Jordan Peterson content has taken over this blog, use the search function to find quotes

Master JP page

Jordan Peterson.

Being able to summarise complex ideas into a concise form is a necessary aim of literary analysis. Ideas need to be analysed within an ideological/contextual framework. While Jordan fans may be resistant to the underlying themes of his work, or shocked by them as they are not as progressive, insightful or well justified as he claims to be, detailed and systematic analysis shows [the below] to be the case. His body of work (spoken and written) needs to be taken as a whole to assess him as an academic

– He endorses the concepts that underly toxic masculinity and rigid gender roles (Men need to be aggressive, it’s good for them to rule by domination, they should be competitive, women are primarily childbearers); this directly opposes the position of the American psychological association

– This conflation is so complete that he can’t see the difference between criticising social values (rigid roles/toxic masculinity) and attacking men

– He denies the existence of implicit bias (Read more) which is well established scientifically via psychological research

– He uses extremists to dismiss the validity of entire bodies of work and justify the opposite extreme (eg some feminists are crazy, some communists killed people), this is a logical fallacy

– He denies the existence of white privilege and goes as far as to suggest that hierarchy is predicated primarily on competence; this is a racist and sexist position as it would require that females and POC are less competent (this is a significant thesis)

— He denies the existence of any problematic systemic oppression for any group (except men), by claiming inequality is predicated on competence; he denies the systemic significance of structures by holding the individual primarily responsible (above link)

– He is obsessed with cultural Marxism to undermine Christian values, this is an Zionist conspiracy therory

– He misconstrues and conflates the work of the postmodernists and marxists and only references secondary sources

– His work on archetypes and myths is not new, it is self-evident, derivative and semantically fluffy; the mark of wisdom is simplicity

– His life advice might be at times solid and constructive but that’s not new or revolutionary, and may serve as a gateway or endorsement for problematic worldviews

– He has unresolved anger around women (mother was likely oppressive to his developing individuality); he is threatened and overwhelmed by women, using pejoratives to describe them

– He is strongly conservative as far as he is socially regressive towards women’s liberation, suggesting enforced monogamy (eg no divorce) is required for a healthy society; he projects what is correct for himself (everyone should have children) whereas humans aren’t homogenised; he denies the oppression of women throughout history solely on the basis that males aren’t tyrannical towards females; he victimises men to deny their power

– His support of ‘free speech’ glossed over the fact he does not believe transgenderism is valid, (as an evolutionary biologist he sees sex and gender as the same, this is not correct. By definition, sex is biological and gender is constructed on the basis of it), this is disingenuous; he does not support free speech for those who disagree with them, he is threatened and attacks fields of study and people who criticise him

– He thinks gender is binary. Yin/yang energy might be binary but it’s expression in humans is not; the bell curves overlap

– His view is white ethnocentric and historically and culturally ignorant, focussing on what supports his existing views. Many cultures around the world have more than one gender, historically women worked as much as men did, bonobos are cooperative and polyamorous, etc

– In short he is intelligent but also bitter, angry and fearful. His world view catasphrophises, resulting in anxiety and depression. This is ‘not good’ in a role model

– No one, especially no one as educated as he claims to be, is without their own set of inherent structural beliefs. Jordan is disingenuous when he purports to be a neutral surveyor of truth who is totally open minded; he infact has a consistent set of biases and beliefs which are incredibly political; his responses are deeply emotional and often irrational or logically discongruent

Examples of the above from Maps of meaning

Overview 1 detailed examples of general topics listed above

Overview 2 detailed discussion of feminism, sexism and toxic masculinity

List of projections & contradictions


Response to GQ

Camille pagila

I’ve said repeatedly that much of Jordan’s content is benign, and most is genuinely well intentioned, albeit toxic and misguided. Here’s some snippets of me agreeing with him. Response to Joe Rogan

%d bloggers like this: