Benzo withdrawal, Jordan Peterson, and more.

I am a podcast fiend. I listen to multiple a day almost every day.

On March 1, 2021, Tim Ferris released a podcast episode with Jordan Peterson who had recently published his new book, ‘Beyond Order’. I did not know much about Peterson, only that I’d heard his name before, and that he was controversial. I listened to Ferris’ show regularly and often learnt about interesting people through him.

At the time, I was back in Saskatchewan and had been hiding from everyone for several weeks. I had given up my apartment in Toronto and put my things in a storage unit. I figured it was as good an idea as any to stay in a friend’s spare bedroom while trying to make sense of life post 2020. Aside from pandemic existentialism, I wrestled with my disinterest in continuing work in paid intimacy – the thing I had spent years building as a young adult. I perceived that my value would be null in a new industry, how would I reconcile this? Maybe through writing, isolation, and podcasts. I downloaded the new episode and went for my daily walk along the river.

After introductory pleasantries, Peterson explained his recent absence from the public sphere by recounting his experience of benzodiazepine withdrawal. My eyes widened as I stopped walking for a moment, surprised by the topic of conversation. I went through benzo withdrawal myself the summer of 2019, then again as the pandemic began in 2020. Hell on earth does a poor job of describing the daily, unrelenting agony that lasted an entire month on both occasions. The pills were not prescribed by a doctor, rather suggested, and obtained by a short-lived friend as a sleep aid. My experience of withdrawal isn’t the focus of this piece. Maybe I’ll write a more detailed post at a later date. In short, I was unaware abruptly stopping consumption after six months of nightly use would result in a dire medical situation. By far one of the worst experiences of my life (that repeated itself only seven months later because I didn't seem to learn that lesson the first time). I didn’t know what was happening. I didn’t tell anyone, I just thought I was dying. I only told a friend after I had walked outside, downtown Toronto, to get groceries and couldn’t understand what traffic lights meant. I knew they meant something, but I didn’t know what. My friend convinced me to go to the ER. The doctor informed me it was withdrawal, and the symptoms would go away eventually. She gave me four Ativan and sent me on my way instructing me not to operate heavy machinery in the meantime. My body vibrated for all waking hours for a full month, it was exhausting agony. I’d drink in the afternoons to give my muscles a rest and finally get a few hours of physical, albeit not mental, peace. I had seizures alone in my apartment, biting off a small piece of the tip of my tongue. I could often feel my eyes wanting to roll back, fighting with them to focus and stay alert was difficult. I could visually confirm that my arms were part of my body but couldn’t feel them as such. With the few brain cells I retained access to, I felt incredible daily shame. Shame for taking substances I didn’t so much as google before consuming. What a complete idiot. I had heard the word Xanax thrown around so much, I figured it wasn’t a big deal. I’d never taken prescription drugs before other than antibiotics. Optimistic naivety characterises a lot of my poor life choices.

I wrote some notes during, and immediately after, my withdrawal. That day, walking along the river, I heard Peterson say several sentences describing his inner world during his withdrawal that were practically the exact phrases I had written down. I felt an instant kinship to him. A sort of parasocial bond of having been through a similar traumatic experience and describing it the same way. He was the first person I’d heard recount an experience of benzo withdrawal, and I had happened upon it seemingly by chance. I promptly bought his new book on Audible a few minutes later and started listening. It began with a preamble further detailing his withdrawal. Once that ended, the book began. After a few minutes, I realised I was missing a lot of background information. I decided it was nonsensical to listen to his fifth book without knowing anything about him or having read his other literature. When I got home, a quick YouTube search landed me on his interview with Helen Lewis from British GQ – an interview with 50 million views. Wowza! Click.

For context, I enrolled in an international studies degree, and ended up graduating with a political studies degree. The courses required to graduate with my initial choice were sparingly offered at my university. I held close to zero interest in politics and took the degree out of a misguided belief that forcing myself would be a good move for my future - some sort of irrational sense of civic duty. I had also mistakenly linked my wanderlust from having been a Rotary ‘youth ambassador’ in Switzerland to the notion that I should study international politics. I reasoned the degree would come in handy as a precursor to my true interest, continuing into law school. So, why not?

I can’t say I learnt much in university. At least, that’s how I look at it now. It’s not that the topics were uninteresting, rather it was too much information all at once to properly absorb anything. Working full time with a full course load for years is exhausting. The tests were mostly multiple choice and more about memorization than comprehension or inspiring independent thought. There was no time for any topic that caught my interest to be further explored until, perhaps, the term was over. Not to mention, I don’t feel the degree helped me prepare for employment post-graduation. Not sure what those four years were about or why I was led to believe my future success depended on completing them.

In university, there was a clear left-leaning political bias. It seemed appropriate to me— a sign the world was improving. Right-leaning figures often came across as self-serving, and right-wing policies the source of most oppression and inequality in society. The ideology appeared to hold a general air of condescension towards those trying to ‘look out for the little guy’.

