be for a “someone” (such as kids).
- It’s better to grow up—it’s better to be an adult than a teen: because as a teen, much of you and your ability is still potential and much of your life lacks autonomy. That flips when you become an adult. (Peterson says, “If you’re an adult and you’re mature and you tell the truth, then the world is a horizon of adventure—in a manner that’s just not accessible to a teenager.)
#2: What makes a good husband?
Honesty and the capacity to listen, says Peterson.
He then goes on to describe the maternal and fraternal spirits:
- Maternal Spirit: represents, “Fundamentally, you’re welcome here and this is your home and you’re loved for who you are.”
- Fraternal Spirit: represents, “You’re not everything you could be and we want to see you develop and leave.”
Peterson says that the patriarchal spirit encourages and fosters independence and the matriarchal spirit shelters, protects, and forgives. And, that both are crucially necessary.
So, the only way to get the balance right between the two spirits is by talking. (It takes knowing the child and constant communication.)
And, on the topic of having kids, a husband can take care of the wife and the infant while the mother primarily takes care of the child fundamentally (which is the approach Peterson took and recommends himself).
Episode #4: “Be Great”
- Life is characterized by a fair bit of suffering. So, what will sustain your will to live (and, even further, protect you from the resentment and moral corruption that can be produced by suffering)?: for a task like that, meaning is more suitable than happiness.
- Meaning is found primarily through the voluntary adoption of responsibility: one can find meaning in the love they have for their romantic/life partner, the relationship they establish with their children, their friendships, and so on (it doesn’t always need to be business or career-related/focused).
- Accept responsibility because it’s the best option you have to justify yourself to yourself (which must be done): that acceptance of responsibility serves to atone for your sins, mistakes, and inadequacies and self-justification helps you survive in a life characterized by death and suffering.
- You can find deep significance in your life through the decision to voluntarily bear your suffering and trudge uphill nonetheless: and, there’s something heroic about that, in the most fundamental sense.
- You have to say to yourself, “I will do good nonetheless…Everyone great makes that decision…”: “…So, make that decision because maybe you’re great.”
Moving on, Peterson says that if, as a woman, you’re asking yourself (in regards to trusting your husband), “Well, why should I trust a man, especially when I have vulnerable children?”
The answer is: because you’re courageous and that’s the best thing to teach your children (courageous trust).
And, manifesting that courageous trust gives you the highest chance of getting your husband to reciprocate that (positive) behavior.
More main ideas from this section:
- Paradise is a walled garden (the walls prevent the invitation of danger and serve as limits for the children): it’s the man’s job to put up the walls and make sure they’re well-patrolled.
- In marriage, do not punish behavior you wish to see repeated.
- Praise positive behavior: and specify what exactly they did that you noticed they did well and want to see more of.
- As a husband, your primary job is to protect your wife from exhaustion.
Finally, when you lose intimacy with your wife as she’s taking care of the child (particularly for the first nine months), you can get some of that attention from the baby (which is good for both of you and can even be taught to siblings of the child—they may lose some attention from their parents, but can gain some from the baby as well).
Negotiate with your wife so you both have time for each other during the initial period of infancy. And, make sure you negotiate that on an ongoing basis, going forward in your marriage.
Deprioritizing sexual intimacy with your partner is a very bad long-term strategy. You must consciously attend to the maintenance of romantic intimacy.
Here’s what Peterson recommends:
- Schedule one 90-minute session per week: for discussing the domestic state and economy of the household and exchanging updates with one another.
- Schedule two to three more 90-minute sessions per week: for your romantic dates.
Lastly, Peterson’s two rules of thumb:
- Never sacrifice yourself to your children to the point where you resent them.
- Don’t let your children do anything that makes you dislike them.
- Educate yourself more because education is the pathway to the sharpness of mind that enables you to arm yourself: we live in a sophisticated society today where the pen (social power) is almost always mightier than the sword (physical/coercive prowess).
Peterson uses the example that the alpha in the animal kingdom isn’t always the one who’s the biggest and/or the strongest.
