10 ms·

What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

142 points by Chaebixi 9y ago

indubitable 9y ago
Surprisingly well written and balanced article in today's world of demonizing those we disagree with and deifying those we agree with. Something increasingly lost in the noise is that in the end we're all just people -- something that this article emphasizes.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  I found it on http://www.aldaily.com http://www.aldaily.com. They find some very good stuff.
nkrisc 9y ago
This is the first time I've heard of Booger McBoogerson, be sounds like the flip-side of everything he whinges about. I choose to not use his preferred proper noun.
- giggles_giggles 9y ago
  And you have every right not to.
- bleezy 9y ago
  Of course it shouldn't be literally illegal to call this man Booger McBoogerson. This should help you realize how harmful C-16 is.
superquest 9y ago
Below is a very good related article about the "intellectual dark web" consisting of academics like Peterson who are being driven out of the academy by orthodoxy and instead work through podcasts, Youtube, Patreon, etc http://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/ http://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/ edit: I made a thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120
- DanAndersen 9y ago
  I think there's something really interesting happening with philosophy and its use of the Internet as a platform. It's a disruption in the same way that traditional media is being disrupted. YouTube debates held by self-made moderators are a sort of spectator sport where differing schools of thought are battling it out rhetorically. The audiences are people who are honed by online debate groups and have experience in one-liner Tweets and trolling to prove a point. When you think about it, it's not all that new of a concept -- the classical philosophers had their "schools" but they weren't like formal institutions with faculty. Philosophers had their followers or acolytes, not matriculated registered students. Maybe the more calcified academic structures we see starting to break down are the aberration rather than the norm.
ihsw2 9y ago
In an environment where non-progressives are shunned, he refrains from shunning them. Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non-progressives deserve to be demonized. And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason. We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cows come home but it doesn't address the fact that people will always seek an icon to revolve around. The only solution to such a situation, like insurgencies in war-zones, is de-escalation and re-integration (of militant progressives and social conservatives into a cohesive society where they both achieve political representation and fairness in the eyes of the law). Unfortunately modern-day progressives (regressives) have no interest in this and as such social conservatives will continue to gravitate towards those that they don't fully understand but nevertheless find appealing.
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  progressives have been shunned and demonized for so much longer. What did you expect would happen?
  - tomsthumb 9y ago
    Without my agreeing or disagreeing, does that make the above posted ideas incorrect? If not, why are they downvoted?
    - sincerely 9y ago
      Probably the way that poster threw in the "regressive" label for modern progressives (who I'm guessing a lot of people might identify as) at the end, if I had to guess.
      - tomsthumb 9y ago
        How would you describe the emerging subset of traditional liberals who are beginning to embrace authoritarian stances in the context of authoritarianism being largely incompatible with liberal ideals? Edit: This is a sincere question. If a more useful description or label exists I would like to know it.
emptybits 9y ago
The article mentions the first interview Sam Harris did with Jordan Peterson. It appeared frustrating for both parties because they got caught up in definitions of words, etc. Still, it was civil so they parted and agreed to talk again. Harris says, "I’d received more listener requests for him than for Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Edward Snowden—or, indeed, any other person on earth."[0] Notably, but not in the article, Harris interviewed Peterson again, two months later.[1] [0] https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peterson/ https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peters... [1] https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/ https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/
- electrograv 9y ago
  This is key: Continuing discussion is essential to scientific and social progress -- especially on topics in which you disagree or may even be offended (if emotions were allowed to dominate), not to the exclusion of such things. This inversion from intellectuals welcoming disagreement to shunning it is a terrifying movement to those who value science and truth-seeking, because in a worst case scenario it could very realistically lower us into a new dark age. Just the necessity of an "intellectual dark web" is itself an extremely concerning reflection of today's intellectual climate, which is becoming hostile to tenets of rationality and civilized discourse. When we subtract dialogue and reason from the picture, all we are left with is emotional conflict -- and rarely do two extremely conflicting emotional views of a topic resolve automatically without the intervention or guidance of rationality.
tomsthumb 9y ago
It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong. He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and definitions without involvement from an elected legislature.
- savanaly 9y ago
