In this excerpt, Dr. Jordan Peterson examines the psychological underpinnings of political beliefs—particularly “political correctness”—through the lens of personality research. He begins by challenging the common assumption that individuals arrive at their political positions by objectively surveying a “landscape of facts.” Instead, Peterson argues, the sheer volume of available information makes it impossible to process every relevant datum. Consequently, our personality traits act as filters, causing some facts to “stand out” while others remain unnoticed. As a result, two people with different temperaments may sincerely believe they are responding to the same facts, when in reality they are attending to different subsets of information.
Peterson then focuses on Agreeableness—one of the Big Five personality traits—and its role in predicting political correctness. He notes that highly agreeable individuals tend to be more compassionate and nurturing (traits he describes as “maternal” in origin). Cross-culturally, women score higher on Agreeableness than men, and this difference typically emerges around puberty. While high Agreeableness fosters close bonds and caretaking (for example, soothing a colicky infant or caring for elderly patients), it can become maladaptive when extended to political ideology. In Peterson’s view, overly agreeable individuals assume that anyone at the bottom of a social hierarchy must be a helpless “victim” and that those at the top must be predatory “oppressors.” This “undifferentiated compassion”, he warns, is “not a virtue” if it supplants critical thinking.
To illustrate the perils of unchecked compassion, Peterson draws analogies to child rearing and elder care. In a nursing-home setting, he explains, caregivers are instructed: “Do not do anything for people that they can do for themselves.” Although it requires “harsh-heartedness” to let an elderly patient struggle with feeding or dressing, it ultimately preserves their long-term independence. By contrast, when parents become overprotective—doing everything for their children—they risk producing “useless” adults who cannot function independently and ultimately resent their parents. Peterson connects this to politically correct activism: “Treating your children like they’re perpetual victims is a very bad idea,” he asserts, because it teaches them to expect aid rather than to develop competence.
He further notes that educational institutions often exacerbate these tendencies. Merely exposing students to a single politically correct ideology (for example, through one lecture) can predispose them toward dogmatic thinking. As agreeableness and unchecked compassion become politically weaponized, individuals lose the capacity to “think critically”—to weigh evidence and consider alternative viewpoints—because they rely too heavily on emotional impulses.
In summary, Peterson contends that while compassion and agreeableness are indispensable for caregiving, they become dangerous when applied in an undifferentiated or impulsive manner to complex social problems. True political maturity, he argues, requires balancing compassion with reasoned judgment—learning to think as well as to feel.
“You vote your personality far more than you think, because there’s just too damn many facts—you can’t possibly process them all.”
“Your personality works as a filtering mechanism: certain things stand out for the radical left, other things for liberals, and different things still for conservatives.”
“Everyone says, ‘I’m looking at the facts,’ but they don’t understand they’re not looking at the same set of facts—and until you engage in genuine dialogue, you can’t see the others’ landscape.”
“Agreeableness is a maternal trait—women tend to be higher in agreeableness cross-culturally, and it manifests at puberty as a tight bonding mechanism.”
“Compassion is great for dealing with hurt people or the elderly, but it’s not a sound doctrine to build an entire political system upon.”
“The more politically correct types suffer from an excess of impulsive compassion—they assume that if there’s any inequitable distribution, the bottom people must be victims and the top must be predators.”
“Undifferentiated empathy is not a virtue. You have to think; you can’t just feel.”
“When you’re taking care of kids, if you’re too compassionate, you end up doing everything for them—and you raise useless adults who hate you and themselves.”
“In a nursing home, the rule is: do not do anything for the people you care for that they can do for themselves. You let them maintain their independence, even if it makes you a hard-hearted bastard.”
“Treating your children like they’re endless, permanent victims is a very bad idea—and it’s one reason kids become rapidly politically correct: they’re taught to see themselves as victims.”
“Just one lecture associated with the politically correct dogmatic structure can tilt people toward that ideology—it’s not purely temperament; education exacerbates it.”
“There’s a temperamental proclivity toward compassion, then a failure of education to correct it, followed by activists inflaming that compassion by proxy.”
“Compassion must be used judiciously—if you do everything for an infant, they’ll never learn to thrive on their own.”
“People believe they’re ‘looking at facts,’ but in truth their personality has already decided which facts to see.”
“Political correctness thrives on the story that all inequalities must be rooted in malevolence—but some truth isn’t the same as the whole truth.”
“You can’t build a political system on compassion alone; you need discrimination and critical thought.”
“Agreeableness stops you from throwing your colicky baby out the window at 3:00 AM, but it also stops you from allowing them the struggle they need to become independent.”
“Empathy without differentiation is blind; it forces you to lump every individual at the bottom into the same ‘victim’ category.”
“If you see someone suffering, certainly help—but don’t assume that someone higher up must be an oppressor simply because you’re compassionate.”
“The politically correct left suffers from an excess of altruistic aggression—they want to help so badly they vilify all who are not seen as victims.”
“Tempted by compassion, people imagine a simple top-down solution to injustice—’take from the good to give to the needy’—without recognizing the long-term consequence of dependency.”
“Compassionate parenting doesn’t mean doing everything; it means having the courage to let your children struggle.”
