Precondition to Progress | Jordan Peterson Podcast | Adam Smith | Podcast Summary | The Pod Slice
Transcript:
This discussion between Dr. Jordan Peterson and Congressman Adam Smith focuses on the roles of disagreement and open dialogue in political and personal growth. Congressman Smith believes that the best way to represent his constituents, learn, and refine his ideas is by engaging directly and openly with those who oppose him, even if it’s uncomfortable.
Smith shares some personal experiences to illustrate his points, notably his early forays into political debate within the armed services committee where he often had to defend his beliefs. It was in this setting that he learned confrontation and disagreement can strengthen your understanding of your own positions and illuminate areas that require additional thought or reconsideration, even though the process can be disorienting and challenging.
Adam Smith further adds that he views discussions not as opportunities to bludgeon opponents into agreement, but as chances to learn and develop better arguments. While he acknowledges that sometimes, it’s crucial to win arguments, such as when in a lawmaking process, the broader purpose should be to grow in understanding and insight.
Peterson agrees, offering a psychological perspective on why it’s beneficial to challenge your belief system. Beliefs are like maps that orient us in the world, and having them invalidated can induce anxiety and hopelessness. However, as disturbing as this process can be, Peterson insists that having your ideas challenged and refined in discussion is far more productive than having them uncomfortably shattered by reality. He extends the discussion to contemporary issues, criticizing the education system for shielding students from uncomfortable conversations. He argues that these conversations actually help to “fortify individuals against challenges.”
Lastly, Smith emphasizes the value of not limiting oneself to comfortable interactions, especially in today’s hyper-connected world. He observes that technology makes it easy for people to avoid any uncomfortable engagement or conflicting ideas, leading to societal fragmentation. By comparison, he suggests that constructive, albeit stressful, dialogue can have a greater net positive effect on mutual growth and community building. He believes that the tendency to avoid discomfort, take the easy route, and stay within one’s comfort zone is a barrier to progress.
As the conversation between Dr. Jordan Peterson and Congressman Adam Smith progresses, their focus shifts towards the implications of self-identity and its influence on mental health and societal dynamics. Drawing from his experiences in psychotherapy, Peterson presents an argument against a solely subjective self-identification process. He contends that an individual’s mental health cannot be fully understood by their personal, internal psyche; instead, it’s shaped by their relationship to the larger community. Disruptions at any level, whether familial, community-wide, or societal, can significantly impact a person’s mental well-being.
Peterson further explains that one of the real challenges lies in the current shift towards a subjective, individual-based form of self-identification, which doesn’t consider the necessary negotiation of an identity within the context of broader societal interactions. He draws a correlation between this and the increasing prevalence of identity politics, which he believes could be potentially harmful.
Smith agrees that these observations are relevant to the ongoing culture war and asserts that issues related to racism, bigotry, and discrimination continue to be prevalent problems. However, he criticizes the far-right’s dismissal of these issues and the far-left’s hypersensitivity to them. He affirms that there needs to be balance in addressing this, rather than leaning too far towards either side.
Smith also explains the importance of one’s own internal mental state in shaping relationships and notes from his personal experiences that psychotherapy can help people better understand and navigate their internal issues. He suggests that both the internal mental state and relationships are interconnected and mutually influential, and that dismissing either can lead to imbalance.
At the heart of their discussion, Peterson and Smith underline the importance of negotiation and balance in navigating identity, mental health, and societal challenges. Smith emphasizes the need for a measured approach in dealing with contentious issues like racism and discrimination that takes into account the multifaceted aspects of these problems without resorting to polarizing politics. Peterson, on the other hand, criticizes subjective self-identification as neglecting the complex societal interactions and feedback loops that contribute to a person’s identity and, ultimately, their mental health.
A key part of the discourse between Dr. Peterson and Congressman Smith revolves around the negotiation of individual responsibility and societal influence in shaping personal experiences and issues. Peterson maintains his stance against completely subjective forms of self-identification, drawing attention to the increasing influence of identity politics, while Smith argues for a measured and balanced approach towards tackling societal issues such as racism and discrimination.
