The attitude you embody, though it truly does come from a place of higher critical intelligence, fails to see that Peterson is doing damage in culture. Whether one likes it or not, he has become relevant, people are influenced by him, they look up to him and see him as the very thing he is not, an intellectual example. When intellectuals like yourself withdraw from the advancing public discourse, the narrative is lost to people like Peterson, it regresses. — JerseyFlight

Maybe. But you could say the same about many other issues as well -- Creationism, QAnon conspiracies, 9/11 truthers, Anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, etc. If we spend all of our time doing battle with this nonsense, we'll never move on. It's a bottomless bit. We'd have better luck trying to argue people out of Christianity or Islam -- which is to say, very little.

It's a strange phenomenon these days: once someone has locked into a dogma, it's like a black hole -- there's no coming out of it. One wonders what attracts people to these black holes in the first place, but that's why we need to stick to rational argument, evidence, science, etc. -- and hope most people are sane enough to accept reality. Turns out, most people are -- we already have the numbers in this country and around the world. Better to shore up these people and get to work collectively than bother with a minority of those who are too far gone to be rescued.

Maybe. But you could say the same about many other issues as well -- Creationism, QAnon conspiracies, 9/11 truthers, Anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, etc. If we spend all of our time doing battle with this nonsense, we'll never move on. — Xtrix

This assumes we can move on without doing battle with it. I admit, if the cult is small enough and does not pose a threat of future proliferation, to the best of our calculation, then better to let it alone. However, I have seen exactly your approach lose the culture to fanaticism in nearly the space of fifty years. There is real danger on gambling against error. What you are doing is assuming that your level of awareness and education will win out at the end of the day. This is not what we learn from history. Intelligence is always on the defensive!

It's a strange phenomenon these days: once someone has locked into a dogma, it's like a black hole -- there's no coming out of it. One wonders what attracts people to these black holes in the first place, but that's why we need to stick to rational argument, evidence, science, etc. -- and hope most people are sane enough to accept reality. — Xtrix

I agree, we do need to do all these things. But we must also refute error, if we do not it will gain simply because it's attempt to deceive goes unchallenged and the ignorant have no defense against it. As intellectuals we have a social responsibility in this direction.

Turns out, most people are -- we already have the numbers in this country and around the world. Better to shore up these people and get to work collectively than bother with a minority of those who are too far gone to be rescued. — Xtrix

Here, my friend, your optimism is misplaced. Hitler brought himself into power through the zealous actions of a minority. Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman shifted the entire nature of American economics in the direction of capitalism. When they were on the scene intellectuals said the same things about them that you are now saying about Peterson. Our resistance to this kind of stuff matters. I do not do it because it brings me pleasure or I have some kind of obsession, I do it because ideology is dangerous, it destroys lives and sabotages democratic freedom, paving the way to irreparable systems of violence.

In reality this is an admission that one doesn't actually know what to do and so they retreat to the idyllic past, but here the image of the past is itself distorted, projected as a kind of utopia from which mankind has departed. Such a response to the increase of cultural sophistication, which is a response of fear, makes one out to be a reactionary. — JerseyFlight

I have listened to Peterson quite a bit and I am not entirely sure what values you think he is preaching, common decency and personal responsibility mostly?

Further, when Peterson posits that life is dismal, he very likely means something more by it than the fact we have made it dismal. For Peterson, there is a God behind the world, and mankind is in a fallen state, this means humans are, in one sense or another, predestined to the production of negativity — JerseyFlight

Peterson talks quite a lot about how the "left is not negative enough" and the most horrific aspects of life can be viewed to not be human constructs but an interplay of forces that goes beyond human civilisation. That is "the lobster" which aims to prove that hierarchies are not a human construct, he likens wealth inequality to how the tallest trees acquire the most sunlight. He posits that many forms of inequality are just the natural results of people making choices which are in their best interests which he uses to argue against equality of outcome. He suggests many of the problems which are conceptualised as the deficiency of civilisation are in fact badly conceptualised and thus the solutions offered are poorly thought out. So I am finding it difficult to see where you're coming from here, seems to be the antithesis of his views.

The reader needs to be clear, Peterson is a Nihilist, which simply means he accepts the false presumption that value must be rooted is some kind of Eternal, Absolute Idealism in order for value to exist at all. — JerseyFlight

Interesting usage of the term nihilist here, I consider this to be the antithesis of the nihilistic position. Though, I reject the interpretation of "nihilism" talked about by Nietzche as actual nihilism - which is the position that there is no truth value to the meaning of life. The various consequences of can be reasonably disagreed on. I would warn against arguing with me on this term "nihilism", it is not a great term to begin with and I can see that your usage is different, I am happy for you to just consider my usage wrong if it pleases you.

