Don't put either Mate or Peterson on a pedestal. Both men utilize their time, knowledge, experience, with the intention of helping people the best way they know, and believe they can. There is nothing more admirable than what they both are doing. I absolutely appreciate both perspectives.
I agree wholeheartedly: both are men and as such fallible, so one should not put them on pedestals. As such, I like how Maté points out where Peterson may have a biassed view (eg. on Christianity). Also, I think Peterson's point of view is correct on trying to bring up Your child to be social and to "play well" and understand reciprocity. However, I think and feel that understanding that small child is a better way than repressing that anger and frustration. Maybe in the short term, it is more costly in time and patience, but (as Peterson would say), life is a long series of tournaments, and that patience pay's itself off - at least in the long run.
I was very influenced by Mate growing up. I thought I'd found all the answers to life and the human condition when I first stumbled upon him. In some ways, his work was very beneficial for me; but in others it was a hindrance. I have a natural inclination towards agreeableness and reflexive empathy. Gabor teaches that compassion is about the most virtuous and constructive emotion to deal with suffering in yourself and others. So I strode to always empathise whenever someone I knew was going through pain. The problem was, since I already had a disposition in this direction, I could not help but feel and get wrapped up in everyone's pain around me. It got to the point where someone would tell me a problem and in stead of helping them come up with a constructive solution, I would immediately try to placate their suffering by telling them what they wanted to hear, or giving them what they wanted. This left no room for my own sense of self and my own needs and it wasn't in any way helpful to the people around me. It wasn't until I discovered Peterson a year ago that I heard someone say "empathy isn't always a virtue". As well as espousing the benefits of controlled aggression. And that reflexive empathy past a certain age can do more harm than good. I admire both Peterson and Mate. I feel that perhaps Gabor over emphasizes the importance of compassion, while JP does the opposite. One hole I see in Mate's idea of trauma being the main cause of human suffering is this. Different people can have the same experience and one will be traumatised and one won't. This tells you that a human can grow to a point where they can deal with an experience that others might find traumatising. Gabor's answer to this is to make damn well sure your child doesn't experience anything that may cause trauma. While Peterson's answer would be to make damn well sure that if and when your child comes across something potentially traumatic, they have overcome a sufficient number of challenges that has strengthened their character so they *can* deal with the experience. Studies showing the damage of helicopter parenting support JP's position. Though I imagine Gabor would say that "helicopter parents" are not genuinely connecting with their children but are simply attempting to placate their own anxiety about their child's potential misfortune. I think both of their perspectives are helpful and, in fact, complimentary. Don't let your child do something that'll make you dislike them. Make sure yo condition them with incremental challenges for the world to come. But also, give yourself time to have a genuine connection with your child and try to understand the world through their eyes.
This bloke is new to me and as someone with PTSD I think he’s really nailed the flaw in Peterson’s behavioural worldview. I approach the dilemma by having Peterson as the guide but in practise utilising a trauma therapist, a positive psychology support group and a lifecoach. It takes a village.
he did a great interview with russell brand. you may find it interesting. i work alongside people who have addictive behaviours. trauma is the single most common characteristic they share. many people dont even recognise the trauma and how it has effected their lives. that is not to discount that people need to take individual responsibility (which is the foundation of empowerment) but that by accepting the unique trauma in their life, they are better able to integrate responses to their trauma.
I'd acquaint yourself with Gabors work. I think he could be described as taking a bio psycho social perspective on health and disease. Also look up Dan Siegel
In otherwords , do you think there is a happy medium between the two ? I've watched both and Dr mate' is so compationate but he doesn't seem to leave people with any kind of action they can take on their own behalf. That's why I would love to see a conversation between the two I like compassion I think everyone needs that but what comes after compassion is compassion alone going to make people better or am I missing something .
@@Elizabethd69 Actually, compassion alone is enough for some people, just learning how to treat oneself with compassion. That's what's most difficult for those of us who've been traumatized, especially if our upbringing has taught us--as mine taught me--that we are not worthy of love or compassion. I loved what he said about Trump and Hillary Clinton as examples of how Americans view those 'strong enough' to be their leaders. A man who wanted all his life to be loved and accepted by his authoritarian father whose only goals in life were more money and power and was emotionally unavailable to his son. Only to repeat the same unavailability and lack of compassion not only to his children but other children and the citizens of the country he wishes to be the dictator of. A woman who was told growing up that she had to be 'tough' and suppress her femininity to survive in a 'man's world.' Between our parents and society's expectations for us and the materialism the consumer culture brainwashes us to believe will make us whole, it's no wonder that Western people, and Americans in particular, are so sick. How can anyone grow up accepting and loving themselves in a world that simply doesn't support that?
Having been an avid listener of Peterson for a couple years, and having completely tuned out from him due to his behavior and words as of late, Mate's perspective on him has aged like a fine wine.
" if you start with the presumption that there's a baseline of suffering in life. ....and that that can be exaggerated by as a consequence of human failing as a consequence of malevolence and betrayal and self betrayal and deceit and all those things that we do to each other and ourselves…..Those things that we know that aren't good…that amplifies the suffering that's sort of the baseline against which you have to work …..and and and it’s that contemplation of this realization that often that makes people hopeless and depressed and anxious and overwhelmed and all of that…..and and they have the reasons for this suffering….. but you need something to put up against that and what you put up against that is meaning!!!! Meaning is actually the instinct that helps you guide yourself through that catastrophe and most of that meaning is to be found in the adoption of responsibility - DR Peterson
I've always felt Jordan peterson needs better conversation partners. and i dont mean "debate opponents" . Its always either people who already admire him and already agree with everything he's saying just placating him through the whole conversation, or people openly hostile and ideologically opposed to him trying to misrepresent him the whole time. So I would indeed love to see them speak.
cokefudge absolutely true. The closest I’ve seen is his talks with Russell Brand, they come from different places politically, but share the same desire for knowledge and understanding.
Cokefudge you are absolutely correct. I think some of the other comments here reflect that JBP has had some great conversations geared toward digging into questions, rather than defending points of view. Most social media channels are selling views though, and the negativity and polarization attracts lots of attention! It's a shame that so many people think that JBP or Mate are somehow primarily defending a political world view, and therefore they shy away from listening to the thoughtful things that either may say. Everyone has some sort of world view, but there is not an imperative that either one "wins out" so to speak. For the good of humanity, we all need to use caution and deep, serious thought about whether there is a system or a small group of intellectuals or leaders that can move us all forward, or is it more important that we seek to make ourselves first better as individuals...or is it a combination of those? Sowell's book A Conlfict of Visions lays out the thinking differences between people quite logically. As a person who leans more toward negative (God-given) rights and individual responsibility in my political thinking, that book was a very helpful read in understanding the broader view.
Exactly. Also, I wanna say, I've seen couple clips where Jordan Peterson supposedly speaks about Derrida and Foucault and how they are marxist and stuff. He can go on for 10 minutes making them look like fools, joking about them, and the audience laughs as if they're witnessing this sensible academic figure completely trash some stupid marxist. But if you actually read Derrida and Foucault, what they said are not at ALL in line with what kind of image Peterson has built. I've never seen a more fitting case to use the "straw-man argument" term than here. He builds a completely false image of them and then trashes that for his own glory. It's easy, because Derrida and Foucault are not the easiest read for an American 21st century citizen, so very few people will actually go and read them. Also, they are easily misunderstood because of the very fresh point of view they took on things, so people will easily attach any pre-conceived ideas into what they are reading.
Thanks! I’ve listened to him before, but he’s not as prevalent as I’d like. He has some of the most relevant and constructive approaches to addiction that I’ve ever heard. And it was so refreshing to finally hear an articulate and logical criticism of Peterson while still appreciating his strengths. Most commentary on Peterson is either blatant misrepresentation or blind acceptance of everything.
Well said on Peterson! Gabor captured exactly what I feel when I listen to Peterson’s incoherent rambles: self-serving, reactionary, repressed rage at his own position in the world. A dangerous person to gain fame/notoriety among young men who flock to him because of their own repressed rage, which he (hopefully, inadvertently) provides a platform for it to find expression in an unthoughtful, crass manner. Mate - in stark contrast - articulates a deep understanding of human pain and suffering, alongside a pathway for healing.
Can I just add something that I think was missing from this otherwise intelligent and considered appraisal of social media? Humour. The only social media I engage in is; live streams on TH-cam and comments sections of TH-cam videos. (I'm not on Facebook, twitter or instagram.) And oh my goodness, the humour, the fun, the riotous brilliance. I live in a deracinated London. My natural community long gone. My neighbours are utterly unreachable for a variety of reasons, all awful. I'm old and not fantastically healthy. My new 'friends' don't know that I'm an old woman. They don't know anything about me except for how we communicate and laugh until we hurt when we connect through humour. About issues ranging from anthropogenic climate change to what's going on in the mind of a two year old. I am so grateful for this. I really cannot describe what it has done for me at this stage of my life. I have lived, worked and had a career, bought up children, cleaned rooms until my hands became arthritic, had life threatening health problems and survived. And if anyone had told me, twenty years ago, that I'd be having this much fun, at my age, in the condition I am in...I'd have laughed. I am still laughing and that, for me, is a miracle. Thank you social media.
Ideology is addictive, I think because we like to see patterns, and Ideology puts a kind of patterned template on reality. If you have already decided what the solution is, every problem that arises will reinforce your decision. Every question starts to have the same answer. Our perception of reality is very flexible. As the saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
Kebo Boke Agree for the most part. But, ideology is not intrinsically addictive (just as the rest of the things that we can become addicted to are not). Sometimes ideology will permit that people will find a meaning, just as religion, as Maté said, depending on who, when and how.