In the backdrop of this, Smith raises some critical societal issues prevalent in his area of representation, namely homelessness, drug abuse, crime, and affordable housing. He argues against the radical left’s standpoint of attributing these issues purely to broader societal causes. While recognizing that factors like economic opportunities, health care access, and education do affect these issues to a certain extent, he firmly believes that eliminating individual responsibility from the equation is problematic.
Smith highlights the importance of bridging the gap between societal influences and individual agency. He advocates for a progressive approach involving alternatives to incarceration and more personalized treatments that encourage individuals to make better choices. He asserts that while societal issues need addressing, the solutions should also empower individuals, helping them fulfill their responsibilities and make progress over time.
This argument leads to him to point out a problem with the approach of the extreme left. They tend to disregard individual responsibility and choice, instead favoring a more passive approach where people are expected to seek help only when they feel ready. Smith rebukes this line of thinking, pushing instead for a more active and balanced approach that encourages progress and personal growth.
Smith also criticizes the conservative alternative, which involves continuously incarcerating people and denying the existence of racism. According to Smith, this perspective doesn’t align with the needs of his community or his own beliefs. Instead, he believes a more balanced and nuanced approach is necessary.
Their discussion also delves into the importance of free speech and its role in fostering dialogue about challenging topics in society. At its core, Smith emphasizes the need for maintaining a balance that accounts for both personal responsibility and broader societal issues in dealing with complex social phenomena.
In the dialogue between Dr. Peterson and Congressman Smith, the concepts of personal responsibility and societal influences continue to take center stage. Peterson illuminates how hopes for positive outcomes stem from individual agency and the belief that you are capable of achieving a task. Smith concurs, pointing out that when people’s agency gets stripped away by attributing major problems solely to society, it often eliminates their hope as well.
The two delve further into this, discussing the connection between responsibility and meaning. According to Peterson, when he shares his observations about how personal meaning is derived from taking on responsibilities, audiences grow notably quiet. He suggests that people derive their sense of purpose from bearing responsibility—not just for themselves, but also for their partner, family, or community. The problem with the radical left’s perspective is that it views problems at a societal level and negates the relativities of personal responsibility. This high level of abstract diagnosis, unfortunately, demolishes the grounds for personal responsibility, and by extension, individual purpose and or meaning.
Drawing on his experiences in drug policy and criminal justice reform, Smith critiques both the radical left’s and conservatism’s differing stances. He identifies the passive approach of the left as problematic, where people are told to seek help only when they feel ready, with no active engagement or encouragement to progress. On the other hand, he mentions that the conservative’s view of constant incarceration and denial of racism doesn’t meet the needs of his community. Instead, Smith pushes for a more balanced approach, which acknowledges both societal influences and individual accountability.
Transitioning into the complicated topic of systemic racism, the conversation draws on complex anthropological trends. Dr. Peterson rejects the radical left’s critique of American society as systemically racist, asserting instead that the UK and US traditions have made the most strides against prejudice and racism, favoring the sanctity of individual value over group identity. Smith acknowledges these assertions, discussing the complicated history of American democracy that initially favored white, male property owners. He describes the gradual progress and improvement over time, criticising any uni-dimensional analysis of America’s history.
In the continued discussion, Congressman Smith delves into the issue of named military bases and installations, particularly those named after Southern Civil War generals and leaders. He highlights that many of these places were not named immediately after the Civil War in the late 19th century but in the early 20th century following the failure of Reconstruction, in what he describes as a reestablishment of white supremacy. He uses this history to support the necessity of wrestling with America’s past and reconciling the inequities that have characterized it.
Smith further emphasizes the importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, especially in understanding historical context and individual experiences. He acknowledges the value in understanding the unique experiences associated with race, especially within work, school, or social settings. However, he criticizes the claim that discrimination and bigotry are exclusive to white Western culture, describing it as incorrect and simplistic.
Ultimately, Smith argues for a balanced and fair conversation about DEI, emphasizing the need for mutual understanding. He criticizes both the far-left’s handling of DEI and the right’s dismissal of it as unnecessary. In contrast, Smith perceives DEI training as crucial for understanding the broad history of America and the diverse experiences of people who call it home.
