Why You Read Their Eyes First

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast

Jordan Peterson explores the profound connection between human perception and internal aim, arguing that we navigate the world through stori

Key takeaways

• Human perception is not objective; it is a function of our internal aim and purpose.
• The Enlightenment view of a purely rational, fact-based world fails to account for how humans actually orient themselves.

Main topics

• Perception and Aim
• Enlightenment Rationalism

Notable quotes

The purpose of thinking is to have your stupid ideas die instead of you.

Conclusion

The episode provides a deep philosophical framework for understanding

Transcript preview

Speaker 1 (0:00) What if a few minutes with God could change the direction of your entire day? With Pray.com, you can begin each morning with powerful daily prayers, inspiring Bible stories, and messages created to strengthen your faith. Whether you need peace, encouragement, or a fresh start, Pray.com helps you make prayer part of your everyday life. Download the Pray.com app today. Speaker 2 (0:36) All these great bands and here you are tonight. Well, thank you very much for coming. Let me tell you what's going to happen tonight. I'm going to share my thoughts with you for 70 minutes, thereabouts. Then I have a special guest here, Konstantin Kizin, who runs a podcast. Good. Well, you should know about him. Definitely. Crazy Russian from the UK. a real voice of reason for our... our fellow Westerners in the UK. Constantine is going to come out on stage and torture me about what I said, I hope. Well, what I'm hoping, Constantine is a very clear thinker, very witty man. He's got a very sharp mind. He's critically oriented in the best possible way. A good critical mind separates the wheat from the chaff, right? Because to be property critical isn't. To hurt or destroy with criticism it's to separate what's truly valuable from what isn't valuable so that you have solid ground to stand on and you know one of the things that I've strived to do in my whole academic career is to move closer and closer to believing in and stating and writing things that I can't I can't move and Speaker 2 (2:08) You do that yourself by subjecting your own presumptions to critical analysis. You do that so that you think through what you're doing, so that you don't act out your stupid ideas in the world and die. And that's the purpose of thinking, right? Seriously, the purpose of thinking is to... Speaker 2 (2:31) Have your stupid ideas die instead of you and that's part of the reason why your enemy can be your best friend because if someone Can take out something you think because they can show you how it's erroneous and counterproductive And then you don't have to go through all the trouble of learning that stupidly in the world That's a fine gift. And so I'm hoping that Constantine can stand in for for the audience, for the critical and skeptical audience. We're talking about very difficult issues. It's highly likely that I could formulate what I'm stating more clearly and precisely. And so, Konstantin will come out and... Speaker 2 (3:15) We'll discuss what was presented tonight, and then we'll turn to the questions that you've kindly delivered and discuss those. And then we'll reintroduce the band, and that should do for the evening. And so that's the plan. And so away we go. I'm very much looking forward to this. Speaker 2 (3:44) So the first thing we're going to talk about is we're going to talk about stories and set the stage. I think we're at a crucial inflection point in the world, culturally and philosophically. I think we're on the dawn of a new set of realizations. A new set of realizations that will return us to our fundamentals. I think the reason that we have a culture war raging in the West, why there's so much instability, is because something new is struggling to be born or reborn. And I want to explain the reason for that first. Speaker 2 (4:33) The reason is that the enlightenment view of the world, which has guided our technological and scientific endeavor, our conceptual endeavor, our philosophical endeavor for a few hundred years, is there's something about it that's wrong, like deeply wrong. And that error... Is making itself manifest in the scientific community. Because I would say now that. Scientists themselves from a multitude of different disciplines. Understand that. The idea that we see the world. As a place of facts. Or that we see the world as rational creatures. Or that you can even see the world that way. Is wrong. Wrong. And I believe that it's been. Demonstrated to be wrong. It's this isn't a matter of mere philosophical opinion anymore. Although it's also that one example for example is that the newest artificial intelligence systems that we've designed the large language models that have burst onto the stage in the last year or thereabouts chat GPT the Catastrophic Gemini that Google so foolishly launched Elon Musk's grok these systems are Trained like human beings are trained they have an aim they have a purpose they were trained with reward and punishment so to speak their approximations to a target they see the world through a structure of value that They have absorbed from human beings To make the world's smartest linguistic machines, we had to inculcate in them a structure of value. Okay, and so, and we produced machines now that can engage in discourse, that can use language in a way that's virtually indistinguishable from the human, and it's going to become radically indistinguishable from the human very, very rapidly. And they're not programmed like... Lists of rules. They're not programmed like ordinary Thinking machines they're programmed the same way that human beings learn they're programmed with aim they have an ethos and an ethic we can't Orient