Regarding Gabor's critique of Peterson's "subscription" to "a murderous religious ideology" - Gabor should watch JP's one or two biblical lectures. How Peterson interprets those biblical stories is nothing I've ever heard during religion classes at school or in church (where my mom would drag me over when I was young, I'm not a believer/churchgoer now). Those lectures are incredible. They don't make you want to wear a cross on your chest, it's something different, it opens eyes to some universal truths, "walking with God" is essentially believing in your highest potential and promising yourself to try to realize it no matter the obstacles while caring to add value to your family and community... I particularly recommend the lecture on Abraham. I have even no clue if priests would agree with Peterson... he said in one of them he doesn't even go to church because priests show no substance, no passion, there's nothing there for him. And when asked "do you believe in God?" he usually replies "what do you mean by "believe" and what do you mean by "God?", and he adds that tries to behave in life "as if God existed", so I would never say that Peterson is encouraging people to blindly follow an ideology, he actually discourages people from all ideologies.
Are you familiar with Paul Vanderklay's channel? He's a pastor who has been commenting on Peterson for over two years now. He has had a some amazing conversations on his channel and was actually interviewed by Rebel Wisdom about a year back. JP also called him the pastor of the intellectual dark web...
As I get older it is easier to see who is really genuine and who is un balanced or on cloud 9. I love the genuineness of Gabor Mate even within crowds he does what he feels is right even though it maybe un popular. He will tell you that he don't buy what you're saying, and I'm not just referring to Jordan Peterson but people who attend his talks as well and I love that about him.
Besides the content. Gabor's use of English makes me just want to listen to him all the time. Major fan. I attended a 3 day event he did in UCC in Cork Ireland. Best use of my time ever.
I am a great admirer of Peterson's intellectual rigor and his insistence that we adopt a moral code given the failure of religion and state ideologies, but Mate was on the mark with his observation of Peterson's repressed rage and its genesis in early childhood. Children need to be encouraged and nurtured towards altruism but if they are coerced from their natural greed and selfishness through guilt, threat or violence then you end up with a partial adult - someone who chooses perhaps to do the right thing but through fear of sanction and not through natural, spontaneous human altruism.
@Captain 7 Mate doesn't seem angry to me. In fact he seems quite calm and at peace with himself. As opposed to Peterson who's always frothing at the mouth about feminists or some communist conspiracy nonsense. You know that guys got issues.
I have found my addiction and it's my Ideology. It seperates me from most people and some family, but my ideology is quite frugal and impoverished, I work but hate money, I give most of it away to family, I over pay my bills and give to the street people, as I struggle. But I feel so strong, resourceful when Im poor, so free when I have nothing.
@@JanetCaterina www.google.nl/search?q=picasso+portrait&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio067r797eAhURGewKHYerCOUQsAR6BAgBEAE&biw=2400&bih=1172 And I can imagine why Andrew Hurst would say this. Any painter would love to paint what Maté's face tells us.
I agree with Mr. Mate's brief views about social media completely. It's no permanent substitute for face-to-face communication. To the extent it is , it is a road to addiction. The trumpets of triumphalism for TH-cam, twitter, and the rest are premature .
I completely agree with Mate on Peterson. I have tried and tried to listen to him, but he can't seem to hold my attention, and I have a difficult time following. I day dream when I try to listen to him. And Gabor's comments on his attitude with children is right on. Daniel Mackler has an excellent video on Peterson here on youtube.
I have started thinking the same about myself right now. I am so grateful to have become fully healed after I was in a rollover accident at age 63 6 months ago in addition to loosing my sister and my uncle within only 3 months of my accident as passenger in a defective car. I was close to my sister and close to that one uncle more since he lived with us until I was 8 years old. However I have fallen in love so much with discussing ideologies, philosophies, politics, religion etc. online that my closest relatives are getting more than just a little annoyed on how much time I am still spending online.
I get the point being made. And in the context intended, I basically agree. But my sense is that there is a misunderstanding about the nature of ideology. It's not merely a set of ideas. In classical and pre-Platonic Greek thought, ideos meant so much more than merely an idea. It originally referred to archetypes, ideal forms, greater patterns, or deeper realities. It is the nature and appearance of something, not necessarily distinguished in ancient thought. It's etymological origin is from a word meaning 'to see'. Basically, seeing is knowing. Back then, people had a much more direct and visceral sense of the experienced world. This touches upon what ideology meant for Louis Althusser, as in a worldview. At the most fundamental level, all of us in the same society share the same basic ideology, in our case capitalist realism. It's interesting that our notion of an idea or ideology has come to mean a concept or system of thoughts that are separate from or even opposed to what is observed (i.e., seen). A disconnect has emerged in language itself. Maybe to get beyond the addictive mind we need to regain the ancient understanding.
@@epictetus9221 A few weeks ago I really sort of followed Peterson, Jordan that is. Now I see that his rage is my rage. Now uncovered and now known to me. Trauma as well.
@@Wicus51 Good form. I think Peterson is a very good psychologist - but there's this absurd halo effect around him, and thus we see him publicly weighing in a dozen areas he is in no way an expert on... As for healing trauma, there are much more effective teachers around.
I dont understand the bit where Gabor refers to all the angry young men in the comments sections re. Jordan Peterson content. I've rarely came across anything other than an outpouring of love, gratitude, respect and admiration from people (including the 'angry' young men) towards Jordan in the comments section of his videos. But I guess if you're looking for comments to back up you're own viewpoint, you'll find them.
Gabor Maté = qualitative Jordan peterson = quantitative I am a big fan of both. Jordan is facts, figures, straight talk, which seems harsh Gabor is depth, connection, understanding, which seems softer They are both valuable. And they make two halves of very strong whole. I really would love to see them have an open and honest conversation and collaboration 🙏
I love Mr Gabor Mate's authenticity and ability to have these fierce conversations, calling out humanity on what we need to do to take responsibility for, and ask for, to find health and harmony; within and around us.
I am an admirer of both. And it would be really great to see their concepts collide and find further meaning. Looking forward to such conversation. 2019?
Gabor and Jordan are two intellectual giants that yes i admire and respect because both have important teachings to consider. Please read the whole statement rather than picking a line that suits you. Thanks.
He says many profound things. I don't think I've ever seen a human being who seems to be functioning this effectively who looks as depressed as Dr. Maté does, though.
I don't think I'd be smiling or looking happy if I'd seen as many homeless heroin addicts as Dr.Gabor Mate has. Very very sad state of affairs. Like he once profoundly said, 'the war on drugs is a war on drug addicts'. Gabor Mate is a genius.
I like JBP and I'm glad to hear a noted public intellectual critique him because from what I've read of the comments on most of Jordans videos there is a kind of hero worship of him. People are so awe struck they offer no critique of his perspectives at all.
Dr Maté is a visionary in so many ways. Social media is a blight on humanity yet we continue to participate. The addiction of waiting for the reply to your comment or post.. Refresh, rehash, refresh.
The issue of trauma, both personal and collective, definitely needs ongoing attention. It would be great if a discussion could be arranged about this topic between Maté and Peterson.
Gabor Maté observations on JD are spot on, JD’s recent comment, ‘Act like there is a God’, with the implied ‘be/do good, you are being watched/there are repercussions you will not like and can’t get out of’ is probably a fall back from his prostrations’ on Christianity post his contact with Sam Harris and co… What is the meaning of life? What we mean to others - that’s all… …and that is why/how we built societies across the world - we can make up Gods if we want, but save for the stereotypical hermit (very rear, and usually ‘troubled’) what we mean to others is the ubiquitous and omnipresent key to sustainable societies, because, in the final analysis, we are all a ‘we’ and all an ‘others’…
As someone who's appreciated a lot of what Jordan Peterson's had to say, I'd be really interested in a conversation between Gabor and Jordan. I think some of what Gabor said here wasn't a fair representation of Jordan (and his audience), but I really want to see all of those points gone into in more detail! As a young guy, I've gone through a lot of the more "spiritual" side of things online, trying to absorb ideas; and I gained a lot, but it wasn't really until Peterson that I started hearing about aggression as a productive and controlled thing. I actually feel like Peterson does the opposite of teaching repression when it comes to things like aggression. Most other people in our culture seem to indirectly teach repression of aggression, I'd say. I like Peterson's passion and disagreeableness. I'm naturally quite disagreeable, and I'd say it's only since I've found Jordan that I've seen that trait as a tool to be used intelligently, and not something I just have to repress
I think the adage "all idols have clay feet" applies here. It's okay to find lecturers brilliant and inspired, but they are just people at the end of the day. I do also see suppressed rage in Peterson; and expressed rage in Mate. There's a big difference.
I absolutely agree. There is a world of difference between "suppressed" and controlled anger. One helps you pretend you are harmless and at peace with everything. The other helps you work productively against things which bother you.
This Man is on it....How refreshing and peacefull it is to listen to him speak...the tone of his voice resonates with my Spirit..i think Tesla came from the same region this Gentleman is from....I learned so much from this short interview. Thank you and I ll be looking for more on Gabor.....
I am a fan of both Mate and Peterson. I understand Mate's criticism of Peterson. It isn't hard to detect the anger in him. That said, I'm not sure I would call what Peterson does with his anger repression. I get the sense that he has set up pop-off valves for his anger, oriented in the most productive ways he can manage. I get the sense that Peterson attempts to harness his ager and aggression toward the service of of well thought out aims. And that, to me, is commendable. That said, perhaps the line between that and repression is a thin one. Maybe it's a slippery slope. Maybe Mate has a sound criticism. I do feel Peterson undervalues compassion. But I also agree with him that compassion, at least in the immediate, isn't always a good thing. Empathy is extremely useful and its intentions almost always praiseworthy. But it's often very myopic, failing to see the long term handicaps it can cause. Often, compassion is more about feeling good about ourselves; more about making us feel like we did something good rather determine what might actually be best for the other person. That said, we are rarely in a good position to know what the best thing for someone else is. However, often, neither are they. So, perhaps the best thing to do is react with empathy, but channel that energy into cooperating with others to find productive solutions. Man... Too many thoughts and questions on this topic. I'd love to see the two of them sit down and thoroughly discuss these ideas.
