I Don't like Jordan Peterson
Here are 5 reasons why
Like many of you who are disillusioned with the sociopolitical climate I fell into the seductive words of Jordan Peterson. He was the voice against the “woke” madness that has swept numerous western countries. The fact he is a PhD credentialed clinical psychologist, knows a bit about philosophy, and was able to apply complicated ideas to seemingly simple topics only solidified the deal for me. Whatever Peterson said sounded true, I followed it, listened to it, read it, and internalized it. I thought this guy was THE public intellectual, many still do. However, I had a wake up call.
The first time I woke up from the Peterson dream was when a classmate in one of my college classes pointed out the fact Peterson uses a lot of words with no meaning. At first I was in denial, then I majored in philosophy. By actually reading some of the works Peterson had cited and some of the philosophical schools he critiqued I came away with a new understanding. Peterson has misrepresented some of these schools of philosophical thought, has misrepresented scientific evidence, uses rhetorical techniques to evade criticism, and has committed fallacious reasoning.
Misrepresenting Science
It sort of perplexed me when Jordan Peterson initially compares human social hierarchies to lobsters in his book “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos”. Instead of comparing our social behavior to more appropriate animals such as other primates, Peterson uses the lobster to exemplify his point about standing up straight. Apparently the social dominance hierarchy of lobsters is based on the neurotransmitter serotonin. There is evidence of this somewhat as lobsters injected with serotonin are more likely to be aggressive and fight other lobsters. However, it is very difficult to extrapolate these short term injections of serotonin with long term behavioral outcomes let alone changes in dominance structure. Lobsters characteristically try to dominate one another based on size, bigger lobsters dominate smaller lobsters, this is seen in more ecologically appropriate studies. Aside from the animal behavior research we are really interested in how this compares to human behavior given we aren’t lobsters and lobsters aren’t particularly social animals to begin with. Humans are vertebrates unlike lobsters, therefore serotonin can have a different impact on behaviors such as aggression for vertebrates compared to invertebrates. In fact research suggests that lower levels of amine serotonin or 5HT in vertebrates can possibly increase aggression, so serotonin might impact humans differently than lobsters.
Think about it logically, one of the symptoms of depression can be increased aggression. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) attempt to block the reuptake of the neurotransmitter serotonin to have more circulating levels of serotonin in the brain. These drugs in theory and in practice can help alleviate depressive symptoms including aggression. Peterson comparing human dominance hierarchies to lobsters is flawed not only scientifically but logically. I’m not sure how a clinical psychologist does not realize the depletion of serotonin can possibly increase aggression, not the opposite, considering psychopharmaceutic interventions are literally geared towards increasing levels of serotonin to resolve depressive symptoms (including aggression).
Therefore, Peterson comparing human social behavior via dominance hierarchies to lobsters is inappropriate for a number of reasons. The neurotransmitter he focuses on (serotonin) seems to have different behavioral impacts on vertebrate vs. invertebrate animals. Lobsters aren’t particularly social animals, their dominance structure seems to be based on size, and human societies are infinitely more complicated than lobsters fighting for mates.
This isn’t the only time Peterson misrepresents scientific findings. Peterson is a self proclaimed Christian and supports the idea of a monotheistic God. Far from a theologian or philosopher of religion, Peterson still attempts to argue the existence of God in debate. It’s perfectly reasonable to debate the existence of God with fellow colleagues, but the justification and evidence you give for your arguments need to be strong. One of the arguments given by Peterson is the usage of psychedelic drugs in support of a “religious experience” which would somehow justify the belief in a God. Specifically in the debate with Matt Dillahunty, Peterson argues Psilocybin usage facilitates smoking cessation (people stop smoking). To take this even further Dillahunty rightfully points out you can stop smoking without a supernatural experience to which Peterson replies “not really” (without further explanation). This is one example of the rhetorical ambiguity he uses and evasion tactics I will get to later. Peterson then proceeds to butcher the findings of this study.