  In everyday life I've never found it to be too inconvenient to be as accommodating as possible to others and communicate with them on their own terms, whether that means remembering to use the pronouns they want or using alternative terminology if they think some word is offensive. I've never had to think about how my outlook might change if all of that got a lot more inconvenient though (if more people start requiring ever more varied pronouns, or if so many words get soft-banned as being offensive that it's difficult to communicate with clarity). Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along. I can understand and be sympathetic to Peterson's position in that sense, although I'm not sure if I agree.
  - majormajor 9y ago
    It's easy in one-on-one conversations with people you know or have a reasonable way of learning about. It's hard for public or mass communications with people who have rapidly-evolving preferences and sets of things that can cause offense. Peterson sounds like a dick in his methods, but there's a dangerous regressive trend picking up in mainstream circles of treating disagreement as heresy. We've picked up the worst habits of religion. (And the "right" is too intellectually dishonest to notice that this treend of whining/heresy/safe-spaces-desire trend is deeply entrenched in evangelical and right-wing America, with private schools, "wars on Christmas", etc.)
    - cholantesh 9y ago
      >It's hard for public or mass communications with people who have rapidly-evolving preferences and sets of things that can cause offense. I'm not convinced of this. "Hi all" works as a salutation, in public speaking, you can substitute ladies and gentlemen with lots of far more engaging variants (eg: "Dear friends", "my fellow students" (a favourite of one of my best instructors in college), "distinguished guests", etc), announcers have been using "attention all passengers" and other formal identifiers for a while.
m52go 9y ago
His interview with Camille Paglia is a gem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM
- chimen 9y ago
  The "so you're saying" interview. Def. a good watch. Peterson handles it so good.
  - superquest 9y ago
    No. This is the "so you're saying" interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
  - sremani 9y ago
    That interview is with Cathy Newman BBC4 Radio. Camille is OG feminist, the real deal. Not the 3rd wave Feminists, that are lying around in the media and academia now a days.
    - m52go 9y ago
      Exactly. I've only seen a little bit of her stuff so far but that's been enough to put her high on my list of people to check out more deeply. I find this response from her hysterical: https://twitter.com/100millionbooks/status/913099696075427840 https://twitter.com/100millionbooks/status/91309969607542784...
- superquest 9y ago
  She is such a firebrand. After watching that interview I've tried to make my body language more expressive like hers.
  - hateduser2 9y ago
    Why would you want to copy her body language? Is your natural body language mute and unemotional? That sounds like a bigger problem.
macrael 9y ago
Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.
sincerely 9y ago
>He believes that the insistence on the use of gender-neutral pronouns is rooted in postmodernism, which he sees as thinly disguised Marxism. I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.
- naasking 9y ago
  Many take issue with the minutae of his arguments, like his understanding of postmodernism. Still, if you focus on the problematic symptoms he describes and skip his causal arguments, that is, what he attributes as the cause of those symptoms, he is pointing out real issues that deserve attention.
- carradjm 9y ago
  If I remember correctly, Peterson says that the Neo-Marxists followed up on the theories of postmodernism as a way to bring Marxist thought back into the academically-acceptable realm, and that led to where we are today. So, the author is slightly wrong in his description of Peterson's beliefs. He doesn't see Postmodernism as "thinly disguised Marxism". He see Neo-Marxism as having its roots in Postmodernism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rUPatnXSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rUPatnXSE Good video where he discusses these things in terms of political correctness.
- scribu 9y ago
  I’ve never encountered this interpretation before either. The only way I can make some sense of it is by drawing a correspondence between postmodernism’s “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions” and marxism’s class warfare.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Yes, that's it. What is the ideological effect of “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions?” "Decolonize Science" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXMG7YajHA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXMG7YajHA0
mizzack 9y ago
I think the "danger" around Jordan Peterson goes beyond the pronoun debate. Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his most vocal enemies.
- ihsw2 9y ago
  I'd be surprised if he shunned collectivism if it were a kind that he agreed with, ie: the Judeo-Christian pro-family values (ie: men and women are destined to for monogamous marriage, homosexuality is sinful) collectivism. He sounds like a hardcore libertarian but I think it's a smokescreen for ideologically-driven oppression under another name.
- api 9y ago
  Why do so many fascists and racists like him then? They're collectivists. (Not necessarily saying Peterson is a fascist or a racist, but that's a separate question.)
  - mizzack 9y ago
    From a post elsewhere in these comments: > Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO). > So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed. Same thing applies here. Take note of who is applying these -ist labels, and who they are being applied to: anyone in the outgroup. I would be floored to discover if the majority of these strawmen "fascists" and "racists" are a collective by any definition other than "not on board with the cause."