some Quotes and Notes: 4:50 global void in meaning? (5:10) “That meaning in a tribal setting is automatically provided for you. Because you’re bigger than yourself. You belong to something greater than yourself. And you’re connected with nature, you’re connected with some spiritual practice or belief. You have some meaning that transcends your daily struggles for survival.” 7:35 “First of all, what’s the case in this society we’re less and less connected. We’re not designed to live in these complex, vast aggregations. We’re meant to live in small hunter-gatherer bands where everybody knows everybody else and there’s deep connection between people. And that’s how we’ve lived for the most part, for millions of years, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands of years of evolution until really quite recently. So there’s a lot of disconnect in this society. 8:45 "The less it meets your real needs the more addictive it is" 12:30 nonverbal cues in communication. Doesn’t happen on social media 14:20 Addiction, adaptation, lack of impulse control Brains might be intellectually developed but might be underdeveloped emotionally on social media 15:15 “’In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts’ I point out that addiction is rooted in trauma.” 19:38 “My problem with Jungianism however is that it ascribes these qualities to the shadow side, just think of an archetypical thing, they don’t talk about trauma very much. Whereas I think, and this is what I point out in my book ‘In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts’, is that these dark impulses in people and the need to escape from them actually arises with genuine human experience. They’re not simply part of human nature. They’re really outcomes of trauma. And that trauma is experienced in childhood. In my view unless you’re dealing with the trauma you’re not really dealing with the shadow side. It’s one thing to acknowledge that the shadow side is there but unless you look at the traumatic basis of it, so I do think that Freudianism and even Jungianism, Jungianism is much more sophisticated I think than Freud is, and has much more meaningful things to say about the human functioning, for all the great insights that they both had, and I learned a lot from both, they both ignore trauma. And I think that trauma is the missing piece in modern psychology and modern education, modern medicine. And I think without looking at trauma speaking of the shadow side it remains somewhat shallow.” 20:55 Jordan Peterson "I sense a lot of suppressed rage in him. In fact I think his voice is choking with rage a lot of the time. It's interesting as he talks about rage that you have to deal with it - I don't think you understand just how angry he is. And if you look at his websites, the comments are full of rage, by his young acolytes. Now that's an energetic thing - but it's his energy that draws people as much as what he actually teaches. Secondly he teaches repression [...] In his book he talks about how an angry two year old child needs to be sit by themselves until they get over it. Rather than understanding why a child would be angry at age two - what frustrations they are having and what human contact they need to help them move through that anger, he says repress the anger. So he's all about repressed anger as far as I'm concerned. And it’s very interesting how he talks about children. He talks about little varments and little monsters and so on. I know that’s meant to be humorous but it’s also a certain way of thinking of a young human child. So fundamentally, I see him as an agent of repression posing as an agent of libertarianism.”
Gabor Mate's work exists within the mythological garden. Peterson explains the whole territory, not just the part that is edenic. We live in a society that is capable of being edenic for large swathes of time, unlike most of human experience. I am capable of providing an eden like experience for my children (I can make the time to attune to them, to titrate their experience of danger and evil) maximising their ability to live life on the edge of chaos and order, and I would do this most effectively in a way that is beyond how Peterson writes about parenting, but I believe wrapped up within it, toward what Gabor mate talks about - neatly articulated by one of Piaget's students, Aletha Solter: in recognising just how often children experience fear, hurt, and frustrations that need to be processed, first by the body's natural means: crying, trembling, thrashing, laughing, yawning in a secure attachment, and then evermore integrated through the more advanced and elaborated means of action-based play and language. Gabor on his own, does not provide a broad enough psychology, peterson on his own does not provide an intricately detailed or idealistic enough set of goals for dealing with our emotions, and he fails to elaborate the beneficial purposes of compassion. Gabor will punish his children, wether he likes to admit it or not, Peterson gives you a way of acknowledging this and harnessing this, however Gabor picks up on something the mainstream of research based psychology tends to ignore, which is the possibility of processing the vast majority of these dysregulating experiences and returning to a state of neurobiological harmony with ourselves and with those around us, our tribe, and accessing a greater degree of our natural intelligence. However, I very much doubt that this was the norm or even common through out human history even in tribal societies. I like my children alive thankyou very much. So both is good. Gabor as the idealist within Peterson's eden. All of Peterson's warnings about eden (or at least most of them) still apply to Gabor, and especially as Gabor attempts to make claims about human systems and society's which is where his thinking falls apart, as both tribal, and historically inaccurate, an idealism that is noble, but if not placed within the mythological garden, and attempted to be applied broadscale, is just as deadly as communism and all the other acts of revenge against being, humanity, and reality.
Gabor is love and compassion. Such a wise man. His analysis of Jordan Peterson is so on the money. Just look at how Peterson acts in interviews. With people who are willing to practically canonise him and his opinions, he couldn't be nicer, whereas anyone who questions his authority is met with stern, barely-suppressed rage. While he is obviously very intelligent and does say some wise things, some of the people he seems most comfortable associating with are kind of dubious to put it mildly, and he seems sorely lacking in any humility. I choose love and compassion.
I love it when a respectful inspirational man criticises another respectful inspirational man, this felt even more real than the Peterson vs. Harris. But what it really felt like, was knowing that we're all human...even them
As someone who has gotten value from Jordan Peterson, I have to say his comments on JP are fascinating. With almost every other public intellectual who I have heard criticize JP, there seems to be a level of vitriol that is just not there with Gabor Mate -- these are his well meaning and sober opinions on the man. A conversation between the two would be fascinating.
For someone that claims to know a lot about curing addiction and cultivating self-critique and self-awareness, jp sure does love two things: Lecturing people on topics he knows shit about... and his benzos.
I’ve been trying to come to some sort of resolution between the more behavioral and the more attachment approaches to psychology for years. A conversation between these two would go a long way in helping lots of people make sense of the discrepancies between these two approaches. Both very knowledgeable, both highly respected and I get the sense both would be very respectful of the other.... Rebel wisdom... you guys have been stepping up your game. Kudos to you!
Very sharp analysis. I am so surprised how extreme the division between 'Left and right' has become online. Especially in the US there is hardly a difference between Democrats & Republicans. Both are capitalism based parties. Social media created a non existing divide that is picked up by politicians all over the world.
I was going to say that I am not impulsive in my responses on social media, but then again I am not on Facebook or Twitter and I have been using forums of various kinds for over 25 years. At first I was impulsive, and it took about 15 years to develop my care in posting. So I will agree with Gabor here that this is the normal case by my own experience.
I can see that addiction and acting out of aspects of the shadow CAN be (and maybe very often is) symptomatic or coping with trauma. However to say that ALL shadow manifestations are repressed / unresolved trauma is an over-reach. Mate has found a gem of truth but sees it everywhere. We have consciousness and choice (when we are awre of it). We have some automatic programming hardwired from different evolutionary eras - shadow. Sometimes our shadow comes out unwares without past trauma, merely from specific situation /stimulus. Sometimes we reject it, sometimes embrace it, sometimes unaware of it. I wonder if Mate has had children. Nothing quite like them to make the shadow evident, in them and in a parent. A child might bully a younger sibling because of trauma, or because of unresolved confusing emotion, or revenge or jealousy or dominance or .... just because he can. Understanding the difference between these would be helpful in dealing with that behaviour and socialising them. But putting all to trauma and coping with confusing emotions is not helpful. As for his analysis of HC... sociopath is a more accurate description..... empathising with a sociopath is not a useful strategy.
A discussion between Gabor and Jordan would be like watching married gay men arguing with each other. Gabor: "You always get so angry and then pretend you're not. Why don't you just admit it? Everything is so repressed in you.' Jordan: "I don't pretend to be bloody angry. I am. But I can control that anger. Anyways, I heard you tell that younger guy that you had 'homicidal thoughts'. I mean, isn't that anger?" Gabor: "Unlike you, Jordan, I have compassion. And compassion is stronger than control." Jordan: "Ha! Yea, good luck with that. I mean, what you're trying to say is...See, it's like this, you think about killing people and I think about killing ideology - or something to that effect, and because it's your ideology in question.." Gabor: "I didn't say that. It's not my ideology, I just said I'm a lefty intellectual." Jordan: "Well, ok. But I'm not repressed, I'm just a righty intellectual with self control and dignity and, man, just a, a, willingness to help and you always mistake that for coldness or harshness and it just isn't that." They look each other in the eyes and smile. Gabor: "Sorry, Jordan, I love you." Jordan: "Well, then, right, ok. I guess, I guess I love you, too. Ha!" They embrace, deeply.
Gabor is amazing , I could not work out about Peterson as much I admire him , something was putting me off .. felt (gut feelings) he has an agenda and constantly not being objective historically and by the way speaks not from experience but some kind of theoretical “propaganda like” knowledge , thanks , so spot on
It seems this guy has something special to contribute to this dialectic, even if he doesn't really understand the excesses that Peterson is reacting to
While I certainly share Maté's emphasis on trauma work - I think he himself is supressing anger. He reveals it by wanting to smear Jordan Peterson for being authentic and open in his anger (which is completely legitimate given the state of the world) - however Jordan is being himself and conciously using his anger as a driving force for sharing ideas and knowledge that can inspire responsible action. Gabor is simply saying that everything is about trauma and anyone expressing anger is somehow on the dark side and bad. For me he reveals his own supression and un-natural "calm" as nothing more than a mummified mask of intense self-suppression for decades. I see no sparkle i Gabors eyes....
Gabor Maté focuses in the internal world and lacks a bit in the external whilst with Jordan Peterson is the opposite, they complement each other. You need the outside to wake the inside and vice versa
Yes, Peterson teaches repression, but, it's self repression and that is in no way contrary to political Libertarianism. Mate, himself, confesses to suppressing his own murderous rage. It's about understanding that rage and anger are fundamental aspects of human existence and that those emotions can be just as useful as love and compassion when they are controlled.
@LeTang Mate referred to Peterson's teaching repression in a political context here. Buddhism is great and all, but, it doesn't get you the internet. It doesn't put food on the table. Rage, and the useful channeling of it created the fantastic world we have today. We've fooled ourselves into thinking that we are no longer just one misstep away from starvation and animalistic depravity. Any sophisticated Buddhist would understand that his existence is present in a realm of physical imperatives and would not fight back against the fact that he is hungry. And would act accordingly as a complex, hungry, human animal.