I am not really surprised to see Peterson being unpopular on a highly left-leaning platform but while I don't agree with him on everything, I find his criticisms of the left to be very useful and instructive. I think most of what he says is fairly common sense and likely to produce the good results he claims it will.

This is exactly it, and tragically these young people don't have the resources to place him in context as an intellectual. There is nothing there. Even in the domain of psychology this guy is a joke. The amount of revolutionary research and progress in psychology, in the last 20 years alone, is breathtaking. Peterson exemplifies and embodies none of it. He is still trying to preach the moth-eaten narrative that will power is the agent of human psychological salvation. We know this is nonsense, many other factors are at work. Like I accurately said, he's a conformist and a reactionary. But what is most tragic is that he's not turning out thinkers, he's creating more like himself, those who mindlessly validate the status quo. It should be noted, this is the direct opposite of what it means to be a thinker. — JerseyFlight

Your whole argument from the OP onwards is indistinguishable from biased naïve opinion, which you are quite welcome to of course; but it is not philosophy.

I think most of what he says is fairly common sense and likely to produce the good results he claims it will. — Judaka

This is indeed the dilemma: how does one convince culturated slaves of the evil of slavery? Along comes a man and tells them to adhere to their masters, deep down they have always felt this to be true, when they heed the advice they notice the world makes more sense, their existential angst vanishes, they feel a stronger sense of purpose and they can detect order in the world. All of these things are the products of conformity, they are the result of validating the false truth of what is administered, but this cannot be the way of thinkers. Little does the one who obeys comprehend that his existence is predetermined by a process of production, of the which, he is merely a cog in the wheel. If he never stops to question the system he finds no discontent with it. Let us then praise the preachers of conformity! Let us adhere to their pious ways! After all, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem cannot be systemic, the fault lies with the individual's inability to re-frame his discontent. "Stand up straight, put on a suite, go out and face the world with confidence, for all is equal and fair, opportunity awaits, banish every negative thought."

But what we really have here are lies, we have a kind of regression posited as a form of progression. What we really have here is a system of oppression and power, which through conformity, escapes detection. If it is wrong to question power then it is wrong to live, there is no way around it. The great conspiracy is not conformity, but invincible stupidity, repeatedly presented as intelligence.

If one is born a slave, is raised as a slave, it is no surprise that one should come to believe in the invincible virtue of slavery. But the slave has nothing to fear, because he knows, that if there was anything wrong with slavery, he would certainly be able to detect it! And the fact that he only perceives slavery to be a virtue, is proof that it is a common good. Let us then praise the preachers of conformity! Let us adhere to their pious ways!

:up:

Peterson advocates for the empowerment of the individual while acknowledging the difficulty of life as well as the wonderment of life. I think his framing is well designed to give the individual resilience as well as hope, promoting competence and taking responsibility. What power do you think he avoids questioning? Also, are you interested in debating this or would you prefer to give a sermon?

are you interested in debating this or would you prefer to give a sermon? — Judaka

You're a kind of anti-evangalist, right? — Wayfarer

Peterson advocates for the empowerment of the individual — Judaka

I kinda get the opposite impression: That he argues that individuals should care about themselves and not try to change the world around them. That the world around them is properly run by forces that are beyond the individual, which are expressed in traditions, and one should best accept those as they are. Only very exceptional individuals should ever try to think about changing the world.

Real empowerment, based on your real position and abilities within society. He argues that you should take care of yourself, then if you get that right, try to take care of your family, if you succeed there then try to play an active role in your community. He merely points out that if you can't even get your own shit together then how are you qualified to be explaining to the rest of the world how the economy should function or how law or society should function. Isn't that just common sense? Your value isn't determined by how much you change the course of the nation, one should focus on things in their immediate area first where you can actually make a difference and when they're able to handle that kind of responsibility.

I do it because ideology is dangerous, it destroys lives and sabotages democratic freedom, paving the way to irreparable systems of violence. — JerseyFlight

Like state atheism?

The Communist Party engaged in diverse activities such as destroying places of worship, executing religious leaders, flooding schools and media with anti-religious propaganda, and propagated "scientific atheism".[50][51] It sought to make religion disappear by various means.[52][53]

Within about a year of the revolution, the state expropriated all church property, including the churches themselves, and in the period from 1922 to 1926, 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were killed (a much greater number was subjected to persecution)

More than 200 clerics of various faiths were imprisoned, others were forced to seek work in either industry or agriculture, and some were executed or starved to death.

a government-sanctioned demolition work crew drove a bulldozer over two Chinese Christians who protested the demolition of their church by refusing to step aside

Human Rights Overview reported in 2004 that North Korea remains one of the most repressive governments, with isolation and disregard for international law making monitoring almost impossible.[134] After 1,500 churches were destroyed during the rule of Kim Il Sung from 1948 to 1994,

The Mongol leader at that time was Khorloogiin Choibalsan, a follower of Joseph Stalin, who emulated many of the policies that Stalin had previously implemented in the Soviet Union. The purge virtually succeeded in eliminating Lamaism and cost an estimated thirty to thirty-five thousand lives.

On June 14, 1926, President Calles enacted anticlerical legislation known formally as The Law Reforming the Penal Code and unofficially as the Calles Law.[146] His anti-Catholic actions included outlawing religious orders, depriving the Church of property rights and depriving the clergy of civil liberties, including their right to a trial by jury

the Mexican government persecuted the clergy, killing suspected Cristeros and supporters and often retaliating against innocent individuals.[151] On May 28, 1926, Calles was awarded a medal of merit from the head of Mexico's Scottish rite of Freemasonry for his actions against the Catholics

Calles' insistence on a complete state monopoly on education, suppressing all Catholic education and introducing "socialist" education in its place: "We must enter and take possession of the mind of childhood, the mind of youth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

The People's Republic of Albania had an objective for the eventual elimination of all religion in Albania with the goal of creating an atheist nation, which it declared it had achieved in 1967. In 1976, Albania implemented a constitutional ban on religious activity and propaganda.[14] The government nationalised most property of religious institutions and used it for non-religious purposes, such as cultural centers for young people. Religious literature was banned. Many clergy and theists were tried, tortured, and executed. All foreign Roman Catholic clergy were expelled in 1946.[14][15] Albania was the only country that ever officially banned religion.

The Khmer Rouge attempted to eliminate Cambodia's cultural heritage, including its religions, particularly Theravada Buddhism.[18] Over the four years of Khmer Rouge rule, at least 1.5 million Cambodians perished. Of the sixty thousand Buddhist monks that previously existed, only three thousand survived the Cambodian genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion

Hitler brought himself into power through the zealous actions of a minority. — JerseyFlight

It was the banks that brought him to power. https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/hitlers-bankers-finally-face-up-to-their-sorry-past-26400645.html

Real empowerment, based on your real position and abilities within society. He argues that you should take care of yourself, then if you get that right, try to take care of your family, if you succeed there then try to play an active role in your community. He merely points out that if you can't even get your own shit together then how are you qualified to be explaining to the rest of the world how the economy should function or how law or society should function. Isn't that just common sense? — Judaka

Common sense usually is neither common nor sense.

Apart from that, there is two problems: For one this is an impossible standard. Everyone has problems. But more importantly, it doesn't follow. You'd first have to establish that there is an inherent connection between your ability to have a happy and fulfilling personal & family life and your ability to analyze society. Are we going to judge the writings of Plato, Kant or Wittgenstein by whether or not they got their family life right?

There is also the slight problem that, according to Jordan Peterson, we shouldn't listen to Jordan Peterson.

Your value isn't determined by how much you change the course of the nation, one should focus on things in their immediate area first where you can actually make a difference and when they're able to handle that kind of responsibility. — Judaka

But this is instrumental advice. It applies regardless of your aim. Peterson isn't arguing that you should "think globally act locally". He isn't saying start fighting climate change by changing your diet and consumption habits. He's saying focus on your personal fulfillment and leave climate change to the people in charge.

I should have use the word "implies" instead of "claim," although I honestly don't see much difference, because the implication implies the claim whether spoken or not. — JerseyFlight

There's a huge difference between quoting what someone has said or written and what one thinks a person is implying.

Chapter 6 of Peterson's book is "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" but he obviously doesn't mean that literally. He's not saying only people whose houses are 100% clean are entitled to try to change the world. Nor does he says that only people whose family lives are perfect are entitled to opinions.

