The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson
spectator.co.uk
spectator.co.uk
I think people like him might very well help keep disgruntled young men away from the extreme right, by offering a moderate alternative.
We should celebrate that long, balanced arguments get so much mainstream attention, even if we don't agree with them.
That's probably exactly right. People gather around ideologies that have advocates. They don't look at two extremes and say, "hm, they each have valid points, maybe I'm somewhere between these two", they say, "hm, this one thing side X says is something I really like so they must think most like me. Even though I don't particularly agree with a lot of the rest of what they say, and even if I disagree with side Y less overall, I belong in tribe X".
Moderation/centrism thus also needs advocates if we want a proper balance.
I think he gets postmodernism wrong and frankly, so do a lot of postmodernists. I see postmodernism as "Defense Against the Dark Arts". The postmodernist's tool kit -- the silly word games, denial of reality, and so forth -- are all borrowed from the right, and from capitalist society (in particular advertising and PR). And they play silly word games, talk in circles, and deny reality because they're preparing their students for a world in which the enemy have made that the norm for discourse. So when the postmodernist says "there is no reality" what they're really saying is the reality you know, and the rules for perceiving and inferring that reality, have been compromised. When Foucault says there's really no such thing as science, what he means is that science itself has been compromised, and you can't use science against the enemy because the enemy already controls it and will turn around and use it against you.
But I like Peterson's style -- bombastic without being antagonistic, and highly principled -- and about the psychology bits he has some really interesting things to say.
Forget Foucault (h/t Baudrillard)
As a very contrived analogy, you can dislike iOS and not be an Android fan.
For example, if as a Christian you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you better not mention it in a group, unless maybe if you're Muslim, in which case your oppressed religious status allows that. It's a social minefield that has been created.
They can only say "what they want" on account of their "oppressed" status. Everybody else has to censor their speech, for fear of offending those groups.
Of course, they can't really all say what they want, but opinion dissenters from the "oppressed" groups are merely written off as "sockpuppets" (i.e. victims) with a chance to repent, instead of being declared an outright enemy.
How about this?
http://www.thetower.org/article/in-the-safe-spaces-on-campus...
If you don't push away the intolerant then those who are discriminated against figure out they're not welcome in the group and so they leave. Those who remain are the intolerant and those indifferent to intolerance. That results in very bad communities.
However, the centrist objection to today's leftist critical theory post-modernist rhetoric is not (as is too often asserted) "well, a little anti-semitism / sexism / racism / homo- and transphobia / genocide advocacy is okay in the interests of compromise and harmony with Nazis". This is clearly absurd, and no one reasonably would believe this. Those who spout reprehensible ideas should suffer social consequences. By all means, do not invite them to participate in your community.
The centrist objection is that the Overton window of ideas that are acceptable to express is becoming increasingly narrow while the reaction to ideas outside of this narrow band of acceptability is becoming so extreme that people who are merely misunderstood will have their lives destroyed.
Never mind "Nazi". Never mind the well-meaning Christian who has no personal animosity towards individual gay people but who sincerely believes their God said that homosexuality is a sin; we're talking a misunderstood joke (Justine Sacco; the fellows who were fired for their overheard "big dongle" joke); we're talking people appropriately using the word "niggardly" (meaning 'miserly', in use since the 1400s).
Calmly stated ideas, even the most reprehensible, must never be suppressed through violence or state sanction. Throughout history, ideas that have moved us forward ("It's wrong to keep other humans as slaves.") were met at some point with violence and suppression. A climate where the majority are convinced that deviation from a narrow band of acceptability must be met with extreme violence will suppress good ideas along with bad ideas.
As for your remark about calmly states ideas: hate speech laws exist for a reason in most of the world. The United States is the exception in its free speech absolutism. A lot more harm can be done by calm speech than by a baseball bat, and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights. I value free speech but I don't value it over everything else, and I don't think State suppression of free speech is meaningfully different from the many other ways in which speech can be suppressed.
Then it should be easy for you to supply even one example where calm speech caused a grievous head injury.
"...and free speech (like any other freedom) can be used to infringe on other people's rights"
I cannot imagine a single right infringed by someone else's free speech. Again, perhaps you can supply an example?
But point taken. I did misspeak when I said "Calmly stated ideas". I meant, specifically, any idea that is not intended to cause imminent harm. Imminent being the operative word, there. So, to my mind, "I think minorities should be turned into lampshades." is reprehensible and worthy of social sanction, but should not be suppressed. "You should kill yourself!" to a suicidal person is dangerous and potentially criminal.
Let's turn it around:
Imagine someone expresses a racist idea, and then the universe splits in two.