To my recollection, being of a more right-wing persuasion was never stated as being bad outright. It was simply the ‘opposite’ of being left-wing (as per the term's origins in the French revolution). And yet, it seemed as though the corrections needed in society would be best, if not solely, attained through left-wing ideologies. Their policies would correct historical wrongs and enact the changes all virtuous people want to see. Therefore, it stood to reason that any individuals disagreeing with left-wing ideologies were questionable. What was it about their motivations or morals that didn’t align with the stated ‘good’ path? Why were they disagreeing?

Watching that Jordan Peterson and Helen Lewis interview will forever be burned into my brain. Helen said all the correct, left-wing things. She held all the positions I had been taught were the appropriate way to evaluate societal issues. She drew attention to the right causes and in the right way. She was well-read and quick-witted, but her attitude was somewhat hostile - something about the tone of her voice or look in her eye. I knew it was an interview in which each party held an opposing view, but Peterson didn’t seem as hostile. I found that curious.

I think what I was noticing was, in her eyes, Peterson was a symbol of oppression and suffering in the world. The right-leaning views he held were responsible for all the bad things flourishing in society - if he could only see her side! He is being an agent of evil, dismissing these causes in this way. He is regressing and actively harming society with these views. Can he not see that?!

But he isn’t a symbol of evil or suffering, he simply came to different conclusions based on his research. He didn’t sound like an immoral monster to me. At least, I hadn’t heard any evidence of that, yet. It could hit me in the face any minute now. He appeared to do the same thing Helen did – draw attention to harmful social trends and advocate for groups facing discrimination. They disagreed with almost every view the other held, each finding the other illogical. So then, who was right?

This video was the first time I critically paid attention to a person’s politics and someone’s motivation behind holding a view. I know that sounds crazy because I took a damn degree in political studies, but I felt nothing during those four years. I took interest in topics, but I felt nothing - nothing personal. In that moment, watching that interview, I felt intense focus hanging on every word, every question, every response. I waited to hear how Jordan would explain himself this time! But then, he did, and in a way that demonstrated an incredible amount of thought behind his reasoning. Even though he found her logic flawed, he was able to see a desire for good behind her views. Albeit, contrasted with cognitive dissonance. He didn’t see her as evil, rather a misguided hypocrite, if anything. A more generous characterization than she had offered him (in my view).

Listening carefully to the information Jordan presented, I found I didn’t actually know if Helen was correct in her conclusions. I hadn’t read the research papers or history books on many of these topics like they had. I heard Jordan give answers I hadn’t considered. I began asking myself, “is this possible?”. None of this sounds evil, it just sounds like a different opinion. Peterson and Lewis shared a desire for everyone to get the chance to live out their potential in life free from targeted discrimination and oppression. They disagreed on what that looks like and how to get there (for example, one advocates equity while the other equality). Neither held nefarious desires for segments of society in general. So, I wondered why the focus wasn’t more on their joint good nature in the fight to make society better.

I suppose believing someone holds a different view because they are ignorant, or evil, is the easiest way to understand a concept. If someone isn’t good, they are bad. Critically thinking about ‘why’ requires a lot more work. If I’ve learnt anything in my past year of frantic research, it is this: people don’t hold opposing beliefs because they are evil. It isn’t as simple as a lack intelligence either. There are intelligent individuals across the political spectrum. Everyone has a good reason for believing what they do. Giving others the benefit of the doubt as to why they have come to believe what they do is important. Asking someone why they have come to hold a particular view, listening with an open mind, and sharing what you’ve learnt in life – all of that is key.

I, like many others, will be forever thankful for Jordan Peterson. I’ve learnt a lot from his interviews, debates, podcasts, and literature. I began to question many of the ‘truths’ I had told myself. I asked myself if I truly found my beliefs representative of my truth. Had I critically thought about my life choices? Was my life offering a sense of fulfilment? Were my choices reflective of what I believe in? Enjoying what one does for work is a luxury but finding meaning in one’s work is a moral responsibility. Did I find meaning in my work? Did I think critically about why I believed something? Am I certain the things I have believed are a result of careful consideration? Can I make a steel man argument on behalf of someone who disagrees with me? Am I someone interested in doing the deep work required on these things to know for certain?

I couldn’t say which percentage of Peterson’s views I agree with, only that he never fails to be thought provoking in the most meaningful way. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to properly voice my gratitude for this man’s existence and seemingly never-ending courage. He helped me rediscover the importance and methodology of finding meaning in life when I had completely forgotten. I didn’t realize just how much I needed the grounding and guidance. 

Thanks, Jordan.

{In October 2021 I discovered Africa Brooke on Mikhaila Peterson’s podcast where she recounts a similar experience. I recommend watching that episode here on Youtube.)