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    > Why do so many fascists and racists like him then? Because they aren't very bright and also don’t pay attention when he tell them how stupid their ideology is?
beat 9y ago
Thinking to his issue over pronouns... He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole. And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
- renlo 9y ago
  I want you to refer to me using the 'floop' pronoun. Here's an example sentence: `Floop was referring to floopself when floop said floop wanted to go home`. If you don't use my 'floop' pronoun you're an asshole and a bigot, just apologize to me and I will forgive you. In all seriousness, I have no issue with people who want to be referred to by traditional pronouns that they choose for themselves. I do have an issue when people make up pronouns and demand that you use them, and if you don't use them then it makes you a bigot and an asshole (as you mention yourself). There are enough difficulties in remembering things as it is, why do I need to remember what made up pronoun you want me to use?
  - nkrisc 9y ago
    If you sincerely wanted that, then I would at least try to respect that. You don't need to. You can choose to or not to. And they can choose to think you're an asshole. That's their choice. You can't control what they think of you just as they can't control what you call them.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    If it was even remotely plausible that being addressed using derivatives of "he" or "she" rather than "floop" caused you distress, I think I'd try to use "floop". If the "floop" thing is just wantonly imposing your will over how others speak, then the pendulum has swung the other way: you're now falling afoul of "don't be an asshole".
  - beat 9y ago
    If you're serious about being called a floop, that's fine. I'll try to be good about it. If you're demanding to be called a floop when you don't see yourself as a floop, just so you can mock those who don't call you floop as an ironic metaphor for people who are actually serious about their pronouns, then you're not a floop. You're an asshole. And trust me as someone who has a lot of friends with unusual gender identities - if you're sincere, they won't be calling you an asshole and a bigot when you sometimes screw up, because they know you're trying, and they know it's hard. It's refusal that gets you called out, not accidents.
hashberry 9y ago
Jordan Peterson became famous after a student tried to debate him about his "Nazi followers" and gender pronouns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA Many people see him as an enemy because of his conservative viewpoints. His most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
- js8 9y ago
  > his most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.
  - api 9y ago
    I'm fairly socially liberal too and on the fence about him. He says a lot of interesting things and I've never been a fan of postmodernism which I regard as a form of "pseudo-profound bullshit," but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists. Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.
    - Chaebixi 9y ago
      > but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists. > Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual. Seems like he has no love for the alt-right: > But when [Peterson has] been lumped in with what’s come to be called the alt-right, as happens fairly regularly, Peterson has pushed back, calling it "seriously wrong." The erstwhile socialist considers himself a classic British liberal, and he has castigated the far right for engaging in the "pathology of racial pride."
    - jnbiche 9y ago
jsnk 9y ago
The article really tries hard to paint Jordan Peterson (JP) as a controversial figure who espouses fringe messages. The article uses adjectives like "controversial" and "polarizing" to describe JP. His public presence is "notoriety". His followers are said to be "something akin to a cult following". He "appears on TV, including on Fox & Friends, President Trump’s preferred morning show". WoW so edgy. But is JP really the one who is controversial and polarizing? - JP is against the Pomo stuff that passes for scholarship now a days. https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en - We have professors university calling for violence against his political opponents. http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-professor-justifies-antifa-violence-and-jokes-about-dead-cops/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-professor... - We had a Antifa professor who nearly killed a guy hitting someone with a heavy bike lock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg (WARNING: GRAPHIC) Is JP really the one who is polarizing and extreme here? The left academic really dropped the ball not pointing out their own dirty laundry and cleaning out their own cesspool of fake academics and violent thugs.
- superquest 9y ago
  I think the article was pretty fair. He is controversial and polarizing: many people hate him and many people love him. https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/ https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes/ are kind of cultish. It's a very ironic cult, but a bit of a cult nonetheless.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
icantdrive55 9y ago
Every generation has a successful* fifty plus year old telling the 20 plus year olds how to live. Mine was The Road Less Traveled, by I Forgot--Actually M. Scott Peck. It was written by a M--edical Dr. so it carried weight at the time. It started off with, "Life is hard." Yes--it is, so why not apply yourself in life/school/career? How do you argue with that? It was also filled with stuff that fits perfectly with a upper middle class white family. Oh yea, and God. Can't leave out God when your making obscene amounts of money. (The first month he received $600, which was enough to help purchase better equipment to film his lectures. But the amount kept growing and, at last count, topped $60,000 per month (Peterson now keeps the amount he’s raising private) Anyhoo--my advice is get through life without busting a mental gasket. Yes, I had a breakdown in my twenties, and gave never been the same. My only sense that stayed in tack was indentifing charlatans, and filthy greedy Lookers. I don't care what this guy is spouting. It sounds like a rail against the status quo--which will evolve on it's own--in most cases. Our rights our being stomped on by the wealthy, and we are reading about some old fool who objects to gender pronouns? Now--that's crazy.
