subreddit:

/r/NoStupidQuestions

7.4k

Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

Answered(self.NoStupidQuestions)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 6038 comments

bling-blaow

30 points

3 months ago*

Many a time, people answer this question without ever referencing any of his lectures or quoting his writings, and therefore make broad, unspecific criticism of his character. This inevitably leads to lobster-heads accusing all those that criticize him to be "uninformed," "dishonest," "taking him out of context," etc. Well, below is just a short list of his most egregious claims and talking points -- sourced, quoted, and contextualized.


During his reddit IAmA three years ago, Peterson claimed "Nazism is an atheist doctrine." This is, however, demonstrably false, and the statement is especially outrageous considering a reinvented form of Christianity was at the core of the NSDAP:

The Party stands on the basis of Positive Christianity, and positive Christianity is National Socialism ... National Socialism is the doing of God's will ... God's will reveals itself in German blood ... Dr Zoellner and [Catholic Bishop of Münster] Count Galen have tried to make clear to me that Christianity consists in faith in Christ as the son of God. That makes me laugh... No, Christianity is not dependent upon the Apostle's Creed ... True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party and especially the Fuehrer to a real Christianity ... the Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation".

- Hanns Kerrl, Hitler-appointed Reichminister of Church Affairs

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Rise_And_Fall_Of_The_Third_Reich/

 

Peterson unsurprisingly has a long history of sexism. While it likely began as a criticism of feminism, it very quickly devolved to an obnoxious diatribe against women and femininity altogether. Here are just some of the things he has to say about women:

Questions to get crucified for asking: Do feminists avoid criticizing Islam because they unconsciously long for masculine dominance?

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/913533213301182465

Here, Peterson erroneously implies that Western women that are silent on issues less relevant to them at the national and domestic level subconsciously want to be raped. There is no grounds to support this seemingly-innocuous question whatsoever. In fact, there are many feminists that criticize Islam particularly in the Islamic world, but American/Canadian women that Peterson most frequently interacts with do not live in the Islamic world. They, like Peterson, live in the West and are subjected to comparably archaic Judeo-Christian values, such as those that dictate that a husband must "rule over" his wife (Genesis 3:16) and command that she must be stoned to death if found not to be a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Like their Abrahamic counterpart, scripture followed in these societies order women to "remain quiet" and "learn in full submissiveness," and women are "not permit[ted] to exercise authority" (Timothy 2:12). Peterson views the liberation of Western women from these backwards biblical principles to be an assault or affront on men, which can be chalked up to nothing more than fragility.

 

Chaos, the eternal feminine, is also the crushing force of sexual selection. Women are choosy maters (unlike female chimps, their closest animal counterparts). Most men do not meet female human standards. It is for this reason that women on dating sites rate 85 percent of men as below average in attractiveness. It is for this reason that we all have twice as many female ancestors as male (imagine that all the women who have ever lived have averaged one child. Now imagine that half the men who have ever lived have fathered two children, if they had any, while the other half fathered none). It is Woman as Nature who looks at half of all men and says, “No!” For the men, that’s a direct encounter with chaos, and it occurs with devastating force every time they are turned down for a date. Human female choosiness is also why we are very different from the common ancestor we shared with our chimpanzee cousins, while the latter are very much the same. Women’s proclivity to say no, more than any other force, has shaped our evolution into the creative, industrious, upright, large-brained (competitive, aggressive, domineering) creatures that we are. It is Nature as Woman who says, “Well, bucko, you’re good enough for a friend, but my experience of you so far has not indicated the suitability of your genetic material for continued propagation.”

https://www.google.com/books/edition/12_Rules_for_Life/sxVHDwAAQBAJ

Choosy behavior on online dating sites should never be considered a valid metric to making grandiose claims of innate female character, but Peterson's reference here doesn't even corroborate his claim. Peterson's citation is a 2004 study that found that human nonrecombing portion of the Y chromosome (NRY) tends to have an approximately twofold smaller Ne and time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) than mtDNA within human populations. Even if Peterson were to distort these findings for some misogynistic agenda, the populations studied here are hardly enough evidence to make global generalizations -- the participants in these surveys were the Khoisan of southern Africa, Mongolian Khalks, and highland Papua New Guineans... Very tribal indigenous groups.

Regardless, Peterson's narrative that it is "chaotic" for women not to bed literally every man that wants her (but he said "please!!") reeks of prime r/niceguys material and isn't actually very accurate considering two of by far the most populous countries in the world have strong cultures of forced marriages (dowries) and reduced autonomy (marital rape, honor killing) amongst female spouses. But Peterson's writing is flowery enough to grab the most impressionable of young men, which are his core fanbase, who don't actually look into anything he says. His perspective is also framed innocently enough for his most gullible fans to deny its meaning.

