tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post4325212536934086844..comments2024-03-28T11:24:13.222+00:00Comments on theatre of noise: Jordan Peterson, demagoguerobinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-67787954415576127232019-02-23T01:55:47.267+00:002019-02-23T01:55:47.267+00:00As a woman, it's not too surprising that I'...As a woman, it's not too surprising that I'm triggered by 'Order is male and chaos is female' and how this has always been true since the beginning. <br /><br />Compare the most fundamental male/vs female purpose of reproduction of the species. Males produce millions of sperm in the short term and deliver them wherever. Females have eggs created while the female was in her own mother's womb, released singly and from the opposite side of the body from the previous egg (usually)! So orderly, it's commonly called a 'period'. The ovaries produce a scent that attracts sperm in the right direction, the egg has a complex process that allows one sperm in but not hundreds, and the result is a fully formed human being.<br /><br />Order vs chaos indeed, but it's not the birth or female process that's chaotic.@miniMumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01674849552434945776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-55478393198412275012019-02-21T02:07:55.856+00:002019-02-21T02:07:55.856+00:00I really appreciate hearing your viewpoint, and sa...I really appreciate hearing your viewpoint, and saving me from having to watch the hours of video myself. @miniMumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01674849552434945776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-11207798248759756662018-03-22T14:05:36.661+00:002018-03-22T14:05:36.661+00:00The New York Review of Books is scathing:
https:/...The New York Review of Books is scathing:<br /><br />https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-6249448534048805682018-01-25T21:36:25.953+00:002018-01-25T21:36:25.953+00:00Thank you for writing this. Thank you for writing this. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106968503113711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-76672319393788194312018-01-25T18:58:14.889+00:002018-01-25T18:58:14.889+00:00The tide is turning against this bigot. Though thi...The tide is turning against this bigot. Though this article is far too kind.<br /><br />https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489<br />robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-57033444220506667242018-01-24T18:59:45.288+00:002018-01-24T18:59:45.288+00:00Shuja Haider takes down Peterson's complete an...Shuja Haider takes down Peterson's complete and utter ignorance about postmodernism here:<br /><br />https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/<br />robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-75316339516793678362018-01-24T00:15:51.708+00:002018-01-24T00:15:51.708+00:00 Dave it seems to me, if you follow this guy at al... Dave it seems to me, if you follow this guy at all, you should have no problem being persuaded of his bigotry. I think the problem lies more in your willingness to do so.<br /> An accurate and hard hitting read Robin. Excellent stuff. Damullnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-88642415543474934082018-01-22T14:46:37.216+00:002018-01-22T14:46:37.216+00:00Dave, I am not getting paid for this blog. Peterso...Dave, I am not getting paid for this blog. Peterson gets close to a million bucks a year. I wish I had the time to watch hundreds of hours of video and transcribe them all, then double-check to be sure I have not made an error. That would be preferable. But instead, I rely on people like you to a call me out, and I am truly grateful for that. <br /><br />I might make small slips; Peterson might make small slips. I am not criticising his tiny errors. I am critiquing continuous errors of logic, consistency, and omission. If you cannot understand this difference, so be it. You think that one slip invalidates an entire argument supported by otther facts? Well, then you are coming down on the side of Goliath over David. As so many other will, who prefer to support fame and fortune.<br /><br />The problem is likely that you need to read what I say more carefully. For example, I wrote "Repeatedly he denies hierarchies are bad". You replied "I cant see him saying hierarchies are bad". To be crystal clear, that's the opposite of what I wrote. <br /><br />Certainly, it was over-simplistic of me to phrase it that way, but it was a quick comment. It's not that Peterson denies hierarchies are bad... he naturalises them. That's not the same thing. But I already covered this point, in detail, in the blog post. So I didn't think I had to do so all over again. Just scroll up and read the section about lobsters. <br /><br />Peterson denies sexism repeatedly, generally by omission. He says that men and women should be treated fairly (a meaningless statement in itself). But then he valorises male qualities (as he sees them) over female. (Read the first link below.) Of course he is careful about where and how he makes his sexist comments. But he makes them nonetheless.<br /><br />If you wish to critique my logic or facts, please go ahead. Don't ask me to provide even more examples or even more proof. That is an endless project, in which you defer engaging with what I have already written. <br /><br />What I will do is provide are some links to other critiques, just in case you think I am the only one who has noticed Peterson is a fraud and a dangerous demagogue. I found these just now, by doing a simple web seach.<br /><br />http://pressprogress.ca/university-of-toronto-professor-men-cant-control-crazy-women-because-men-cant-fight-them/<br /><br />http://skepchick.org/2016/10/a-response-to-jordan-peterson/<br /><br />https://torontoist.com/2017/05/room-jordan-peterson-senators-debated-human-rights/<br /><br />http://alexanderofford.com/the-intellectual-fraudulence-of-jordan-peterson-apropos-of-daniel-karasik/<br /><br />https://nowtoronto.com/news/jordan-peterson-assault-on-academic-freedom/<br />robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-45660846422572137502018-01-22T07:47:52.080+00:002018-01-22T07:47:52.080+00:00I can't respect you when you attribute things ...I can't respect you when you attribute things to him that he didnt say. Yes it hugely changes your claim! I cant see him saying hierarchies are bad, where does he say that? He doesnt deny sexism either in C4 clip. If you can direct me to a clip that shows this bigotry I'm willing to be persuaded. Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17433824794566451417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-54951536864799064012018-01-22T02:10:00.830+00:002018-01-22T02:10:00.830+00:00Thanks for the correction. I am not going to watch...Thanks for the correction. I am not going to watch the video again, so I will simply assume you are correct and that I made a mistake. He does once, briefly, for a couple of seconds out of a full interview, admit there is a gender gap. And then, nonetheless, refuses to talk about it, even though that's the subject he's being questioned on. <br /><br />Repeatedly he denies hierarchies are bad, naturalises them, denies sexism, etc. That's the bulk of what he says in the 6-8 hours I watched. I realise there is much I didn't watch. I am sure occasionally he makes placating comments. <br /><br />Do you think this substantively changes any claim I have made?robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-72921519891028090382018-01-22T01:18:32.608+00:002018-01-22T01:18:32.608+00:00Hi, you say "Peterson states that there are &...Hi, you say "Peterson states that there are "many factors" for the pay gap, without admitting that sexist discrimination is one of them. In fact, he refuses to speak about this subject at all". At around the 8 minute mark he says "about 18 factors, one of which is gender, and there is prejudice, there's no doubt about that". So, like Cathy Newman, you are accusing him of something which is clearly untrue.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17433824794566451417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-82786612573686070492018-01-22T00:42:28.211+00:002018-01-22T00:42:28.211+00:00OK I need to respond again. You mentioned suicide....OK I need to respond again. You mentioned suicide.<br /><br />White cis males are not at greater suicide risk than other groups. That's another myth promulgated to protect advantages. 35% of the trans population in Ontario consider suicide in any given year. And the actual rates of suicide among them, native peoples, and other disadvantaged groups are way higher than in the general population. For example, the age-specific suicide rate among Aboriginals in Canada are triple the national average.<br /><br />The number one correlated cause of suicide is economic situation. People get depressed if they are not validated in work, if they cannot pay the bills, if they cannot feed their family. That's why suicide rates were higher in the Great Depression than any other time on record. <br /><br />The current neoliberal exploitation of labour, with broken unions, zero hour contracts, decreased rights, etc. is to blame. More money has flown into the hands of the rich, leaving the vast majority of people hungrier and more indebted. Meanwhile environmental conditions worsen and people fear their children may not even have a future. In this climate, it's the smart people who get depressed. (And it is.)<br /><br />It is precisely reactionary conservatives like Peterson who exacerbate the situation that he then has to fix in his clinical practice. (I am not claiming that he is aware of this connection or does so deliberately to ensure a steady revenue stream.)<br /><br />And yes, 80% of deaths by suicide are men. But *more* women than men attempt suicide. They are simply less adept at succeeding. Grim stuff, I know. But to think women are not under equal or greater pressure than men is simply incorrect.<br /><br />Suicide is an enormous problem. Tearing down the capitalist system of exploitation is the only solution. In the ruins, build a caring community of equals. This may be a pipe dream, but I would prefer people like Peterson used their energies to this positive end, rather than selling the myth of heroic individualism. That path leads only to depression and, for some, an early death.<br /><br />http://www.religioustolerance.org/sui_nati.htm<br /><br />https://canadiancrc.com/Youth_Suicide_in_Canada.aspx<br />robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-32765984168392590972018-01-22T00:00:25.268+00:002018-01-22T00:00:25.268+00:00"I think he believes that the trans-protectio..."I think he believes that the trans-protection as law is a disingenuous movement of a neo-Marxist extreme post-modernism."<br /><br />I am sure he does. But I have already deconstructed this argument in the blog article -- starting with his complete misunderstandings of both Marxism and post-modernism. They are only his enemy because his thinking is based on simplistic conservatism on the one hand, and Freudian fantasy on the other. Both of which doctrines are profoundly sexist. And both of which are transparent to those critics he might label "post-modern". A term which means, apparently, anyone thinking critically in the last century. <br /><br />No doubt Peterson actually helps people as a clinical psychologist. I am glad he wants men to get their shit together. But does this require spreading misinformation about a) gender studies, b) pay gaps, c) left-wing politics, d) post-modernism, e) the law, etc. etc.? And that's only the videos I have seen.<br /><br />In any case, his alignment with white, cisgender, men as some sort of oppressed majority ("squeezed out from society") would be laughable... except that it is so dangerous. It is also a common claim among supporters of Trump, in the so-called "alt-right", and other fascist communities. They fear that the poor and disadvantaged will somehow rise up and take away all their rights. So we had better not introduce legislation designed to protect women, trans people, etc. from being beaten up in back alleys, denied jobs, or abused. <br /><br />I'd be happier if Peterson stayed in his practice, where he can, at most, damage one person at a time. As plenty of other psychologists and followers of Freud do.<br /><br />I think I really should move on to more positive and productive pursuits. Though I am always happy to engage with someone asking good questions and sharing information. robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-71040358460073877012018-01-21T22:53:24.558+00:002018-01-21T22:53:24.558+00:00Well laid out.