lixtra 9y ago
I would place myself in the conservative corner, but I find Peterson quite problematic. 1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures. But if you don’t „follow“ and instead analyze what he is saying and how he forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less conclusive. 2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.) 3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining. 2. and 3. put his followers in a depressed state where he can uplift them with 1. No wonder he has a sect like following. His conservative debates are more to the point but I‘m not sure if it is not just advertising for his „religious lectures“. That’s what I find dangerous about him.
- hashberry 9y ago
  I understand that cult leaders can be problematic. But do you think his followers are becoming a danger to society?
  - lixtra 9y ago
    In total it’s a tiny rather peaceful group. I don’t see a danger for society. I’m sure he does help some of his followers. But I doubt that most of his followers profit long term from him. At some point they should move on for their own good.
    - andai 9y ago
      In response to your last sentence, I am interpreting that as a judgment that the quality of his lectures is inferior to those to which people should move on to, is that right? Do you have any recommendations?
      - lixtra 9y ago
        I‘m tempted to say think for yourself... It may sound like a different category but i found listening to Tim Ferris and Guy Raz much more positive and felt energized to try stuff. JBP helps you to do your dishes but the two other push you to pursue your dreams. Your mileage my vary.
adomanico 9y ago
Jordan Peterson is not extreme at all. We are just currently in a climate where nuanced opinions and observations are ignored by radical ideologues.
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  He is not radical but he is outspoken and does not let himself be cowed. This antagonises other outspoken people who have been able to silence a large part of their opposition by labelling them as racist, insert-whatever-identity-phobe, nazi and such. When they tried the same with Peterson by calling him a 'transphobe' their attempts spectacularly backfired in that they drew the attention of the general public to Peterson which quickly gave him a much larger following than he normally would have had.
  - mizzack 9y ago
    It's the same pattern with Nicholas Christakis and Bret Weinstein. An association the article pointed out, but didn't mention the pejorative labels applied to those two.
Erik816 9y ago
What is often lost since Peterson became "famous" after the whole gender pronoun controversy is the quality and depth of his thinking and lecturing that was already available on YouTube. This article starts with that, and explains his popularity as a teacher at Harvard and Toronto. I had been watching his lectures for about a year before the pronoun issue, and his ideas are fascinating and deep. They tie together many disparate fields and ideas into an original and interesting synthesis. But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. There are problems with it, and it deserves to be criticized (Peterson would be the first to agree). There are also profound insights that can help elevate your thinking if you can incorporate them. Lots of people don't have the intellectual background or ability to do so. But everyone can form a 2 second hot take on one of his more recent controversial statements, so that is what gets discussed.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. You can think of Jordan Peterson as going just a bit farther than Sam Harris, when Sam Harris says that we should learn from religion by practicing things like meditation. Jordan Peterson comes from the position that things like myth and religion co-evolved with human beings and human society. Even if the literal epistemology of religion and myth is dead wrong on the conscious/rational/scientific level, it still contains insights into the nature of human beings' self regulation because of that co-evolution. Often, these things operate at below the level of consciousness, as we would expect such things to, given that they co-evolved with us from a time before sentient consciousness.
- mywittyname 9y ago
  I was quite surprised to discover that the alt-right venerate him. I got the impression that he was pretty liberal. I mean, I support LGBTQ rights, but don't agree that people should be forced to use appropriate gender pronouns. I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.
  - deleted 9y ago
empanadada 9y ago
As an interlocutor, Jordan Peterson seems like a reasonable person to debate with. But his followers are quite dangerous, much like many other political thinkers, whose suggestions were modest, but the followers took it to mean something else...
- ankushnarula 9y ago
  Which followers? And what did they take it to mean?
krick 9y ago
So, to put it short: "What's dangerous about Jordan Peterson is that he makes ideas we don't like sound plausible"? I don't really see an answer to the question in title. Anyway, his lectures for psychology students on youtube are quite nice to listen, even though I find it problematic how often he treats hard facts off-handedly to speak in favor of his overall narrative. I wonder if there are more courses (especially on non-technical subjects) of the same quality freely available on youtube.