Inhibiting actions based in fear, hate or lovelessness is called for. DIS inhibiting love as the movement for communication and relation is called for - but both are confused as 'threat' to a sense of self-expression that lurches between anxiety and depression. Jordan Peterson is clearly getting through to some people who are awakening self responsibility as an expression of worth - rather than wishing or pretending they had it. True relation within ourself is the basis from which our right relation finds its expression in our world. And of course these are facets of one and are the nature of the two commandments Jesus made famous. Though these are the inherent nature and condition of relational being and not a 'to do' - or else!
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Gabor maté, your assessment of addiction is compelling, and I align with a lot of the ways you articulated understanding it. However, I don't agree with your assessment of Jordan Peterson regarding him pushing Christianity. He is using the history and culture of Christian religion to illustrate the importance and connection to a unifying force in nature. He is trying to figure out the point, which the Cross refers, an individual, a group, and a civilization should aim to survive and suffer the least. In addition, other genuine religions seek the same ends. Marxism is an ideology that has no over arching structure which keeps it's people and leaders accountable. The final point is regarding meaning in life. I have a proposal which I would like to vet. What if meaning in life is to realize one's self, and then through that realization manifest what is best for the world? That's the short of it. Thanks for the talk.
Just one thing, although every human collective endeavor requires a slight bit of faith, one can say only that an ideology could belong to a religion but a religion could never belong to a certain ideology. The ideology could be pondered through moral standards, and by making a conscious deliberation the individuals could choose if such ideology fits into their moral standards or not. On the contrary, religion establishes a clear pathway for the development and appropriation of moral standards, one that is backed up by the acknowledgement of a clear depiction of good and an extremely distinctive and detailed justification for evil. Meaning that religion can't be selected based on moral standards, but it definitely constructs a set of those rules of engagement with existence. The latter definitions are achieved by a theological or meta-theological world view only, on which religions are based upon, this instance of abstraction is what determines if a religion is monotheistic or not, if it's based on a being or beings that hold absolute power, absolute wisdom and absolute good or not, if it's based on the individual itself or not, and finally, if it's based on absolute empirical knowledge rather than on the aiming of a higher (more valuable) state of existence or not. The reason why Peterson is very successful is precisely because of that subtle and many times flagrant rage, in both his speech and his literature. It's known that human beings have a tendency to ponder bad, dangerous, repulsive and uncomfortable things as way more important than good, safe, attractive and comfortable thigs, for a very primeval reason, the first kind tend to be associated with threat, the second kind, not; something embedded in the human psyche that was developed in order to assure a higher probabilities of survival. Dr. Peterson has had a key role in my development as an aware human being, but I can definitely recognize that Dr. Maté is right in the overall taxonomy on which he places Dr. Peterson, as an agent of repression by modern standards. However, modern standards are way too contaminated with hedonism to take them as absolutely valid human being development instruments, and that's why I keep Dr. Peterson teachings in such high regard.
With Maté's interpretation of addiction, it seems like we have an addiction problem in our society. Assuming the problem stems from the part of our body that deals with addiction (limbic system), I wonder if this could be affected by things like what we put in our body and what we expose our mind to. For example, could one or many factors be worsening an addiction crisis? Couple ideas: -diet (maybe sugar intake) -constant exposure to negativity (sensationalism in news) -post religion (lack of spirituality) Just thinking out loud
To use a JP example, Almost all child abusers were abused as children. But only a tiny % of abused children grow up to become abusers. Trauma is only one peice of the multicausal puzzle but there a many others.
A lot of good work dealing with societal and peer pressure that manifests and accelerates addictive behaviours is being done as we speak by many men's groups around the world bringing the concept of community. What a beautiful interview!
How more relevant this conversation is these days! With Orwellian senseless social distancing we're getting more entrenched in social media camps void of any meaning other than ego massaging and making us forget/erode/erase the basics of interpersonal face to face and rich direct contact. Thanks Rebel Wisdom for the great interview to the brilliant Gabor Maté.
Different things came to my mind listening to it. (I will not comment on all of them.) On the point of early childhood trauma and its role in how we act in the world I agree. Still each individual is responsible for working with it. No one can do this work for someone else. Also it takes a long time to re-write the automitic program/to create connections that were not created in our nervous system at the time of early childhood development. On differences in approach to the world between Mate and Peterson I would say "both and". We are only human, so no ne should be held to the "god like" status. Peterson's trauma does not imply he is not able to do good for others. My ability to protect a child from harm based on my childhood experiences does not mean I cannot harm someone in the process of protecting a child and taking it a step too far. Each one of us has to be watchful of why we do something, what are our motivations, what are the results of our actions and whether we are happy with those results.
I'm unfamiliar with Maté's work, but in this interview he seemed to be making a distinction between self-control achieved through repression and self-control achieved through transformation. Perhaps someone will come along and help us.
If you get upset and want to act violent, but repress it the urge, that's repression. If you get up set but don't want to act violent, there's nothing to repress.
You gotta love the Maté but I don't think he is so honest about cultural Marxism being a real threat. I don't think he understands all the implications of the post modernism agenda. But, hey! You can't be everybody all of the time, right? Maté is the best in his field and Jordan is the best in his. Nothing wrong with that. I would find it really weird if they both shared the same opinions. I need each of them, their ideas, their knowledge for different reasons. I'm glad I've got access to their books and videos. What a great time to be alive.
Jordan got his impression of the "post modern agenda" from Stephen Hicks. For a more nuanced understanding try here th-cam.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/w-d-xo.html
@@Alex-eb1ob Well, maybe you should go ahead and read a little Adorno and Marcuse, for example. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exists.
Yeah nah, it’s nothing but a right wing conspiracy theory. No amount of reading about it will change that. All of the sources I’ve read come across as nothing more than your typical “red scare” propaganda.
I for one would not care to see a discussion between Peterson and Mate, as I'd prefer to romanticize about that out in my own mind instead. If you spend enough time reviewing their respective work you can build a framework around what works best for you and the ones you love. The thing I'm loving about Mate is that he refuses to be drawn in prescribing how to deal with certain issues. Everyone wants a quick fix, which to me, is a symptom of our broken western culture. Someone in the comments below wrote something along the lines of "individual responsibility (which is the foundation of empowerment)". I completely agree. Attain as much knowledge as you can and really be honest with yourself (like proclaiming you have homicidal tendencies to the internet honest) and all the answers will be there for you.
As always incredible depth and eloquence from Gabor Mate.... thank you. I particularly appreciate the emphasis on trauma. Trauma is what has us split off from our Self (capital S), it is what creates polarisation, and thus addiction... it has only one origin... a disconnect from 'true' Self. If we take a top down and bottom up exploration between trauma and true self, we will both close the gap, and ultimately return to a singularity expressing from the absolute..
I would pay a pretty penny to witness a conversation between Gabor Maté and Jordan Peterson.
I wanted to say the same thing as soon as I saw the title!
That would be a great conversation Rebel Wisdom. I think gabor is spot on in his analysis of JP.
Yep, came to the comments to say the same
I'll pay 50 Euros for that.
Jordan Peterson is not worthy.
Don't put either Mate or Peterson on a pedestal. Both men utilize their time, knowledge, experience, with the intention of helping people the best way they know, and believe they can. There is nothing more admirable than what they both are doing. I absolutely appreciate both perspectives.
I agree wholeheartedly: both are men and as such fallible, so one should not put them on pedestals.
As such, I like how Maté points out where Peterson may have a biassed view (eg. on Christianity).
Also, I think Peterson's point of view is correct on trying to bring up Your child to be social and to "play well" and understand reciprocity.
However, I think and feel that understanding that small child is a better way than repressing that anger and frustration.
Maybe in the short term, it is more costly in time and patience, but (as Peterson would say), life is a long series of tournaments, and that patience pay's itself off - at least in the long run.
I was very influenced by Mate growing up. I thought I'd found all the answers to life and the human condition when I first stumbled upon him. In some ways, his work was very beneficial for me; but in others it was a hindrance.
I have a natural inclination towards agreeableness and reflexive empathy. Gabor teaches that compassion is about the most virtuous and constructive emotion to deal with suffering in yourself and others. So I strode to always empathise whenever someone I knew was going through pain.
The problem was, since I already had a disposition in this direction, I could not help but feel and get wrapped up in everyone's pain around me. It got to the point where someone would tell me a problem and in stead of helping them come up with a constructive solution, I would immediately try to placate their suffering by telling them what they wanted to hear, or giving them what they wanted. This left no room for my own sense of self and my own needs and it wasn't in any way helpful to the people around me.
It wasn't until I discovered Peterson a year ago that I heard someone say "empathy isn't always a virtue". As well as espousing the benefits of controlled aggression. And that reflexive empathy past a certain age can do more harm than good.
I admire both Peterson and Mate. I feel that perhaps Gabor over emphasizes the importance of compassion, while JP does the opposite.
One hole I see in Mate's idea of trauma being the main cause of human suffering is this. Different people can have the same experience and one will be traumatised and one won't. This tells you that a human can grow to a point where they can deal with an experience that others might find traumatising.
Gabor's answer to this is to make damn well sure your child doesn't experience anything that may cause trauma. While Peterson's answer would be to make damn well sure that if and when your child comes across something potentially traumatic, they have overcome a sufficient number of challenges that has strengthened their character so they *can* deal with the experience.
Studies showing the damage of helicopter parenting support JP's position. Though I imagine Gabor would say that "helicopter parents" are not genuinely connecting with their children but are simply attempting to placate their own anxiety about their child's potential misfortune.
I think both of their perspectives are helpful and, in fact, complimentary. Don't let your child do something that'll make you dislike them. Make sure yo condition them with incremental challenges for the world to come. But also, give yourself time to have a genuine connection with your child and try to understand the world through their eyes.
Great comment, thank you
@@RebelWisdom thank you guys for all the great content. It is very much appreciated.
Lol are you me??
@@renekeitin If so, I sincerely apologise.
Comments like this are why I love this channel.
This bloke is new to me and as someone with PTSD I think he’s really nailed the flaw in Peterson’s behavioural worldview. I approach the dilemma by having Peterson as the guide but in practise utilising a trauma therapist, a positive psychology support group and a lifecoach. It takes a village.
he did a great interview with russell brand. you may find it interesting.
i work alongside people who have addictive behaviours. trauma is the single most common characteristic they share. many people dont even recognise the trauma and how it has effected their lives.
that is not to discount that people need to take individual responsibility (which is the foundation of empowerment) but that by accepting the unique trauma in their life, they are better able to integrate responses to their trauma.
