An interview with Jordan Peterson, who believes in witches and dragons

Actually, as is explained repeatedly upthread, he was not correct. So, you know, maybe he should have got his facts straight before “speaking up against something he disagreed with.”

And maybe you should find other people to admire, like, you know, people who think things through before they use their status to speak out publicly against them.

I hear something in your admiration of his refusal to “keep quiet” (are you perhaps against “political correctness”?). He’s not being told to keep quiet. He’s being disagreed with.

21 Likes

No. He misinterpreted what the bill was actually about. See upthread for links.

18 Likes

Yes, because lying at least requires knowing the truth. Much easier to just bullshit.

10 Likes

The other possibility is that he has not explained himself clearly, nor taken appropriate steps to distance himself from people who take his cryptic statements to very scary and dark places. If he really doesn’t believe that stuff, you’d think when he woke up to find that the PUA, mens’ rights, and antisemitic community are his biggest fans, he’d ask himself, “woah, what have I said that can attract these people? Let me correct their misunderstanding of what I’ve said…” From what I’ve seen, he barely says anything negative about these people, letting them think he’s only doing so as pure lip-service. It might be that he doesn’t hold those alt-right beliefs personally, but he’s making so much money from these groups that he is unwilling to ostracize them, and if so, shame on him.

I am glad that you have found useful tips in some of what he says, and also have kept a skeptical eye to some of the crazy stuff. The sad thing is, his self-help about self-confidence and personal responsibility is so perfunctory that you could have picked up virtually any self-help book from the last 30 years (see: cognitive behavioral therapy) and gotten similar useful advice, but without his particular nonsense wrapped up with it. There is no reason why a book about improving one’s confidence and posture also needs to extol the mythological truth about the human species, claiming that the female archetype (and also really real women themselves) are symbols (and actual) chaos. And don’t even get me started on the lobster garbage. It’s simply not true, and it serves no one except those motivated to hold deeply traditional and bogus ideas about the world and gender relationships in particular.

The point is, there are much better sources of self-help that don’t come wrapped in such toxic rhetoric.

18 Likes

Reading that rule, the first thing that came to mind was Harry Frankfurt’s distinction between liars (who in their actions acknowledge that the truth matters) and bullshitters (who, as you note, really don’t care about the truth at all). For obvious reasons, a charlatan like Peterson would never directly acknowledge that bullshitting is one of the alternatives implied in that rule.

11 Likes

Sorry for being vague. I’m trying to be sensitive to the general attitude of the forum, and don’t want to say something that might paint me in an ideological light that does not actually shine on me.

To be honest, it was my wife that first introduced me to Peterson. And to further be honest, I don’t exactly tell her what to do or how to act. She doesn’t have the same problems that I do, so as far as “advice” I’ve given her (which is more in form of conversations where we share insights, as we treat each other as equals), I’ve never told her to stand as such, but not for any reason having to do with what’s expected of genders. She just doesn’t have a problem with that sort of thing.

Acting masculine, to me, is being driven by reason, not emotion. If somebody says something insulting to me, the correct, masculine, response, is to ignore their bullshit and get on with doing the things in my life that are important, whereas, previously, my intent was to respond with some equally petty remark, a trait that is by far not a manly trait (in my opinion). However, am I say that that’s how women act? Before someone infers as much, let me say: no. It’s more a trait of men who are not self aware or confident. Again, my opinion.

Too often, my wife was taking charge of our lives, and that was leaving her unhappy. We traded some responsibilities, and that made things better. But at the end of the day, we’re a team that succeeds and fails together, and our main goal from day to day is to succeed as a team, and be the best individuals we can be (I’d quote another “Rule” here, but I don’t want to sound like I’m in Fight Club or something).

Strengths and weaknesses are strengths and weaknesses. I have terrible color recognition, which could be attributable to my sex (men typically have fewer color receptors than women), and my wife helps me with that. I’m great at fixing (and breaking -_-) my lawnmower, which Stephen Pinker would tell you is because I’m a man (I’m better with things, and take more risks). I’m always on call for the spider crises.

She’s better at taking care of the day-to-day needs of our daughter and cat (even if I have to clean the litterbox). But I’m better at vacuuming, which I think would generally be considered a feminine trait. We split doing dishes, because, let’s face it: everybody hates doing dishes. We don’t ever bring up “roles”, but we’re all about responsibility: doing what needs to get done, when it needs to get done, by the person who can best do it. Our most important lessons to out daughter don’t have anything to do with making cookies or playing with dolls, but being the best person she can be: managing her emotions, being responsible for her actions, and being good at communicating with those around her.

They’re not exactly the notions of Peterson that rise to the top, because it’s the contentious ones that get broadcast. Peterson might not be right for you, but, he might not be exactly wrong. He was the right place and the right time for me, but his perspective was close enough to mine for it to land without crashing and burning.

