Just watched this Jordan Peterson clip (don't bother reading the comments, they are toxic): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTk-69f64KU He makes the good point that those who make efforts to improve themselves make more effective leaders and that these leaders then make wiser decisions regarding necessary collective action, but he also seems to imply that there is a dichotomy between this and advocating for social causes. I think this is wrongheaded; not everyone has to be a leader and lots of people are needed to bolster social movements, almost all of whom will never lead in any meaningful way. This is a sort of dodge I think - individual responsibility includes taking part in social movements because the issues, if not attended to, will affect each of us personally, and, to engage in collective attempts to fix these issues, is to improve one's own personal opportunities or wellbeing.

An example is climate change: each of us, even the top one percent, will be affected by climate catastrophe on a personal level. Additionally, other policies, such as universal basic income and Medicare for all will improve many lives on an individual level if these policies are put into place and by making headway on these fronts the collective and the individual need for positive change will be satisfied. Does anyone have any input on this topic? Is there any reason to prioritize individual needs over collective needs when they come into conflict? It seems that if one can do something that benefits both oneself and humanity significantly that should take priority.

I'm not an activist myself so this is coming from a hypothetical standpoint. But I know that some people truly grow from pouring themselves into social causes, especially when they can see some progress, and that they become wiser and better leaders as a result. This is the kind of personal growth that Peterson appears to so value I think, and it's in people who claim the "pseudo-moralistic stances" that Peterson decries. Once again, any thoughts on this?