142 points by Chaebixi 9y ago

Surprisingly well written and balanced article in today's world of demonizing those we disagree with and deifying those we agree with. Something increasingly lost in the noise is that in the end we're all just people -- something that this article emphasizes.

Chaebixi 9y ago
I found it on http://www.aldaily.com http://www.aldaily.com. They find some very good stuff.

nkrisc 9y ago

This is the first time I've heard of Booger McBoogerson, be sounds like the flip-side of everything he whinges about. I choose to not use his preferred proper noun.

giggles_giggles 9y ago
And you have every right not to.
bleezy 9y ago
Of course it shouldn't be literally illegal to call this man Booger McBoogerson. This should help you realize how harmful C-16 is.

superquest 9y ago

Below is a very good related article about the "intellectual dark web" consisting of academics like Peterson who are being driven out of the academy by orthodoxy and instead work through podcasts, Youtube, Patreon, etc http://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/ http://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/ edit: I made a thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120

DanAndersen 9y ago
I think there's something really interesting happening with philosophy and its use of the Internet as a platform. It's a disruption in the same way that traditional media is being disrupted. YouTube debates held by self-made moderators are a sort of spectator sport where differing schools of thought are battling it out rhetorically. The audiences are people who are honed by online debate groups and have experience in one-liner Tweets and trolling to prove a point. When you think about it, it's not all that new of a concept -- the classical philosophers had their "schools" but they weren't like formal institutions with faculty. Philosophers had their followers or acolytes, not matriculated registered students. Maybe the more calcified academic structures we see starting to break down are the aberration rather than the norm.

ihsw2 9y ago

In an environment where non-progressives are shunned, he refrains from shunning them. Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non-progressives deserve to be demonized. And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason. We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cows come home but it doesn't address the fact that people will always seek an icon to revolve around. The only solution to such a situation, like insurgencies in war-zones, is de-escalation and re-integration (of militant progressives and social conservatives into a cohesive society where they both achieve political representation and fairness in the eyes of the law). Unfortunately modern-day progressives (regressives) have no interest in this and as such social conservatives will continue to gravitate towards those that they don't fully understand but nevertheless find appealing.

optimuspaul 9y ago
progressives have been shunned and demonized for so much longer. What did you expect would happen?
- tomsthumb 9y ago
  Without my agreeing or disagreeing, does that make the above posted ideas incorrect? If not, why are they downvoted?
  - sincerely 9y ago
    Probably the way that poster threw in the "regressive" label for modern progressives (who I'm guessing a lot of people might identify as) at the end, if I had to guess.
    - tomsthumb 9y ago
      How would you describe the emerging subset of traditional liberals who are beginning to embrace authoritarian stances in the context of authoritarianism being largely incompatible with liberal ideals? Edit: This is a sincere question. If a more useful description or label exists I would like to know it.

emptybits 9y ago

The article mentions the first interview Sam Harris did with Jordan Peterson. It appeared frustrating for both parties because they got caught up in definitions of words, etc. Still, it was civil so they parted and agreed to talk again. Harris says, "I’d received more listener requests for him than for Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Edward Snowden—or, indeed, any other person on earth."[0] Notably, but not in the article, Harris interviewed Peterson again, two months later.[1] [0] https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peterson/ https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peters... [1] https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/ https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/

electrograv 9y ago
This is key: Continuing discussion is essential to scientific and social progress -- especially on topics in which you disagree or may even be offended (if emotions were allowed to dominate), not to the exclusion of such things. This inversion from intellectuals welcoming disagreement to shunning it is a terrifying movement to those who value science and truth-seeking, because in a worst case scenario it could very realistically lower us into a new dark age. Just the necessity of an "intellectual dark web" is itself an extremely concerning reflection of today's intellectual climate, which is becoming hostile to tenets of rationality and civilized discourse. When we subtract dialogue and reason from the picture, all we are left with is emotional conflict -- and rarely do two extremely conflicting emotional views of a topic resolve automatically without the intervention or guidance of rationality.

tomsthumb 9y ago

It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong. He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and definitions without involvement from an elected legislature.