In the chapter he uses Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a model: Solzhenitsyn didn't just curse his fate in the gulag, he poured over the details of his own life "with a fine toothed comb" and engaged in the type of self-reflection to make his work a masterpiece. All Peterson seems to be asking is that people approach the world from a standpoint involving humility and responsibility before criticizing the world. He's not saying you're not allowed to, I don't know, raise awareness for the chinese concentration camps if you're family life isn't perfect.

I am not really surprised to see Peterson being unpopular on a highly left-leaning platform but while I don't agree with him on everything, I find his criticisms of the left to be very useful and instructive. I think most of what he says is fairly common sense and likely to produce the good results he claims it will. — Judaka

When the "right" is represented by an narcissistic idiot like Trump, it's no wonder that a reasonable academic conservative like Peterson gets attention and ends up in the target hairs of the left. In truth the quality of modern political discourse is really appalling.

Peterson came to public attention by criticizing a Canadian bill, the "Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (Bill C-16)", hence he instantly got the media focus ....and the notoriety in leftist circles. Especially when his self-help instructions got popularity, this seemed (somehow) as a political following to leftists.

Chapter 6 of Peterson's book is "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" but he obviously doesn't mean that literally. He's not saying only people whose houses are 100% clean are entitled to try to change the world. Nor does he says that only people whose family lives are perfect are entitled to opinions. — BitconnectCarlos

So, what does he say, in your interpretation? What's the connection between setting your house in order and criticizing the world?

Peterson's style is to blend self-help with political philosophy. As self help, concentrating on what you yourself can do to deal with your situation is good advice. That's where the Solzhenitsyn example works well. But as a political philosophy, it's a call towards indifference towards social and economic issues. A call which happens to line up very well with the interests of the people who promote Peterson as a philosopher.

Especially when his self-help instructions got popularity, this seemed (somehow) as a political following to leftists. — ssu

Peterson explicitly makes political statements. The culture war between the "post modernist cultural Marxists" and the classical liberals is invoked frequently in his lectures and talks. It's not like "leftists" started attacking him because they're against cleaning your room.

Peterson explicitly makes political statements. — Echarmion

And as I mentioned, his commentary on the Canadian bill was an obvious issue about "culture war", just smacked right into it. Yet what he made his talks about I think were typically closer to his academic job.
But yes, he's been talking about cultural marxists, when at least in my view basically it's more about the effects of post-modernity or anti-modernism of our times rather than a plot of marxists (simply because there's so few actual marxists around).

Hence it's fitting to name this thread "Deconstructing Jordan Peterson".

So, what does he say, in your interpretation? What's the connection between setting your house in order and criticizing the world? — Echarmion

He means set yourself/your mindset in order.

Peterson starts off the chapter talking about the Columbine killers and Carl Panzram - both of whom hated being and described so in detail in their manifestos or biographies. The Columbine killers hated pretty much everything. And they were right in regard to a lot of it - life is often pain, life is unfair, injustice happens constantly. But if you're just criticizing and coming at things from this type of perspective it's a monstrous and nihilistic way to approach the world even if you happen to share some opinions with normal, rational folks.

In politics there might be some use for these people, but Peterson is always speaking to the individual. Political philosophy or theory tends to deal in groups, Peterson does not.

This is indeed the dilemma: how does one convince culturated slaves of the evil of slavery? Along comes a man and tells them to adhere to their masters, deep down they have always felt this to be true, when they heed the advice they notice the world makes more sense, their existential angst vanishes, they feel a stronger sense of purpose and they can detect order in the world. All of these things are the products of conformity, they are the result of validating the false truth of what is administered, but this cannot be the way of thinkers. Little does the one who obeys comprehend that his existence is predetermined by a process of production, of the which, he is merely a cog in the wheel. If he never stops to question the system he finds no discontent with it. Let us then praise the preachers of conformity! Let us adhere to their pious ways! After all, there is nothing wrong with the system, the problem cannot be systemic, the fault lies with the individual's inability to re-frame his discontent. "Stand up straight, put on a suite, go out and face the world with confidence, for all is equal and fair, opportunity awaits, banish every negative thought." — JerseyFlight

I will say, your response can be directly applied to how people respond to philosophical pessimism. In other words, when the pessimist casts aspersions on being born and life itself, pointing out the structural deficiencies and negative aspects of that structure, people will turn it around on the questioner. It must be a deficiency in the person seeing the deficiency, but never the system itself. You can call it existential gaslighting.