“You need to accompany compassion with responsibility—otherwise you infantilize the very people you mean to uplift.”
“Listen to other people’s ‘facts.’ Engage in dialogue, because you cannot discover blind spots unless someone else points them out.”
“Political ideologies work through emotional resonance—agreeableness makes individuals responsive to narratives of victimhood and oppression.”
Watch the Full Video Here
Actionable Steps & Tips
Below are practical steps inspired by Peterson’s analysis. They fall into three categories: (A) Expanding Your Personal “Fact Set,” (B) Balancing Compassion with Critical Thought, and (C) Fostering Healthy Independence in Others.
A. Expanding Your Personal “Fact Set”
- Identify Your Temperamental Filter
- Step 1: Take a reputable personality assessment (e.g., the Big Five Inventory). Note your Agreeableness score.
- Step 2: Write down three issues you feel strongly about (e.g., income inequality, immigration, climate change).
- Step 3: For each issue, compile two lists: “Facts I’m drawn to” and “Facts I tend to ignore.” Ask yourself: Why do some facts feel more salient?
- Purpose: This exercise illuminates how your temperament predisposes you to select certain information, helping you recognize blind spots.
- Seek Out Opposing “Fact Sets”
- Action: For each of the three issues above, find one credible source that challenges your current viewpoint (e.g., if you lean left, read a conservative analysis).
- Method: Note which facts this source emphasizes that you hadn’t considered.
- Goal: By actively exposing yourself to different “fact filters,” you reduce the risk of believing you’re “objectively” right without having examined alternative data.
- Engage in Structured Dialogue
- Practice: Once a week, discuss one of those issues with someone who has a different perspective. Use a “two-speaker” format:
- Speaker A presents their views and supporting facts for 5 minutes without interruption.
- Speaker B summarizes Speaker A’s points for 2 minutes (ensuring accurate representation).
- Reverse roles.
- Outcome: This enforces active listening, ensures both parties see each other’s fact sets, and fosters empathy without immediate rebuttal.
- Practice: Once a week, discuss one of those issues with someone who has a different perspective. Use a “two-speaker” format:
B. Balancing Compassion with Critical Thought
- Apply “Think-Feel” Checks in Real Time
- Step 1: When you feel a strong emotional reaction (e.g., indignation at inequality), pause and label it: “I feel sympathy/anger/compassion.”
- Step 2: Ask: “Is my emotional impulse sufficient to justify a policy stance, or do I need additional evidence?”
- Step 3: If needed, list potential unintended consequences of a purely compassion-driven solution (e.g., welfare dependency).
- Purpose: This ensures that empathy (“feel”) is tempered by rational analysis (“think”) before you form policy opinions.
- Practice “Judicious Compassion” with Personal Examples
- Scenario: If a friend complains about financial hardship, resist the urge to immediately solve their problem (give them money).
- Action: Instead, offer to help them build skills—review their résumé, teach budgeting, connect them with job opportunities.
- Rationale: By helping them help themselves, you emulate the nursing-home principle: “Do not do for others what they can do for themselves.” This balances genuine care with promoting long-term independence.
- Evaluate Policy Proposals Using a “Differentiated Compassion” Matrix
- Matrix Columns:
- Emotional Appeal (How strongly do I feel for the victims?)
- Evidence for Effectiveness (What data support this policy?)
- Potential for Dependency (Does it risk creating long-term reliance?)
- Scope of Unintended Harm (Who else might suffer negative consequences?)
- Exercise: For any social-justice initiative you encounter, score each column 1–5. If “Emotional Appeal” is high but “Evidence” is low or “Dependency Risk” is high, proceed with caution.
- Goal: This structured approach prevents “undifferentiated empathy” from overshadowing sober analysis.
- Matrix Columns:
C. Fostering Healthy Independence in Others
- Support Autonomy in Child-Raising or Mentorship
- Rule: Identify one task a mentee or child can do themselves but you currently do for them (e.g., preparing their own school lunches, editing their job applications).
- Action: “Let them struggle”—step back and provide guidance only if they explicitly ask.
- Reason: Guided struggle builds competency and self-efficacy. Overprotection fosters learned helplessness.
- Implement a “Self-Reliance Challenge”
- Step 1: Ask someone you care about to choose one area where they feel dependent (financially, emotionally, academically).
- Step 2: Co-create a tiered plan:
- Tier 1: Small tasks they can complete alone (e.g., search for resources online).
- Tier 2: Medium tasks that require minimal assistance (e.g., draft a budget, write a cover letter).
- Tier 3: Larger goals with occasional check-ins (e.g., find and apply to three jobs).
- Outcome: By encouraging incremental self-reliance, you help them move away from victim mentality and toward autonomy.
- Audit Your Own “Caretaker Impulses”
- Self-Reflection: Over the next week, keep a “Caretaker Log.” Each time you feel the urge to “rescue” someone (friend, family, subordinate), pause and ask: “Can they do this themselves? What would they learn if I didn’t intervene?”
- Adjustment: Delay intervention by at least one hour unless there is imminent danger. Use that hour to craft a guiding question rather than a solution (e.g., “What do you think your next step should be?”).
- Benefit: This cultivates your ability to differentiate between genuine emergency aid and overprotective interference.