Discussing his own professional journey, Smith offers a personal experience in which he realized that the majority of people working in his office were white and the negative impact of that lack of diversity. He emphasizes how his unintentional bias towards hiring individuals similar to himself contributed to this issue. As a solution, he decided to reach out to community groups that support minorities to find potential candidates, which he says significantly diversified his workforce. Rather than focusing solely on equity issues, Smith favors broadening and diversifying the candidate pool to identify the most qualified individuals.
Though acknowledging the critique against the term “equity,” Smith argues that like all words, it can have different interpretations. He challenges the view that equity means equality of outcome, instead favoring a narrative where equity is about providing equal opportunities to everyone, regardless of their background. In his views, societal fairness will not result from equity alone but from a combination of equity and individual responsibility.
Leaning into more of a nuanced conversation, Smith expands on the premise of equity as it relates to societal norms. He emphasizes on the danger of oversimplifying the issues of discrimination, indicating that the commonly discriminated groups such as black people and Native Americans are not the only ones suffering from bias. This is coupled with his discourse on the potential for over-specification, highlighting a paradox where it may be impossible to perfectly cater to the diversity within communities.
Maintaining his stance, Smith argues against a binary approach to equity or equality, insinuating that the focus should not solely be on ensuring equal outcomes for everyone, which he labels as unrealistic. He encourages an evaluation of the historical context, suggesting that elements such as racism, discrimination, and redlining have had profound effects on modern-day outcomes.
Smith firmly believes that the pursuit of perfect justice could lead the world into a permanent state of war, using historical events like the Battle of Kosovo as illustrating examples. He warns against the detrimental outcomes of presuming that equality must be achieved at all costs, juxtaposing this with the similarly harmful ideology of disregarding equity as a concern.
Sharing a dialogue with Dr. Jordan Peterson, Smith emphasizes the need for differentiation and diagnosis. He denounces overgeneralization, arguing that overreliance on broad categories like healthcare can dismiss the complexities of individual care and diverse challenges. Smith presses on his belief about the human brain’s capability to better process complexity, positing basic mental health as causal to many of society’s broader issues.
In this context, Smith reflects on his own struggles with anxiety, calling attention to the significance of strategies like simple meditation for mental health. He states that such strategies could combat the overwhelming amount of complexity we face daily, enable better processing, thus altering the way we react to stress in our lives.
This back and forth between Congressman Smith and Dr. Jordan Peterson facilitates a complex exploration of societal norms relating to equity, discrimination, complexity, and mental health, encouraging an individual and collective shift towards more nuanced and differentiated perspectives.
In further delving into the conversation, Peterson and Smith navigate the complex terrain of the relationship between stress, mental health, and personal success. Smith explains his historical viewpoint, that stress was an indicator of meaningful engagement, arguing that if he wasn’t stressed or worried, then he wasn’t truly involved in something significant. For him, this was a guiding principle that led him to a series of successes in his personal and professional life but coupled with constant anxiety. Peterson and Smith collaboratively identify this as an issue many might very well face, offering a counterargument that effective progression does not necessarily need to anchor on overwhelming stress.
Smith shares his experience on psychotherapy in detail, underlining its essential role in his way to combat anxiety. The three significant strides towards mental health, according to Smith, were the establishment of intrinsic self-worth, understanding one’s historical context, and the undertaking of effective psychotherapies like EMDR and ETM. Smith stresses the fallibility of cognitive-behavioral therapy as a standalone approach, suggesting it to be more efficient if preceded by the establishment of self-worth and understanding of one’s personal history.
Comparisons drawn between performance and worth form another aspect of Smith’s narrative. He explains the weight of expectation and value he put on his own accomplishments, which, though beneficial in driving him towards success, also inflicted immense burden and unwarranted self-criticisms upon failure. He quotes the Buddhist philosophy that everyone is worthy of love irrespective of their deeds.
Shifting the focus to societal implications, Peterson and Smith explore how perceptions of self-worth can influence interactions with others. Smith suggests that if an individual lacks a sense of their own intrinsic worth, it could be difficult for them to attribute worth to others, further impacting societal cohesion across political and conceptual fronts.