savanaly 9y ago
In everyday life I've never found it to be too inconvenient to be as accommodating as possible to others and communicate with them on their own terms, whether that means remembering to use the pronouns they want or using alternative terminology if they think some word is offensive. I've never had to think about how my outlook might change if all of that got a lot more inconvenient though (if more people start requiring ever more varied pronouns, or if so many words get soft-banned as being offensive that it's difficult to communicate with clarity). Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along. I can understand and be sympathetic to Peterson's position in that sense, although I'm not sure if I agree.
- majormajor 9y ago
  It's easy in one-on-one conversations with people you know or have a reasonable way of learning about. It's hard for public or mass communications with people who have rapidly-evolving preferences and sets of things that can cause offense. Peterson sounds like a dick in his methods, but there's a dangerous regressive trend picking up in mainstream circles of treating disagreement as heresy. We've picked up the worst habits of religion. (And the "right" is too intellectually dishonest to notice that this treend of whining/heresy/safe-spaces-desire trend is deeply entrenched in evangelical and right-wing America, with private schools, "wars on Christmas", etc.)
  - cholantesh 9y ago
    >It's hard for public or mass communications with people who have rapidly-evolving preferences and sets of things that can cause offense. I'm not convinced of this. "Hi all" works as a salutation, in public speaking, you can substitute ladies and gentlemen with lots of far more engaging variants (eg: "Dear friends", "my fellow students" (a favourite of one of my best instructors in college), "distinguished guests", etc), announcers have been using "attention all passengers" and other formal identifiers for a while.

m52go 9y ago

His interview with Camille Paglia is a gem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM

chimen 9y ago
The "so you're saying" interview. Def. a good watch. Peterson handles it so good.
- superquest 9y ago
  No. This is the "so you're saying" interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
- sremani 9y ago
  That interview is with Cathy Newman BBC4 Radio. Camille is OG feminist, the real deal. Not the 3rd wave Feminists, that are lying around in the media and academia now a days.
  - m52go 9y ago
    Exactly. I've only seen a little bit of her stuff so far but that's been enough to put her high on my list of people to check out more deeply. I find this response from her hysterical: https://twitter.com/100millionbooks/status/913099696075427840 https://twitter.com/100millionbooks/status/91309969607542784...
superquest 9y ago
She is such a firebrand. After watching that interview I've tried to make my body language more expressive like hers.
- hateduser2 9y ago
  Why would you want to copy her body language? Is your natural body language mute and unemotional? That sounds like a bigger problem.

macrael 9y ago

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

sincerely 9y ago

>He believes that the insistence on the use of gender-neutral pronouns is rooted in postmodernism, which he sees as thinly disguised Marxism. I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.

naasking 9y ago
Many take issue with the minutae of his arguments, like his understanding of postmodernism. Still, if you focus on the problematic symptoms he describes and skip his causal arguments, that is, what he attributes as the cause of those symptoms, he is pointing out real issues that deserve attention.
carradjm 9y ago
If I remember correctly, Peterson says that the Neo-Marxists followed up on the theories of postmodernism as a way to bring Marxist thought back into the academically-acceptable realm, and that led to where we are today. So, the author is slightly wrong in his description of Peterson's beliefs. He doesn't see Postmodernism as "thinly disguised Marxism". He see Neo-Marxism as having its roots in Postmodernism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rUPatnXSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rUPatnXSE Good video where he discusses these things in terms of political correctness.
scribu 9y ago
I’ve never encountered this interpretation before either. The only way I can make some sense of it is by drawing a correspondence between postmodernism’s “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions” and marxism’s class warfare.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Yes, that's it. What is the ideological effect of “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions?” "Decolonize Science" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXMG7YajHA0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXMG7YajHA0

mizzack 9y ago

I think the "danger" around Jordan Peterson goes beyond the pronoun debate. Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his most vocal enemies.

ihsw2 9y ago
I'd be surprised if he shunned collectivism if it were a kind that he agreed with, ie: the Judeo-Christian pro-family values (ie: men and women are destined to for monogamous marriage, homosexuality is sinful) collectivism. He sounds like a hardcore libertarian but I think it's a smokescreen for ideologically-driven oppression under another name.
api 9y ago
Why do so many fascists and racists like him then? They're collectivists. (Not necessarily saying Peterson is a fascist or a racist, but that's a separate question.)
- mizzack 9y ago
  From a post elsewhere in these comments: > Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO). > So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed. Same thing applies here. Take note of who is applying these -ist labels, and who they are being applied to: anyone in the outgroup. I would be floored to discover if the majority of these strawmen "fascists" and "racists" are a collective by any definition other than "not on board with the cause."
- reitanqild 9y ago
  > Why do so many fascists and racists like him then? Because they aren't very bright and also don’t pay attention when he tell them how stupid their ideology is?

beat 9y ago

Thinking to his issue over pronouns... He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole. And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.

