Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?:
"My first introduction to Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist, came by way of an interview that began trending on social media last week. Peterson was pressed by the British journalist Cathy Newman to explain several of his controversial views. But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.
First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.
Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and various Fox News hosts all feature and reward this rhetorical technique. And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer can’t help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Peterson’s claims, instead of addressing what he actually said.
...in the interview, Newman relies on this technique to a remarkable extent, making it a useful illustration of a much broader pernicious trend. Peterson was not evasive or unwilling to be clear about his meaning. And Newman’s exaggerated restatements of his views mostly led viewers astray, not closer to the truth.
Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.
“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.
“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”
“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.
“Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful,” Peterson goes on to assert. “And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—”
The interviewer interrupts, “So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?”
The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:
Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.
Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.
Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.
Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.
Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?
Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it! I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example––
The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a “fact of life” that women should just “put up with,” though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.
Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Peterson’s view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesn’t support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.
Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion:
Peterson: There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.
Newman: Again, a vast generalization. Some women are not more agreeable than men.
Peterson: That’s true. And some women get paid more than men.
Newman: So you’re saying by and large women are too agreeable to get the pay raises that they deserve.
Peterson: No, I’m saying that is one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance. So you need another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.
Newman: Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go ask for a pay raise. Make yourself disagreeable with your boss.
Peterson: But I didn’t deny it existed, I denied that it existed because of gender. See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.
Newman: So the pay gap exists. You accept that. I mean the pay gap between men and women exists—but you’re saying it’s not because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay raises.
Peterson: That’s one of the reasons.
Newman: Okay, so why not get them to ask for a pay raise? Wouldn’t that be fairer?
Peterson: I’ve done that many, many, many times in my career. So one of the things you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training. So you might say––often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training. So I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and we’ve put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period.
Newman: And you celebrate that?
Peterson: Of course! Of course!
Another passage on gender equality proceeded thusly:
Newman: Is gender equality a myth?
Peterson: I don’t know what you mean by the question. Men and women aren’t the same. And they won’t be the same. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be treated fairly.
Newman: Is gender equality desirable?
Peterson: If it means equality of outcome then it is almost certainly undesirable. That’s already been demonstrated in Scandinavia. Men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them to do it of their own accord. It’s 20 to 1 female nurses to male, something like that. And approximately the same male engineers to female engineers. That’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law. Those are ineradicable differences––you can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure, and tyranny, but if you leave men and women to make their own choices you will not get equal outcomes.
Newman: So you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call them feminists or whatever you want to call them, should basically give up because it ain’t going to happen.
Peterson: Only if they’re aiming at equality of outcome.
Newman: So you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine.
Peterson: It’s not only fine, it’s eminently desirable for everyone, for individuals as well as societies.
Newman: But still women aren’t going to make it. That’s what you’re really saying.
That is not “what he’s really saying”!
In this next passage Peterson shows more explicit frustration than at any other time in the program with being interviewed by someone who refuses to relay his actual beliefs:
Newman: So you don’t believe in equal pay.
Peterson: No, I’m not saying that at all.
Newman: Because a lot of people listening to you will say, are we going back to the dark ages?
Peterson: That’s because you’re not listening, you’re just projecting.
Newman: I’m listening very carefully, and I’m hearing you basically saying that women need to just accept that they’re never going to make it on equal terms—equal outcomes is how you defined it.
Peterson: No, I didn’t say that.
Newman: If I was a young woman watching that, I would go, well, I might as well go play with my Cindy dolls and give up trying to go school, because I’m not going to get the top job I want, because there’s someone sitting there saying, it’s not possible, it’s going to make you miserable.
Peterson: I said that equal outcomes aren’t desirable. That’s what I said. It’s a bad social goal. I didn’t say that women shouldn’t be striving for the top, or anything like that. Because I don’t believe that for a second.
Newman: Striving for the top, but you’re going to put all those hurdles in their way, as have been in their way for centuries. And that’s fine, you’re saying. That’s fine. The patriarchal system is just fine.
Peterson: No! I really think that’s silly! I do, I think that’s silly.
He thinks it is silly because he never said that “the patriarchal system is just fine” or that he planned to put lots of hurdles in the way of women, or that women shouldn’t strive for the top, or that they might as well drop out of school, because achieving their goals or happiness is simply not going to be possible.
The interviewer put all those words in his mouth.
The conversation moves on to other topics, but the pattern continues. Peterson makes a statement. And then the interviewer interjects, “So you’re saying …” and fills in the rest with something that is less defensible, or less carefully qualified, or more extreme, or just totally unrelated to his point. I think my favorite example comes when they begin to talk about lobsters. Here’s the excerpt:
Peterson: There’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.
Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?
Yes, he proposes that we all live on the sea floor, save some, who shall go to the seafood tanks at restaurants. It’s laughable. But Peterson tries to keep plodding along.
Peterson: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.
Newman: So you’re saying like the lobsters, we’re hard-wired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Where did she get that extreme “and there’s nothing we can do about it”? Peterson has already said that he’s a clinical psychologist who coaches people to change how they related to institutions and to one another within the constraints of human biology. Of course he believes that there is something that can be done about it.
He brought up the lobsters only in an attempt to argue that “one thing we can’t do is say that hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy.”
At this point, we’re near the end of the interview. And given all that preceded it, Newman’s response killed me. Again, she takes an accusatory tack with her guest:
Newman: Aren’t you just whipping people up into a state of anger?
Peterson: Not at all.
Newman: Divisions between men and women. You’re stirring things up.
Actually, one of the most important things this interview illustrates—one reason it is worth noting at length—is how Newman repeatedly poses as if she is holding a controversialist accountable, when in fact, for the duration of the interview, it is she that is “stirring things up” and “whipping people into a state of anger.”
At every turn, she is the one who takes her subject’s words and makes them seem more extreme, or more hostile to women, or more shocking in their implications than Peterson’s remarks themselves support. Almost all of the most inflammatory views that were aired in the interview are ascribed by Newman to Peterson, who then disputes that she has accurately characterized his words.
There are moments when Newman seems earnestly confused, and perhaps is. And yet, if it were merely confusion, would she consistently misinterpret him in the more scandalous, less politically correct, more umbrage-stoking direction?"
"Charitably, let’s say her misunderstanding of Jordan’s positions is willful and deliberate, although I rather think not. My experience with most feminists is that they think critical thought is the same as arguing in a high school debate class, where techniques like derailing and turning constitute a ‘win’, which feminists then misconstrue as ‘understanding’. The winning condition for a feminist is never to understand. It is to feel. Angry, avenged, justified, vindicated, outrageous, virtuous – whatever the feeling, that’s how feminists argue. This particular feminist seems oblivious to how patiently Peterson lets her hang herself. At one point she is so flummoxed, she doesn’t know what to feel, and is therefore speechless. “You’ve got me,” she says, almost giddy in Peterson’s power."
It’s Aliveness – Still | Matt Thornton': "Always remember that fighting, and by extension, fighting methods/training epistemologies, are empirically testable things. Any competent blue belt who wasn’t a cooperating stooge, but instead acting as the one thing every functional system needs as a correcting mechanism – a resisting opponent – would prove, repeatedly, that what you’re witnessing in the video above was little more than delusion made physical. And repeated experiments of many different sorts could verify these conclusions.
...areas of claimed proficiency can be tested, and those tests can be repeated, safely, humanely, and without anyone getting seriously hurt (beyond perhaps, their pride).
So if we settle on the fact that we are looking at the Martial Arts equivalent of Scientology, then it must just be about the money, right?
...people who buy into this sort of Martial Arts superstition, like people who spend tens of thousands on Scientology, must be a bit dim. But that proposition, that superstition requires stupidity, is little more than faulty logic.
I don’t think Mitt Romney is stupid. In fact, I think he’s an extremely intelligent man. However, as a Mormon (and we have every reason to believe he’s sincere in his faith), Mitt Romney also believes in a creator God who lives on a planet (or near a star) named Kolob.
Uri Geller was very obviously, a shitty con man and magician. Yet he had physicists, research institutes, and heads of state believing he had “psychic powers”. That is, until he was exposed by the people qualified to expose him, other magicians (the Amazing Randi), on the Johnny Carson show...
Is it so hard to think that someone could have years of experience with functional Martial Arts, and still be taken in by some well-spoken huckster who uses the Martial Arts equivalent of carnival tricks? One of the reasons I continue to talk about Aliveness is because you don’t have to be dumb to fall for Martial Arts delusion; you just have to have one or more of the two following afflictions – a lack of understanding as to what Aliveness actually is, and or, a desire to believe. The first I can help fix. The second I cannot. Some people really want a magic bullet...
There are some profound lessons there. Lessons all of us need to remember. If you want to be believe you can always be fooled. If you want a magic bullet there will always be someone who will sell you one. And if you’re arrogant enough to believe that your failure of imagination is an insight into necessity – then you too may end up falling for the absurd. Hubris and nescience frequently come as a team...
Life is short. Time is precious. And truth always matters. So why do I care? I care because at their worst, fantasy based Martial Arts like Systema are dangerous. And at their best fantasy based Martial Arts like Systema are impoverishing. Dangerous because they pretend to teach people how to deal with things like guns, knives, and violent attackers. And impoverishing because they waste peoples time giving them make believe answers where proven solutions exist. Who are they most dangerous and most impoverishing for? Those who need help the most – the weak. I’m not worried that the Jocko Willinks of the world will be taken in by Martin Wheeler’s Systema secrets. But that chubby guy who keeps falling over himself as he haplessly pretends to get a grip on Wheeler, he will be. And that’s why the message is Aliveness – still."
Operation Mindfuck - Wikipedia: "Operation Mindfuck or OM is an important practice in the Discordian religion... It is most often manifested as a decentralized campaign of civil disobedience, activism, art movements, especially performance art and guerrilla art, culture jamming, graffiti and other vandalism, practical jokes, hoaxes, reality hacking, chaos magic, words of power, and anything else that is believed to bring about social change through disrupting paradigms and thus forcing the victim to question the parameters of his or her reality tunnel."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I think that its highly exaggerated that Muslims in America, in the west are under siege. If that were the case, we know of groups in history who were under siege and what they usually do is leave. I don’t see any American Muslims leaving and going back to any Muslim country.
\
Avi Lewis: Your faith in American Democracy is delightful.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Its the best Democracy. Its the best place to be.
Avi Lewis: Tell that to people that believe there have been a couple of stolen elections. That Democracy is completely broken.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I do tell them. You shouldn’t have stood by and watch for the Democracy to be stolen. My point not so much that when the Democrats are in office everyone is happy or when the Republicans are in office, everything is bad. Its that both Republicans and Democrats and the majority of Americans fortunately, feel that they can run for office, they can get power. . .
Avi Lewis: As long as you’re staggeringly rich. Totally connected and the pockets of your donors, you can do anything you want in America.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: In America you can come with no penny, nothing, no money and you can become very wealthy. . .
Avi Lewis: Is there a school that teaches you American cliches? Is it part of your application process that you have to – I’m so upset that I’m losing my cards here. I can’t believe you just said that.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I’ve read Alex De Toqueville and I’ve read about Democracy and lived in countries have no Democracy – that have no founding fathers, that could not, have not invented, could not resolve. . . and so I don’t find myself in the same luxury you do. You grew up in freedom and you can spit on freedom because you don’t know what it is not to have freedom. I haven’t. I know that there are many things wrong with America. And I know that there are many things wrong with Americans, but I still believe that its the best nation in the world.
"Cassie Jaye (Filmmaker, "The Red Pill") joins Dave Rubin to discuss her views on feminism, Men's Rights Activists, and her experience making her documentary "The Red Pill.""
The Will to Prepare to Win - RossTraining.com: "As complicated as life can be, the road to success is usually straightforward. Continually outwork those around you and you’ll eventually rise towards the top in whatever you pursue. Just don’t expect it to be easy. If it were easy, everyone would do it, and we know that’s not the case."
Katie Anne - #Recomp pt. 2 ✌ 170lbs in 2011 to now. The other...: "170lbs in 2011 to now. The other day I posted a photo when I was a runner, weighing anywhere from 114lbs to 135lbs during that phase in my life. Soon after, I was injured running and decided not to run in college. And subsequently, I set my sights on bodybuilding. However, I was seeking extremes for everything. Leading to weight swings of up to 25lbs in a matter of a few weeks (binging, restricting, etc). Throughout this time, I learned #moderation, not deprivation. I learned consistency over extremes. Each phase teaches us important lessons. Remember that."