Peterson states, “If you give people Psilocybin and they have a mystical experience, they have an 85% chance of smoking cessation from one treatment”. The number of participants is 15, that's a low sample size, there was no control group, and participants took psilocybin in conjunction with cognitive behavioral theory. The intervention was over 15 weeks long with participants receiving cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness training, and guided imagery for smoking cessation 4 times a week in conjunction with approximately 3 moderate to high doses of psilocybin. Peterson claiming smoking cessation came from “one treatment” is blatantly false. This study has no control group and has multiple interventions essentially besides the psilocybin given, there is no way to differentiate if the results we do see come from the psilocybin alone, the CBT alone, or the two in combination. Furthermore, long term follow-up after 12 months shows only 9 out of the original 15 participants were biologically confirmed as smoking abstinence, with 7 participants reporting continuous abstinence.
Another paper came to my attention from Genetically Modified Skeptic. This paper is an online survey pertaining to smoking cessation and naturalistic usage of psilocybin. The immediate issue is these self reported online surveys are limited for inferring causality, just because someone reports something via a survey doesn’t mean it is automatically true. The survey is also administered on websites where individuals are already interested in psychedelics. Perhaps these individuals are more likely to quit smoking due to personality traits they have, maybe they have the support system to quit their addiction, or maybe they don’t smoke at all… we can’t tell for sure given the limitations of survey based research. Nevertheless, this is automatically a biased sample size and some of the measurement tools are retrospective which adds another limitation because we are relying on people's memories.
Jordan Peterson, the public intellectual, is hedging his bets on psychedelics causing a “religious experience” to justify his beliefs in religion on flawed and limited data. This seems to be the pattern, Peterson showcases limited data and spins a narrative around it to “prove” his point.
Rhetorical Evasion
Peterson often uses fancy jargon when discussing even the most mundane ideas but even worse when discussing some of the complex ones. Nothing illustrates this further in his book “Maps of Meaning”, where he gives a definition or multiple definitions for the word meaning. I’m not going to read the almost 600 page book but Nathan J. Robinson did this work for me in his article outlining the many ways Peterson defines meaning, which include:
“Meaning is manifestation of the divine individual adaptive path”
“Meaning is the ultimate balance between… the chaos of transformation and the possibility and…the discipline of pristine order”
“Meaning is an expression of the instinct that guides us out into the unknown so that we can conquer it”
“Meaning is when everything there is comes together in an ecstatic dance of single purpose”
“Meaning means implication for behavioral output”
“Meaning emerges from the interplay between the possibilities of the world and the value structure operating within that world”
The imprecise definition Jordan gives for the word “meaning” just illustrates the issues of ambiguity and equivocation in his language. You never really know exactly what Peterson means or what his arguments truly entail. His writing often contains big words most laypeople are not familiar with, jargon from multiple disciplines, and seems like an intangible flow of words jumbled together. The over complication of basic ideas or truisms is Peterson’s specialty, his work is often filled with basic advice and ideas jumbled together with his own unnecessary ramblings as seen here:
Law is a necessary precondition to salvation, so to speak; necessary, but insufficient. Law provides the borders that limit chaos, and allows for the protected maturation of the individual. Law disciplines possibility, and allows the disciplined individual to bring his or her potentialities—those intrapsychic spirits—under voluntary control. The law allows for the application of such potentiality to the task of creative and courageous existence—allows spiritual water controlled flow into the valley of the shadow of death. Law held as an absolute, however, puts man in the position of the eternal adolescent, dependent upon the father for every vital decision, removes the responsibility for action from the individual, and therefore prevents him or her from discovering the potential grandeur of the soul. Life without law remains chaotic, effectively intolerable. Life that is pure law becomes sterile, equally unbearable. The domination of chaos or sterility equally breeds murderous resentment or hatred.