In one universe, the person gets a punch in the nose and their books are burned.
In the other universe, a centrist says, "that idea is reprehensible, and here's where you have failed..." and then outlines ethical, philosophical and scientific objections to the racist idea. There is a calm discussion.
In which universe is the racist more likely to consume an underground press of unchallenged racist ideas? In which universe is the racist more likely to change their mind? Which universe is more dangerous, more likely to lead to violence?
From a centrist point of view, the suppression of stupid ideas is more likely to be dangerous, than having them out in the open.
Germany may be "one of the freest" countries, but they too now have far-right parties in their parliament and there have been hundreds of attacks (assaults, firebombings) on refugees.
Also, Neo-Nazi ideology is still popular in the East, despite all the efforts of the socialist government against it. If people are shoved an ideology down their throats, the alternatives suddenly look much more attractive. I'm firmly convinced that it is the left that got Trump elected, not the right.
Anecdotally I do get the impression that engaging with others about politics ('community scale') is much more explosive these days, on both 'sides' of various issues. I get the same impression when I think about the publications that often come up in conversations. It's like two parallel universes while I know for a fact that not too long ago reading habits included much more 'mixed' publications (also generally of lower quality, but I'd say that's not entirely relevant to the overton window 'issue')
->https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1115/Was-Eisenho...
Trump for me wasn't that different to any of the other Republican candidates, they all don't believe in global warming and have pretty much the same agenda. He just didn't dress things up and speak smoothly, like most politicians, but says it as it is.
As for Trump, the discussion was specifically about what people can _say_. Trump said things other politicians didn't dare say, and by doing so he made a big impact on the political discourse. As for his agenda, in a country of 325 million even small differences between republican candidates are really significant.
Tolerance is radical "choosing to get along" or why bother?
You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass.
"You don't think Muslims are more oppressed than Christians? They're way more oppressed. It's Christians which get a free pass."
I don't even know what "Muslims are more oppressed than Christians" is even supposed to mean. There's no context.
If we're talking about expressing opinions on campus regarding gay marriage or abortion, I doubt Christians would get a "free pass" over Muslims.
How else would you refer to the processes that lead to forcing professionals at these universities to use dozens of novel non-binary gender pronouns, or to shield students from content that may be considered "offensive" or "triggering"?
If you don't think those things are in fact serious problems, then I guess you aren't "woke" to that side of the debate. The "campus left" has done everything to brand all dissenters (including Peterson) as fascists, racists and trans/homophobes. That's an even bigger problem, because it signals cult-like behavior.
Maybe it's not bad at your particular university, maybe the examples in the media are not representative, but they are real.
Sarcasm aside... they aren't getting more respect. You can't force people to respect anything.
Here's what actually happens: People control their speech (but not their thoughts) around those "other" people for fear of social reprisal. They'll simply avoid socializing with those people for the rest of their lives.
Will they hire a gay/trans/black/muslim person? What a minefield! Better find something in their CV that makes them "less qualified"...
Few people will say these things openly, just like how fewer people would admit to voting for Trump. In the real world, Trump is still president.
This is the "anti-racists made me racist" argument. Non-racists don't turn into racists when their behavior is criticized. That's absurd.
Somehow, the media spins "a small group of people wants a place to occasionally discuss very sensitive issues" to "SAFE SPACES HAVE TAKEN OVER AMERICAN CAMPUSES". I dunno, maybe there are one or two campuses that are especially bad in this regard. But I can't help but roll my eyes at this kind of conservative pearl-clutching.
I hope he does the same thing with people who are flirting with the extreme left. I hope many of them follow his advice and are smart enough to read and understand The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks.
We have serious problems in Western society, but the extreme "solutions" suggested by both of these parties will result in a complete and utter disaster for everyone. Even worse, we are even already seeing some of the effects of some of these "solutions" in action.
I think people are starved for somebody who can be persuasive and calm, not relying on hyperbole or name-calling to make their points, and he shows everybody a way they can do that.
If that was true, why did his university send him a warning letter that essentially confirms his concerns? He consulted a lawyer on the matter, he confirmed them as well.
Laws are subject to interpretation, bad laws are subject to bad interpretations. He considers bill C-16 a bad law. There no "one correct understanding" of a law, otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers and legal cases would be trivial matters.
The fact that you refer to bill C-16 simply as "a discrimination law about transgenders" shows that you poorly interpreted it yourself.
"Which is all you need to know about him."
I interpret that as a display of pure and utter ignorance - was that your intention?
