Dr. Jordan B. Peterson Outlines How Men And Women Can Be Successful In Their Respective Natures

With both a precise view of success from an individual’s perspective and with consideration of success in society at large, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson explains how favorable outcomes are possible in his new series on DailyWire+. In the second episode, “Success for Men and Women,” Peterson investigates the markings of success for both genders, distinguishing the differences between the two while also illuminating their cooperation together. 

Existentialism, a philosophical theory centered on experience, the individual, and existence, is one to which Peterson has tied himself for years. Yet he differs from some existentialist thinkers in that he is not only able to see the need for an individual to find one’s place in a social hierarchy, but he is also able to articulate that need — and the reasons for it. In other words, reality does very much take place outside an individual, and becoming part of the universal hierarchy of harmony is a prerequisite for success. 

WATCH ‘SUCCESS FOR MEN & WOMEN’ ON DAILYWIRE+

Spoken with the knowledge and experience of a teacher, Peterson sets forth an example after reiterating the need to be integrated into a hierarchy of social community, turning a potential philosophical convolution into an understandable realistic practicality. Where can we look to see an example of this universal hierarchy of harmony? “You see it most fundamentally — experience it most fundamentally — in the case of music,” he says. “Music is intrinsically meaningful, and that intrinsic meaning of music isn’t subject to rational criticism. It circumvents rational criticism. It’s more fundamentally real than anything rational criticism can undermine. And that’s really something remarkable.” Remarkable, indeed. 

An appreciator of live music and a collector of artwork, Peterson’s personal passions are not limited to his academic subject areas. Music and art have held his attention for quite some time. To explain, he offers an analogy, comparing musical patterns to the structure of the world: “Music replicates the structure of the world in that the world is made out of hierarchies of patterns, and those patterns can interact harmoniously. That’s what happens in a musical piece. And then the musical piece will compel you to align yourself with that harmonious pattern of movement. And that emergent harmonious alignment? Well, people love that.” Quoting Walter Pater, Peterson recollects the notion that art aspires to the condition but magnifies it, saying, “All life aspires to the condition of music.” 

Almost as though he is able to prophetically discern a potential counterargument from viewers, Peterson poses a counter on his viewers’ behalf, asking, “Why shouldn’t it be all about me?  Why shouldn’t I just be selfish?” This, of course, depends on your definition of “selfish,” which he defines, morals aside, inquiring, “Do you mean that the you that wants something right now should always get it? Because that’s actually going to be problematic for the extended you.” He contends that you should not be selfish — because it is not in your interest. Selfishness has a way of leading to betrayal, one that betrays others and your future self. 

When playing a game of football or the game of life, you win by supporting your fellow teammates, trying hard to win, having enough emotional coherency, and showing some magnificence of character. These pointers are understood easily enough as Peterson outlines how to win; at the same time, his explanation of how emotions take hold of an individual is psychologically founded. Rather than think of a person as impulsive, it is possible to consider impulse itself as gripping the identity of someone so completely that the person identifies with the impulse. To notice the hold impulsivity has, you must be psychologically sound — and introspective. Otherwise, anger, for example, may convince you that you are no more than anger, when in actuality, this is just “the fragmentary motivational state of anger.” 

Here, Peterson transitions to a discussion of success as it relates to both genders. (Emotions, after all, take center stage in a relationship.) “We’re checking each other out for this sort of higher-order regulation capacity all the time in ways we don’t understand at all.” Delving into the differences of success between men and women, he recognizes we “probably don’t understand that as well as we might” — though we do have a starting point. Peterson addresses the research-proven and easily observable fact that “more successful women are intimidating to men,” whereas success in regards to men is “the primary hallmark of attractiveness to women.” 

Being socioeconomically successful is an indication of competence — not wealth. Women’s motivation for seeking a partner who is socioeconomically successful is indicative of their attraction to competence, which Peterson identifies as “an issue to be considering, for men who are trying to contemplate what might constitute success.” Though he acknowledges how the opposite gender views success when considering attractiveness (i.e., what men look for in women and, similarly, what women look for in men), he creates a framework of success for each gender as intertwined with and separate from the other. 

He goes on, explaining, “It’s very useful for men to develop a high level of competence in at least one thing. It’s extraordinarily useful as a disciplinary process.” This is because “men with sense admire competence,” he notes. For the women viewers, he addresses a paradoxical and societal problem with which they must contend: “Women are enjoined to develop their career, and they’re impelled to believe that there’ll be nothing more important for them in their life than their career. Now, that’s a lie. That’s not even true for most people, let alone most women.” 

To be hyper-successful at a career, you must be smart, conscientious, and willing to work 80 hours a week. Peterson recalls working alongside some of the first female professors to be granted tenure at Harvard, the price of which was reflected in their decisions to not have children. Having worked with large law firms as a consultant for about 10 years, he remembers seeing female partners leave those firms around the age of 30, having witnessed their priorities to have shifted once they had children: “The relative importance of their career compared to their children shifts dramatically.” He even cites one client to have thought of having a child as almost decorative — until she had her own. “There isn’t anyone you like better than your children,” he asserts. 

To continue being hypercompetitive and career-driven while also being a dedicated mother puts women in a “terrible bind,” feeling guilty when they are at work and not with their children and when with their children and not at work. The question, according to Peterson, is not “why aren’t there any successful women?” The question to ask is, “Why is there a small percentage of hyper-successful men who are willing to sacrifice everything in pursuit of that success?”

Thoughtfully considering success, Peterson returns to its eight dimensions, concluding that being hyper-successful at a couple of those dimensions has some payoffs, excelling in one far above another can have advantages, but being consistent in all can definitely lead to success. Peterson ends with a look to the future and a reminder to consider what is ahead, stating, “Your viewpoint does shift across time, and your definitions of success have to take that into account.” Framing your proper perspective now will inherently create a proper perspective of the future, which he intends to help viewers do.