I'd acquaint yourself with Gabors work. I think he could be described as taking a bio psycho social perspective on health and disease. Also look up Dan Siegel
In otherwords , do you think there is a happy medium between the two ? I've watched both and Dr mate' is so compationate but he doesn't seem to leave people with any kind of action they can take on their own behalf. That's why I would love to see a conversation between the two I like compassion I think everyone needs that but what comes after compassion is compassion alone going to make people better or am I missing something .
Ash _ Absolutely True!!!♥️
@@Elizabethd69 Actually, compassion alone is enough for some people, just learning how to treat oneself with compassion. That's what's most difficult for those of us who've been traumatized, especially if our upbringing has taught us--as mine taught me--that we are not worthy of love or compassion. I
loved what he said about Trump and Hillary Clinton as examples of how Americans view those 'strong enough' to be their leaders. A man who wanted all his life to be loved and accepted by his authoritarian father whose only goals in life were more money and power and was emotionally unavailable to his son.
Only to repeat the same unavailability and lack of compassion not only to his children but other children and the citizens of the country he wishes to be the dictator of. A woman who was told growing up that she had to be 'tough' and suppress her femininity to survive in a 'man's world.'
Between our parents and society's expectations for us and the materialism the consumer culture brainwashes us to believe will make us whole, it's no wonder that Western people, and Americans in particular, are so sick. How can anyone grow up accepting and loving themselves in a world that simply doesn't support that?
"The less it meets your real needs the more addictive it is" 8:45. This is a great quote.
Yessss! I played that bit 3 times when he said it to let it sink in.
So I suppose for me that includes social media, youtube, staying up late, eating too much chocolate etc. Lol he isn't wrong, powerful thought.
Yup! On social media youre looking and searching again and again for that connection - but it wont be found, and emptiness evokes.
Having been an avid listener of Peterson for a couple years, and having completely tuned out from him due to his behavior and words as of late, Mate's perspective on him has aged like a fine wine.
Mate's "perspective" on him is a gaslighting *lie.*
A lot of people try and fail to peg Peterson from an intellectual angle but Garbor is just bang on about his emotionality.
So true. Peterson is a monumental fraud.
Exactly!!!! 2 years after your comment and i couldn't agree more
"If you have no meaning in your life, ideology gives you a pseudo-meaning" - Gabor Mate
" if you start with the presumption that there's a baseline of suffering in life.
....and that that can be exaggerated by as a consequence of human failing as a consequence of malevolence and betrayal and self betrayal and deceit and all those things that we do to each other and ourselves…..Those things that we know that aren't good…that amplifies the suffering that's sort of the baseline against which you have to work …..and and and it’s that contemplation of this realization that often that makes people hopeless and depressed and anxious and overwhelmed and all of that…..and and they have the reasons for this suffering….. but you need something to put up against that and what you put up against that is meaning!!!! Meaning is actually the instinct that helps you guide yourself through that catastrophe and most of that meaning is to be found in the adoption of responsibility - DR Peterson
I'm totally making that quote the center of a new ideology that will provide meaning to me and countless others who also lack meaning. Love, St. Paul.
Agreed. And this applies to what Peterson will create if he is not careful.
Quote of the century
But what so called meaning of life is if not ideology?
Holy smokes this guy is amazing
I've always felt Jordan peterson needs better conversation partners. and i dont mean "debate opponents"
.
Its always either people who already admire him and already agree with everything he's saying just placating him through the whole conversation, or people openly hostile and ideologically opposed to him trying to misrepresent him the whole time. So I would indeed love to see them speak.
cokefudge absolutely true. The closest I’ve seen is his talks with Russell Brand, they come from different places politically, but share the same desire for knowledge and understanding.
Eric Weinstein on Rubin's show gave him a good run for his money.
His conversation with Douglas Murray was pretty good too.
Cokefudge you are absolutely correct. I think some of the other comments here reflect that JBP has had some great conversations geared toward digging into questions, rather than defending points of view. Most social media channels are selling views though, and the negativity and polarization attracts lots of attention! It's a shame that so many people think that JBP or Mate are somehow primarily defending a political world view, and therefore they shy away from listening to the thoughtful things that either may say. Everyone has some sort of world view, but there is not an imperative that either one "wins out" so to speak. For the good of humanity, we all need to use caution and deep, serious thought about whether there is a system or a small group of intellectuals or leaders that can move us all forward, or is it more important that we seek to make ourselves first better as individuals...or is it a combination of those? Sowell's book A Conlfict of Visions lays out the thinking differences between people quite logically. As a person who leans more toward negative (God-given) rights and individual responsibility in my political thinking, that book was a very helpful read in understanding the broader view.
Exactly. Also, I wanna say, I've seen couple clips where Jordan Peterson supposedly speaks about Derrida and Foucault and how they are marxist and stuff. He can go on for 10 minutes making them look like fools, joking about them, and the audience laughs as if they're witnessing this sensible academic figure completely trash some stupid marxist. But if you actually read Derrida and Foucault, what they said are not at ALL in line with what kind of image Peterson has built. I've never seen a more fitting case to use the "straw-man argument" term than here. He builds a completely false image of them and then trashes that for his own glory. It's easy, because Derrida and Foucault are not the easiest read for an American 21st century citizen, so very few people will actually go and read them. Also, they are easily misunderstood because of the very fresh point of view they took on things, so people will easily attach any pre-conceived ideas into what they are reading.
This channel does a great job on actually interviewing people without interfering with what they have to say!
That's the point of an interview.
@@raymeester7883 But a rare thing hence the original comment you replied to I?
Thanks! I’ve listened to him before, but he’s not as prevalent as I’d like. He has some of the most relevant and constructive approaches to addiction that I’ve ever heard. And it was so refreshing to finally hear an articulate and logical criticism of Peterson while still appreciating his strengths. Most commentary on Peterson is either blatant misrepresentation or blind acceptance of everything.
farenheit041 Care to name those three?
Well said on Peterson! Gabor captured exactly what I feel when I listen to Peterson’s incoherent rambles: self-serving, reactionary, repressed rage at his own position in the world. A dangerous person to gain fame/notoriety among young men who flock to him because of their own repressed rage, which he (hopefully, inadvertently) provides a platform for it to find expression in an unthoughtful, crass manner. Mate - in stark contrast - articulates a deep understanding of human pain and suffering, alongside a pathway for healing.
Couldn't have put it better myself. Well said.
A simple comment, here: I could listen to Dr. Maté all day.
Brian I am in complete agreeance with you. I too could listen to Gabor all day.
Can I just add something that I think was missing from this otherwise intelligent and considered appraisal of social media? Humour. The only social media I engage in is; live streams on TH-cam and comments sections of TH-cam videos. (I'm not on Facebook, twitter or instagram.) And oh my goodness, the humour, the fun, the riotous brilliance. I live in a deracinated London. My natural community long gone. My neighbours are utterly unreachable for a variety of reasons, all awful. I'm old and not fantastically healthy. My new 'friends' don't know that I'm an old woman. They don't know anything about me except for how we communicate and laugh until we hurt when we connect through humour. About issues ranging from anthropogenic climate change to what's going on in the mind of a two year old. I am so grateful for this. I really cannot describe what it has done for me at this stage of my life. I have lived, worked and had a career, bought up children, cleaned rooms until my hands became arthritic, had life threatening health problems and survived. And if anyone had told me, twenty years ago, that I'd be having this much fun, at my age, in the condition I am in...I'd have laughed. I am still laughing and that, for me, is a miracle. Thank you social media.
Ideology is addictive, I think because we like to see patterns, and Ideology puts a kind of patterned template on reality.
If you have already decided what the solution is, every problem that arises will reinforce your decision. Every question starts to have the same answer.
Our perception of reality is very flexible.
As the saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
Kebo Boke Agree for the most part. But, ideology is not intrinsically addictive (just as the rest of the things that we can become addicted to are not). Sometimes ideology will permit that people will find a meaning, just as religion, as Maté said, depending on who, when and how.
i love your ending statement
@@L3vin17 Thanks, I can't take credit for it though. I don't actually know who first said it.
@@tonedowneyour idea is more commonly known as a self fulfilling prophecy
@@joshp6061 Yeah kind of, but that would be more about your own actions rather than how you perceive the world around you
I love listening to this guy. His words are poetry to my ears.
Regarding Gabor's critique of Peterson's "subscription" to "a murderous religious ideology" - Gabor should watch JP's one or two biblical lectures. How Peterson interprets those biblical stories is nothing I've ever heard during religion classes at school or in church (where my mom would drag me over when I was young, I'm not a believer/churchgoer now). Those lectures are incredible. They don't make you want to wear a cross on your chest, it's something different, it opens eyes to some universal truths, "walking with God" is essentially believing in your highest potential and promising yourself to try to realize it no matter the obstacles while caring to add value to your family and community... I particularly recommend the lecture on Abraham. I have even no clue if priests would agree with Peterson... he said in one of them he doesn't even go to church because priests show no substance, no passion, there's nothing there for him. And when asked "do you believe in God?" he usually replies "what do you mean by "believe" and what do you mean by "God?", and he adds that tries to behave in life "as if God existed", so I would never say that Peterson is encouraging people to blindly follow an ideology, he actually discourages people from all ideologies.
Absolutely. Those biblical lectures are like coming home.
Are you familiar with Paul Vanderklay's channel? He's a pastor who has been commenting on Peterson for over two years now. He has had a some amazing conversations on his channel and was actually interviewed by Rebel Wisdom about a year back. JP also called him the pastor of the intellectual dark web...
@Mateusz Laskowski That was spot on.
I personally consider Gabor Mate to be a gift to mankind
As I get older it is easier to see who is really genuine and who is un balanced or on cloud 9. I love the genuineness of Gabor Mate even within crowds he does what he feels is right even though it maybe un popular. He will tell you that he don't buy what you're saying, and I'm not just referring to Jordan Peterson but people who attend his talks as well and I love that about him.
