the fact that they like him and not some alt-right...is a good thing in my view. — Wayfarer

As the author of the above review I linked to observes, Peterson isn't as "avowedly extreme nor as daft as Milo Yiannopoulos", who is (or was) a major public figure of the "alt-right" similar (albeit, not explicitly) to Richard Spencer or Steve Bannon. While there are undeniable differences between avowed white supremacists, ethno-statists, neo-Nazis etc. and "Lobsterians", Jordan Peterson is not as innocuous as some may think. He continually promotes (bunk) biological essentialism that serves to accentuate the supposedly psychological trait differences between men and women, or between ethnicities (e.g. IQ), providing a "scientifically valid" platform with which the Alt-Right can leverage to further justify their racism, or misogyny. Peterson is a gateway thinker to more nefarious right-wing ideologies.

New article on Jordan Peterson by Nathan Robinson that's thorough:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Excellent :up:

Not bad. Uses some unfair tactics though like ridiculing and drawing unfair inferences from the transcription of a single lecture excerpt, and could have been more balanced in emphasizing JPs positives. I think it's important to recognize that he probably has helped many people motivate themselves to lead better and more productive lives. And also to draw more attention to where he has been vilified and misrepresented. I do agree, now that I've seen parts of his books, he's not much of a writer, and he apparently hasn't demonstrated a great degree of intellectual weight or originality during his career. And it makes me cringe when he compares today's left-wing activists to Mao and so on. So, overall, he's a relatively mediocre thinker philosophically (at least on the global stage onto which he's been suddenly catapulted) with some decent, if not ground-breaking, psychological advice to reel off that has struck a chord with many young people, particularly young men. And that's about it beyond the media circus. At this point, I doubt his fire justifies much more oxygen from the left.

And it makes me cringe when he compares today's left-wing activists to Mao and so on. — Baden

Why should it?

I mean, they all seem lovely and that today, but Mao, Lenin and Stalin all wrote lovely things when they weren't in power too (and even when they were in power).

They talked up a storm about the evils of capitalism, about having a true social democracy, about the end of oppression and alienation, about production for need not profit, all that good stuff. You read early Stalin, it's almost like listening to a more intelligent version of the sort of thing a young, enthusiastic Left anarchist would say today on campus.

So what went wrong? And how do we know the mild-mannered Leftists of today won't turn out the same?

(But of course, some of them are not so mild-mannered, are they? In fact some of them are quite violent sometimes, quite street-thuggy - just like Lenin, Stalin, etc., were when they stopped writing and got a bit of the old praxis going. Funny thing that ... )

I'd agree that Peterson isn't absolutely top tier, but he's not that far off, he's better than 90% of the conformist pikers in academia today.

Because Mao was a savage psychopath who killed millions of his own people. It's a transparently silly and unhelpful comparison. Like comparing conservative activists to Hitler would be.

It's what's known in the business as hyperbole. Good for selling books. Not so good for making intelligent arguments.

Maybe, but an article length seems to me as having to make do as introductions of what's wrong with someone's analysis.

Peterson is a gateway thinker ..... — Maw

Now there’s a rogue metaphor right there....

From that review:

Peterson manages to spin it out over hundreds of pages, and expand it into an elaborate, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unintelligible theory that encompasses everything from the direction of history, to the meaning of life, to the nature of knowledge, to the structure of human decision-making, to the foundations of ethics.

Notice ‘unfalsifiable’ being slipped in there? I wonder whose psychological theories of archetypes might be ‘falsifiable’?

Failing to see the cause of either adulation or condemnation with Peterson. I think the reason he’s become popular is because he is talking values and meaning in a culture in which both are regarded with deep suspicion. But having not read ‘maps of meaning’ and having no intention nor need to, I already like it a lot more than the review.

"I wonder whose psychological theories of archetypes might be ‘falsifiable’?"

My personal opinion is that there are no such psychological theories of that sort that can be falsifiable and that is part of the reason why they are scientifically suspicious.

"I think the reason he’s become popular is because he is talking values and meaning in a culture in which both are regarded with deep suspicion."

Which is what the article alluded to, and what serves as a terrible reason for liking him. (and at the end of the article, the author admits that Peterson is popular because he offers something for this void while others have not, and so simply scoffing at Peterson is insufficient)

"But having not read ‘maps of meaning’ and having no intention nor need to, I already like it a lot more than the review."

So apparently it is proper to like a book more than the review if you've never read it, I don't see the sense in that. I think the offered snippets offer suggestive bits that are sufficient to make a rational judgment on what to suspect, but I could go the Pyrrhonian route and read the whole book before I have any modicum of confidence in that judgment. I just don't think I will.

Now there’s a rogue metaphor right there.... — Wayfarer

Is it? In the article that Saphsin provided, the author mentions a Peterson video titled, "Would I Ever Hit A Woman?" While Peterson does not condone hitting a woman in the video, top-rated comments include:

• My great grandmother once told me “Never hit a women, but you can sure as hell hit her back”
• I would never hit a lady. An aggressive bitch is another question.
• The original ethic was that a gentleman should never hit a lady. At the point that a woman threatens you or your own, she is definitely not a lady. Being a lady, like being a gentleman, requires civility, grace, respect, and a personal responsibility for one’s own behaviour.
• I believe women deserve rights…. and lefts!!!

And while Peterson has explicitly distanced himself from Richard Spencer, the latter, in a tweet, stated, "I respect your work. And we share a lot of common ground and philosophical starting points."

New article on Jordan Peterson by Nathan Robinson that's thorough — Saphsin

It's good, not excellent. I broadly agree with Baden's assessment. It succeeds best in exposing Peterson's rhetorical tricks and his methods for concealing both his ideological intentions and the shallowness of his arguments. I have two main reservations, though.

The first one is that some of the criteria by means of which Robinson categorizes Peterson's intellectual system as vacuous (such as excessive use of jargon and lack of strict empirical falsifiability) are a bit naive and overly formal. Peterson's method, for sure, doesn't conform to the stereotypical canons of empirical scientific research. But the main reason why he fails, intellectually, is because of lack of rigor, lack of consistency and, more importantly, shockingly poor scholarship or fidelity to sources. By the stringent criteria offered by Robinson, not only Peterson's own system fails the test of intellectual worthiness, but so do lots of perfectly good scientific and philosophical paradigms that are equally ambiguous (in many respects) and couched in difficult vocabulary. What makes the apparently indecipherable works of Kant, Einstein, Heidegger or Merleau-Ponty nevertheless valuable is their being firmly enmeshed in antecedent research traditions, sensitive to broad ranges of problems that arose from them, and sensitive to the criticism that obvious responses to those problems are likely to meet. Peterson's output, by comparison, whenever it strays from common sense advice, is freewheeling and completely unmoored from any critical tradition. It is, in short, sophomoric.

My second reservation is that the author laments the leadership vacuum that has enabled Peterson to construct a niche that appeals to people on the left. Zizek's two pieces in The Atlantic and Gyrus' piece on Dream&Flesh appear to me much more successful in pointing out the specific lacuna in current mainstream left-wing political movements that Peterson is exploiting. They do so without resorting to lamenting the absence of an alternative full blown ideology, or calling for an alternative charismatic Messiah-like rallying figure for the left.

One of the bloggers on the Partially Examined Life made an extended critique really hitting home Peterson's poor scholarship as far as anything 'postmodern neomarxist' goes. It's very thorough.



some highlights:

Let’s be clear--I’m not going to deny that there are problems with hyper-professionalized academia, SJWs, etc. etc. I’m extremely sympathetic to your situation regarding bill C-16, and even wrote to you privately expressing as much. I’m a fan of Sargon’s “This Week In Stupid,” and have had enough experiences of my own in and around academia to know that you’re pointing out some legitimate issues and some troubling trends in public opinion. Things like the Sokal hoax are crystal-clear examples of how much of a sham “peer reviewed” journals can be, but they’re not much of a takedown of the actual ideas behind postmodernist theory. If anything, they’re more evident of a general problem within all of academia. After all, Antivaxxing, homosexual shock therapy, craniometry, etc. all had a presence in peer reviewed publications while in fashion.

