The Intellectual We Deserve (2018)

While I agree with the thesis (Peterson is indeed a shallow intellectual), I disagree with the author's position that there are no deep intellectuals left. Without naming names, the reason we don't hear from them is because of the current state of the internet, where communications is so democratized that it is impossible to curate effectively. In short, the noise exceeds the signal, and so we only hear about the demagogues, whose one-note message can be amplified sufficiently to rise above the rest. More nuanced voices offering complex opinions are difficult to distinguish amid the sea of uninformed opinions and criticisms.

The author bemoans that intellectuals have failed the general population by being afraid to dumb down complex messages for general consumption. The only flaw with this theory is that modern life itself is rather complicated, irreducibly so. Simple explanations are often wrong, and since true intellectuals pride themselves on being factual and correct, it would be beneath them to offer such solutions.

What we really have is a society that prides itself on anti-intellectualism and is outright hostile to reasoned discourse. Until society holds itself to a higher standard, we will get the intellectuals we deserve.

Easy to critique the man, but the author's political angle gets in the way of his own ability to reckon with why JP is popular: he unabashedly speaks core truths we know in a time filled with half-truths and an attack on binary meaning.

What is fascinating is how his detractors are annoyed with how simple, old advice can ring true but are missing that no one with such digital reach is saying these "12 Rules for Life" out loud any more.

I don't agree with Peterson's angles always but his ability to contend verbally with the pompous, blithe elites who have never been so disconnected from the middle class values is like a glass of cold water for his followers, or so I imagine.

Reminds me of IT management and my favorite quote about the whole field:

“The reason American businessmen talk about gurus is because they can’t spell the word charlatan.” — Micklethwait & Woolridge

Jeez, how many words does it take to say "pop psychologists are like pop musicians - they are made important by how they make their audience feel. The only thing to take seriously is how people are responding to the manipulation. Any attempt to engage with the material as if its constitution results in the reception is an effort in futility. Just hit me, baby, one more time."

Guess the question is, is it harmful?

A lot of people listen to Peterson and read his books.

He's kind of just riding a wave of popularity on warmed over ideas, but is it harmless? Are the warmed over ideas hurting anybody?

I'm not sure.

Which is why sometimes, I'd give him a pass. If I see someone reading him, its like "well at least they are reading and not scrolling reddit".

Maybe it can be a gateway to reading something that does matter?

> First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible.

Sounds like an LLM prompt...

Pepe Silvia

I had never heard of petterson, i also gave up reading this... the article sounds like the person its describing.

I don't know why HN is so anti-Peterson. He has been tremendously helpful to me, and 12 Rules for Life helped me a lot when I was going through self-inflicted tough times.

The article derides him for for stating platitudes, truisms, and cliches (I am actually surprised that the article didn't include that word) in new and interesting ways. However, that is exactly what he is popular for in the first place. A more charitable way to put that, might be to say that he restates old-timey wisdom in new and interesting ways. Of course this is going to appeal to conservatives, and bring struggling young people to the conservative side.

Between Jordan Peterson and C.S. Lewis, I rediscovered a lot of wisdom that my parents tried to teach me. I learned to respect old and ancient ideas. Ideas aren't "wrong" because they're old, and also they aren't right or good because they're new. People throughout history was smarter and wiser than we give them credit for.

Maybe if more "serious" intellectuals (whatever that means), moved past the "new=good and old=bad" groove, they might start enjoying some popularity too.

My point is that Jordan Peterson is re-introducing some very true, but old ideas. These old ideas are very helpful to a lot of people, especially disenfranchised young men. These young men then use the old ideas to get their lives together, and that is why Jordan Peterson is popular.

> "He shows a culture bereft of ideas, a politics without inspiration or principle."

No, he shows us the gold that our intellectuals threw on the rubbish heap, because they thought it was junk. And just because they still think it is junk, doesn't actually make it junk.

In a way, initially, a case could be made for Peterson having the merit of shepherding the InCels of today’s world into something less destructive than outright fascism / alt-right - perhaps even something civilized: like Conservative Democratic Liberalism(in the European sense).

However, judging by the bizarre moments, it seems fame got a bit to his head…

Peterson's book Maps of Meaning is actually a really interesting read and based on an incredible amount of research.

That book is as old as a stash of Y2K water though, and the Peterson I've heard interviewed or on his own podcast in recent years sounds like a very different person. He's gone through some shit so I do get it, but he doesn't seem able to analyze topics these days without being heavily influenced by his own ideas and opinions. I guess the same can be said for Sam Harris as well.

I think there is a clear distinction between early Peterson, the Canadian psych professor who took exception to a law that impinged on his free speech rights, and the wealthy media juggernaught he has become. His early appearances were nuanced and interesting - a liberal professor fighting the excesses of the left, and coincidentally reintroducing Carl Jung to a wide audience!

He changed, of course. He started saying nice things about Trump a lot, which is difficult to understand, especially when considered in light of his seemingly wise statements about ego and narcisism. I think it was at this point Peterson became more of a symbol than a man, not a liberal fighting left-wing dogmatism but an actual Man of the Right. Money and fame were at the root of this transition, I believe, as well as a reaction against the extreme vitriol of the left. When it comes to political celebrity, the pragmatic truth is that you've got to be on one side or the other - nuance be damned. (I liked him early on but have long since stopped paying attention.)

This piece, by the way, reads like one of a thousand left-wing hit pieces against him, and not particularly well written (In particular the statement "It does help if you are male and Caucasian" sort of gives it away with the performative self-loathing). This piece focuses on Vagueness - but vagueness is part and parcel of the psychological movement - Jung himself was rather vague, and so is most philosophy. To hold Peterson to a non-vagueness standard when his source material is also vague is unfair. If you reject psychology and philosophy, that's fair, but don't pretend like Peterson was somehow introducing vagueness that wasn't there.

My favourite is people dubbing Jordan Peterson over command and Conquer [0]. It is quite funny.

There isn't much mystery to Peterson, he didn't became famous for his academic credentials and nobody cares much for psychology anyway. And I think the message is pretty simple, or it was the last time I checked, in broad strokes it is just a call for people to keep doing what they're doing.

But the important part here is there is enormous demand for public intellectuals who (1) have something nice to say about white men and (2) have something nice to say about capitalism. The economists say nice things about capitalism, I suppose, but they tend to be boring. Which brings me to my other point... Peterson's style.

Peterson has a similar style to Trump's for similar reasons. Average people don't seem to follow or be persuaded by logical arguments. If the plan is to communicate with them, the effective approach is a weird kind of strobe-ing emotions at them. It is easy to laugh at, but it is also effective so it keeps cropping up.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVJmMmq4FSc