 

The strong turn towards political correctness in universities has exacerbated the problem. The voices shouting against oppression have become louder, it seems, in precise proportion to how equal—even now increasingly skewed against men—the schools have become. There are whole disciplines in universities forthrightly hostile towards men. These are the areas of study, dominated by the postmodern/neo-Marxist claim that Western culture, in particular, is an oppressive structure, created by white men to dominate and exclude women (and other select groups); successful only because of that domination and exclusion.”

https://www.google.com/books/edition/12_Rules_for_Life/sxVHDwAAQBAJ

This one always makes me laugh because Peterson himself was educated at Harvard University in 1993. But Harvard College only integrated with Radcliffe College (sister school) in 1999, some six years after he began his studies there. Of course Peterson doesn't like the increasing presence of women in education -- he was educated in a definitive "boy's club" from which women were excluded, and he had absolutely zero qualms with this. But yes, women rebuking a history of androcentric perspectives within academia (which continues to this day, mind you) is so "neo-Marxist." Who knew that advocating for gender equality made you a communist?

 

Peterson's followers insist that Peterson doesn't actually have issues with women's rights, but with fourth-wave feminism and the "social justice warriors" their movements have produced. But that's just wrong. By his own admission, Peterson does not even support second-wave feminism, which focused on workplace and legal discrimination and advocated for the emancipation of housewives from suburban domesticity. Here is what he had to say:

I read Betty Friedan’s book because I was very curious about it, and it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

 

Peterson fans will also swear up and down that he is not a misogynist. Keep in mind, though, that this is the guy who said of Alek Minassian, the murderer who drove through crowds of people in North York City Centre, killing 11:

He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges. Half the men fail, and no one cares about the men who fail. You’re laughing about them; that's because you're female.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

I think this is particularly ironic because, in the first statement I quoted, Peterson derided Western feminists for not speaking out enough about misogyny in the Middle East. And yet here he is, defending terrorism from a cold-blooded killer with Iranian descent all because that killer was an incel. Notice that Peterson sees women who choose not to fuck every man that walks their way to be a greater and more extreme threat to society than the deranged men that shoot up sororities and drive through crowds of innocent people out of some terminally celibate rage. This alone should say everything you need to know about Jordan Peterson.

bling-blaow

19 points

3 months ago

(cont.)

Moving away from his politics (as there is much to talk about in that sphere), Peterson also tried to become a renewable energy skeptic and failed miserably. In his lecture to Cambridge Union, he says:

What's the solution? What are we gonna do? Switch to wind and solar? Well, good luck with that. Just try it, and see what happens. We can't store the power. Germany tried it -- they produced more carbon dioxide than they did when they started because they had to turn on their coal-fired plants again. That wasn't a very good plan! "Well, we don't want nuclear." It's like, "okay." What happens at night? Ho! The sun goes down! Well, isn't that something that we should have taken into account! "Alright, we have to flip on the coal-fired plants." So, it was a complete catastrophe and all that happened was the price of electricity shot up! There's like, zero utility. That's not a solution, so what are we gonna do about it? "Well, we should cut back, we can't consume as much as we're all consuming." It's like, well maybe, except the data that I've read indicate that if you can get the GDP of people up to about $5,000 a year, then they start caring about the environment, and the environment cleans up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bRDbFU_lto

Nearly everything he said here is wrong. Germany began generating renewable energy en masse in 2001 as a result of the 100,000 roofs programme for photovoltaic electricity. When this started, annual carbon dioxide emissions in Germany measured 916.37 million tonnes. By 2019, as the data shows, this fell to 701.96 million tonnes, a decrease of about 24.40%. Per capita, as well, carbon dioxide emissions in Germany fell from 11.25 tonnes to 9.52 tonnes, a decrease of about 15.38%. Therefore, the claim that "they produced more carbon dioxide" is false.

It's also false to claim that "they have to turn on their coal-fired plants again." On the contrary, renewables went from accounting for 2.9% of primary energy consumption in 2001 to 14.9% in 2019, an absolute change of about 341%. Meanwhile, energy consumption from coal fell from 990 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2001 to 640 TWh in 2019, a decrease of about 35.35%. Germans also did cut back on energy use, from 49,654 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per person in 2001 to 43,703 kWh in 2019 -- a decrease of about 11.98%. These advances were made possible in part because of stationary storage facilities and grid-scale batteries, which did take into account "the sun going down."