Essentially Peterson is saying law is important, having no law brings anarchy, and having law that is too strict is restrictive. This simple concept of having balanced laws is flooded with unneeded jargon, concepts, and wording. Seriously, what the f*ck is intrapsychic spirits? What is “spiritual water”? Is this psychology, philosophy, or poetry? Peterson throws out terms and concepts without explaining what they mean or how they relate to what he is talking about.
I’ve noticed numerous people enjoy Peterson’s advice but his basic advice amounts to truisms, a truism is a basic statement that is obviously true to many who hear it and it states nothing new. For instance, in his book 12 Rules for Life, rule 10 states to “be precise in your speech”. This basic advice is also said by the stoics thousands of years ago, particularly by Epictetus. Peterson isn’t some Brainiac that came up with this advice, he is merely repeating basic guidance from antiquity. Perhaps the unique brand of babble Peterson uses to justify his renditions of ancient wisdom is the selling point.
Besides his written works, Peterson uses his rhetorical evasiveness even in debate and in conversation. This is extremely evident in the debates with Sam Harris, Peterson continues to evade the questions Sam poses. Jordan can barely declare what he believes exactly in this discussion. Peterson even declares Sam a sort of “partial atheist” without fully elaborating on what he means, he also cannot give a clear definition of what he means by God. His arguments against Dillahunty and Harris showcases this rhetorical evasiveness. Peterson never fully commits to one argument, makes vague statements, changes definitions, and rarely clarifies concisely what he is trying to say.
Outside of his debates with God, Peterson’s overall lack of clarity reaches its way to other subjects. When debating philosopher Slavoj Zizek, Peterson cannot clarify how Marxism is presented in postmodernism when questioned by Zizek. Probably because he doesn’t understand Marxism or post modernism, I’ll dive deeper into that for point four pertaining to his philosophical blunders. Zizek rightfully questions Peterson’s general advice to “set your house in order before you change the world” due to the fact societal factors can dictate the person’s own “house” and influence their current situation. Peterson replies with an unrelated tangent about human resilience which doesn’t refute the central point about societal factors having influence over individual choice and betterment.
Peterson is not an expert on all subjects he speaks about and it clearly shows. His use of flashy words, unnecessary jargon, indecisive arguments, and equivocation have fooled others to think he contains special knowledge of the world and the answers to it. This is not the case as we shall see.
Fallacy of misplaced concreteness
Avid followers of Peterson should know one of his biggest influences is swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. Jung was a student of Sigmund Freud, one of the most influential psychologists to have ever lived. One of Jung’s key ideas was the notion of an archetype, Jungian archetypes describe universal symbols and images that derive from the collective unconscious. In Jung’s view the collective unconscious is a sort of innate primal knowledge we all share which comes from human history. The collective unconscious directs conscious behavior. Without getting too bogged down by Jung’s theories you can quickly tell these ideas are interesting and seem complex but they lack evidence.
Numerous psychologists in the late 19th century and early 20th century have fascinating theories of human behavior and cognition but these theories are more philosophical than scientific. There is no way we can test Jungian archetypes in an experimental setting to tell us anything meaningful, as we would have to accept the premise of the collective unconsciousness. How could we show all human beings have this collective knowledge base when we are born that governs our behavior? If it were real, where is this knowledge base located in the brain? How does it exactly work? Do we telekinetically share knowledge to all know the same things? In addition, the archetypes themselves are often too numerous and vague to be tested in any experimental setting. There is also the issue of confirmation bias, perhaps by imposing the archetypes referred to in Jung’s work on popular culture (which Peterson does) we would start to see more of these archetypes in popular culture. The logic is circular as you’re essentially assuming the existence of these archetypes as evidence of their existence.
Some critics of Jung even accuse him of essentialism which is the view that objects have a set of attributes necessary to their identity, if Jung is plastering archetypes as essential to human identity that runs into a few issues. One of the biases in contemporary social psychology is the fundamental attribution error; this means we tend to attribute behavior to personality based factors (essentialism) rather than other factors such as environmental influences. Essentialism can feed into human bias and lead to fallacious reasoning.
