First off, I know how pretentious it is to start a title with “On.” But when the subject matter is Prof Peterson, it seems appropriate…
Secondly, I do not believe that he is a Nazi or a facist. Let me repeat that, I DO NOT believe JP is a Nazi or Facist. In case you weren’t listening, I DO NOT believe he is a Nazi or a facist…
Thirdly, since most of my exposure to him has been Youtube, this would turn into an extraordinairily dense thing if I tried to cite everyting, so this might be a bit sloppy. Commenters, feel free to drop videos or appropriate articles in the comments….
Okay, with that outta the way, let’s begin…
I stumbled onto JP when some Miggytoes whined that “public intellectual” Jordan Peterson had “slandered us.” I stumbled on to Joe “Where’s the beef, I’m mean Roids” Rogan when I saw part of an interview he did with Metallica’s singer. I later watched Roid breath’s interview with JP. JP was extraordinairly well spoken. He was like a great salesman who practiced rebutals to every objection he could think of. When he couldn’t think of a rebutal, he kept talking anyways and his words were so polished they seemed like truth. He seemed like a guy on a whole other level. I believe that he had studied “rhetoric” as he studied philosophy. Now, remember, just a little while back, we saw the overly educated and pompous Hugo Schwyzer talk over MRA’s and attempt to demolish their points because they missued an apostrophe all while the Skeezer was using “feminism” to get laid and bash low status men. So, even if a Peterson critic “speaks the truth,” his sophistry is most likely far more developed and might appear to be more accurate because it sounds better…
Now, it appears that Jordan Peterson was trying to attain fame for a few years now. He had mentioned “an interest in politics.” He had gone on public televsion with his daughter discussing her dietary issues and his depression. And, he had begun filming his lectures and uploading to Youtube. Let me spell this out for you. The reason why this is relevant is that he wasn’t an obscure academic who merely wanted to do research and lecture and now felt compelled to issue dire warnings because he though Bill C 16was going to lead us to a dark age where SJW’s with rainbow colored battons and pink swastika’s walk goose step and throw people into Siberian Gulags because they accidently said there were only 98 genders instead of 173.965. Does Jordan Peterson believe we are entering a dark ages in regards for free speech and feel moraly compelled to steer Western Civilization way from this odius fate? Is Peterson shrewed and saavy and have his finger on the pulse of Western Culture? Did he observe Bre-exit and Trumpism and realize that he “now had a product” to sell? I am not a mind reader. I do not know what he is thinking and even acknowledge the possibility that he is doing this on a subconcious level and he himself may not know exactly what he is thinking. (Though his training should make him more self-aware than most.)
Jordan Peterson’s most damning critique comes from a friend and colleque who helped build his academic career:
“Jordan’s first high-profile public battle, and for many people their introduction to the man, followed his declaration that he would not comply with Bill C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act extending its protections to include gender identity and expression. He would refuse to refer to students using gender neutral pronouns. He then upped the stakes by claiming that, for this transgression, he could be sent to jail.
I have a trans daughter, but that was hardly an issue compared to what I felt was a betrayal of my trust and confidence in him. It was an abuse of the trust that comes with his professorial position, which I had fought for, to have misrepresented gender science by dismissing the evidence that the relationship of gender to biology is not absolute and to have made the claim that he could be jailed when, at worst, he could be fined.
In his defence, Jordan told me if he refused to pay the fine he could go to jail. That is not the same as being jailed for what you say, but it did ennoble him as a would-be martyr in the defence of free speech. He was a true free speech “warrior” who was willing to sacrifice and run roughshod over his students to make a point. He could have spared his students and chosen to sidestep the issue and refer to them by their names. And if this was truly a matter of free speech he could have challenged the Human Rights Act, off-campus and much earlier, by openly using language offensive to any of the already-protected groups on that list.”