Sometimes, such as in the case of chimpanzees (according to Peterson), it’s the one with the most social power who rises to the top spot (due to having better social skills, more allies, and the least enemies).
- Sometimes the series felt like a stage for Peterson to share his personal biases
For example, he says, “If you work ten percent longer you make 40 percent more money…so there’s part of the reason men make more money than women on average. It’s because men work more hours…”.
He goes into a controversial perspective (regarding why he believes we don’t live in a male-dominated society) that could’ve been saved for one of his YouTube videos.
But, he still ties his message back into more of his valuable main points, going on to say, “Any sensible boss is gonna be looking for the person who goes the extra mile…” which ties into his Beyond Order Rule 4 on how to become invaluable in a workplace (which has some truths to it, so long as you remember to combine that hard work and self-tasking with solid power-awareness).
- Sometimes felt like he put his morality above the need for making persuasive arguments
Which, granted, if you’re coming to him for advice, it’s perfectly fair for him to simply state his advice and leave it up to you if you want to follow it or not.
Still, some moments felt like a power-over approach of “here’s what I believe and you should listen because if you disagree, you’re obviously wrong” rather than a more power-through approach of “here are my thoughts and here’s why I recommend this over the alternative options”.
One example of this is when he says, “Some people say, ‘I don’t go to church because their beliefs don’t match mine.’” And, his response to people who hold this attitude is, “Who the hell cares about your beliefs?”
Keep in mind that he’s talking to young men in this lecture series, most likely teenagers who haven’t firmly settled on any beliefs yet and may benefit from a little more open-mindedness. So, he might be right in delivering a little “shock attitude” if he thinks it might wake them up.
And, he does later provide what he believes are the benefits of going to church (the intellectual and spiritual benefit, as well as the development of character through the attainment of more responsibility—such as if you notice that a church is failing or becoming corrupt, you can take it upon yourself to do something about it…and I agree with that, one less value-taking institution could almost always do the world some good.)
But, as someone who was hoping for the more scientific side of Jordan Peterson with the eloquent frame control to support his points and beliefs, I was disappointed to hear him share ideas that could be valuable, but then put in minimal effort highlighting what makes them valuable at times.
- Sometimes jumps around too much
For example, what starts off as a discussion regarding productive generosity and the giving tendencies of hyper-empathic types then jumps into heavy talk about the distinction between conscientiousness and agreeableness from a personality perspective (which feels like too big of a jump into a topic that sounded more like theory than practical information).
Then, Peterson jumps again, this time into the correlations of those two ideas with success in enterprises (which feels like something that should’ve been saved for another section on ambition and business accomplishment).
And then, from there, he diverts into a tangent about how these two cardinal personality traits seem to correlate to success in managers.
Moments like this made it feel like the interview style they went for was counterproductive for the viewers who paid for this series in order to learn (and, maybe a mini-course would’ve been better, or at least providing lesson notes so learners avoid getting lost in the surrounding genius of a mind like Jordan Peterson :).
- Sometimes seems to recommend naive self-help solutions
Most notably is when he ignores exceptions to the general rules.
One case is when he says, “You have to assume that there isn’t anything better that can happen than what happens if you tell the truth, no matter what happens.”
And, that ignores the exceptions (of which, there are exceptions to everything) such as utilitarian value-giving or Machiavellian value-giving (which may include white-lying, strategic lying, or strategic lying by omission, see here another example).
Peterson says, “The adventure that would occur if you dwelled in the truth would be so overwhelming that it would justify all the suffering.” And, maybe he’s right.
The question is: why create unnecessary suffering?
That’s the exception that Peterson seems to miss—the cases where lying can be value-giving (albeit those cases are rare and Peterson is totally right that honesty is far more often the best way to go).
Learn more on naive self-help:
- No links to studies, papers, or research
Peterson sometimes references studies, numbers, and data, none of which the platform gives any links for.