ourselves in the world with the facts We can't follow the science Speaker 2 (7:11) Because science isn't a leader science doesn't establish our aims our aims are established using mechanisms of perception and emotion and thought that aren't in themselves Scientific we're aiming at something Why can't we orient ourselves in the world with the facts? while the simplest explanation for that is that There are too many facts There's as many facts as there are phenomena. Speaker 2 (7:48) More actually there's as many facts as there are Possible combinations of phenomena you drown in the facts When you're confused in your own life and things are chaotic and you're anxious it's because a Plethora of possibilities is making itself manifest in front of you, and you don't know which way to turn You don't have a clear direction. You don't have a clear aim. There's no way of simplifying the world so that you can Act in it. We know for example that to perceive the world you have to obliterate from your consciousness almost everything that you could see because otherwise you You're overwhelmed. We know even that the hallucinogens who are being studied in with increasing intensity in recent years interfere with your normal perception such that they bring to consciousness a plethora of things that under normal circumstances you ignore and the consequence of that is Influx of a sense of overwhelming significance and meaning But at the same time, a kind of paralysis of action. Because when everything becomes infinitely meaningful, there's no straightforward way of moving forward. When you're in a restaurant with someone on a first date, and you're focusing on the conversation and actions of your date in a sea of competing... Speaker 2 (9:22) Conversations you zero out everything that you could be attending to in every other table all the competing thoughts in your imagination all the things you could be bringing to mind to zero in with like laser pinpoint accuracy on What it is that your partner in conversation is doing and you do that in the world all the time you make one thing at a time of pinnacle importance and you Arrange everything else in the world at every moment that you perceive around that thing that you've made of pinnacle importance. That's how you see the world. And I don't mean think about the world. This is under thought. It's more profound. It's what you do when you actually see. If I decide to do something. Straight forward. Like walk from here to the stairs on the stage. And I set my aim. I don't perceive any of you in consequence. Because the fact of your existence is irrelevant to my purpose. And you're gone. None of the facts of the stage that I could attend to are relevant and perceptible anymore except insofar as they're Speaker 2 (10:50) pathways or facilitators or obstacles to my journey forward if I'm looking to the stairs I see the chairs, but not as places to sit I see them as Obstacles that I have to circumvent in order to attain my aim Everything that you see in the world makes itself manifest in accordance with your aim And that's a radically, revolutionarily different way of conceptualizing the world than the notion that you take the facts and you sort them despite their infinite number and calculate your way with the facts rationally forwarding. That's not what you do. Speaker 3 (11:38) Imagine your favorite lecture. Dial that up on Macs, put that on steroids, and then add some cinematic elements to it. That's the best way I could describe a Peterson Academy lecture. Speaker 5 (11:52) I went to college because I had to. I go to Peterson Academy because I want to. I'm still paying off college from 10 years ago and I'm also still questioning the value Speaker 3 (11:59) that I got out of college. In traditional universities, a lot of times it's just pretty dry. They don't bring the same energy as the professors at Peterson Academy. It Speaker 5 (12:08) is a completely different experience to learn from somebody who actually wants to teach you. Speaker 2 (12:25) Here's a proposition to contemplate. It's another proposition that has revolutionary significance. It'll explain all sorts of things that you know to be true, but don't know why they're true. The description of the structure through which you see the world. Speaker 2 (12:48) Is a story. That's what a story is. Okay. So now. This explains. Many things that are otherwise left as. Mysteries or. Or side effects. I read a book by Steven Pinker once. Pinker's an enlightenment rationalist from Harvard. A good guy and very smart. And much of what he says is extraordinarily useful. But he believes, for example, that our proclivity to enjoy and tell stories is like a side effect of something more fundamental cognitively. It's the story as entertainment theory. You go to a movie because it's... It's fun. You read a book of fiction to your child because it's fun. It's not core to the, what would you say? It's not a core element of the way that you exist in the world. It's mere entertainment. It misses the point, that theory. Why is it entertaining? Why can you teach children with stories? If you get the story right for a child, you can capture the child's interest and you can... Speaker 2 (14:00) Integrate almost any form of learning into the story and the child will be captivated by that when children play pretend play which they do spontaneously they spontaneously dramatize the world they spontaneously make stories out of their roles and their and their destinies and that That that captures them that forms the basis of their friendships. That's why children want to play so frenetically is that They're practicing modeling the world. When you go see a movie, it's not that you want to be entertained. Although it is entertaining. That's not why you're there. It's not for fun either. That's easy to understand and to see what's