What "genuineness"? He lies about JBP & he lies about "so-called" Marxists. Gabor Maté is a disgusting, gaslighting hack.
Besides the content. Gabor's use of English makes me just want to listen to him all the time. Major fan. I attended a 3 day event he did in UCC in Cork Ireland. Best use of my time ever.
I am a great admirer of Peterson's intellectual rigor and his insistence that we adopt a moral code given the failure of religion and state ideologies, but Mate was on the mark with his observation of Peterson's repressed rage and its genesis in early childhood. Children need to be encouraged and nurtured towards altruism but if they are coerced from their natural greed and selfishness through guilt, threat or violence then you end up with a partial adult - someone who chooses perhaps to do the right thing but through fear of sanction and not through natural, spontaneous human altruism.
Brilliant articulation!!!
@@benisrood You can observe people without needing "evidence".
@Captain 7 Lol that's not a daignosis. You don't need a medical degree to determine if someone is angry.
@Captain 7 Mate doesn't seem angry to me. In fact he seems quite calm and at peace with himself. As opposed to Peterson who's always frothing at the mouth about feminists or some communist conspiracy nonsense. You know that guys got issues.
I have found my addiction and it's my Ideology. It seperates me from most people and some family, but my ideology is quite frugal and impoverished, I work but hate money, I give most of it away to family, I over pay my bills and give to the street people, as I struggle. But I feel so strong, resourceful when Im poor, so free when I have nothing.
I wish Pablo Picasso was still alive to paint Dr Gabor Matte
Picasso was not known as a portrait artist
@@JanetCaterina www.google.nl/search?q=picasso+portrait&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio067r797eAhURGewKHYerCOUQsAR6BAgBEAE&biw=2400&bih=1172 And I can imagine why Andrew Hurst would say this. Any painter would love to paint what Maté's face tells us.
I wish Giacometti drawded him.. they look like twins
@@marcuswedman Even better!!!
What color would you like him to be?
I agree with Mr. Mate's brief views about social media completely. It's no permanent substitute for face-to-face communication. To the extent it is , it is a road to addiction. The trumpets of triumphalism for TH-cam, twitter, and the rest are premature .
He's right about Peterson, pure rage
There's plenty on this planet to rage about.
I completely agree with Mate on Peterson. I have tried and tried to listen to him, but he can't seem to hold my attention, and I have a difficult time following. I day dream when I try to listen to him. And Gabor's comments on his attitude with children is right on. Daniel Mackler has an excellent video on Peterson here on youtube.
My wife is a long-time big fangirl of this guy. She's a street nurse who deals with junkies all the time.
What is a street nurse? Does she go to where people need care and help them, Robert Callahan??
@@coreycox2345 a nurse who meets patients where they live - on the street, shelters, supportive housing, etc
@@karenlewkowitz5858 Excellent idea.
I have started thinking the same about myself right now. I am so grateful to have become fully healed after I was in a rollover accident at age 63 6 months ago in addition to loosing my sister and my uncle within only 3 months of my accident as passenger in a defective car. I was close to my sister and close to that one uncle more since he lived with us until I was 8 years old. However I have fallen in love so much with discussing ideologies, philosophies, politics, religion etc. online that my closest relatives are getting more than just a little annoyed on how much time I am still spending online.
Gabor Maté has helped me understand my darkests longings.
I get the point being made. And in the context intended, I basically agree. But my sense is that there is a misunderstanding about the nature of ideology. It's not merely a set of ideas. In classical and pre-Platonic Greek thought, ideos meant so much more than merely an idea. It originally referred to archetypes, ideal forms, greater patterns, or deeper realities.
It is the nature and appearance of something, not necessarily distinguished in ancient thought. It's etymological origin is from a word meaning 'to see'. Basically, seeing is knowing. Back then, people had a much more direct and visceral sense of the experienced world. This touches upon what ideology meant for Louis Althusser, as in a worldview.
At the most fundamental level, all of us in the same society share the same basic ideology, in our case capitalist realism. It's interesting that our notion of an idea or ideology has come to mean a concept or system of thoughts that are separate from or even opposed to what is observed (i.e., seen). A disconnect has emerged in language itself.
Maybe to get beyond the addictive mind we need to regain the ancient understanding.
I am not a liberal or leftist by no means but I think Gabor has more depth and understanding than Jordan Peterson.
expsterm1 Why would that opinion require some kind of political leanings anyway?
Gabor Mate has at least a deeper understanding of himself. Possibly. Maybe. I think... i may be wrong writing this down here.
@@Wicus51 No, it's quite likely you're correct.
@@epictetus9221 A few weeks ago I really sort of followed Peterson, Jordan that is. Now I see that his rage is my rage. Now uncovered and now known to me. Trauma as well.
@@Wicus51 Good form. I think Peterson is a very good psychologist - but there's this absurd halo effect around him, and thus we see him publicly weighing in a dozen areas he is in no way an expert on... As for healing trauma, there are much more effective teachers around.
I dont understand the bit where Gabor refers to all the angry young men in the comments sections re. Jordan Peterson content. I've rarely came across anything other than an outpouring of love, gratitude, respect and admiration from people (including the 'angry' young men) towards Jordan in the comments section of his videos. But I guess if you're looking for comments to back up you're own viewpoint, you'll find them.
Gabor Maté = qualitative
Jordan peterson = quantitative
I am a big fan of both.
Jordan is facts, figures, straight talk, which seems harsh
Gabor is depth, connection, understanding, which seems softer
They are both valuable. And they make two halves of very strong whole. I really would love to see them have an open and honest conversation and collaboration 🙏
Yes. They both have much to learn from each other.
I love Mr Gabor Mate's authenticity and ability to have these fierce conversations, calling out humanity on what we need to do to take responsibility for, and ask for, to find health and harmony; within and around us.
I am an admirer of both. And it would be really great to see their concepts collide and find further meaning. Looking forward to such conversation. 2019?
'i admire them both' (?) I wonder if you see the irony in that statement.
Gabor and Jordan are two intellectual giants that yes i admire and respect because both have important teachings to consider.
Please read the whole statement rather than picking a line that suits you. Thanks.
Amie Monica Yes!!!♥️
@@spiritualanarchist8162 What's the "irony?"
@@petarticinovic2710 A 'spiritual entrepreneur ' makes money trough 'Selling & buying no-thing to No-body '
What an honest person.
He says many profound things. I don't think I've ever seen a human being who seems to be functioning this effectively who looks as depressed as Dr. Maté does, though.
I don't think I'd be smiling or looking happy if I'd seen as many homeless heroin addicts as Dr.Gabor Mate has. Very very sad state of affairs. Like he once profoundly said, 'the war on drugs is a war on drug addicts'. Gabor Mate is a genius.
@@jesus3373 I'm a fan! But there's something constitutional going on with him, as well. To me, that seems obvious.
I think he just looks like that cause he's old
He was a baby when the nazi storm troopers came to his village ...
Stephen Elliott / I love this man who cares with a very big heart ❤️
I like JBP and I'm glad to hear a noted public intellectual critique him because from what I've read of the comments on most of Jordans videos there is a kind of hero worship of him. People are so awe struck they offer no critique of his perspectives at all.
Please do a talk with Gabor Maté and Jordan Peterson. It would be so damn interesting!
Dr Maté is a visionary in so many ways. Social media is a blight on humanity yet we continue to participate. The addiction of waiting for the reply to your comment or post.. Refresh, rehash, refresh.
Holy smoke this guy is amazing
The issue of trauma, both personal and collective, definitely needs ongoing attention. It would be great if a discussion could be arranged about this topic between Maté and Peterson.
I would like to have him as a therapist. He could really help me out. He got it.
Gabor Maté observations on JD are spot on, JD’s recent comment, ‘Act like there is a God’, with the implied ‘be/do good, you are being watched/there are repercussions you will not like and can’t get out of’ is probably a fall back from his prostrations’ on Christianity post his contact with Sam Harris and co…
What is the meaning of life?
What we mean to others - that’s all…
…and that is why/how we built societies across the world - we can make up Gods if we want, but save for the stereotypical hermit (very rear, and usually ‘troubled’) what we mean to others is the ubiquitous and omnipresent key to sustainable societies, because, in the final analysis, we are all a ‘we’ and all an ‘others’…
As someone who's appreciated a lot of what Jordan Peterson's had to say, I'd be really interested in a conversation between Gabor and Jordan. I think some of what Gabor said here wasn't a fair representation of Jordan (and his audience), but I really want to see all of those points gone into in more detail! As a young guy, I've gone through a lot of the more "spiritual" side of things online, trying to absorb ideas; and I gained a lot, but it wasn't really until Peterson that I started hearing about aggression as a productive and controlled thing. I actually feel like Peterson does the opposite of teaching repression when it comes to things like aggression. Most other people in our culture seem to indirectly teach repression of aggression, I'd say. I like Peterson's passion and disagreeableness. I'm naturally quite disagreeable, and I'd say it's only since I've found Jordan that I've seen that trait as a tool to be used intelligently, and not something I just have to repress
I think the adage "all idols have clay feet" applies here. It's okay to find lecturers brilliant and inspired, but they are just people at the end of the day. I do also see suppressed rage in Peterson; and expressed rage in Mate. There's a big difference.
I absolutely agree. There is a world of difference between "suppressed" and controlled anger. One helps you pretend you are harmless and at peace with everything. The other helps you work productively against things which bother you.
This Man is on it....How refreshing and peacefull it is to listen to him speak...the tone of his voice resonates with my Spirit..i think Tesla came from the same region this Gentleman is from....I learned so much from this short interview. Thank you and I ll be looking for more on Gabor.....