Drawing on the importance of mental health, they express concern over the stigma still affiliated with it. They infer that the widespread notion of diagnosing mental health issues as an explanation for personal flaws can be detrimental. The conversation emphasizes the need for a shift towards understanding diagnoses as a gateway towards betterment rather than a mere articulation of problems. Peterson and Smith agree that the narrative should lean towards incremental progress and healing rather than dwelling on problems.
As Peterson and Smith’s discussion centres around the relationship between personal worth, merit, and leadership, Smith underlines his belief in everyone’s capacity to excel. He emphasizes that preconceived notions about individuals’ capabilities should be disregarded and that everyone has the potential to achieve great things if given the opportunity. This narrative pattern focuses on Smith’s own experiences of overcoming perceived shortcomings and rising above societal expectations, underscoring the enjoyment derived from exceeding preconceived limitations.
Discussing the impact of racial stereotypes, Smith references Stanford’s testing experiment where the way the same test was framed resulted in diverging performances among white and black students. This incident illustrates the pervasive psychological impact of societal racial bias, urging for its consideration when evaluating racial disparities across various social domains.
Peterson and Smith critique the narrow view of meritocracy that undervalues the process of continuous improvement and overemphasizes inherent capabilities. They criticise the tendency to equate academic prowess measured by standard tests as the definitive predictor of success. Instead, they highlight the role of vision, perseverance, and continuous improvement in overcoming initial disparities.
The dialogue forwards to the political arena, focusing on the decision of front-runners in the 2024 presidential campaign- Biden and Trump, to abstain from participating in primary debates. Both Peterson and Smith depict this refusal as a detrimental move, describing it as an abdication of their duty to offer their ideas to public scrutiny. They urge leaders to model active engagement and encourage open dialogue.
Discussing the importance of continuously striving for progress rather than merely maintaining a lead, Smith stresses the importance of continuing to perform at one’s best throughout. This stance resounds with Peterson’s earlier point that viewing challenges as opportunities for development fosters resilience, boosts confidence, and cultivates leadership traits.
Finally, deliberating on the role of public speaking skills in leadership, Smith argues that while eloquence is valuable, it shouldn’t be the sole determinant of leadership quality. He proposes that leadership extends beyond oratory skills to encompass facets like crisis management, teamwork, and effective implementation of ideas. Thus, he questions the disproportionately high importance placed on debates as the deciding factor for leadership capabilities.
Smith contrasts the conversation he is having with Peterson to the first presidential debate between Trump and Biden. He criticises the format that allowed interruptions and limited each candidate to one minute responses. He argues that this approach fails to facilitate meaningful dialogue, only yielding surface-level discussions. Smith shares about his experiences as the chair of the armed services committee, highlighting his efforts to ensure fair inclusion of perspectives, with the conversation’s flow determining speaking time, rather than a rigid allotment.
Questioning the feasibility of such a conversational approach in modern-day debates, Smith expresses his concern about whether candidates can refrain from overpowering and disrespecting each other, which he identifies as unproductive.
On the other hand, Peterson expresses optimism about long-form political communication, exemplified by podcast formats. These platforms provide room for unscripted, spontaneous dialogues, where depth of understanding can be explored and deceptive tendencies can be unmasked.
Peterson criticises the former transmission restrictions due to costly TV bandwidth that led to the time-sensitive debate culture. However, with the rise of accessible broadcast alternatives, such as podcasts and online platforms, Peterson envisions the potential for more thoughtful, detailed discourses among political candidates.
The conversation then transitions to discussing Smith’s book ‘Lost and Broken: My Journey Back from Chronic Pain and Crippling Anxiety.’ Smith, showing willingness to speak to Peterson, a visibly conservative figure, hints at bipartisan dialogue’s potential and its necessity in reducing political polarisation. Peterson praises Smith’s move as crucial for strengthening the integrity of their nation and the West. Their conversation hence serves as an example of respectful discourse regardless of political differences. As the shared dialogue continues, the audience is left with the impression of two intellectuals eager to delve into the nitty-gritty of various social and political issues.
Check out the full podcast by clicking the link in the description below. Make sure to like, comment, and subscribe for more content like this. Thank you for listening to this podcast summary episode of The Pod Slice.