renlo 9y ago
I want you to refer to me using the 'floop' pronoun. Here's an example sentence: `Floop was referring to floopself when floop said floop wanted to go home`. If you don't use my 'floop' pronoun you're an asshole and a bigot, just apologize to me and I will forgive you. In all seriousness, I have no issue with people who want to be referred to by traditional pronouns that they choose for themselves. I do have an issue when people make up pronouns and demand that you use them, and if you don't use them then it makes you a bigot and an asshole (as you mention yourself). There are enough difficulties in remembering things as it is, why do I need to remember what made up pronoun you want me to use?
- nkrisc 9y ago
  If you sincerely wanted that, then I would at least try to respect that. You don't need to. You can choose to or not to. And they can choose to think you're an asshole. That's their choice. You can't control what they think of you just as they can't control what you call them.
- kazinator 9y ago
  If it was even remotely plausible that being addressed using derivatives of "he" or "she" rather than "floop" caused you distress, I think I'd try to use "floop". If the "floop" thing is just wantonly imposing your will over how others speak, then the pendulum has swung the other way: you're now falling afoul of "don't be an asshole".
- beat 9y ago
  If you're serious about being called a floop, that's fine. I'll try to be good about it. If you're demanding to be called a floop when you don't see yourself as a floop, just so you can mock those who don't call you floop as an ironic metaphor for people who are actually serious about their pronouns, then you're not a floop. You're an asshole. And trust me as someone who has a lot of friends with unusual gender identities - if you're sincere, they won't be calling you an asshole and a bigot when you sometimes screw up, because they know you're trying, and they know it's hard. It's refusal that gets you called out, not accidents.

hashberry 9y ago

Jordan Peterson became famous after a student tried to debate him about his "Nazi followers" and gender pronouns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA Many people see him as an enemy because of his conservative viewpoints. His most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

js8 9y ago
> his most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.
- api 9y ago
  I'm fairly socially liberal too and on the fence about him. He says a lot of interesting things and I've never been a fan of postmodernism which I regard as a form of "pseudo-profound bullshit," but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists. Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    > but I keep getting hung up by the fact that a whole lot of Peterson's followers are fascists and racists. > Of course the same might have been said at one time about Nietzsche and Jung. Some Nazis loved Nietzche but it was not all that mutual. Seems like he has no love for the alt-right: > But when [Peterson has] been lumped in with what’s come to be called the alt-right, as happens fairly regularly, Peterson has pushed back, calling it "seriously wrong." The erstwhile socialist considers himself a classic British liberal, and he has castigated the far right for engaging in the "pathology of racial pride."
  - jnbiche 9y ago

jsnk 9y ago

The article really tries hard to paint Jordan Peterson (JP) as a controversial figure who espouses fringe messages. The article uses adjectives like "controversial" and "polarizing" to describe JP. His public presence is "notoriety". His followers are said to be "something akin to a cult following". He "appears on TV, including on Fox & Friends, President Trump’s preferred morning show". WoW so edgy. But is JP really the one who is controversial and polarizing? - JP is against the Pomo stuff that passes for scholarship now a days. https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en - We have professors university calling for violence against his political opponents. http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-professor-justifies-antifa-violence-and-jokes-about-dead-cops/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-professor... - We had a Antifa professor who nearly killed a guy hitting someone with a heavy bike lock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg (WARNING: GRAPHIC) Is JP really the one who is polarizing and extreme here? The left academic really dropped the ball not pointing out their own dirty laundry and cleaning out their own cesspool of fake academics and violent thugs.

superquest 9y ago
I think the article was pretty fair. He is controversial and polarizing: many people hate him and many people love him. https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/ https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Jordan_Peterson_Memes/ are kind of cultish. It's a very ironic cult, but a bit of a cult nonetheless.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

icantdrive55 9y ago

Every generation has a successful* fifty plus year old telling the 20 plus year olds how to live. Mine was The Road Less Traveled, by I Forgot--Actually M. Scott Peck. It was written by a M--edical Dr. so it carried weight at the time. It started off with, "Life is hard." Yes--it is, so why not apply yourself in life/school/career? How do you argue with that? It was also filled with stuff that fits perfectly with a upper middle class white family. Oh yea, and God. Can't leave out God when your making obscene amounts of money. (The first month he received $600, which was enough to help purchase better equipment to film his lectures. But the amount kept growing and, at last count, topped $60,000 per month (Peterson now keeps the amount he’s raising private) Anyhoo--my advice is get through life without busting a mental gasket. Yes, I had a breakdown in my twenties, and gave never been the same. My only sense that stayed in tack was indentifing charlatans, and filthy greedy Lookers. I don't care what this guy is spouting. It sounds like a rail against the status quo--which will evolve on it's own--in most cases. Our rights our being stomped on by the wealthy, and we are reading about some old fool who objects to gender pronouns? Now--that's crazy.