The Canadian Bar Association which represents over 37,000 lawyers, judges, notaries, law associates, law professors and students across Canada says this is a good thing and not the freedom of speech slippery slope that its been made out to be.
https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850...
It shouldn't come as a surprise he has nothing of value to say about (identity) politics, because on that topic he doesn't have any expertise. He's just another guy with poorly conceived opinions. On the other hand he has been a clinical psychologist for 20 years and so (surprise!) he has accumulated some valuable insights along the way.
Sure, she used her position as the one controlling the agenda well, quickly switching topics when pressed into a corner, but that's her job.
I knew of Peterson but never read his work nor heard him speak.
This interview could be an important piece for university level discussion. I think it summarizes problems among the media and intellectuals like Peterson.
I don't really know who he is other than seeing his name popup on Youtube regularly however I do note that his supporters always use that sort of language, often watch X destroy Y in an interview.
There seem to be minorities at the extremes shouting past each other whilst the rest of us get on with our lives and wonder what all the fuss is about.
I didn't know who Peterson was but like you had also heard about him. I watched that interview and have a better idea.
This interview could be an important piece for university level discussion. I think it summarizes problems among the media and intellectuals like Peterson.
In this case I found their interview to be excellent viewing. She was harsh and honest with him, and hurled most of the standard criticism at Peterson that people talk about. And while doing that she gave him the time and opportunity to respond. And he stayed calm, considered, articulate and entertaining throughout. I don't agree with everything either of them said, but I enjoyed watching that interview immensely - its exactly the sort of thing I want to see more of on youtube and in the public sphere.
Harsh, perhaps. Honest, not so much. I found most of her ripostes a dishonest caricature of Peterson's position, or downright lies.
I would have said that humans are little more than talking primates, and so our societies (West and East) are organized according to how primates organize themselves - e.g. hierarchies. We're more sophisticated than chimpanzees, but not by much. Once you understand this idea, then all the stupidity humans get up to is understandable.
And, wow, I just watched this and it is horrendously cringeworthy. Seems like the presenter was expecting someone soft in the head (like an MP/politician), and approached the interview in that modern British fashion, which didn't work out well at all. It's really awkward to see somebody be that badly intellectually outclassed, but then it was Channel 4...
On the other hand, coming back to OP, there's something encouraging about a critical thinker having "star appeal". I think that's the best way to describe Dr Peterson, as you don't have to agree with him, but it is easy to follow his lucid trains-of-thought, and he is at least consistent.
He's criticized as "on the right" because he disagrees with feminism, neoliberalism, and marxism (it's more cultural marxism, which he calls neomarxism). That is a reactionary label, and it doesn't fit, which is precisely the problem with modern politics.
A decade, maybe 15 years ago, Peterson would've been right in the middle of the liberal camp. So would people like Dave Rubin. Today though, the modern left is falling in line with these feminist and marxist ideas even though they fundamentally contradict his long held liberal principles. People like me who aren't in some extreme position are described as malicious by these ideologies. I know it's nonsense because I can actually see what's in my head, and what they claim is true about me and about an entire class of people based on gender or race, is utterly false. The obvious response is "that's nonsense", but of course we're talking about people who are throwing labels of "racist" and "sexist" at anyone who dares disagree, so that's not a good enough response. We must be defensive, yet the irony of saying someone is bad because they're male or because they're white and then using those labels seems to be a little out of reach.
Watch this interview. Nearly every response she makes to him "so you're saying" is trying to ascribe some feminist or marxist ideal of how the world works to what he's said, and he simply repeats what he says. He goes to great lengths to explain his issues with these ideologies in various lectures, but you can see it here as a prime example, condensed into a comical and pathetic 30 minute interview. Everything wrong with today's left. It's not liberal anymore, she tried so hard to make him look like the bad guy, like he has bad evil wrong thoughts.
It's no wonder the situation regarding diversity at Google is so precarious, and this Damore lawsuit is just one of many to come if this mentality continues. I like Peterson because he opposes it and for good reason, not just in such as simplistic manner as ridicule and memes as you see from the right.
You're equally attempting to define my opinions and positions for me. So many of these arguments revolve around strawmen, on both sides.
Also, a person's biases are not something that they're self-aware of by default. No one has a perfect handle on their own brain.
The interviewer, however, was barely coherent and couldn't deal with that level of precision. And she kept bouncing all over the place. She was totally unprepared and kept flipping to tangents and not drilling down into one topic...
So to proclaim her as the typical embodiment of 'feminism' and use this as 'the perfect example' of why feminism (or whatever you want to project onto this) is fundamentally garbage... really only reveals your prejudices. At a surface level, the quality of the discussion or conversation was poor, so this video clip really is of low informational value.
