MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Stossel: Jordan Peterson on Finding Meaning in Responsibility

Lessons from Jordan Peterson's book 12 Rules for Life

Jordan Peterson is an unlikely YouTube celebrity. The Canadian psychologist lectures about things like responsibility. Yet millions of young people watch his videos, line up to hear his speeches, and buy his book 12 Rules for Life. It was number one on the Amazon bestseller list for a month.

John Stossel asks: What could make a book about responsibility take off?

"People have been fed this diet of pabulum, rights, and impulsive freedom," Peterson tells Stossel. "There's just an absolute starvation for the other side of the story."

The other side of the story, according to Peterson, is that "it's in responsibility that most people find the meaning that sustains them through life. It's not in happiness. It's not in impulsive pleasure."

Peterson instead advises: "Adopt responsibility for your own well-being, try to put your family together, try to serve your community, try to seek for eternal truth....That's the sort of thing that can ground you in your life, enough so that you can withstand the difficulty of life."

Many leftists hate Peterson. They attack him for saying people should be "dangerous." Peterson explains to Stossel that he means people should have the capacity to be dangerous, but control it.

"People who teach martial arts know this full well," Peterson says. "If you learn a martial art you learn to be dangerous, but simultaneously you learn to control it."

Advice about that, and responsibility, bring Peterson big audiences.

Soon: another Stossel video with Peterson—this one about gender differences and whether people are allowed to speak about that on campuses.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • DajjaI||

    He's neo-Neitszchean - he criticizes Christianity for being 'effete' and note how he always slips 'danger' and 'play' into every interview. For him, A Handmaid's Tale isn't exactly dystopian. Which explains his appeal to the 'young men' who attend his seminars. But still, I like him because he's a serious thinker and brings together so many different aspects of philosophy, religion and science. Gotta admire that!

  • John||

    Where does he criticize Christianity for being effete? Link or it didn't happen.

  • DajjaI||

    Here you go.

  • John||

    Not seeing it there. But I can't watch the video. I am not saying you are wrong, I have just never seen that and am curious what he said.

  • sarcasmic||

    I just listened to a couple of his videos on youtube, some of which strayed into the realm of religion. He seemed pretty respectful.

  • Juice||

    I thought he was religious, like Catholic or something.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes and no. He describes himself as religious, but I think the word spiritual would be more accurate. I doubt he holds allegiance to any specific religion.

  • ||

    He admitted to being religious.

    Which is fine by me.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I believe he has revealed he's a Christian himself, although he doesn't seem to make a big deal about it.

    I've heard literally hours of his lectures and speeches and it wasn't immediately clear to me that he was in fact a Christian.

    All I could tell is that he used biblical stories as a kind of universal example of the human condition which would make a lot of sense for a clinical psychologist.

    His views on freedom of speech are exactly what's needed right now, and they align perfectly with the likes of Brendan O'Neill and the like-- people who I suspect are very different from JP and would probably disagree on much.

    I greatly admire Peterson but there are things here and there I disagree with, but I get a sense of healthy disagreement, not a sneering, derisive and dismissive disagreement on issues.

    I believe so many people follow him because the world IS in desperate need of intellectual discourse and argumentation that can't be distilled into snarky 160 character tweets.

  • DajjaI||

    I agree with that but I would add that Canada doesn't have free speech and the controversy over pronouns was needed and healthy. Canada is heading for destruction and hopefully they will wake up and establish free speech before it's too late. It's curious to me that he's not pushing for it. Almost as if he's spoiling for the controversy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's curious to me that he's not pushing for it. Almost as if he's spoiling for the controversy.

    I don't understand, he's very much pushing for free speech in Canada, he's made incredibly forceful arguments for exactly that. And he's been one of the best voices for explaining WHY freedom of speech is necessary for a peaceful, liberal society.

  • DajjaI||

    He opposes 'compelled speech' but I don't think he's ever advocated for US Constitution style amendment.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Well, they don't have a constitution that aligns with the US system, so I'm not sure arguing for a 1st amendment is even a concept. However, he hasn't just fought "compelled" speech-- that was the particular issue that landed him in hot water, he has repeatedly and forcefully argued for the broad concept of free speech and the value open discourse has to a free society.