So, it’s much more difficult for one to read the research for themself (especially when he says things like “evidence that I think is quite compelling” for a statistic that sounds debatable—I would’ve been curious to take a look for myself in those cases).
- Sometimes shared what felt like basic information rather than the usual Jordan Peterson gold
However, with the target audience being young men, that’s understandable (and, possibly even to be expected).
And yet, I was still hoping for more.
An example is when he says that a sensible, sophisticated woman doesn’t want a man who only has status or resources. She wants a man who’s competent enough to attain those things (which is a much better deal than a “useless man” who, for example, simply inherited his status and resources).
Well, that much we can say is probably easily comprehensible to the more advanced young men listening.
So, if you’re reading around TPM (and that’s the audience this review is being written for), then you’re probably looking for more than that (foundational) information.
But, unfortunately, Peterson ends his point right there and moves on to a new one (discussing hypergamy).
So, what about sharing some suggestions on how a man can raise his competence beyond the standard advice (such as getting a job that demands you improve your skills)?
Why not recommend the young men watching to go Google “assertiveness training programs” or “assertiveness training therapy” so they can refine the greatest tool in their toolbelt for conquering their dragons (their communication)?
Peterson shares a lot of great insights on what to do. But, until he goes deeper into the “how”, it often feels like surface-level advice (to me).
- Confusing (possibly inaccurate) information
Peterson: “Saying ‘no’ is an act of aggression…’No’ means, ‘Stop doing that or something you do not like will absolutely, 100 percent happen to you…and so, ‘no’ and [integrated] aggression, those are pretty much exactly the same thing.”
I disagree because I believe it depends on how the “no” is delivered.
If it’s delivered too passively, your counterpart may not even take it seriously (in which case, there isn’t even the unstated threat of negative judgment from the passive party because the receiver doesn’t interpret it as a “real no”—and they might just walk all over you as a result).
On the other hand, “no” can also be delivered from a place of total self-interest (even going so far as selfishness), in which case it would be characterized as an act of aggression given that the sub-communication is that the aggressor’s wants, rights, and needs prevail over their counterpart’s.
However, there is also a third option. A “no” can be delivered from a place of fairness, self-love, and self-respect, believing that both parties have wants, rights, and needs and using “no” to respectfully draw boundaries.
I think that Peterson knows this (and might’ve only said he believe’s “no” is an act of aggression to keep his analogy going that “men should become monsters”).
But, there’s also a chance that his definition or association with the word “aggression” is different from most (in which case I wish he would’ve clarified it) or that we simply disagree here.
- Sometimes seemed to allow anger to interrupt his teachings
There were cases where his teachings seemed to turn into ranting, causing the lecture to lose some of its value as he neglected to put effort into making arguments that were fundamentally persuasive.
One example is when he says:
Peterson: “Do you want someone to be a mother for your children, assuming you want children? And, if you don’t want children, well, you probably will and if you don’t you’re either deluded or immature.”
A pretty bold statement, in my opinion, that made me eager to hear his reasoning behind it.
However, his reasons why a young man should want (and eventually have) kids are:
- The planet is not overpopulated: so you can do it and we have the capacity on earth for it (which shares why one could do it, not necessarily why one should do it)
- He says, “Every one of your ancestors reproduced in an unending procession lasting three-and-a-half billion years. And, they’re all wrong and you’re right? It’s like, I don’t think so.”: feels less like a well-thought-out reason and more like a “side-step as the judge” frame (judging the person [people] as possibly stubborn and/or closed-minded rather than addressing their arguments)
- He then says, “And, if you’re not sensible enough to see why a stable, monogamous relationship with children is the right outcome, then you’ve been badly served by your culture. You’re narcissistic, shallow, immature, underdeveloped, and diluted, at least in part by your own hedonism.”: once again, feels more like a “side-step as the judge” frame than well-grounded reasoning.
Peterson then says to “deviate from monogamy at your own peril because there’s a price to pay” (paraphrased).
I only wish he would have dived into that price at least briefly to better outline his philosophy for the viewers watching who are willing to learn.