I had a conservative friend who did this sort of thing - I'd try to get into the details of examining something (to try and get at the limits of a position or what caveats there are) and he'd do the same BS as the interviewer (though not as badly), oversimplifying things and deriving blanket principles from contrived examples. I guess that is the difference between philosophers and ideologues.
So I don't talk to him anymore - I got tired of the hassle and I'm tired of listening to how feminism is destroying society. It isn't. Society is morphing and change always upsets conservatives, because they are so fundamentally terrified of everything they can't control. Given how things are really going to go out of whack in the next few decades due to all the unstoppable changes coming, they are going to have to keep up or go extinct.
The enemy is all around you.
Access to secret "true" knowledge.
The world is corrupt.
A plan that if you follow correctly will lead to good things.
An enemy that alternates between specific and generalistic states.
Everything has to be framed through a set of ideological points at all times, which are reiterated in the otherwise minorist points of life.
That is not to say that he definitively is something of that kith or kin to that, necessarily. Just that I see several public figures these days that come out of one branch of science, platforming their knowledge of one field to the world of knowledge at large, and espousing thinking --- right down to phraseology, at times --- I have heard too often from sources these same individuals would claim to violently disagree with. Taking on Peterson's own postulations related to the co-evolution of the biological and memetic aspects of humanity (which in general I would agree with): I think the push to a what would otherwise be called a 'religious sensibility' can be --- and often is --- clothed in scientific language.
I'm biased, though, because I find his lectures really difficult to follow. At least in the ones I've watched, he exhibits an oddly rambling style of speech that seems optimized more for some kind of narrative rhythm than for clearly conveying semantic content. He's very good at making it feel like every word is important, but then when I go back and try to figure out the actual statement being made it's like whole sentences just sort of fold in on themselves until nothing is left.
And I can't help but feel Peterson knows this. (His field alone should equip him with knowledge of these circumstances.) And it sometimes flashes through my mind that Edward Bernays has brought Freud to America all over again (which is not necessarily an indictment of Freud directly so much as how his techniques were put to use), and that Peterson, and others like him, know on one level exactly what they are doing. After all, evolution has primed us to jockey into position for the best possible access to mates, and power has always been intimately connected with that. (Which is another ways that Peterson reminds me on the 'Bernaysian Era', when the rich elite needed to guide the irrational masses but managed to conveniently ignore the applicability of those very same theories to themselves and their own motivations for operation.)
I don't think that's entirely true. The Peterson fan-groups on Reddit often have group readings of books that haven't been written by Peterson but have been recommended (Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Solzhenitsyn).
I do agree that there's something of a cult of personality surrounding Peterson, and for that reason I try to keep that in mind and keep him at arm's length despite agreeing with a lot of what he says. But I do think that such behaviors are common and inevitable. Consider the "I f*cking love science" crowd and their focus on clips from Neil deGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan (their written material is a distant second in popularity to their broadcast presentation) or the trend a few years ago of receiving news through a Stewart/Colbert-style format of ideology + humor. There's something almost inescapable about the human desire to associate with a group/club/tribe, to find a leader to rally around, and to indulge the urge to worship.
I'm pretty sure that's a gross misrepresentation of that law. From the little I know about it, I think it was more about adding "using the wrong pronoun" as a possible aggravating circumstance to consider when somebody is already being harassed:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/canadian-lawmakers-p...
> The bill adds prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act, amends the criminal code to extend protections against hate speech and allows judges to take into consideration when sentencing whether a crime was motivated by hatred of the victim’s gender identity or expression.
http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-be...
I think you are right that just in C 16 there is nothing about compelled speech. My understanding of his position is that it's part of a slippery slope, and the interpretation of discrimination or hate speech could easily extend to using the wrong gender pronouns.
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29230/
For those of us who think that objective reality is more important than what someone's feelings may or may not be, this imposition of a speech code is clearly harassment.
Now, if I repeatedly followed you around, loudly mocking you and your use of "his majesty" and interfering with your life, then yes that would be harassment.
None of this is an imposition upon you, and I have a really hard time understanding why people are so vehement that it is. I keep seeing people complain that they're not allowed to debate about something, and then they follow that with no actual debate. People act as though they're silenced, but they're clearly not silenced! If people respond with counter-arguments, isn't that exactly what you wanted?
I would love to talk about why I think these protections are important. I don't think not believing that these protections are important is some sort of moral failing. I think that frank discussion about these things is important and debating animatedly with my trans friends is exactly how I came to understand their point of view and the challenges they face and ultimately came to empathize with their position.