I am a fan of both Mate and Peterson. I understand Mate's criticism of Peterson. It isn't hard to detect the anger in him. That said, I'm not sure I would call what Peterson does with his anger repression. I get the sense that he has set up pop-off valves for his anger, oriented in the most productive ways he can manage. I get the sense that Peterson attempts to harness his ager and aggression toward the service of of well thought out aims. And that, to me, is commendable. That said, perhaps the line between that and repression is a thin one. Maybe it's a slippery slope. Maybe Mate has a sound criticism. I do feel Peterson undervalues compassion. But I also agree with him that compassion, at least in the immediate, isn't always a good thing. Empathy is extremely useful and its intentions almost always praiseworthy. But it's often very myopic, failing to see the long term handicaps it can cause. Often, compassion is more about feeling good about ourselves; more about making us feel like we did something good rather determine what might actually be best for the other person. That said, we are rarely in a good position to know what the best thing for someone else is. However, often, neither are they. So, perhaps the best thing to do is react with empathy, but channel that energy into cooperating with others to find productive solutions. Man... Too many thoughts and questions on this topic. I'd love to see the two of them sit down and thoroughly discuss these ideas.
some Quotes and Notes:
4:50 global void in meaning?
(5:10) “That meaning in a tribal setting is automatically provided for you. Because you’re bigger than yourself. You belong to something greater than yourself. And you’re connected with nature, you’re connected with some spiritual practice or belief. You have some meaning that transcends your daily struggles for survival.”
7:35 “First of all, what’s the case in this society we’re less and less connected. We’re not designed to live in these complex, vast aggregations. We’re meant to live in small hunter-gatherer bands where everybody knows everybody else and there’s deep connection between people. And that’s how we’ve lived for the most part, for millions of years, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands of years of evolution until really quite recently. So there’s a lot of disconnect in this society.
8:45 "The less it meets your real needs the more addictive it is"
12:30 nonverbal cues in communication. Doesn’t happen on social media
14:20 Addiction, adaptation, lack of impulse control
Brains might be intellectually developed but might be underdeveloped emotionally on social media
15:15 “’In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts’ I point out that addiction is rooted in trauma.”
19:38 “My problem with Jungianism however is that it ascribes these qualities to the shadow side, just think of an archetypical thing, they don’t talk about trauma very much. Whereas I think, and this is what I point out in my book ‘In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts’, is that these dark impulses in people and the need to escape from them actually arises with genuine human experience. They’re not simply part of human nature. They’re really outcomes of trauma. And that trauma is experienced in childhood. In my view unless you’re dealing with the trauma you’re not really dealing with the shadow side.
It’s one thing to acknowledge that the shadow side is there but unless you look at the traumatic basis of it, so I do think that Freudianism and even Jungianism, Jungianism is much more sophisticated I think than Freud is, and has much more meaningful things to say about the human functioning, for all the great insights that they both had, and I learned a lot from both, they both ignore trauma. And I think that trauma is the missing piece in modern psychology and modern education, modern medicine. And I think without looking at trauma speaking of the shadow side it remains somewhat shallow.”
20:55 Jordan Peterson
"I sense a lot of suppressed rage in him. In fact I think his voice is choking with rage a lot of the time. It's interesting as he talks about rage that you have to deal with it - I don't think you understand just how angry he is.
And if you look at his websites, the comments are full of rage, by his young acolytes. Now that's an energetic thing - but it's his energy that draws people as much as what he actually teaches.
Secondly he teaches repression [...] In his book he talks about how an angry two year old child needs to be sit by themselves until they get over it. Rather than understanding why a child would be angry at age two - what frustrations they are having and what human contact they need to help them move through that anger, he says repress the anger. So he's all about repressed anger as far as I'm concerned.
And it’s very interesting how he talks about children. He talks about little varments and little monsters and so on. I know that’s meant to be humorous but it’s also a certain way of thinking of a young human child. So fundamentally, I see him as an agent of repression posing as an agent of libertarianism.”
Gabor Mate's work exists within the mythological garden. Peterson explains the whole territory, not just the part that is edenic. We live in a society that is capable of being edenic for large swathes of time, unlike most of human experience. I am capable of providing an eden like experience for my children (I can make the time to attune to them, to titrate their experience of danger and evil) maximising their ability to live life on the edge of chaos and order, and I would do this most effectively in a way that is beyond how Peterson writes about parenting, but I believe wrapped up within it, toward what Gabor mate talks about - neatly articulated by one of Piaget's students, Aletha Solter: in recognising just how often children experience fear, hurt, and frustrations that need to be processed, first by the body's natural means: crying, trembling, thrashing, laughing, yawning in a secure attachment, and then evermore integrated through the more advanced and elaborated means of action-based play and language. Gabor on his own, does not provide a broad enough psychology, peterson on his own does not provide an intricately detailed or idealistic enough set of goals for dealing with our emotions, and he fails to elaborate the beneficial purposes of compassion. Gabor will punish his children, wether he likes to admit it or not, Peterson gives you a way of acknowledging this and harnessing this, however Gabor picks up on something the mainstream of research based psychology tends to ignore, which is the possibility of processing the vast majority of these dysregulating experiences and returning to a state of neurobiological harmony with ourselves and with those around us, our tribe, and accessing a greater degree of our natural intelligence. However, I very much doubt that this was the norm or even common through out human history even in tribal societies. I like my children alive thankyou very much. So both is good. Gabor as the idealist within Peterson's eden. All of Peterson's warnings about eden (or at least most of them) still apply to Gabor, and especially as Gabor attempts to make claims about human systems and society's which is where his thinking falls apart, as both tribal, and historically inaccurate, an idealism that is noble, but if not placed within the mythological garden, and attempted to be applied broadscale, is just as deadly as communism and all the other acts of revenge against being, humanity, and reality.
Gabor is love and compassion. Such a wise man. His analysis of Jordan Peterson is so on the money. Just look at how Peterson acts in interviews. With people who are willing to practically canonise him and his opinions, he couldn't be nicer, whereas anyone who questions his authority is met with stern, barely-suppressed rage. While he is obviously very intelligent and does say some wise things, some of the people he seems most comfortable associating with are kind of dubious to put it mildly, and he seems sorely lacking in any humility. I choose love and compassion.
Great interview, such an insightful man, and entirely balanced and spot on regarding his evaluation of Jordan Peterson.
I love it when a respectful inspirational man criticises another respectful inspirational man, this felt even more real than the Peterson vs. Harris.
But what it really felt like, was knowing that we're all human...even them
One again guys, thank you for the work you do and this podcast. Aho!
As someone who has gotten value from Jordan Peterson, I have to say his comments on JP are fascinating. With almost every other public intellectual who I have heard criticize JP, there seems to be a level of vitriol that is just not there with Gabor Mate -- these are his well meaning and sober opinions on the man. A conversation between the two would be fascinating.
It is very ironic that Jorden Peterson just recovered from a serious addition. Hope they two and have a conversation on this topic.
For someone that claims to know a lot about curing addiction and cultivating self-critique and self-awareness, jp sure does love two things: Lecturing people on topics he knows shit about... and his benzos.
I’ve been trying to come to some sort of resolution between the more behavioral and the more attachment approaches to psychology for years.
A conversation between these two would go a long way in helping lots of people make sense of the discrepancies between these two approaches. Both very knowledgeable, both highly respected and I get the sense both would be very respectful of the other....
Rebel wisdom... you guys have been stepping up your game. Kudos to you!
Very sharp analysis. I am so surprised how extreme the division between 'Left and right' has become online. Especially in the US there is hardly a difference between Democrats & Republicans. Both are capitalism based parties. Social media created a non existing divide that is picked up by politicians all over the world.
Lol Gabor is soooo right about Peterson ! Absolutely full of rage ! Spot on !
I was going to say that I am not impulsive in my responses on social media, but then again I am not on Facebook or Twitter and I have been using forums of various kinds for over 25 years. At first I was impulsive, and it took about 15 years to develop my care in posting. So I will agree with Gabor here that this is the normal case by my own experience.
This is a very insightful conversation. Thank you for doing what you are doing. Keep it up
3 hour podcast with Dr. Maté and and Dr. Peterson and I’m willing to pay!
I can see that addiction and acting out of aspects of the shadow CAN be (and maybe very often is) symptomatic or coping with trauma. However to say that ALL shadow manifestations are repressed / unresolved trauma is an over-reach. Mate has found a gem of truth but sees it everywhere. We have consciousness and choice (when we are awre of it). We have some automatic programming hardwired from different evolutionary eras - shadow. Sometimes our shadow comes out unwares without past trauma, merely from specific situation /stimulus. Sometimes we reject it, sometimes embrace it, sometimes unaware of it. I wonder if Mate has had children. Nothing quite like them to make the shadow evident, in them and in a parent. A child might bully a younger sibling because of trauma, or because of unresolved confusing emotion, or revenge or jealousy or dominance or .... just because he can. Understanding the difference between these would be helpful in dealing with that behaviour and socialising them. But putting all to trauma and coping with confusing emotions is not helpful. As for his analysis of HC... sociopath is a more accurate description..... empathising with a sociopath is not a useful strategy.
Wow, this is great! Indeed, it is time for this man to have a conversation with Jordan Peterson
Gabor might be Jordan's missing piece.
He's one of mine
Gabor Mate is an incredible man. I first found him on the Tim Ferriss show and I listened to it probably 3 or 4 times.
A discussion between Gabor and Jordan would be like watching married gay men arguing with each other.
Gabor: "You always get so angry and then pretend you're not. Why don't you just admit it? Everything is so repressed in you.'
Jordan: "I don't pretend to be bloody angry. I am. But I can control that anger. Anyways, I heard you tell that younger guy that you had 'homicidal thoughts'. I mean, isn't that anger?"
Gabor: "Unlike you, Jordan, I have compassion. And compassion is stronger than control."
Jordan: "Ha! Yea, good luck with that. I mean, what you're trying to say is...See, it's like this, you think about killing people and I think about killing ideology - or something to that effect, and because it's your ideology in question.."
Gabor: "I didn't say that. It's not my ideology, I just said I'm a lefty intellectual."
Jordan: "Well, ok. But I'm not repressed, I'm just a righty intellectual with self control and dignity and, man, just a, a, willingness to help and you always mistake that for coldness or harshness and it just isn't that."
They look each other in the eyes and smile.
Gabor: "Sorry, Jordan, I love you."
Jordan: "Well, then, right, ok. I guess, I guess I love you, too. Ha!"