- Lots of valuable, philosophical wisdom
As expected from a legend like Peterson :).
One moment where I struggled to keep up was when Peterson shared his recapitulation of the works of Jung, Nietzsche, and Freud in relation to integrating one’s shadow for better living (recommended by Peterson as a method for reducing the risk of possible violent outbursts of aggression—which can happen when one wants to realize their fantasies that spawn from repressed negative emotions, such as feelings of resentment or revenge).
- Engaging (and motivational) explanations of evolutionary psychology
Peterson mostly shares ideas we’ve heard before from high-quality literature in evolutionary psychology (especially if you’ve taken a peek at TPM’s “best of” list for it).
But, hearing it explained differently (and from the mind of a genius with the aim of making you a better man) causes the information to resonate and sink in deeper (at least for me).
Here’s one example (and keep in mind that much of the added value is lost from the written format):
Peterson: “…women often get a bad rap—especially, from people in the manosphere, so-called—for being hypergamous, which means mating across and up socioeconomic hierarchies. ‘Cause [young] women have a preference for men who are about four years older than them, who are as well off or better off than they are. And, it’s a female calibration mechanism to remediate the inequality placed on women in relationship to pregnancy and infant care. So, women take a vicious hit in terms of productivity when she becomes pregnant and has an infant, and so it’s in her appropriate interest to find a man who can fill that gap. And, she’s wired, so to speak, to look for someone approximately as competent as her or more competent, and why wouldn’t she? What, she wants another child around? That’s not helpful…and so you don’t wanna be another child.”
A nice little kick in the behind to those listening who need it as a wake-up call to “man up” and get going :).
- Shares concepts from social science utilizing his “dragons, monsters & men” analogy
And, that makes the learning process a bit more of a fun experience (albeit it sometimes makes the information less practical and more confusing at times).
For example, rather than simply explaining the stereotype content model (high-warmth, high-power matrix), he says that women want a “tamable monster”. A man who’s aggressive enough to keep the real monsters away, yet agreeable enough to be good with kids, good with her, and willing to share.
Peterson also goes even further, mentioning that in the book, A Billion Wicked Thoughts, the female pornographic fantasy is of this very type of man (a high-status man who’s also dominant, the 50 Shades of Grey’s male love interest being a prime example or, in the real world, an “alpha provider”/”providing lover”) who the woman is able to lock down for herself (“tame”).
- Many main ideas are highlighted for you
The editing team did their best to point out what they believe are some of the biggest takeaways from each episode and it helps with consumption as well as note-taking. (It in part also makes up for all of the jumping around.)
- Peterson commits to the series fully, emotions and all
It was a pleasure to watch Peterson at his most emotional and passionate moments in the series (and that made his points during those times all the more meaningful, persuasive, and engaging).
One particular moment where he began to tear up was when he said, “To say to an 18-year-old, ‘You’re OK the way you are,’ that just deflates them. It just deflates them. You say, ‘You could be a lot more than you are. You could be so much more than you are that the boundaries of that are unimaginable.’ That’s a way better message to someone who’s in despair.”
- Expands on wisdom from his books that align with the pillars of this website
Which is always a treat to hear (especially when he gets passionate or emotional in his message).
One example is when he says that “there is little difference between the capacity for destruction (aggression) and strength of character”.
And, he continues on to say that if you don’t develop that capacity:
Peterson: “…you can’t move forward…you can’t put limits on [value-taking] Machiavellians, you can’t oppose narcissists, you can’t emerge unscathed from people who use empathy in a manipulative way.”
Based on the trailer released by Daily Wire+, I was expecting a seated lecture series. But, it turned out to be more of an interview series.
The difference is that, with this format, it’s far more disorganized and may seem a little “too unscripted” sometimes for your personal taste.
But, it is good information if one can exercise the patience and diligence to filter through for the wisdom and absorb it.
- 12 Rules For Life: Summary, Review & Criticism
- Beyond Order: Summary, Review & Criticism
- Maps of Meaning by Jordan Peterson: Review