Answer: That would be short for “vagina.” While some may see North of Vag as a misogynistic term, I can only shake my head and hope they were not publically educated; I’d hate to see tax dollars being wasted that way. It is simply a rallying cry to not be a pussy. And if one can’t see past the simple and obvious point I am trying to make, I can only hope they never vote or procreate. The ego behind adults telling other adults what words they can say or not say is amazing. I never trust these people as they clearly have nothing going on in their lives and instead, spend time policing the world. No Man (or Woman) of Action would ever bother with this. They are simply too busy getting shit done than weeping like a martyr. Being a victim is not sexy."
Curapupas — Eight years ago my journey began with a feeling. ...: "Eight years ago my journey began with a feeling. It was a feeling that I need to take care of my body. That feeling slowly became a desire and a passion, not only to exercise and be healthy and eat right, but a hope to celebrate my body in a way I had only ever seen others do."
Why Men of Action are Better – Jim Wendler: "...it didn't strike me until recently WHY people with passion are so much better. Of course, you have the general attraction to them; everyone who has it, can appreciate/respect what others' are doing. Your interests can be polar opposites yet two people can have an admiration for the other. But there is another thing that makes a person with passion so damn awesome: They tend to stay the hell out of your business. This is because they are too damn busy to gossip, to force their shit down your throat. Their ego isn't so big that they claim to know what to do with your money, your time, your beliefs. Hell, there are actually adults out there telling OTHER ADULTS what words they can or cannot say. The ego on people these days. Unbelievable.
...for those of us that love to do stuff, love what we do, are "People of Action", understand that life is fleeting and should not be wasted being a busybody - you are who I admire. You are what makes the world better. You are who gives others' inspiration. So play your music, feed your garden, rebuild your engine or do whatever action gets your eyes wide and your heart moving. You are what makes the world better and keeps the earth spinning in the right direction. You are what is right."
With school, life, work, and training, I always had goals, and still do. But I see now what Darren was doing. As you get older, you become a different person. Your body changes. Your life changes. The weights I once did and the goals I once had are no longer "me." It's okay to let that part of you go and move on. You don't have to be hung up trying to recapture the weights that you once did when you were 21. I can't be that person that carried the ball 20-30 times a game in high school, played both ways and never came off the field. Chasing those dreams or those weights is a fruitless and scary pursuit that only leads to disappointment. But I'm a new person and can adjust the goals. There's tremendous freedom in not adhering to other's standards and expectations to what you should be. Rather, the goals you set are yours and should follow your mind and heart. Lesson: Your goals and your life are your own; true freedom is not allowing others to make them for you...
Even today, I remember things and quotes that he told me and help me every day. "Put your hand in a bucket of water. Take it out and the hole that you leave is how much impact you will have on the world. But the drops of water that are on your hand; those are the parts of your life that you need to worry about. Those belong to you.""
Be Your Own Leader – Jim Wendler: "Replace the silly "motivation" for some discipline - motivation is a buzzword by people that don't understand what it takes, day in/day out to succeed. I think it's time you adopt the attitude that I like to call being a Personal Leader. A Personal Leader is someone that takes responsibility for every area of his life and doesn't need someone to hold his hand. Yes, we all need support and you must look for help when needed, HOWEVER, at the end of the day, everything is on YOU. So you need to develop yourself into being the leader you need - if that means waking up early, you do it. If that means you have to take extra time for work/job to prepare, then you make it happen. If that means you have to make certain sacrifices that many other don't have to, then do it. People need to understand that to be a leader doesn't mean you have the physical and emotional presence to lead others. It may be as simple as you not being a follower. And if any time in this world we need people to not be blind followers to ignorant leaders, it is now. The thing is this: it's rare to find anyone in the world with the same goals as you. So while it may be nice to find that someone, waiting around for someone to help guide you will result in a waste of a life. This life is all you got - you'll be dead before you know it. Take what you have and squeeze all the life you can out if it. Be your own hero. Lead yourself to greatness. And greatness is not measured in medals, money or public opinion - it is measured in happiness and freedom. And when you strip all the crap away, the noise and bullshit of a fucked up, commercialized world that makes you constantly bow and suck at it's sick, diseased teat - you will have found freedom and happiness. This is turning into something more than you probably asked but I HATE when people waste their one life. Your "gut" check is here and now - mold yourself with your own hands."