Saying Derrida and Foucault were Marxists is flat out wrong--the former refused to join the French Socialist Party or write Marxist theory, despite immense pressure to do so, and the latter spent so much time shredding Marxist arguments that they refused to accept him. It is absolutely, inarguably true that both of the thinkers I am defending grew up in cultures that were heavily dominated by Marxist thought. But even then, saying “Marxists make Marxist philosophy” is as inane as saying “Capitalists produce capitalist philosophy” or “Jews produce Jewish philosophy.” You’re either saying something astonishingly, painfully obvious--that people produce thoughts relating to the culture in which they find themselves, or you’re making the very strong claim that thinkers are not able to produce valuable insights if they find themselves within the confines of a restrictive ideology. We know, from people like Martin Luther, Nietzsche, Frederick Douglass, Solzenitzen, and so many more that great thinkers often produce thoughts that run against the grain of the society in which they were raised, despite oppressive regimes that attempted to stifle discussion. Furthermore, the most valuable, ever-green insights from these thinkers are often their critiques, not their recommended solutions.

And while Peterson has explicitly distanced himself from Richard Spencer, the latter, in a tweet, stated, "I respect your work. And we share a lot of common ground and philosophical starting points." — Maw

That's true. In another video with Stefan Molyneux, who also is a libertarian alt-right guru, they lament how tragic it is that mainstream academia doesn't acknowledge the (alleged) racial biological basis of IQ variations between ethnic groups, while also insisting on the (alleged) pointlessness of educational efforts that aim at ameliorating individual cognitive competences.

Incidentally, one of the the YouTube comments that Robinson reproduced, but that you didn't yourself quote, had been posted by me! It was intended sarcastically, though. I fear that I didn't word it carefully enough for the sarcasm to be apparent. I was actually shocked by the fact that Peterson couldn't seemingly fathom that there might be good reason to refrain from hitting women other than just because some men can, if they are angry enough, badly injure or kill women that they hit.

Furthermore, the most valuable, ever-green insights from these thinkers are often their critiques, not their recommended solutions.

Thanks. I very much like this concluding sentence. It also highlight the never-ending character of genuine philosophical inquiry as well as that of sensibly grounded political thought.

Forgot this gem, addressed to Peterson.

You yourself are a postmodern philosopher, and many of your views align neatly with those found in Rorty’s interpretation of Derrida. It’s in your interest to use Postmodern texts to your advantage by dismantling the weaker arguments of your opponents, not to constantly advocate for their elimination from the intellectual world.

I'm a defender of jargon, which can most effectively be used either sparingly or bountifully depending on the case. I think there's a clear difference between that and what the author has a problem with Peterson throwing jargon around to serve as an intellectual cache and not to illuminate actual content. Physics obviously needs its heavy use of jargon and mathematics so Einstein is understandable, and I would say much the same about Kant and Merleau-Ponty, although to a different extent. But when it comes to most things in the social world on a day to day basis, if you can make the same simple point but by saying the same thing everyone else can grasp, then you should. Otherwise you're just trying to trick people into thinking you have something much new to say.

I don't know where the author advocates for a messiah of the Left (he just says Peterson succeeded by filling a gap that the rest of the Left visibly does not fill for American consumers, that's not advocating one figure to fill the gap) and I don't know where the author says there is the absence of an alternative full blown ideology (whatever that means)

Forgot this gem, addressed to Peterson. — fdrake

Yes, Peterson often does 'postmodernism' without being aware of it rather in the way Monsieur Jourdain was unknowingly talking prose. The pragmatist anti-'metaphysical realism' feature of so called postmodern thinking, which permeates Peterson's own conception of pragmatic truth, led to an infamous clash with Sam Harris. Their protracted exchange was an intellectual train wreck. Both Peterson and Harris are regarded by their largely shared fan bases to be experts on the topics of metaphysics and objectivity. Yet, to the dismay of their fans, they took two contradictory stances -- pragmatist and metaphysical realist -- without displaying much understanding of, or acquaintance with, either one of those philosophical traditions.