  • DajjaI||

    Grumble, grumble. You win this round.

  • ||

    Peterson is the most vocal Canadian I've heard yet in my 46 years when it comes to free speech.

    We need more.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I have a hard time believing they will suddenly implement rigorous free speech, true free speech, at this juncture. That almost only seems to come at revolutionary upheaval of some sort. People need to be in a certain mindset to be convinced up something so extreme as true free speech.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    No chance, at least for the time being. The West as a whole is running away from free speech, the only question is how far will it run.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think even in the best of times, I feel like we tend to only see it during revolutionary moments. A nations new constitution, times such as that. The most famous international Free Speech law from the UN was made under pure political will and monstrous bureaucracy and it seems like that is an extended ruling on "Free Speech for all, but..."

  • DajjaI||

    True. The problem is far more acute in Europe. The people don't have civil liberties in anything, and it's only getting worse. E.g. 'knife control' in the UK. The people are defenseless and will get slaughtered. The only things they are allowed to say is, "Of course Europe has free speech!" and "Europe isn't a country, idiot!"

  • CE||

    Limiting the freedom of people to freely express themselves is what's extreme.

  • John||

    What I like about Petterson is that he is a practicing therapist. He didn't pull these ideas out of thin air. He came to these conclusions after years of seeing patients with various levels of screwed up lives and from that experience concluded what kinds of things work to improve people's lives.

    And of course the conclusions he made are the same ones ethicists and religious thinkers have been making for thousands of years; namely that worldly pleasure never satisfies you or gives you any sense of meaning and the only way to get a sense of meaning and self-worth is to work and discipline yourself towards something besides impulsive pleasure. That is not a novel concept, but one that the world forever forgets.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What exactly is Peterson teaching that you haven't heard before?

  • John||

    Nothing. The point is that he came to those conclusions after a long career as a therapist. The fact that his conclusions confirmed what people have been saying for thousands of years doesn't make them less valid.

    I am not really sure what was unclear when I said And of course the conclusions he made are the same ones ethicists and religious thinkers have been making for thousands of years

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You expect me to read to the end of your comment, John? Who has that kind of time?

  • John||

    Touche.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Chipper's so busy his mind doesn't even bother to perceive Ken anymore.

  • ||

    The point is we need reminding.

    And he's the guy to do it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You should ask Paul about his guy. There's this one british guy who is quite good that Paul always posts. Brandon something I think?

  • GILMORE™||

    I believe he has revealed he's a Christian himself, although he doesn't seem to make a big deal about it.

    many of his most-vocal critics act like he's some bible-beating, closet evangelical. When if you actually listen to his lectures, even when he rarely does touch on religion at all (or refers to biblical stuff) its as allegory or metaphor. you'd think from listening to the hysterics on twitter than he's Jimmy Swaggert-meets-Sigmund Freud.

    e.g. from wiki

    In a 2017 interview, Peterson identified as a Christian,[98] but in 2018 he did not.[99] He emphasized his conceptualization of Christianity is probably not what it is generally understood, stating that the ethical responsibility of a Christian is to imitate Christ, for him meaning "something like you need to take responsibility for the evil in the world as if you were responsible for it [...] to understand that you determine the direction of the world, whether it's toward heaven or hell".[99] When asked if he believes in God, Peterson responded: "I think the proper response to that is No, but I'm afraid He might exist".[7] Writing for The Spectator, Tim Lott said Peterson draws inspiration from Jung's philosophy of religion, and holds views similar to the Christian existentialism of Søren Kierkegaard
  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Actually, if you listen to the hysterics on Twitter, he's quite literally Hitler. Tells you how far off the rails we've gotten.

  • GILMORE™||

    There's something telling about how viciousness and severe the character attacks against Peterson actually are.

    They have almost no connection to reality. In most respects, he's a moderate liberal. But the media rants about him like he's kissing cousins to Richard Spenser.

    imo, they attack him exactly because he's moderate and rational. Because he's far too effective a speaker, and too sane and intelligent a person to risk debating.

    So they spread this contrived, cartoonish version of what he's supposed to be rather than criticize what he is.

    And, like w/ most things, their hysteria serves only to make the guy more popular with people like me, who otherwise wouldn't care, but only go and listen to his lectures to see what the hell the fuss is about.