In this same article, there may be “ethical concerns” on how JP conducted research studies. Now listen, I get it, no one likes red-tape. I remember working in a sales organization where I was initially told to “bring in deals.” As the company grew there was a “management layer” that didn’t do things to help close deals and also pressure to work with outside resellers rather than selling direct to organizations. All of this meant (far) more work for significantly lower commissions. I remember coming accross Youtube video where JP discussed giving full grown men copius amounts of alcohol to measure how the sons of alcoholic fathers reacted. He mentioned having difficulty with the research as he was told that he had to keep the research subjects the entire time while they were intoxicated and some became belligerent. Imagine that, I didn’t need a psycology degree to tell ya that might happen. I think he mentioned the study was eventually shut down. But of course there could be liability issues deary. Can you imagine sending drunk guys out into the wild so to speak? They might get in a fight with their roomate or spouse. They might even get jumped as they stumble home. On another note, experiments that were conducted many years ago such as the Millgram experiment couldn’t be ethically conducted these days.
Again from the same article:
“He was, however, more eccentric than I had expected. He was a maverick. Even though there was nothing contentious about his research, he objected in principle to having it reviewed by the university research ethics committee, whose purpose is to protect the safety and well-being of experiment subjects.
He requested a meeting with the committee. I was not present but was told that he had questioned the authority and expertise of the committee members, had insisted that he alone was in a position to judge whether his research was ethical and that, in any case, he was fully capable of making such decisions himself. He was impervious to the fact that subjects in psychological research had been, on occasion, subjected to bad experiences, and also to the fact that both the Canadian and United States governments had made these reviews mandatory. What was he doing! I managed to make light of this to myself by attributing it to his unbridled energy and fierce independence, which were, in many other ways, virtues. That was a mistake.”
Now to be fair, I don’t know if this was on his research for alcohol or another set of studies. And again, I can understand how he wouldn’t like red-tape. But, his “bucking the system” may be a lapse in ethics.
In my opinion, he talks over people but listens carefully. How is this so? Remember his interview with James Damore? In my opinion, he talked over Damore and even twisted Damore’s arm to fit his agenda. I do not have a wholesale agreement with Damore, but it looks to me that he has been used as a puppet by many on the “right.”
Now as far as “listening carefully,” this may be the most daming thing I say about Peterson and also the most difficult to prove. I believe he carefully reads the comments on his Youtube video. And as he has said of facist leaders, he crafts his messages on which brings the most response from his audience. (Again, I am not claiming he is a nazi but I believe he is “listening to the applause” of his audience to feed them more of what they crave.)
He also rambles on about “dominance hierarchies” and seems to suggest that not only are they natural but also produce great outcomes because the “cream rises to the top.” He was on the Jock Willnick podcast awhile back and interstingly enough on another Jocko podcast, Jocko talked about rising in rank in the military, a very hierarchical organization.
Jocko said guys would see him “go after it/get on it” aggressively but what they didn’t see was the political schmoozing. That is going to lunch with the commanding officer, saying the right things and “massaging” him for a promotion. Jocko, in my mind, acknowledged that this was highly political rather than a meritocracy. Imagine if one of his fan boys works hard in school and tries to become a professor. But he falls short of the tenure track and starves as an adjunct professor (linked to Jezebel of all places because hipster irony y’all.) He seems to dismiss sometimes legitimate critiques of dominance hierarchies because they come from “the left.” (And remember, guys, he is a winner as a tenured professor in this system.)
Now this brings us to the famous “clean your room” trope. Now granted, when I did my spring cleaning, I was happy to find a few concert t-shirts that I thought were forever lost and a Thin Lizzy DVD. This seems like sensible advice the way that the manuresphere’s advice to lift weights seems sensible. Nothing wrong with cleaning your room and organizing your life. However, noted geniuses such as Albert Einstein were known to be messy. It seems like JP is prioritizing “orderliness” and “concientiousness” above traits like creativity and openess to experience. And look at complaints from the right and alt-right that things like movies, art and music are “controlled” by the left. Well, when you have guys like Captain Capitalism shouting that real men “get STEM degree’s” and art and music is “sissy, faggot” shit, your movement has essentially pushed those guys outta your camp. They are gonna go to the left or they are gonna ignore you guys. The manosphere essentially pushed out the creative class and it looks like JP and his fanboys might do the same.