By the way, I had commented in another thread about one source of Peterson's mongrel assimilation of Marxism and postmodernism.

So apparently it is proper to like a book more than the review if you've never read it, I don't see the sense in that. — Saphsin

It's a casual conversation on an Internet forum. So far everything I've heard about Peterson, which is not much, seems agreeable enough. Can't see what all the fuss is about.

I'm a defender of jargon, which can most effectively be used either sparingly or bountifully depending on the case. I think there's a clear difference between that and what the author has a problem with Peterson throwing jargon around to serve as an intellectual cache and not to illuminate actual content. — Saphsin

Yes, I also understood this to be the point of the author. There are good (needed) and bad (obfuscatory) uses of jargon. But good uses of jargon oftentimes are required in order, precisely, to convey the subtle distinctions that must be made in order to justifiably protect a theory (or paradigm, or hypothesis or philosophical idea) from merely apparent falsification. So, what is it that can serve as a criterion of demarcation between unfalsifiable pseudoscience (or pseudo-philosophy) and jargonous falsifiable albeit unfalsified science (or philosophy)? There is no shortcut that bypasses some moderate level of acquaintance with the topic at hand. That was my main point since the complaints put forward by Robinson seemingly mirror the complaints routinely leveled against philosophy (from friends of empirical hard science), and also against specific fields of mainstream science (by 'skeptics'), on the basis of naive falsificationist epistemological principles. (The idea being: if you can't state your thesis in an way that's easily understandable by a five year old such that it can be immediately falsified or corroborated by 'raw' experience, or common sense, then it is BS).

To concur again with Banno, one thing that infuriates me with Peterson is that he often happens onto some genuine insight, philosophical of psychological, because he seems to be rather well read and intelligent. Hence, he offers some analyses of stories or real life anecdotes that seem to hit at what is indeed important about the psychological dynamics and, indeed, the salient ethical feature of the situation. And yet this insight is not so soon expressed that it gets entangled in the crudest possible forms of sociobiological thinking or loosest kinds of Jungian archetype analysis.

Harris/Peterson debate was painful, I think the criticism that they were both out of their field of expertise; or at least out of their fields of preparation; is well placed. That they were attracted to this interstice of conflict was pleasant though; at least it highlighted that Peterson's aware that most of his generalisations about morality/normativity aren't true in a scientific sense (he calls them 'meta-true' in his lectures sometimes) and that Harris' neuroscience inspired ethical naturalism has some fairly presumptive balls in it. Though I'm not that familiar with Harris (certainly not read the Moral Landscape), so this might be unfair on my part.

I don't think it's really necessary to situate Peterson in the alt-right mileau as a means of undermining him; he's undermined quite throughly in that he sees no need to locate why and how 'postmodern neomarxism' infiltrated the universities, how its pernicious ideology actually propagates etc. Also he's not done even cursory homework on postmodernists or Marxists, I don't think he could acknowledge these errors without significant public backlash at this point.

Also, @Maw, in my experience 'look at how the alt-right or other reactionary blowhards have appropriated him' isn't the kind of thing you can use as a counterpoint to the alt-right against Peterson and that discursive strategy is something they're primed to see as leftist drivel. At best it works when someone is already suspicious of a target, or when you're speaking to someone that's ideologically closer to you than the worst excesses of Youtube Peterson fans. Just because Peterson does it all the time with Stalin and Mao doesn't mean we get to play with the ideological finger paint too. Though, I agree that it's concerning that Peterson's worldview - or what is implicit within it - is so easy to reconcile with bigots.

It's a casual conversation on an Internet forum. So far everything I've heard about Peterson, which is not much, seems agreeable enough. Can't see what all the fuss is about.

Some people are using Peterson to legitimate viewpoints which should under no circumstances be legitimated. This isn't wholly Peterson's fault, and is more of an ideological enemy mine situation imo.