  • ||

    All true. Plus he make no bones about calling them 'radical Marxist leftists' which drives them nuts.

    I don't know why because that's exactly what they are and he forces them to see it.

  • Richard Franklin Carter||

    Gilmore is 100% right. Peterson spooks the radical left because he offers an alternative to their narrative of white male capitalist oppression. Left wingers feel that they must disrupt his lectures and savage his reputation to prevail. Now Peterson is one of Canada's best-known and popular thinkers.

  • The Last American Hero||

    So based on the Wiki summary, it would appear he's Presbyterian.

  • Zeb||

    His approach to religion is interesting. It's actually changed the way I think about religion quite a bit. He looks at religion (and experience in general) phenomenologically. So even if he doesn't believe God is real is a materialistic sense, God is real in the sense that it's a real part of human existence and experience and how people behave. I'm not sure if I agree entirely. But it's a much better thing to think about and argue about than whether or not the Bible in materially or literally true. He has a serias of lectures on teh Old Testament which are pretty interesting.

  • Star1988||

    He has stated that he views the Bible as the "best guide we have" for dealing with suffering in a noble way, and managing the malevolence within Man.

  • Tony||

    Isn't this the guy who said using pronouns he was uncomfortable with is basically the same as murdering 100 million people?

  • John C. Randolph||

    On thing I like about Peterson is the way he triggers people like you.

    -jcr

  • Tony||

    That's the only thing you seek from public discourse at all, isn't it?

  • John C. Randolph||

    What I seek from public discourse will never involve you.

    -jcr

  • Ecoli||

    Burn... Sizzle.......

  • sarcasmic||

    From what I gather he said that the manipulation of language often leads to an authoritarian state, and which often leads to mass murder by the state. It happened at least three times in the last century.

    Only an imbecile would see that as an equivocation or cause and effect.

  • John||

    Tony thinks newspeak is a good thing and 1984 an instruction manual.

  • Tony||

    Frank Luntz runs circles around the lefty PC police when it comes to just that sort of thing, though not perhaps in Canada.

  • John C. Randolph||

    When has Tony ever not been an imbecile?

    -jcr

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Nope.

  • GILMORE™||

    " is basically the same as"

    no.

    He said compelled speech is a bad idea, for lots of reasons.

  • Tony||

    Does that extend to all forms of good manners or just the ones involving other people's deeply held identities?

  • John C. Randolph||

    What part of "compelled" did you not understand, pinhead?

    In Canada, the SJWs are trying to make it a CRIME not to play along with the newspeak demands of the SJWs. If you're OK with that, go fuck yourself.

    -jcr

  • ||

    And they have the perfect government and idiot in power to do it.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Does that extend to all forms of good manners""

    If you took the time to actually listen to what the person in question has himself said about the subject, you might not hold such incredibly distorted and mistaken impressions.

    He has repeatedly stated that he personally uses whatever pronouns a person asks, if and when any individuals do have said preferred pronouns.

    He deals with transgender patients in his private therapy practice. He has had trans students. He has received high ratings from all of them for many years.

    His specific objection was to making pronoun-use a matter of law, and objecting to any precedent involving compelled-speech.

    which is what i said right above this, and which you would have understood if you bothered to read even the slightest thing about the person rather than jumping to retarded and hysterical conclusions.

  • Tony||

    He said in plain English that he does not use trans pronouns he doesn't like, that the words themselves, especially the newly invented ones, are signifiers of Marxist totalitarianism. And he's said that if he's asked by a student to use a pronoun he doesn't like, he'd have to assess the motives of the student first.

    Obviously I don't think there oughta be a law governing the words people use. I do think he's perhaps overstating his case by comparing social justice advocates to Stalin.

  • GILMORE™||

    He said in plain English that he does not use trans pronouns he doesn't like, that the words themselves, especially the newly invented ones, are signifiers of Marxist totalitarianism.

    quote and link what you are referring to, please.

    because sadly, knowing you and how unbelievably stupid/dishonest you are, this is highly unreliable.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""I do think he's perhaps overstating his case""

    As per your original post, i don't think you are even remotely informed about what 'his case' is.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Obviously I don't think there oughta be a law governing the words people use. I do think he's perhaps overstating his case by comparing social justice advocates to Stalin.