fun about a horror movie. I'm dead serious. It's like people will be so afraid in a horror movie that they'll cover their eyes. They'll hide behind the chair in front of them. They'll ask themselves afterwards why they even put themselves through it. And yet they'll line up and pay to do it. Well, why would you line up and pay to torture yourself? Well, because you want to know how to deal with what's horrifying. Speaker 2 (15:22) And you want to practice that in a way, if you can, that isn't in itself fatal. You want to expose yourself to the catastrophes of existence so that you're prepared when those catastrophes come along. You want to expose yourself to the predators that lurk everywhere. You want to inure yourself against what's disgusting and contaminating because you're going to have to deal with it. You want to expose yourself to what's frightening so that you can find the courage within you. To deal with what's frightening. And that's part of the instinct. To develop and expand your competence. And it's in that expansion of competence and skill. That occurs as a consequence of that voluntary exposure. That the entertainment is situated. The reason that's entertaining is because. It's part of the manner in which you expand yourself. And you can do that in the direction of what's dark and terrible. Just as you can. In the direction of say what's heroic. What do you do when you go to a movie? Well you fasten on to a character. And you understand that character the same way. That you understand people that you're in conversation with. Now you might think that the way that you understand people is by. You listen to what they say. And you extract out the knowledge that they're delivering to you. In terms of facts. And you interpret the facts. And you derive your understanding of the person. Like none of that's true. That has absolutely nothing to do with how you establish a relationship with someone. And well, here's some proof. Is that what you do with a dog? Well, obviously not, but you can establish a relationship with a dog. And so, and the relationship you have with a dog, it's not the same as the relationship with a person. But a dog's a pack animal. A dog can become a member of the family. You can understand a dog well enough so the dog likes you. Right, and so whatever you're doing with the dog, it isn't discourse about propositions. Because most of the dogs you own, Don't talk. So. And it's the same with very young children. And it's the same with an infant. You establish a relationship. Using mechanisms that aren't. Propositional. They're not rules. They're not descriptions. They're not facts. That's not how you do it. How do you do it? Where do you look when you talk to someone? You look at their eyes. Why? To see where they're pointing them. Why? So you can see what they're looking at. Why? So you can infer what's important to them because we point our eyes that that's that which is important to us That's why our eyes look the way they look Black in the middle colored on the ring around that against a white background That's an evolved mechanism. I can see your eyes All of our ancestors who eyes whose eyes weren't visible either got killed or didn't reproduce The one thing you want to know about someone Right away is where the hell their eyes are pointed. And you can do that politely. Which you do by attending to someone. Without too predatory a stare. You do that by. Attending politely to their face. But not too intensely. And not attending let's say. Inappropriately to other parts of their body. And they're going to be watching you. To see what you do with your eyes. Because the one thing you want to know about someone. Above all else is. What the hell are they up to? Right? What's their aim? And so, when you go to a movie, that's what you do when you watch a character. Speaker 2 (19:08) In a role. You see him. In a variety of different situations. And you. Watch how he structures his attention. What he pays attention to. His attention is a costly business. And so people pay attention. To what they value. You watch what they attend to. And you watch how they. Prioritize their actions. And from that you derive. An understanding. Of what's important to them. As soon as you understand what's important to them, you've got their aim. You've figured that character out. This is what you do when you learn to know someone. What's their aim? As soon as you know their aim. Speaker 2 (19:54) You can see the world through their eyes. You can see the same objects they see. And the objects take on the same emotional significance. And when you say I come to understand someone. What you really mean is. Oh I understand their aim. And now I can aim at the same thing. At least in simulation. At least fictionally. And I can come to inhabit the same world of perception. And emotion that they inhabit. I can even guess at. Speaker 2 (20:23) How they might act and to what they might attend in situations I haven't seen because now I know their aim. What's he up to? That's what you're thinking in a murder mystery or in a thriller. What's he up to? What's he up to? What's going to happen next? And so the plot of the fiction is the aim of the character across time. The aim as the character unfolds. And that might involve the transformation of his aims as well. Right? And that would be the transformation of a character in a movie. He aims at one thing and he learns that that... Aim is off in some manner or he comes to a bitter and dismal Partial end and has to switch course and you want to see people transform their aims. That's character development We see the world through a story the world reason the world's objects reveal themselves in relationship to our aim the Speaker 2 (21:20) Landscape of emotion presents itself as markers on the pathway to our aim. The world reveals itself in