I think Peterson believes that the...Well laid out.<br /><br />I think Peterson believes that the trans-protection as law is a disingenuous movement of a neo-Marxist extreme post-modernism. He's often said he would have no trouble referring to trans people however they want but that making laws around compelling that, which he believes is happening, is authoritarianism in infancy. <br /><br />I think you're dead right to say he's a better preacher than academic. Moreover, I think he's genuine when he says he still believes that truth is the most important thing. He's out there trying to live his own and encouraging people to do the same. I admire that. <br /><br />The other thing I admire is that he genuinely wants men to get their shit together, be honest, be counted and not feel squeezed out from society in the way that suicide rates indicate is happening. He has correctly identified this problem in a discourse climate where standing up for yourself as a man sets of feminism alarms. I admire his authenticity and courage in that respect. <br /><br />Someone sent me this. He starts crying! <br /><br />https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ER1LOarlgg&feature=youtu.beKevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17009725991746202571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-25333938053526437792018-01-21T21:39:33.578+00:002018-01-21T21:39:33.578+00:00My own view is that everything in society is at le...My own view is that everything in society is at least partially (and sometimes grossly) socially constructed. There's plenty of evidence in the wide variety of forms that gender expresses in different cultures, including Western European culture through the ages. A simple example is that boys were once dressed in pink, which was associated with being bold and assertive. At some point the signifier "pink" flipped meanings with respect to sex.<br /><br />But this is not to say that gender, sexual orientation, etc. is *all* about societal influence and that there are no intrinsic biological or psychological (two different things) determinants. Considering biology, it cannot be denied (though some will try!) that there are biological sexes, from the chromosomes all the way down to sexual organs. If this was not the case, reconstructive surgery and hormone replacement therapy for gender transitioning would not exist. They would be completely superfluous if biology had nothing to do with gender. <br /><br />Can we not simply accept that some people's gender identities are at odds with their biology? The evidence is overwhelming. I don't find it difficult to respect that. This is not *merely* a matter of psychology, but it is *also* an expression of psychology, which is to say a person's subjectivity. It's simplistic, even stupid, to regard gender as *either* societally-conditioned or biological or psychological. Not everything falls into oppositional logic... and if there is a good example of that, gender expression is one!<br /><br />Peterson's argument, if I understand correctly, is that protecting trans people from oppression is a bad thing because this admits that their identity is entirely socially-determined. And that this can be used against them. He asserts this by... using this point against them. Er, what? Doesn't this make him the very person that the trans community needs protection from? <br /><br />Surely if Peterson was on the "side" of trans people, he would be working with them, in their community, to work out these definitions. But he isn't. <br /><br />But back to the basis of his argument. A further problem is that Peterson's position is inconsistent with the law as it already exists. To take one example, "race" is not entirely (or even mostly) biological; it is culturally-constructed. Yet persecution on the basis of race is protected by this bill. Why isn't Peterson objecting to that? Well, because social construction is not really his point. He might pretend it is, as a rhetorical gambit when confronting people less adept at debating than he is. But it's dissembling. <br /><br />Given the weakness of his argument, it is difficult to do any but assume Peterson has ulterior motivations.robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-9336118326401650922018-01-21T21:22:01.556+00:002018-01-21T21:22:01.556+00:00Those are interesting debates to have, no doubt. B...Those are interesting debates to have, no doubt. But (at least in the clips I saw) Peterson's attitude and approach, not to mention what he actually says, are not congruent with someone open to debate. If he was, he wouldn't say the whole thing is a "far radical left" conspiracy... which is simply stupid. For one thing, there is no far left radical politics in Canada (and I *was* in politics there, for a time). The closest you would come is the Greens, but they are moderate compared to what the left has to offer elsewhere. The Trudeau government is more center-right than anything.<br /><br />Where Peterson does argue points in politics, economics, rights, and philosophy he uses logical fallacies, omission of facts, cherry-picking of data, and continuous assertion as his techniques. My article documents a few cases in some detail. I am therefore not willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt that I might grant someone else.robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-6774266786257591962018-01-21T19:37:31.411+00:002018-01-21T19:37:31.411+00:00Well at least opinions can be edited!