    This is based on a long and detailed analysis of the post-modernist structures within the university system, and where they were rooted. He talks at length about this. People might disagree, but he doesn't throw these terms around glibly, except maybe in 4 minute, heavily edited interviews.

    He does a pretty admirable job of detailing the history of post-modernist thought and the core of motivations surrounding it.

    In brief, I agree with him that every interaction and relationship is seen as a power struggle-- which was central to Marxism, and from that comes a lot of ugly stuff in history.

  • GILMORE™||

    If you'd like some evidence of "his case",

    ...he testified at length in front of the Canadian Human Rights commission on the question of making pronoun-use a matter of law.
    Here he talks about various aspects of pronoun issues

    The only times he mentions Marxism is not, as per your claim, that the words are "signifiers" of anything...

    ....but that the attempt to seize control over people's use of language as a matter of law is part of a larger ideologically-marxist attempt to seize power via cultural institutions*

    This might seem confusing to you because you think any reference to Marx means "crazy right wing" stuff, but he's actually referencing what Marxists themselves argue they SHOULD be doing.

    If you want his view on words like "Xe and Xir", see: 25:30, where he addresses this. Nothing out his mouth resembles what you claimed.

  • Tony||

    His stuff about Marxist death machines is hysterical. Language policing is not unique to a particular political worldview, and neither is power hunger.

    My prediction is that overly emotional 20 year-olds who apparently represent a mainstream worldview in many people's minds are going to grow out of it eventually. But it's possible they'll enact brutal totalitarian regimes too. Who can say.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""His stuff about Marxist death machines is hysterical.""

    You have not quoted anything about "marxist death machines"

  • ||

    lol.

  • liberalismwithteeth||

    They grow out of it because folks with a philosophy grounded in reality push back and criticize them. That's what Peterson is doing, and it's what we should all be doing. That's how the marketplace of ideas works. That's why efforts to suppress--or compel--speech are so uniquely awful. It is not just slander by association to remind ourselves that those ideologies that lose sight of the importance of free speech and the marketplace of ideas so often wind up murdering people. The relation is not a straight line of causality, but it is not some bizarre coincidence either.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    My prediction is that 20 years from now you will still be a willfully obtuse, retarded nitwit.

  • deesine||

    I just joined this site. Tony is the one in the corner, right?

  • Star1988||

    "Obviously I don't think there oughta be a law governing the words people use."

    That's not obvious at all. Because what Peterson has done is object to the Law, and the Ontario Human Rights Commission wording on the subject. And you are criticizing Peterson for that. Hence, your implied desire for a compelled group-think and compelled speech law.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Does that extend to all forms of good manners or just the ones involving other people's deeply held identities?

    Perhaps you missed the "compelled by the state" part of the law.

  • Sam Grove||

    That's not what he said at all. He makes it clear that he chooses words carefully and what he said is that the totalitarian impulse from the left, which is behind the intersectional offense taking is the same impulse that led to the deaths of millions under the NAZI regime (which came from the left), the Holodomor, Mao's Great Leap Forward, etc.
    He doesn't not oppose fabricated gender pronouns per se, but rather the idea that people should be required by law to use them.

  • ||

    He doesn't not oppose fabricated gender pronouns per se, but rather the idea that people should be required by law to use them.

    Per se' no but he makes clear it's anti-science and ignorant. And he, correctly, finds it especially abhorrent the Canadian chose by way of legislation to enforce such nonsense.

    The Canadian Bar Association supported Bill C-full of shit. The law seems infested with lefties too.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""He doesn't not oppose fabricated gender pronouns per se, but rather the idea that people should be required by law to use them.""

    He also makes some interesting points in his testimony (linked above) to the CHRC

    about how these "Xe, Xir, Xim" things, while mentioned frequently on the internet... are, in fact, hardly ever used *even within the trans-community*

    If used at all, they're used by a minority, and in many cases, used infrequently and often change as given people age.

  • Paloma||

    So what do French speaking Canadians do?

  • ||

    Only a remedial mind would conclude that was his point. Stop acting like Cathy Newman.