accordance with our aim. That's how perception works. That's a hell of a thing to learn. Because if the world, for example, appears to you only as thorn-bearing obstacles, right? If you feel that everything's arrayed against you and there's no pathway forward, if you feel that you're surrounded by foes and obstacles instead of... walking the golden pathway, accompanied by allies with the world on your side, you might ask yourself whether or not your aim is wrong. And so the world lays itself out in accordance with our aim. We go, we produce fiction, we generate fiction, we live in a fictional landscape. Speaker 2 (22:18) Because we want to get our aim right. We read stories. We watch movies. We go to plays. We talk to each other. Because we want to get our aim right. We want to find the place we should go. And we want to learn how to get there efficiently. And we're compelled by spirit and instinct to establish the aim and follow the path. And to transform ourselves so that our aim becomes ever more precise and efficient and delivers us a world that's ever more abundant and beautiful. And that's all a function of aim. Speaker 2 (23:04) Okay, so we live in the story. Well then, as soon as you know that, this is what the postmodernists figured out. By the way, this is why the literary critics have become a dominant force in the culture war. The postmodernists were literary critics. You think, well, there's nothing more irrelevant than a literary critic. Like, who the hell cares what an intellectual thinks about a story? I mean, of all the preposterous things to be concerned about... That might top the list. Not if the story is the thing through which you see the world. If the story is the thing you see through which you see the world. There's nothing more powerful than a literary critic. Except perhaps an author. And we wouldn't have a culture war right now. If the literary critic wasn't far more powerful than anybody had possibly imagined. Because the French intellectual literary critics known as the postmodernists. Have. Criticized the central story of the West to death and that's why we have a culture war and it's no joke This is foundational. There's no more serious conflict than that and you all can feel that that's why you're here you know that the world is shaking and Uncertain in a way that's new and the reason for that is the story itself is under assault All right, so let's let's wander through that a little bit. You see the world through a story Speaker 2 (24:30) The rationalists or empiricists even the biologists they might have an answer to that to say okay fair enough you see the world through a story, but the story is Biologically determined or socio-culturally determined It's a story of sex that would be Freud Because for Freud and for Charles Darwin for that matter for Richard Dawkins the famous atheist to an equal degree the story that the Speaker 2 (24:58) The aim is sex, reproduction, and the story is predicated on that aim. Freud, Darwin, Dawkins. The degenerate element of that is a descent into a kind of hedonism. Because if sex is the story, then why not worship sex? Speaker 2 (25:26) And some dispute that and say, no, the central story isn't sex. This would be the Marxists. The central story is power. That's the story that the universities tell when they're not telling the story about sex. It's all about power. The essential human aim is domination, oppression, victimization, exploitation. Speaker 2 (25:59) The central theme of the family is a power dynamic. The central theme of the relationship between men and women is a power dynamic. Marriage itself is a heteronormative, patriarchal establishment of oppression that goes back to the dawn of time. The nuclear family is the same thing. Economic arrangements are nothing but power. Friendships are nothing but power. The landscape of human interaction is a dynamic of power. Or sex. Or both. Or both fighting against one another. Look, these are powerful ideas. Why? Well, obvious. It's obvious why. I mean, first of all, without sex, there's no reproduction. And without reproduction... There's no people. And so the Darwinian, Freudian, Richard Dawkins, selfish gene claim is that, well, what could it possibly be other than sex? And the Marxists come running forward and say, how about power? And then the Marxists say, well, obviously it's power because... Speaker 2 (27:16) There's radical inequality in the world. There's some who have and some who have not There's no reason to assume that property in the final analysis Let's say isn't a form of theft and everyone who has established themselves in some manner has only done that by Speaker 2 (27:33) stealing from those who are powerless and who have less everything they have and accruing it to themselves and that's a credible claim for a variety of reasons the first most fundamental reason is is that a minority of people have all the success on any possible dimension of comparison It's a very small number of people who are radically attractive. It's a very small number of people who are radically gifted in the visual arts, let's say. It's a radically small percentage of people who are musicians. A tiny percentage of the people have most of the money. A tiny percentage of the people gather most of the attention. It's a Pareto distribution, and that's what Marx pointed on to. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And there's real truth in that, and there's truth in the claim that... Speaker 2 (28:23) people structure their relationships with power and that some people who obtain success do it as a consequence of exploitation and it's equally true that when any human relationship deteriorates it tends to deteriorate in the relationship of power if your marriage starts to become shaky Then you begin to exploit each other use force You try to get your way