Peterson’s work is plastered with these ideas of Jungian archetypes and the collective unconsciousness, he makes reference to it in numerous lectures. While his theories pertaining to the Lion King movie are fascinating, none of it is falsifiable or can be experimented on. There is no empirical method which can test Peterson’s theories to see if they’re actually somewhat reputable. Jungian archetypes are more so philosophical concepts than scientific within the discipline of psychology. However, Peterson portrays the archetypes and his theories about them as fact, this relates to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
The fallacy of misplaced concreteness or reification posits that treating an abstract concept, such as an idea, as a physical entity. Peterson treats Jungian archetypes as if they’re physical entities. This generally happens in many of Peterson’s lectures where he spins narratives containing elements of Jungian terminology, mythology, and other subjects. All of it sounds like fancy jumbled together thought with superficial substance, it never concisely gets to the point and pretends it is true without mention of objective fact. Peterson’s theories about “order and chaos”, “Postmodern-Neo Marxism”, “intrapsychic spirits'', and others… are fascinating abstractions with little substance as they cannot be empirically tested or verified.
Philosophical Blunders
Maybe Jordan Peterson needs to take basic classes in philosophy because “postmodern-neo Marxism” is oxymoronic. The philosophical school of postmodernism is fragmented in it’s meaning, purpose, and ultimate end goal (it's hard to define). However, French philosophers of the 1960s and 1970s, such as Jean-François Lyotard, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, created postmodern thought in an attempt to critique convention ideas. These ideas pertained to language, history, society, institutions, aesthetics, and more. Classical postmodern criticisms of “metanarratives”, or universal stories we tell ourselves and others to justify knowledge and experience, can apply to Marxism as Marxism seeks to describe the world through the lens of its own narrative. Peterson cannot and has not clearly articulated where in postmodernism there is any semblance of Marxism. Marxism refers to the philosophical, political, and economic ideas from primarily philosopher Karl Marx. Unlike the postmodernist who critiqued everything, Marx’s primary concern was the economic system known as capitalism, the alternative utopian society he proposed is our modern understanding of communism.
While the postmodern philosopher’s rendition of skepticism became so cynical to the point where it started attacking itself, it did bring out important questions concerning society, knowledge, and power. Questioning the language we use, how we know about existence, how society should function, and our fundamental understanding of power is important. In fact the basis of these topics have been and are currently questioned in other disciplines, this is good! As humans we should reflect and question the nature of our existence. However, postmodern thought often posits we cannot obtain objective knowledge as our knowledge and existence is shaped by our subjective interpretation of said knowledge and existence… This can lead to moral and epistemic relativism, subjectivism, and social constructivism. While society and inherent cognitive biases could shape our understanding of knowing and existing within the world, the claim there is no objective way of knowing runs into many issues. How are you reading this article without an electronic device connected to the internet? If knowing is subjective then how can you read my words? How can we code software to send this article to your email if all knowledge is socially constructed? Humans must be able to pull off magic tricks considering discrete mathematics, programming, engineering, production methods, and distribution allow you to have a device to read this right now… or maybe science and mathematics gives us some insight into objective reality allowing me to transmit my written work to you via your email inbox.
Marxism is more so concerned with the class struggle caused by capitalism. While Marx was correct during his time as companies often exploited workers for little pay, there were no safety regulations, workers had no benefits or rights, and child labor was rife… his views are outdated in many respects as now capitalist countries implemented workers rights, safety regulations, workers unions, job benefits, and social programs for the less wealthy. This is not to say capitalist societies are perfect, there are no class struggles, and every worker is treated fairly but the alternative Marx supported (communism) led to totalitarianism and death. Nonetheless, Marx is a respected critic of capitalism and his critiques should be taken into consideration when discussing social improvement.