But yes, he's been talking about cultural marxists, when at least in my view basically it's more about the effects of post-modernity or anti-modernism of our times rather than a plot of marxists (simply because there's so few actual marxists around). — ssu

Also because Marxism is the polar opposite of a post-modern view. For Marx, history itself had an objective purpose that could be known.

But one good video to look at for Petersons political stance is in his interview with Steven Pinker, the author of enlightenment now. Watching it, it was very obvious to me that Peterson at every turn brought up "cultural maxism" and "post-modernism" as the bogeyman that threaten our achievements, while Pinker, while sharing some of Peterson's views, was much more neutral. The "culture war" is not just an aside for Peterson. It's the main focus of his philosophy. He conceptualizes it as literally an archetypical fight between light and darkness.

He means set yourself/your mindset in order. — BitconnectCarlos

Good advice, certainly, but what if an unordered mind comes up with something rather important?

Peterson starts off the chapter talking about the Columbine killers and Carl Panzram - both of whom hated being and described so in detail in their manifestos or biographies. The Columbine killers hated pretty much everything. And they were right in regard to a lot of it - life is often pain, life is unfair, injustice happens constantly. But if you're just criticizing and coming at things from this type of perspective it's a monstrous and nihilistic way to approach the world even if you happen to share some opinions with normal, rational folks. — BitconnectCarlos

Which seems to be saying that if you don't set yourself in order first, your arguments are going to be bad. But this implies that Peterson already knows the arguments are bad, so obviously he has a way to decide that based on the arguments themselves. Why then shouldn't they simply be part of the "marketplace of ideas", which Peterson presumably holds in high regard?

In politics there might be some use for these people, but Peterson is always speaking to the individual. Political philosophy or theory tends to deal in groups, Peterson does not. — BitconnectCarlos

I think quite the opposite is true. Peterson cares a great deal about groups. Behind the self-help is a political philosophy that's very worried about the wrong group being in power.

I will say, your response can be directly applied to how people respond to philosophical pessimism. In other words, when the pessimist casts aspersions on being born and life itself, pointing out the structural deficiencies and negative aspects of that structure, people will turn it around on the questioner. It must be a deficiency in the person seeing the deficiency, but never the system itself. You can call it existential gaslighting. — schopenhauer1

So very true. The reason is because humans cannot handle psychological pain, and reality is painful, it is frightening = hence, humans cannot handle reality. Most thinkers simply bury their heads in the sand... no, this is not true, that would be easier to deal with, most thinkers construct a delusional narrative to counter the negative reality. In Peterson's case it's simply conformity, validating the false truth of the administered world as though it comprised totality. This mindless approach to the world was ripped apart by the Frankfurt School, precisely because 1) it's false and 2) it sets the social stage for genocide and totalitarianism. Of course, those who are merely conforming do not perceive any of this, their approach to the world is not critical but intuitive, and this means their intuition blinds them to the negative development of reality. There is something very wrong with any thinker who is telling us to forsake thought in exchange for comfort. This is not resistance but resignation, it is functional Nihilism, even if it doesn't adopt the name. Thinkers are better than this, thought is a greater power!

I agree, we do need to do all these things. But we must also refute error, if we do not it will gain simply because it's attempt to deceive goes unchallenged and the ignorant have no defense against it. As intellectuals we have a social responsibility in this direction. — JerseyFlight

Yes, as long as we don't make that the full time job. If we chase every crazy claim, "debating" and "refuting," etc., we go nowhere. It's best to have a positive direction, a plan, a better way of life, a better way of thinking, etc., and let people join in with that -- questioning ourselves and correcting mistakes along the way, but not getting sidetracked by "debunking" things (unless there's a real chance that it helps). The same is true of "debate" -- a ridiculous concept, really.



No -- Sizek is another posturing charlatan.

Turns out, most people are -- we already have the numbers in this country and around the world. Better to shore up these people and get to work collectively than bother with a minority of those who are too far gone to be rescued.
— Xtrix

Here, my friend, your optimism is misplaced. — JerseyFlight

No, it isn't. Because it's not about optimism or pessimism -- it's just a matter of fact: we have the numbers. On almost every issue, from climate change to nuclear weapons to healthcare to Jordan Peterson and QAnon (in the last two cases, the vast majority disapprove).