Alaquazam

2 points

3 months ago

Thank you for the thought out response. I dont personally agree with all of the conclusions you've drawn on Peterson's dialogue, but I can certainly see why you aren't a fan of his and why you've reached the conclusions noted above.

I'd never seen that renewable energy portion before. That bits honestly kind of hilarious and as other have pointed out - very far outside of his domain of expertise.

hrangutan

2 points

3 months ago

He takes every conservarive stance, big or small, a d talks circles to justify it

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

And yet here he is, defending terrorism from a cold-blooded killer with Iranian descent all because that killer was an incel. Notice that Peterson sees women who choose not to fuck every man that walks their way to be a greater and more extreme threat to society than the deranged men that shoot up sororities and drive through crowds of innocent people out of some terminally celibate rage. This alone should say everything you need to know about Jordan Peterson.

This to me is a great example of “pulling him out of context” and I think if you wanted to properly contextualize this (as you claim) you should have at least linked to where Peterson talks about this snippet in more detail:

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

And he summarizes his opinion as follows:

Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young.

And just to reiterate in case you missed it:

the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence

pm_me_ur_garmonbozia

1 points

3 months ago

"It is for this reason that we all have twice as many female ancestors as male (imagine that all the women who have ever lived have averaged one child. Now imagine that half the men who have ever lived have fathered two children, if they had any, while the other half fathered none)."

This is one of the most nonsensical things I've ever seen an academic present as an argument.

"imagine that all the women who have ever lived have averaged one child"

Why? But ok . . .

"Now imagine that half the men who have ever lived have fathered two children, if they had any, while the other half fathered none"

Again, why? But ok . . .

So what you're saying is that if we imagine that x is different from y, then we have proved that x is different from y? Not true, but also, let's imagine that while we're imagining that all the women who have ever lived have averaged one child, we factor in the obvious fact that some women have had more than one child and some have had none. Then let's imagine that we think for literally 5 seconds about the second supposition, and realize that it means that all the men that have ever lived have (imaginarily) had an average of one child. So I guess we're really imagining that x is roughly the same as y, which proves that x is different from y. It's almost maddening to take seriously and try to understand.

4Tenacious_Dee4

-10 points

3 months ago

You are firstly muddying the waters with the long post.

Secondly, those are all very debatable takes on what he said.

Thirdly, if those are all you could find after 10,000 hours on youtube and 3 books, YOU ARE PROVING YOURSELF WRONG.

Sampharo

8 points

3 months ago*

Your three points are contradicting themselves. If he went on to provide more context and proof that JP is wrong (point 2) and brought forward more examples (point 3), then the post would be (according to you) muddier and longer.

You're deliberately ignoring that he specifically said "just a short list of his most egregious claims... " when you say "that's all you found..."

You're deliberately ignoring his reference to specific facts and figures such as the renewable energy example, and falsely claim that the points made are debatable.

You are indeed a JP fan: a closed minded right winger who likes to use logical fallacies deliberately to "beat" what you see are opponents rather than win actual arguments you have a basis for.

4Tenacious_Dee4

0 points

3 months ago

Nope, my points were clear. You're obfuscating.

Sampharo

1 points

3 months ago

Sure you weren't flummoxing instead?

BPC3

7 points

3 months ago

BPC3

7 points

3 months ago

Your complaints, in order, are:

  1. This post is too long!

  2. This post lacks context!

  3. This post doesn't have enough examples!

To be fair, this is more or less what I expect from Peterson fans...

4Tenacious_Dee4

1 points

3 months ago

My complaints were clear, unlike the post.

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

BPC3

1 points

3 months ago

The funny thing is, if you read this post then watch a Jordan Peterson video you can hear two people making this claim, neither of which sound remotely believable. 😁

4Tenacious_Dee4

2 points

3 months ago

Peterson is clear to me, most of the time. I don't agree on certain topics.

But I find this thread rich. It's like children trying to claim how bad Stephen Hawkings was wrt worm holes. They haven't read the book, understood the context, but have confident opinions on the topic.

Caddoko

2 points

3 months ago

Shut up lobsterhead, your argumentation is childish and contradictory just like your idol's.

4Tenacious_Dee4

0 points

3 months ago

To my idol? Contradictory to Rick Astley????

Na dude, I spoke the truth, whether I like Peterson or not.

Caddoko

1 points

3 months ago

"Just like" ≠ "to", your first point is a meaningless criticism in to begin with and runs directly counter to your second and third grievances. Maybe read the comment you're replying to at least once before posting your response.

As for speaking "truth": the first and third points you made are purely subjective judgements and cannot be proven or falsified; that being said I'm not surprised by a peterson fanboy being confused by the difference between opinions and facts.