But he doesn’t really believe in witches and dragons, just their psychological significance.

3 Likes

Damn, I was going to post that. Good job.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the appeal. I think this sums it up nicely:

Peterson is telling young men the story they want to hear about themselves and the world around them. That they are “individuals,” that hierarchy and inequality are not bad things, that we live and have always lived in a meritocracy. That people aren’t clamoring for equality because they are good people who want people to be treated fairly and decently, but because they want to manipulate them and put them in gulags. That women are going to be just fine with jumping back into “traditional” gender roles and give them their patriarchy back. That women will not be put off by misogyny. That soon they will be living in a world where they can insult people — and yes, refusing to use someone’s preferred pronoun is insulting to them — and there will be no social consequences for that. That, rather than having enjoyed unearned privileges and advantages, those who have risen to the top of our societal hierarchy did so because they were simply the hardest and best workers. Because they were simply lobsters with more serotonin.

It’s an overly simplistic — and often intentionally vague — worldview that intellectualizes the basest id impulses of men, largely white men, who feel that they have been disadvantaged by the recent successes of white women and people of color and now feel left behind. He tells them they are logical, rational, critical thinkers — heroes, in fact. Even by doing things like talking a lot about the importance of IQ, he sates their desires to feel important and special. Take a moment and think of all the men you’ve ever met who were not doing much with their lives but very much wanted to talk to you about how high their IQ is (even though that’s ridiculous because most people probably don’t even know their actual IQ, for a variety of reasons). This is a thing. He doesn’t have to tell them they have a high IQ (because everyone thinks they have a high IQ), he just has to talk about how it is important, and that makes them feel good.

The thing is, he’s promising these men a world they actually cannot have without the permission of other groups of people. He’s not doing them any favors. If he really wanted to help these “lost men,” he’d help them thrive in the actual world they live in, rather than the way they want the world to be. He’d help them learn to adjust to a world in which the old hierarchies have been dismantled and understand that they’re no more entitled to be at the top of a hierarchy than anyone else is. Or help them learn how to function and love and improve themselves without needing to base that on being “better” than someone else, how to deal with the world in which women don’t want traditional gender roles, and help them to understand that life isn’t a zero sum game in which if someone who has been oppressed gets a right you have, you automatically lose something.

16 Likes

Yep. I’m a PZ fan too! (see my post above linking to his lobster debunk) :slight_smile:

5 Likes

To me, the difference between a charlatan and a crank is that the latter actually believes what he’s saying. As far as I can tell, Peterson is entirely sincere in his delusions. This, I think, is part of what makes him compelling to so many people. And what makes him maybe more dangerous than your average snake oil salesman.

7 Likes

Peterson: Take responsibility
Also Peterson: it’s all the fault of women!

It’s pretty evident that Peterson is a reactionary with the same mannerisms as a prairie Baptist preacher. People want a recipe for success. Unfortunately some cling to JeeP, even when it’s bleeding obvious that JP and his cadre are regressive irrational.

no truth without a belief in God indeed

14 Likes

Yeah, I did notice that upthread. Love PZ, though that excerpt was from a Wonkette piece linked in his blog. His commentary on it is great too.

6 Likes

Ah! I’ll check that piece out

5 Likes

Karl Jung and Jungian psychology was a mistake. /Miyazaki’d

5 Likes

Those%20Words

12 Likes

Maps of Meaning is utterly incomprehensible and I say this as someone who’s a Christian Gnostic so I’m deep into that obscurantist BS. The fact of the matter is that Peterson is a hack of a psychologist that’s out of depth when it comes to just about everything, even psychology. The fact he takes Jung at face value rather than try to interpret Jung’s ideas with neurology in mind (*rimshot*) shows he’s a poor academic and a poor study of his subject. Frankly, I’m half tempted to see what his Google citation score is because I’m going bet 100 bucks the guy isn’t widely circulated in academia even after his ascension post-c16-bill flap.

Edit: well gotta eat. JBP does have an h-index of 50 which isn’t bad. But his work doesn’t revolve the complex social psychology subjects he’s trying to address. Discussing alcoholic aggressive behaviors and the like don’t look like a sound basis for his grand theories.

13 Likes

It also does a good job of showing just how difficult such gobbledygook is to refute, precisely because it is gobbledygook–as some of the more thoughtful comments in this thread also point out.

11 Likes

When I pressed Peterson for more detail regarding Neptune and Atlantis, he changed the subject. “Look over there, where I am pointing,” he demanded. I turned my head to see. “That’s the direction I’m pointing,” he triumphantly proclaimed.

:joy:

The satire nails it there.

10 Likes

Look around, lots of people do that. I prefer people who have courage, a just cause and at least try to be accurate in what they say.

image

11 Likes

Extraordinary claim, evidence?

Because in my corner of the world, acting on reason is generally known as being “reasonable.”

15 Likes