The issue that comes into fruition is when Peterson overtly conflates the two schools of thought into the concept of “postmodern - neo Marxism”. Marxism is inherently a modernist theory given the time and circumstances of its inception, postmodern philosophy comes later. Postmodernism questions and criticizes the concept of “metanarratives”, Marxism can be considered a metanarrative as it attempts to describe society within its own framework which postmodernism would question, the two are inherently incompatible. Furthermore, Peterson’s claim that “postmodern - neo Marxism” is at odds and attempting to destroy the “west” also falls apart when further examined. Postmodern philosophy in large part comes from French philosophers ergo western thought, Karl Marx wrote much of his most influential work while living in London (pretty western). If “west” referred to industrialized western nations such as the nations of Europe and North America then it could be correctly assumed postmodernism and Marxism is a part of the “west” as it came from these nations.
He Is A Thought Leader
Peterson should not be considered a public intellectual but a thought leader. A thought leader refers to an individual (typically well credentialed) who perpetuates a singular worldview to explain reality, they often prophesize this worldview to the lay public and often high ranking corporate executives. In Daniel W. Drezner’s book “The Ideas Industry '' it is argued the contemporary understanding of the public intellectual, a person like Noam Chomsky, has morphed from criticism and complexity to shallowness and frivolousness.
As philosophers David Livingstone Smith and John Kaag have pointed out in their own critique Peterson has profited off of his solution to the “spiritual crisis of masculinity in the West”. His worldview and message is often centered around the uselessness and emasculation that an increasing number of men claim to feel due to globalization, technological change, and civil rights gains by feminists and various ethnic minorities. Perhaps this is why his audience seems to be primarily men. As argued by Smith and Kaag, as well as confirmed in The 12 Rules for Life, Peterson considers the grand duality between chaos and order as what governs reality. This duality is fundamental to existence (in Peterson’s view) with the two being opposites. Chaos is deemed feminine and order is juxtaposed as masculine, thus the elicited “postmodern - neo Marxist” support chaos in the form of radical feminism, political correctness, and identity politics. Masculinity otherwise known as order must be protected, men are inherently victims to chaos yet we are simultaneously supposed to reject victimhood.
However, a problem arises, Peterson’s own ideas or grand theories to explain the world suffer from the same issues as Carl Jung, Karl Marx, and the postmodernist. It can be seen as an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory of sorts as there are no known ways to actually put Peterson’s ideas to the test. Peterson’s theories of order and chaos are similar to Karl Marx’s dichotomy between proletariat and the bourgeoisie, both are grand theories used to explain phenomena in the world, but just because one proposes a theory doesn’t make it true. Peterson’s ideas do not contain much depth when looking further into them, he paints the world into a conflict where masculinity (and the west) are attacked by postmodern-neo Marxist but he never truly presents compelling evidence for this conflict. As Nathan Robinson has pointed out Peterson uses verbosity to cover for his lack of profundity because there simply is no evidence supporting his ideas or the evidence that is cited is taken out of context. Unlike our understanding of a public intellectual who conveys nuance, complexity, and compelling evidence, a thought leader like Peterson views the world from a singular lens (his theories of the world) and then proceeds to claim these ideas as truth.
The problem with Peterson, and numerous other thought leaders, is the academic credentials they possess and lean on. Peterson uses his standing as a former professor, psychologist, and “expert” on authoritarianism to convince his audience of this message, sounds pretty authoritarian. He has no qualms about using his title of “doctor” whilst denouncing the very institutions he benefited from. Jordan Peterson is not correct just because he has a doctorate in psychology, references a few thinkers, and states a few true pieces of advice… the merit of his claims in of themselves would make him correct. Instead Peterson has used his authority and obscure ideas to build a legion of devoted followers who do not critically question him. If Peterson and his followers despise postmodernism so much in favor of rationality, logic, evidence, and science… Why doesn’t his followers, let alone Peterson, question the many ideas stated and assumptions made? Why does Peterson hold on to his beliefs in religion when the evidence is CLEARLY lacking in his favor? Why does Peterson continue to convey his convoluted ideas as fact?
Jordan Peterson seems to be more so a highly credentialed conspiracy theorist rather than a public intellectual.