I’d like to understand WHY a few individuals who share Peterson’s worldview (for the most part) are so critical of him - dismissing him as charlatan or simply a clever wordsmith, but adamant that he has nothing to offer - no substance. Or worse that he’s deceiving and “dangerous.” I have a hard time understanding where they’re coming from here. I feel Peterson’s influence, body of work, engaging, articulate lectures and authenticity proves his worth. Maybe they are just trying to get noticed by being “against” him.
He's creepy. That's why people, especially women, are critical of him. He has no respect for women and that may be why people dismiss him. I remember listening to him talk about how men determine their social hierarchy amongst themselves and then women compete to be with the highest ranking men, like women have no agency and were just passively taking what the men had decided for them. He did not even realize what he was doing. He's oblivious.
The big refutation to his point of view on that particular topic comes from the studies of animals which finds that females often prefer to mate with nicer, lower ranking males.
He just does not acknowledge or see women, so women don't want to listen to him.
In what ways, specifically, is he creepy? How do you know that he "doesn't respect women"?
Yes, obviously, I know that you can detect from my question alone that I disagree with you. But I am asking you the question sincerely to understand you, not to to maneuver you into a "gotcha."
So yes. Admitted. I disagree with you strongly. The question is good faith though, I promise.
Because he doesn't recognize women's agency, as I described above; thinks having children is the primary goal of all women; and treats women like objects. Please see his comment about the SI plus size cover model. If that's what he thinks, that's his business, but there is no reason to tweet a comment like that out to the whole world, insulting the woman involved and every other woman who worries about their weight. He has no problem defining what women think, what their bodies should look like, etc, for women. Therefore, he's a creep of the 1950s variety.
By Peterson's lights, men represent order and take their place in an hierarchy of competence (to exercise power) so natural that it's practically an authority in itself. While women represent chaos. Anyone who's observed men and women know that's not in general true. Misogyny much? How it is in the real world:
I believe it’s because he takes a lot of Biblically-based ideas and principles and plagiarizes them as his own original thoughts. I think that’s the biggest issue. He attempts to present the essence of the Christian faith as mere morality without citing the Author and source which is Jesus.
Are you shocked at how you thought he was a terrible person?
I've had many similar reactions. Having undergone a change of political mind from progressive to more conservative in recent years, I discovered that I had "hated" people like Jordan Peterson (sub in any conservative) for no reason. I hadn't read them, or listened to them, or given even the modest respect of trying to actually understand their point of view.
It was 100 percent received opinion. I was robot emoting for my social circle. I was not thinking, even a little bit. And I certainly wasn't acting ethically.
You are correct that men gravitate towards Peterson's message of meaning and responsibility in a world awash in the meaningless nihilism of post-modernism. Unfortunately the word "meaning" encompasses an impossibly huge idea like "God"
Peterson spoke with moral clarity and conviction and against the relativistic rot that has settled into the western institutions, especially the church. I've long been bothered by the character and ethos of the American suburban church in particular and the church in general. It's hard to describe the problem exactly, but I'm always left with this vague constellation of impressions - as if the church doesn't really believe its message; as if the church secretly thinks, or at least suspects, the scientific materialists / evolutionists are correct; as if the church feels guilty about its moral teachings and is afraid to take a moral stand; as if the church secretly prefers and is chasing after worldly things but must do so under false pretenses; as if the church doesn't understand that it cuts its own legs out from under itself when it accepts at face value many modern (and post-modern) presuppositions about the world and truth - and thus seems to start belief in God by swallowing a contradiction. I think all of that can be summed up in the idea that the Church doesn't seem to understand its own message nor believe in it. Peterson seemed to talk about God, the Bible, and faith in a way that made it come alive, have relevance, have intellectual credibility, and have meaning.
He gives the boys meaning in their lives by hitching it to hierarchy. Tells them it's always been the way. He holds that the patriarchy exists because men are more competent to hold power, not that women might have been systematically excluded. The boys love it. It's a whole industry now telling boys that in fact it is right and good to exercise power over women.
I looked at his 12 rules. They seemed either vapid, platitudinous, or simply wrong. Number 12, thrown in there i guess because it's more meaningful sounding than 11 or 13, is to pet stray cats. That's not a good idea. People have always been vulnerable to the wisdom mongerers. In his own life he seems to ignore a great many of them.
I’d like to understand WHY a few individuals who share Peterson’s worldview (for the most part) are so critical of him - dismissing him as charlatan or simply a clever wordsmith, but adamant that he has nothing to offer - no substance. Or worse that he’s deceiving and “dangerous.” I have a hard time understanding where they’re coming from here. I feel Peterson’s influence, body of work, engaging, articulate lectures and authenticity proves his worth. Maybe they are just trying to get noticed by being “against” him.