  • Ariki||

    Short answer: No.

    Long answer: The ideology behind compelled speech is the same ideology behind the rise of murderous totalitarian regimes.

    Surely, a one sentence explanation isn't too difficult for someone of your limited capacities?

  • Star1988||

    No. What he said that was compelled speech, and compelled group-think is what leads to the death of millions of people. He has spent a lifetime studying tyranny from the individual psychological perspective. You would be well served by listening to what he has to say about it.

  • TGoodchild||

    If one can judge a person by his enemies, JP is doing quite well. I first came across him in his first interview with Sam Harris; what separates the two mostly is that JP's extensive clinical practice has given him a stronger dose of pragmatism. I think SH is the more-pure intellectual and philosopher between the two, if that is a thing in 2018, whereas JP spends less time with abstractions. I enjoy listening to them both.

  • The Last American Hero||

    He's less of an asshole than Sam Harris as well.

  • ||

    'Less of an asshole'? How is he even an asshole?

  • John C. Randolph||

    When those two snotty little fucks were on the stage with that banner in front of him, it would have been hilarious if he'd just shoved them off.

    -jcr

  • Sam Grove||

    I think laughing at them was better.

  • Paloma||

    I'd laugh harder if he'd shoved them off.

  • PaulTheBeav||

    I'm about half way through his book right now. I don't agree with some of the things he says, but he is definitely someone worth including in a conversation. Even when you don't agree with him, he will give you some things to think about.

    I'd recommend the audiobook. He narrates it himself, so there is nuance that comes through in his voice that might otherwise be lost on paper.

  • ||

    OMG REASON HAS GONE FULL ALT-RIGHT!!!

    OMG! OMG! OMG!

  • esteve7||

    Last year I was listening to JP in the car with my then 13yo cousin. Not his political or religious stuff, but his lectures from his 'personality' class he put online last Spring. I was expecting him to be bored out of his mind, but he was hanging on his every word, and wanted to hear more. For Christmas he asked for 12 Rules for Life, and when I picked him up at school one day, he was reading it as he was waiting for me.

    JP isn't really saying anything 'new', but he is saying things that most people know to be true but no one is saying anymore. There is a huge market for personal responsibility, honesty and hard work, contrasted with the victim hood oppressor nonsense that so many are spewing. You want to tell a 14yo that yeah, you can't make it in the world, other people are out to oppress you, everyone is racist, oh and turn to my religion for help, yada yada yada, or do you tell a 14yo to go out there and make something of yourself.

    Before the far left hated him, you could find articles in NPR praising his Future Authoring Program, where he helps teenagers and college students envision and plan for their lives. It has a huge success rate when applied, and is one of the many things JP is doing to help people. There are also countless examples of 'alt-right' people being turned away from that ideology due to JP. The great irony is the left slanders him as being alt right (who do they not today), yet he has done more to minimize the alt right than they ever will

  • GILMORE™||

    ""JP isn't really saying anything 'new', but he is saying things that most people know to be true but no one is saying anymore. There is a huge market for personal responsibility, honesty and hard work, contrasted with the victim hood oppressor nonsense that so many are spewing.""

    True.

    But he also goes a bit further and adds some data to these common-sense things which show that they're far better for individual psychological health, as well as personal success, than the victim-mongering solipsism that's pushed by contemporary lefty academia.

    meaning, its not that he's just warming-over conventional wisdom; he's actually making fact-based case for why certain modern pop-psychological concepts ...

    (like that Gender is indeterminate, or constantly in flux; or that victimhood-status confers personal virtue; etc)

    ...are actually dangerous, make people unhappier, and are socially-corrosive. etc.

  • Dariush||

    Excellent comment esteve7. I'll put on JP's Maps of Meaning lectures on YouTube and let them play while I'm doing housework, driving or prep work. I learn a lot but also reflect on things and later something I've been wrestling with becomes more solvable or manageable. Jordan Peterson often says that people who speak to him say it's like everything he's saying they feel they already know or it's like pieces of a puzzle snapping together in their mind and I tend to agree. It's pretty cool seeing Stossel and Peterson talk although I wish it was longer so they could've dug deeper into Libertarian issues.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I would be curious to see a long form Stossel series. His wheelhouse is short, easily digestible, easily understandable videos meant for non-specialist consumption. So I'd be curious to see how a long form would play out.