They embrace, deeply.
we can take from both Mate and Peterson
I feel addicted to listening to Mr. Mate
Gabor is amazing , I could not work out about Peterson as much I admire him , something was putting me off .. felt (gut feelings) he has an agenda and constantly not being objective historically and by the way speaks not from experience but some kind of theoretical “propaganda like” knowledge , thanks , so spot on
It seems this guy has something special to contribute to this dialectic, even if he doesn't really understand the excesses that Peterson is reacting to
I got the same impression from Peterson, brilliant but full of rage...still worth listening to.
While I certainly share Maté's emphasis on trauma work - I think he himself is supressing anger. He reveals it by wanting to smear Jordan Peterson for being authentic and open in his anger (which is completely legitimate given the state of the world) - however Jordan is being himself and conciously using his anger as a driving force for sharing ideas and knowledge that can inspire responsible action. Gabor is simply saying that everything is about trauma and anyone expressing anger is somehow on the dark side and bad. For me he reveals his own supression and un-natural "calm" as nothing more than a mummified mask of intense self-suppression for decades. I see no sparkle i Gabors eyes....
Gabor Maté focuses in the internal world and lacks a bit in the external whilst with Jordan Peterson is the opposite, they complement each other. You need the outside to wake the inside and vice versa
Yes, Peterson teaches repression, but, it's self repression and that is in no way contrary to political Libertarianism. Mate, himself, confesses to suppressing his own murderous rage. It's about understanding that rage and anger are fundamental aspects of human existence and that those emotions can be just as useful as love and compassion when they are controlled.
@LeTang Mate referred to Peterson's teaching repression in a political context here. Buddhism is great and all, but, it doesn't get you the internet. It doesn't put food on the table. Rage, and the useful channeling of it created the fantastic world we have today. We've fooled ourselves into thinking that we are no longer just one misstep away from starvation and animalistic depravity. Any sophisticated Buddhist would understand that his existence is present in a realm of physical imperatives and would not fight back against the fact that he is hungry. And would act accordingly as a complex, hungry, human animal.
Inhibiting actions based in fear, hate or lovelessness is called for. DIS inhibiting love as the movement for communication and relation is called for - but both are confused as 'threat' to a sense of self-expression that lurches between anxiety and depression. Jordan Peterson is clearly getting through to some people who are awakening self responsibility as an expression of worth - rather than wishing or pretending they had it.
True relation within ourself is the basis from which our right relation finds its expression in our world. And of course these are facets of one and are the nature of the two commandments Jesus made famous. Though these are the inherent nature and condition of relational being and not a 'to do' - or else!
I think the right word is "integration" rather than "repression"
"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Gabor maté, your assessment of addiction is compelling, and I align with a lot of the ways you articulated understanding it.
However, I don't agree with your assessment of Jordan Peterson regarding him pushing Christianity. He is using the history and culture of Christian religion to illustrate the importance and connection to a unifying force in nature. He is trying to figure out the point, which the Cross refers, an individual, a group, and a civilization should aim to survive and suffer the least. In addition, other genuine religions seek the same ends.
Marxism is an ideology that has no over arching structure which keeps it's people and leaders accountable.
The final point is regarding meaning in life. I have a proposal which I would like to vet. What if meaning in life is to realize one's self, and then through that realization manifest what is best for the world?
That's the short of it. Thanks for the talk.
Just one thing, although every human collective endeavor requires a slight bit of faith, one can say only that an ideology could belong to a religion but a religion could never belong to a certain ideology.
The ideology could be pondered through moral standards, and by making a conscious deliberation the individuals could choose if such ideology fits into their moral standards or not.
On the contrary, religion establishes a clear pathway for the development and appropriation of moral standards, one that is backed up by the acknowledgement of a clear depiction of good and an extremely distinctive and detailed justification for evil.
Meaning that religion can't be selected based on moral standards, but it definitely constructs a set of those rules of engagement with existence.
The latter definitions are achieved by a theological or meta-theological world view only, on which religions are based upon, this instance of abstraction is what determines if a religion is monotheistic or not, if it's based on a being or beings that hold absolute power, absolute wisdom and absolute good or not, if it's based on the individual itself or not, and finally, if it's based on absolute empirical knowledge rather than on the aiming of a higher (more valuable) state of existence or not.
The reason why Peterson is very successful is precisely because of that subtle and many times flagrant rage, in both his speech and his literature.
It's known that human beings have a tendency to ponder bad, dangerous, repulsive and uncomfortable things as way more important than good, safe, attractive and comfortable thigs, for a very primeval reason, the first kind tend to be associated with threat, the second kind, not; something embedded in the human psyche that was developed in order to assure a higher probabilities of survival.
Dr. Peterson has had a key role in my development as an aware human being, but I can definitely recognize that Dr. Maté is right in the overall taxonomy on which he places Dr. Peterson, as an agent of repression by modern standards.
However, modern standards are way too contaminated with hedonism to take them as absolutely valid human being development instruments, and that's why I keep Dr. Peterson teachings in such high regard.
Dr.Gabor/Jordan Peterson/Sam Harris/Robert Sapolsky!!!!!
Yes!!!
and Weinstein
and zeizek
@@celbyj133 Yes!
With Maté's interpretation of addiction, it seems like we have an addiction problem in our society. Assuming the problem stems from the part of our body that deals with addiction (limbic system), I wonder if this could be affected by things like what we put in our body and what we expose our mind to. For example, could one or many factors be worsening an addiction crisis?
Couple ideas:
-diet (maybe sugar intake)
-constant exposure to negativity (sensationalism in news)
-post religion (lack of spirituality)
Just thinking out loud
To use a JP example, Almost all child abusers were abused as children. But only a tiny % of abused children grow up to become abusers. Trauma is only one peice of the multicausal puzzle but there a many others.
I would like to see a conversation between Gabor Maté and Jordan Peterson.
Well this interview has completely transformed the interviewer for one lol😁
A lot of good work dealing with societal and peer pressure that manifests and accelerates addictive behaviours is being done as we speak by many men's groups around the world bringing the concept of community. What a beautiful interview!
He's absolutely spot on with his criticisms of Peterson (much as I otherwise like and agree with him).
How more relevant this conversation is these days! With Orwellian senseless social distancing we're getting more entrenched in social media camps void of any meaning other than ego massaging and making us forget/erode/erase the basics of interpersonal face to face and rich direct contact. Thanks Rebel Wisdom for the great interview to the brilliant Gabor Maté.
Wow, that guy grew a beard during the interview!
At Rebel Wisdom we like to employ the 'Rip Van Winkle' approach to interviewing
Different things came to my mind listening to it. (I will not comment on all of them.) On the point of early childhood trauma and its role in how we act in the world I agree. Still each individual is responsible for working with it. No one can do this work for someone else. Also it takes a long time to re-write the automitic program/to create connections that were not created in our nervous system at the time of early childhood development. On differences in approach to the world between Mate and Peterson I would say "both and". We are only human, so no ne should be held to the "god like" status. Peterson's trauma does not imply he is not able to do good for others. My ability to protect a child from harm based on my childhood experiences does not mean I cannot harm someone in the process of protecting a child and taking it a step too far. Each one of us has to be watchful of why we do something, what are our motivations, what are the results of our actions and whether we are happy with those results.
Wilber, " they are both so wonderfully Teal and with more meditation, they will both soon embrace the glorious splendor of Turquoise":D
I'd love a conversation between Wilber and Peterson, that would be brilliant.
I am very impressed by this interview and I can’t wait to read his book. Outstanding.
Is all self-control a form of repression, or are they different in any way?
I'm unfamiliar with Maté's work, but in this interview he seemed to be making a distinction between self-control achieved through repression and self-control achieved through transformation. Perhaps someone will come along and help us.
@@SloJoFonik Well said
If you get upset and want to act violent, but repress it the urge, that's repression.
If you get up set but don't want to act violent, there's nothing to repress.
Fantastic interview! Dr. Mate's work is so important.
I'd love to see a Gabor Mate', Jordon Peterson and Richard Wolff square off in a 3-way debate!
Unlike Peterson, Mate doesn't pretend to know much about economics.
Brilliant! I hated Facebook but I didn't know why...thanks to you, sir, now I know it and deactivated the account.
You gotta love the Maté but I don't think he is so honest about cultural Marxism being a real threat. I don't think he understands all the implications of the post modernism agenda. But, hey! You can't be everybody all of the time, right? Maté is the best in his field and Jordan is the best in his. Nothing wrong with that. I would find it really weird if they both shared the same opinions. I need each of them, their ideas, their knowledge for different reasons. I'm glad I've got access to their books and videos. What a great time to be alive.
Cultural Marxism is a nothing but a silly myth. Don’t know how any logical, free-thinking person can genuinely believe it.
Jordan got his impression of the "post modern agenda" from Stephen Hicks. For a more nuanced understanding try here th-cam.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/w-d-xo.html
@@Alex-eb1ob Well, maybe you should go ahead and read a little Adorno and Marcuse, for example. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exists.
Yeah nah, it’s nothing but a right wing conspiracy theory. No amount of reading about it will change that. All of the sources I’ve read come across as nothing more than your typical “red scare” propaganda.
Indeed, what a great time to be alive.
I for one would not care to see a discussion between Peterson and Mate, as I'd prefer to romanticize about that out in my own mind instead. If you spend enough time reviewing their respective work you can build a framework around what works best for you and the ones you love. The thing I'm loving about Mate is that he refuses to be drawn in prescribing how to deal with certain issues. Everyone wants a quick fix, which to me, is a symptom of our broken western culture. Someone in the comments below wrote something along the lines of "individual responsibility (which is the foundation of empowerment)". I completely agree. Attain as much knowledge as you can and really be honest with yourself (like proclaiming you have homicidal tendencies to the internet honest) and all the answers will be there for you.
Yes, the ultimate conversation! Gabor and Petersen!!
Trauma is not just this life it is ancestral and of the soul.
This is definitely one of your hits.
As always incredible depth and eloquence from Gabor Mate.... thank you. I particularly appreciate the emphasis on trauma. Trauma is what has us split off from our Self (capital S), it is what creates polarisation, and thus addiction... it has only one origin... a disconnect from 'true' Self. If we take a top down and bottom up exploration between trauma and true self, we will both close the gap, and ultimately return to a singularity expressing from the absolute..