Hitler brought himself into power through the zealous actions of a minority. Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman shifted the entire nature of American economics in the direction of capitalism. When they were on the scene intellectuals said the same things about them that you are now saying about Peterson. Our resistance to this kind of stuff matters. I do not do it because it brings me pleasure or I have some kind of obsession, I do it because ideology is dangerous, it destroys lives and sabotages democratic freedom, paving the way to irreparable systems of violence. — JerseyFlight

Like I said, it's fine to do if you think it's beneficial. But much like political hobbyism, one can think they're doing a great deal when they're really just wasting their time -- no one is changing their minds and nothing is getting done. Better to seek real power in terms of politics, and to organize with like-minded individuals (of which there are many) to enact real change and prevent the next Hitler or Friedman or whomever.

Peterson advocates for the empowerment of the individual while acknowledging the difficulty of life as well as the wonderment of life. I think his framing is well designed to give the individual resilience as well as hope, promoting competence and taking responsibility. What power do you think he avoids questioning? — Judaka

Tell me what you know about the class structure of society? Tell me what you know about systemic oppression? What do you know about inherited trauma and how that trauma is generated in class systems? Hell, what do you know about trauma in general? [Do you claim that the individual components of a system are not affected by the overall structure and process of the system?]

I would be shocked if you were not an American, and even more, are probably one that escaped poverty, the projects, etc. (Indeed, let us try to sell Peterson's ideology to Syrians).

Oh, and this is all relevant, so very relevant. His framing is designed to ignore concrete systemic issues, as well as psycho-biological factors. His presumption of will power has been totally refuted, we can even make light work of it here and now. What happens when your brain doesn't produce the right amounts of Grey Matter? (After you have figured this out) then tell me how we should deal with people whose brains are deficient in Grey Matter? Is it really just a matter of taking responsibility? I wonder where you think this idea leads? I wonder, has Peterson truly thought deeply about the concept of responsibility and what it means? Have you for that matter?

Let us begin then, since you raised the term tell me what responsibility means?

But much like political hobbyism, one can think they're doing a great deal when they're really just wasting their time — Xtrix

How does a thinker know when he's not wasting time?

In Peterson's case it's simply conformity, validating the false truth of the administered world as though it comprised totality — JerseyFlight

I strongly disagree with you that Peterson advocates for conformity. One only has to look so far as when he talks about Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn or Nazis. All are stories of entire societies getting wrapped into conformity resulting in, as you say, genocide and totalitarianism. He uses these stories as warning to what can happen when a collection of individuals allows themselves to be consumed by ideology without scrutiny or thought. The stories are brought up to encourage people to wrestle with the part of themselves that would allow for ideological possession to the point of being an accessory to genocide. He champions the individual because it is what needs to be most respected in a functioning society.

But much like political hobbyism, one can think they're doing a great deal when they're really just wasting their time
— Xtrix

How does a thinker know when he's not wasting time? — JerseyFlight

When he's talking to those who can think and hear. Also, it's a relative thing -- it may not be a complete waste to teach someone something for 10 years, and then finally have them understand it or change their mind. But compared to other endeavors, perhaps it's not the best use of one's time.

When he's talking to those who can think and hear. — Xtrix

How does he know when this is the case? And further, does this have to happen within a set perimeter of time?

As per your revision: "Also, it's a relative thing -- it may not be a complete waste to teach someone something for 10 years, and then finally have them understand it or change their mind."

If it is a relative thing then how do you know what you're talking about? I thought I heard you say, "they're really just wasting their time -- no one is changing their minds and nothing is getting done." How do you know this?

But one good video to look at for Petersons political stance is in his interview with Steven Pinker, the author of enlightenment now. Watching it, it was very obvious to me that Peterson at every turn brought up "cultural marxism" and "post-modernism" as the bogeyman that threaten our achievements, while Pinker, while sharing some of Peterson's views, was much more neutral. — Echarmion

It's quite clear that the PR or Human Resources departments of large corporations aren't suddenly staffed by "cultural marxists" and the vast majority of university students aren't indoctrinated to marxism, yet public discourse and the discourse of the culture wars have obviously changed. I think this change has been noted and explained well for instance people like Steven Pinker.

The "culture war" is not just an aside for Peterson. It's the main focus of his philosophy. He conceptualizes it as literally an archetypical fight between light and darkness. — Echarmion

I wouldn't it's his main focus. Perhaps it would be similar to say that the main focus of Noam Chomsky's philosophy is to criticize US foreign policy. That he obviously has done in several books, but I gather the linguist who calls himself a left libertarian would have more to say about his personal philosophy. And so too with Peterson.

And on the other hand, there are many leftists who don't like the SJW nonsense either.