  • Star1988||

    "The great irony is the left slanders him as being alt right, yet he has done more to minimize the alt right than they ever will."

    This. When you listen to Peterson, he provides a great framework for understanding both SJW's and basement-dwelling white-supremacists. He makes them functionally indistinguishable: they are all bitter, resentful, and useless. And desperately in need of his 12 steps to get their lives in order.

  • Star1988||

    "The great irony is the left slanders him as being alt right, yet he has done more to minimize the alt right than they ever will."

    This. When you listen to Peterson, he provides a great framework for understanding both SJW's and basement-dwelling white-supremacists. He makes them functionally indistinguishable: they are all bitter, resentful, and useless. And desperately in need of his 12 steps to get their lives in order.

  • esteve7||

    Last year I was listening to JP in the car with my then 13yo cousin. Not his political or religious stuff, but his lectures from his 'personality' class he put online last Spring. I was expecting him to be bored out of his mind, but he was hanging on his every word, and wanted to hear more. For Christmas he asked for 12 Rules for Life, and when I picked him up at school one day, he was reading it as he was waiting for me.

    JP isn't really saying anything 'new', but he is saying things that most people know to be true but no one is saying anymore. There is a huge market for personal responsibility, honesty and hard work, contrasted with the victim hood oppressor nonsense that so many are spewing. You want to tell a 14yo that yeah, you can't make it in the world, other people are out to oppress you, everyone is racist, oh and turn to my religion for help, yada yada yada, or do you tell a 14yo to go out there and make something of yourself.

    Before the far left hated him, you could find articles in NPR praising his Future Authoring Program, where he helps teenagers and college students envision and plan for their lives. It has a huge success rate when applied, and is one of the many things JP is doing to help people. There are also countless examples of 'alt-right' people being turned away from that ideology due to JP. The great irony is the left slanders him as being alt right (who do they not today), yet he has done more to minimize the alt right than they ever will

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I feel like I've read this story a few times now, do you keep repeating that anecdote about your cousin or am I having deja vu?

  • esteve7||

    I blame the squirrels. Also I repeat stories. They go hand it hand. If I did repeat it then that's a great memory

    I think the earlier story was about him wanting to listen more and take notes during his lectures on youtube, but before he asked for and started reading JPs book

  • Iheartskeet||

    There's that damn Reason disclaimer again.

  • ||

    It shows where we're at as a civilization in the West that JP is considered 'extreme' when all he's doing - like a Renaissance artist/writer or Monk or the Church in theMiddle-Ages - is preserving and expressing the collective knowledge we've acquired through reason and experience over thousands of years. Obviously the left hates the guy, they're too busy social engineering trying to bend reality and ignoring the truth to pay any attention.

    There's literally nothing to be angry about. He's just repackaging Western history and values.

    Like vampires shown garlic, the left reveals their hate for it.

  • wingnutx||

    All his appearances on the Joe Rogan podcast have been fascinating.

  • Ecoli||

    JP is a fascinating guy. He has single-handedly made me respect psychology, which seemed to be infested with a bunch of wishful thinking Marxists. I suspect he represents the main stream of psychologists, who are too brow-beaten by the lefty thought police to publicly open their mouths.

    He is a brave guy, and he is right, and he is winning the public argument. That is a lesson the academic world won't ignore. The worm turns.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    JP is a modern intellectual hero to me. Thank you Reason for not calling him alt-right.

  • texexpatriate||

    Peterson is correct. The best way to observe the truth of his assertion is to look around you. You can rarely find someone who is unhappy who also always has been responsible. You can rarely find a happy person who has always been irresponsible.

  • prediksi hongkong||

    Saya pikir dia adalah agama, seperti Katolik atau sesuatu.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Cool story bro.

  • prediksifajar||

  • Sammy12||

    I've heard literally hours of his lectures and speeches and it wasn't immediately clear to me that he was in fact a Christian.

  • Free cydia Download||

    Cydia app helps to get appcake for your jailbroken and non jailbroken iOS device. Appcake helps to download premium apps and games to iOS devices
    Appcake
    Showbox for iphone

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online