Constant Gym-Goer Ditched Her Cardio Workouts for Powerlifting and Lost 37 Lbs.: "For years, Alice Fields was a cardio queen, who would toil away on the treadmill in the hopes of slimming down. But her weight wouldn’t budge — until she started powerlifting. “I was getting up before sunrise and was running 5Ks every morning. It was torture. I wasn’t something I enjoyed at all. But I thought it was what I had to do to lose weight,” Fields, 24, tells PEOPLE, adding that she would heavily restrict her diet. “I’d run until I couldn’t run anymore, and I’d barely eat a thing. Yes, I might have lost 5 kilos in 2 weeks. But once I consumed a normal amount of food again, I’d put 7 kilos back on. It was the classic yoyo effect. There was no consistency.” Fields tried this weight loss method unsuccessfully for around five years, and says she “felt trapped in my own body,” until a friend introduced her to powerlifting 18 months ago. “I fell in love with the sport instantly,” she says. With help from a coach, Fields learned proper form and started on a nutrition course that focuses on your daily protein, fat and carbohydrate intake. “I started noticing changes with my body within about a month,” she says. “Not only had my strength increased dramatically, but my whole body composition changed. My bum was perkier than ever and my clothes were getting loser.” Now, 18 months later, Fields has lost 17 kg. — about 37 lbs. — that she was never able to drop with cardio workouts alone. While she still looks at her total weight, Fields focuses more on muscle gains and lost inches. “I’m always noticing my body change in positive ways, even if the scales stay the same, because I’m losing weight in some places and gaining muscle in others,” she says. “I definitely thought doing only weights would just make me heavier, but I quickly realized, the more muscle I had, the faster my body burnt fat. Not just that, but having more muscle gives you that ‘toned look’ a lot of women want.” “You have a bigger, perkier bum. Your shoulders and arms look leaner and stronger. Powerlifting changes your whole body composition.”"
becoming-meaghan: Two years ago vs today. Almost...: "I had attempted to lose weight countless times before but going into it this time my mindset was a little different. I had always thought “do it for the ‘oh you got hot’ or as revenge for all the people that called you nasty names. Instead, this time I decided to do it for me, for my physical and mental wellbeing and to be taken seriously in my future career (w.e that may be). That shift in thinking made all the difference! Had you taken this #transformationtuesday pic and showed it to the me on the left I would have looked at you in both disbelief and estacy. But I would have said something along the lines of “I will never look like this” because my self confidence was non-existent. Fast forward to today… I’m prepping for my first bikini show, live to help and share my passion for health and fitness with others. I’m ready to take on the world. As impressive as my physical transformation may be, I believe the emotional one to be WAY greater."
Finally Off the Sugar Roller Coaster! | Mark's Daily Apple: "Back then, I was about 25 pounds heavier than I wanted to be, completely addicted to sugar, experiencing food cravings or food comas almost constantly, and living in my head where daily battles occurred regarding the food that I had eaten or wanted to eat. At that time, I was 42 and had spent my years since age 15 obsessing over food. Nutrition and fitness had fascinated me in a healthy way during this time, but a powerful sweet tooth combined with a persistent vulnerability to self-sabotage caused my twenties and much of my thirties to be mostly wasted. At different points during this time, depression and bingeing caused me to live in a bubble. I kept people at arms-length and let very few people into my world. At my lowest point, when friends would ask me to come out with them socially, I would lie and say that I already had plans even though my “plans” consisted of buying a lot of unhealthy food and eating it – stuffing all the feelings that had come up during the day — and then wallowing in my self-hatred. My overeating was so out of control that I attended Overeaters Anonymous meetings. And even though alcohol has never been a problem for me, I attended one Alcoholics Anonymous meeting out of curiosity just to see how similar it might be to my problem. It seemed exactly the same; I used food as a drug in the same way that alcoholics used alcohol...
Now, at age 50, because of the Primal Blueprint and the Primal lifestyle “laws,” I feel healthier, fitter and stronger than I’ve ever been, including high school when I was thin, healthy and played sports all year. My energy is off-the-charts—not in a hyper, bouncing-off-the-walls way but just feeling incredibly clear-headed and alert. No more brain fog! I feel like a machine running on the cleanest fuel, like there’s no sludge in my veins, and everything I eat is being put to good use. I look forward to and enjoy working out. I’ve finally gotten rid of the excess fat that made me feel self-conscious for my entire adult life. My moods are steady, and I feel peaceful. I face my problems now rather than stuffing them with food. And, most importantly, I don’t live in my head anymore. The daily internal battles are gone, freeing up my thoughts so that I can actually engage with and enjoy other people."