Just to en...Well at least opinions can be edited! <br /><br />Just to engage with the last bit about his attitudes towards trans-gender people, although I'm you've had enough of it at the same time so soz.<br /><br />I don't think Peterson has any objection to the trans community or the journey of a trans person. Really I don't think he has any skin in the game.<br /><br />He has an interesting take on the trans community: that the post-modern identification of gender as socially constructed is a costly mistake for trans people because it allows for the far right to claim that it can be societally deconstructed again. He compares it to homosexuality which is biological and you can't be taught out of it.Kevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17009725991746202571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-26882504452687175132018-01-21T18:59:37.874+00:002018-01-21T18:59:37.874+00:00"He is a very bad practitioner of his chosen ..."He is a very bad practitioner of his chosen trade."<br /><br />Sorry, that is too extreme. Wish comments could be edited!robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-22260188038766137132018-01-21T18:56:54.039+00:002018-01-21T18:56:54.039+00:00To address just some of what you wrote.
On C-16,...To address just some of what you wrote. <br /><br />On C-16, Peterson went on record at the tribunal on the bill itself. Ancillary documents are completely irrelevant as he or any lawyer knows. They are not in the bill and not binding. So this is just misdirection. And paranoia. <br /><br />What can the problem be with a self-defined group? Only that it is out of his control. maybe he wants to be the one, as a person of privilege, to make all the definitions? Thankfully, it doesn't work that way. <br /><br />Trans people are definitely a community of interest. Despite the many differences between individuals (as exist in any group) they self-identify as being part of this social grouping. (I am not saying *all* trans people wish to be grouped, but that is not necessary for this logic.) <br /><br />OK, so given that there is a social grouping of trans people we can also say a few other things, taht are documented facts in the world. People in this social group are subject to discrimination. Their identity is not a choice.<br /><br />If Peterson doesn't believe *any* group should be protected by the law, he would object to the entirety of this law, and not just the amendment that protects gender expression. But that is *not* his position.<br /><br />The only conclusion I can draw is that he objects to the trans community being protected. Or doesn't believe they are victimised. I'd recommend he reads the studies, but he has proven woefully unable to read and understand simple facts. He is a very bad practitioner of his chosen trade. But a really good preacher. robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08743788064455642852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14307486.post-41031100698890733892018-01-21T18:46:20.012+00:002018-01-21T18:46:20.012+00:00Hi Robin. I read your article and enjoyed it.
I d...Hi Robin. I read your article and enjoyed it.<br /><br />I don't share your wariness of Peterson probably because I just find the topics interesting rather than his views correct or otherwise.<br /><br />Some simple ideas just to give some engagement; I haven't thought as deeply as you have.<br /><br />- I would imagine Peterson would wriggle away from your points about moral implication by denying having any opinion about moral or immoral constructions of society. He's very biologically focused and focused on the how's and not the why's. <br /><br />- I know that he harps on about the male hero because he sees its prevalence combined with the more male imperative to distinguish self as reason not to dig for the heroine. He's more interested in observation of story than the kind of society it creates, idealism or analysis. Whether ignoring the fringes is sexist I suppose depends on ones own opinion about whether not taking an interest constitutes sexism. <br /><br />- On C-16 he was very concerned about the precedent that would be set by a self-defining group being given a special place in the law and the implications for compelled speech. The compelled speech part was an interpretation influenced by an accompanying document that went with the changes to the law. The document gave guidelines regarding interpretation. It's since been removed from the record. That's where he took the notion that it was a plot from the post-modernist extremes.Kevhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17009725991746202571noreply@blogger.com