I don't know where the author advocates for a messiah of the Left (he just says Peterson succeeded by filling a gap that the rest of the Left visibly does not fill for American consumers, that's not advocating one figure to fill the gap) and I don't know where the author says there is the absence of an alternative full blown ideology (whatever that means) — Saphsin

Yes, he may not be saying those things explicitly. That had struck me as being implicit, maybe, because he is clearly lamenting the lack of *something*, that the left has itself to blame for, and which enabled Peterson to find his popular niche. The lack of a well developed alternative political ideology, or of an effective alternative leadership, had seems to me what Robinson was pointing to maybe because the other pieces that I mentioned (by Zizek and by Gyrus) themselves complain about those alleged lacunas being red herrings that distract from the necessity of more radical criticisms (some of them actually agreeing with some strands in Peterson's conservative thinking!) of the current liberal and progressive movements and institutions.

Do you know if JP ever responded to this letter from his student. I looked but I didn't see the author's name.

I don't think he did - at least he hasn't yet, if you're referring to the video I recently uploaded.

Conservatives like to blame the victims to distract away from institutions, social organizations, or actions by powerful people. What he's saying here in the article is different. There's a difference between that kind of excuse-making and making important self-reflections that movements are going about their ways insufficiently, which btw, they are in America to my experience in activism.

Conservatives like to blame the victims to distract away from institutions, social organizations, or actions by powerful people. What he's saying is something different. There's a difference between that kind of excuse-making and making important self-reflections that movements are going about their ways insufficiently, which btw, they are in America to my experience in activism. — Saphsin

Yes, I agree. No contest there.

Ideology doesn't cause psychopathy. And whatever Marx thought it wasn't that authoritarian regimes were a good idea, that just creates new classes. Marx wasn't even opposed to capitalism as an economic system of exchange but like Smith and Ricardo pursued a labour theory of value. He was concerned with the unfair share owners of capital received of profits when in his view value was created by labor and not money.

I've seen this being shared around my circles too, and I think the most devastating passage is this one: "Activism, then, is arrogant brats holding “paper on sticks,” a peculiar and appalling phenomenon he believes started in the 60s. Nevermind that what he is talking about is more commonly known as the Civil Rights Movement, and the “paper on sticks” said “We shall overcome” and “End segregated schools” on them. And nevermind that it worked, and was one of the most morally important events of the 20th century. Peterson, who is apparently an alien to whom political action is an unfathomable mystery, thinks it’s been nothing but fifty years of childish virtue-signaling. The activists against the Vietnam War spent years trying to stop a horrific atrocity that killed a million people, and had a very significant effect in drawing attention to that atrocity and finally bringing it to a close. But the students are the ones who “don’t know anything about history.”

This resonates in particular with me because I think what strikes me more and more about Peterson is just how he decontextualizes - consciously or unconsciously, I don't know - so much of what he talks about. And in the absence of context, alot of what he says can indeed come off as eminently reasonable. But then when you realize what he's trying to do with those comments, what they are aimed at - once they are recontextualized, the comments take on a much darker hue. Hence:

"I think it’s worth remembering here what anti-discrimination activists are actually asking for: they want transgender people not to be fired from their jobs for being transgender, not to suffer gratuitously in prisons, to be able to access appropriate healthcare, not to be victimized in hate crimes, and not to be ostracized, evicted, or disdained. Likewise, the social justice claims on race are about: trying to fix the black-white wealth gap, trying to reduce racial discrimination in job applications, trying to reduce race-based health disparities and educational achievement gaps, and reducing the unfair everyday biases that make life harder for people of color. This is the sort of thing the left is focused on." But you wouldn't know this, listening to Peterson.

Because Mao was a savage psychopath who killed millions of his own people. — Baden

You're missing the point, all the big Commies turned out to be savage psychopaths, sure, but that wasn't obvious from their writings and doings before they got power. Before they got power, they wrote nicely, just like modern Leftists do.

So how can we be sure that some of our nice modern Leftists aren't nascent savage psychopaths?

IOW, the comparison is not at all absurd, because the expressed ideology is virtually identical.

So how can we be sure that some of our nice modern Leftists aren't nascent savage psychopaths? — gurugeorge

You're right. To be on the safe side, we should murder Leftists who write nicely. Harsh, to be sure, but we can potentially save millions of lives by being proactive.