He's creepy. That's why people, especially women, are critical of him. He has no respect for women and that may be why people dismiss him. I remember listening to him talk about how men determine their social hierarchy amongst themselves and then women compete to be with the highest ranking men, like women have no agency and were just passively taking what the men had decided for them. He did not even realize what he was doing. He's oblivious.
The big refutation to his point of view on that particular topic comes from the studies of animals which finds that females often prefer to mate with nicer, lower ranking males.
He just does not acknowledge or see women, so women don't want to listen to him.
I watched him being interviewed by a woman and he was downright rude to her. The young men commenting loved it.
In what ways, specifically, is he creepy? How do you know that he "doesn't respect women"?
Yes, obviously, I know that you can detect from my question alone that I disagree with you. But I am asking you the question sincerely to understand you, not to to maneuver you into a "gotcha."
So yes. Admitted. I disagree with you strongly. The question is good faith though, I promise.
Because he doesn't recognize women's agency, as I described above; thinks having children is the primary goal of all women; and treats women like objects. Please see his comment about the SI plus size cover model. If that's what he thinks, that's his business, but there is no reason to tweet a comment like that out to the whole world, insulting the woman involved and every other woman who worries about their weight. He has no problem defining what women think, what their bodies should look like, etc, for women. Therefore, he's a creep of the 1950s variety.
Thank you for expanding on your point of view.
By Peterson's lights, men represent order and take their place in an hierarchy of competence (to exercise power) so natural that it's practically an authority in itself. While women represent chaos. Anyone who's observed men and women know that's not in general true. Misogyny much? How it is in the real world:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/18/sanna-marin-finland-dance-party-video-outrage/
I believe it’s because he takes a lot of Biblically-based ideas and principles and plagiarizes them as his own original thoughts. I think that’s the biggest issue. He attempts to present the essence of the Christian faith as mere morality without citing the Author and source which is Jesus.
They don't share his worldview is the simple answer.
Are you shocked at how you thought he was a terrible person?
I've had many similar reactions. Having undergone a change of political mind from progressive to more conservative in recent years, I discovered that I had "hated" people like Jordan Peterson (sub in any conservative) for no reason. I hadn't read them, or listened to them, or given even the modest respect of trying to actually understand their point of view.
It was 100 percent received opinion. I was robot emoting for my social circle. I was not thinking, even a little bit. And I certainly wasn't acting ethically.
You are correct that men gravitate towards Peterson's message of meaning and responsibility in a world awash in the meaningless nihilism of post-modernism. Unfortunately the word "meaning" encompasses an impossibly huge idea like "God"
Peterson spoke with moral clarity and conviction and against the relativistic rot that has settled into the western institutions, especially the church. I've long been bothered by the character and ethos of the American suburban church in particular and the church in general. It's hard to describe the problem exactly, but I'm always left with this vague constellation of impressions - as if the church doesn't really believe its message; as if the church secretly thinks, or at least suspects, the scientific materialists / evolutionists are correct; as if the church feels guilty about its moral teachings and is afraid to take a moral stand; as if the church secretly prefers and is chasing after worldly things but must do so under false pretenses; as if the church doesn't understand that it cuts its own legs out from under itself when it accepts at face value many modern (and post-modern) presuppositions about the world and truth - and thus seems to start belief in God by swallowing a contradiction. I think all of that can be summed up in the idea that the Church doesn't seem to understand its own message nor believe in it. Peterson seemed to talk about God, the Bible, and faith in a way that made it come alive, have relevance, have intellectual credibility, and have meaning.
He gives the boys meaning in their lives by hitching it to hierarchy. Tells them it's always been the way. He holds that the patriarchy exists because men are more competent to hold power, not that women might have been systematically excluded. The boys love it. It's a whole industry now telling boys that in fact it is right and good to exercise power over women.
I looked at his 12 rules. They seemed either vapid, platitudinous, or simply wrong. Number 12, thrown in there i guess because it's more meaningful sounding than 11 or 13, is to pet stray cats. That's not a good idea. People have always been vulnerable to the wisdom mongerers. In his own life he seems to ignore a great many of them.
It’s an interesting juxtaposition: Lena Dunham’s celebrated narcissism masked as feminism, and Jordan Peterson’s theme of personal responsibility.
Thanks for the summary. I tend to agree
Excellent piece. Needs minimal editing as a few typos are present.