lixtra 9y ago

I would place myself in the conservative corner, but I find Peterson quite problematic. 1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures. But if you don’t „follow“ and instead analyze what he is saying and how he forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less conclusive. 2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.) 3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining. 2. and 3. put his followers in a depressed state where he can uplift them with 1. No wonder he has a sect like following. His conservative debates are more to the point but I‘m not sure if it is not just advertising for his „religious lectures“. That’s what I find dangerous about him.

hashberry 9y ago
I understand that cult leaders can be problematic. But do you think his followers are becoming a danger to society?
- lixtra 9y ago
  In total it’s a tiny rather peaceful group. I don’t see a danger for society. I’m sure he does help some of his followers. But I doubt that most of his followers profit long term from him. At some point they should move on for their own good.
  - andai 9y ago
    In response to your last sentence, I am interpreting that as a judgment that the quality of his lectures is inferior to those to which people should move on to, is that right? Do you have any recommendations?
    - lixtra 9y ago
      I‘m tempted to say think for yourself... It may sound like a different category but i found listening to Tim Ferris and Guy Raz much more positive and felt energized to try stuff. JBP helps you to do your dishes but the two other push you to pursue your dreams. Your mileage my vary.

adomanico 9y ago

Jordan Peterson is not extreme at all. We are just currently in a climate where nuanced opinions and observations are ignored by radical ideologues.

Yetanfou 9y ago
He is not radical but he is outspoken and does not let himself be cowed. This antagonises other outspoken people who have been able to silence a large part of their opposition by labelling them as racist, insert-whatever-identity-phobe, nazi and such. When they tried the same with Peterson by calling him a 'transphobe' their attempts spectacularly backfired in that they drew the attention of the general public to Peterson which quickly gave him a much larger following than he normally would have had.
- mizzack 9y ago
  It's the same pattern with Nicholas Christakis and Bret Weinstein. An association the article pointed out, but didn't mention the pejorative labels applied to those two.

Erik816 9y ago

What is often lost since Peterson became "famous" after the whole gender pronoun controversy is the quality and depth of his thinking and lecturing that was already available on YouTube. This article starts with that, and explains his popularity as a teacher at Harvard and Toronto. I had been watching his lectures for about a year before the pronoun issue, and his ideas are fascinating and deep. They tie together many disparate fields and ideas into an original and interesting synthesis. But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. There are problems with it, and it deserves to be criticized (Peterson would be the first to agree). There are also profound insights that can help elevate your thinking if you can incorporate them. Lots of people don't have the intellectual background or ability to do so. But everyone can form a 2 second hot take on one of his more recent controversial statements, so that is what gets discussed.

stcredzero 9y ago
But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. You can think of Jordan Peterson as going just a bit farther than Sam Harris, when Sam Harris says that we should learn from religion by practicing things like meditation. Jordan Peterson comes from the position that things like myth and religion co-evolved with human beings and human society. Even if the literal epistemology of religion and myth is dead wrong on the conscious/rational/scientific level, it still contains insights into the nature of human beings' self regulation because of that co-evolution. Often, these things operate at below the level of consciousness, as we would expect such things to, given that they co-evolved with us from a time before sentient consciousness.
mywittyname 9y ago
I was quite surprised to discover that the alt-right venerate him. I got the impression that he was pretty liberal. I mean, I support LGBTQ rights, but don't agree that people should be forced to use appropriate gender pronouns. I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.
- deleted 9y ago

empanadada 9y ago

As an interlocutor, Jordan Peterson seems like a reasonable person to debate with. But his followers are quite dangerous, much like many other political thinkers, whose suggestions were modest, but the followers took it to mean something else...

ankushnarula 9y ago
Which followers? And what did they take it to mean?

krick 9y ago

So, to put it short: "What's dangerous about Jordan Peterson is that he makes ideas we don't like sound plausible"? I don't really see an answer to the question in title. Anyway, his lectures for psychology students on youtube are quite nice to listen, even though I find it problematic how often he treats hard facts off-handedly to speak in favor of his overall narrative. I wonder if there are more courses (especially on non-technical subjects) of the same quality freely available on youtube.