Cargo cult intellectualism
A representative of that strange creature, Woman, does a profile of Jordan Peterson in the Times.
Mr. Peterson, 55, a University of Toronto psychology professor turned YouTube philosopher turned mystical father figure, has emerged as an influential thought leader.
Not to be confused with an intellectual or scholar or thinker. He’s more like Jim Jones.
The messages he delivers range from hoary self-help empowerment talk (clean your room, stand up straight) to the more retrograde and political (a society run as a patriarchy makes sense and stems mostly from men’s competence; the notion of white privilege is a farce). He is the stately looking, pedigreed voice for a group of culture warriors who are working diligently to undermine mainstream and liberal efforts to promote equality.
Along with Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and so on – the brightly lit “Intellectual Dark Web.”
He lets the writer, Nellie Bowles, hang out with him for two days.
He does not smile. He has a weathered, gaunt face and big furrowed eyebrows. He has written about dogs being closest in behavior to humans, but there is something extremely feline about him. He always wears a suit. “I am a very serious person,” he often says.
He sounds unbearable already.
Wherever he goes, he speaks in sermons about the inevitability of who we must be. “You know you can say, ‘Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine’ — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore. They’d be something else. They’d be transhuman or something. We wouldn’t be able to talk to these new creatures.”
Says the guy from the sex that is not represented as being chaos. It’s always fascinating to see people breezily explain why other people are consigned to inferior categories while they float above in the gilded empyrean.
[H]e was radicalized, he says, because the “radical left” wants to eliminate hierarchies, which he says are the natural order of the world. In his book he illustrates this idea with the social behavior of lobsters. He chose lobsters because they have hierarchies and are a very ancient species, and are also invertebrates with serotonin. This lobster hierarchy has become a rallying cry for his fans; they put images of the crustacean on T-shirts and mugs.
The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” he said.
In other words that men, all men, men as such, are better than women, all women, women as such. Yes, he’s right, we don’t want to “admit” that, partly because it’s obviously not true.
Rather than making an argument he babbles about myths.
“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”
It’s a hard one.
“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”
But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.
“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”
Or from animated mice and rabbits and whatever Goofy is, too. Those stories and animations really exist. Therefore, patriarchy is best.
Bowles mentions Alek Minassian and the ten people he killed.
Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.
But being forcibly married will make them all ecstatic, for sure.
“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”
I laugh, because it is absurd.
“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”
Because he’s a Thought Leader, he didn’t call her a bitch. You know he was thinking it though.
But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.
He’s like the new Ayn Rand, but hotter.
Bowles sits in on a paid-for Skype conversation with one of Peterson’s acolytes.
At one point in the discussion, Mr. Peterson, who had been relatively quiet, becomes heated on the topic of women who find marriage oppressive.
“So I don’t know who these people think marriages are oppressing,” he says. “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. For Christ’s sake, you — you — ”
Worth every penny of the $200 for 45 minutes.
“Jordan’s exposed something that’s been festering for a long time,” says Justin Trottier, 35, the co-founder of the men’s rights organizations Equality Canada and Canadian Centre for Men and Families. “Jordan’s forced people to pay attention.”
Mr. Trottier made headlines when his group called the anti-manspreading subway initiatives sexist. Their musty space hosts events in which men discuss the prejudices they perceive against them. One of their group’s main goals is “waking the police up” to female-perpetrated domestic violence, Mr. Trottier says.
Now, “there’s more acceptance of what we’re trying to do,” he says.
Oh lord. I know him slightly. He used to be the Executive Director of CFI Canada, and he was at the Ottawa conference in 2012. Peterson is an older Justin Trottier.
There are now regular Jordan Peterson discussion groups. The one in Toronto meets once a week at a restaurant called Hemingway’s and is run by Chris Shepherd, who used to be a professional pickup artist who coached men on how to get laid fast at a club but is now a dating coach.
Mr. Shepherd first encountered Mr. Peterson in a viral video of the professor getting yelled at by campus activists. Watching the stoic professor take on righteous liberal anger touched Mr. Shepherd.
Of course it did. Rape-advisors (aka pickup artists) are such an embattled population these days.
A few comments on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/997489897777827842
trying to come up with a tweet about jordan peterson thinking that him being asked to respect people's pronouns will lead to tyranny while also being of the opinion that "enforced monogamy" is a-ok but i can't think of anything as funny as just saying it
— Shaun (shaunvids on bsky) (@shaun_vids) May 18, 2018
https://twitter.com/helenlewis/status/997517533056991232
Incisive, beautifully reported profile of phony-baloney masculinity guru Jordan Peterson: https://t.co/C7I3ihh0Yw
— Emily Nussbaum (@emilynussbaum) May 18, 2018
Here, @NellieBowles writes a superb profile of Jordan Peterson: https://t.co/bgxNdyYrjr There’s the stuff he says to her that is obviously headline-generating, such as this soulless and (in his case, ideologically hypocritical) “enforced monogamy” stuff 1/x pic.twitter.com/IkaXQyfJfq
— Clive Thompson (@pomeranian99) May 18, 2018
“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners”
Violent attacks also happen when men have partners. The keywords are ‘violent’ and ‘men’.
It’s one ridiculous assertion after another out of his mouth. There’s no evidence, no argument, no logic, just repetition. It’s Trump with a larger vocabulary. The only people who are going to believe this are people who already do; you don’t have any more reason to after hearing it than before.
It’s conservative thought’s sophisticated theology, nasty and vacuous.
He never smiles. But during his talk he cries often.
And he thinks Jungian archetypes are realer than real.
How is it this po-faced guru gets taken seriously?
I suppose I shouldn’t be in the least surprised that JT [*spit*] is a fan of JBP [*ptui*].
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Still the best Jordan Peterson takedown.
Steve – it’s a jolt seeing his name though, isn’t it.
I was subjected to an “explanation” of why Jordan Peterson “has some good points to make” by a young man at my office last week. This same young man says “MeToo has gone too far” and “Black Lives Matter has gone too far”, etc. Then he explains that he “looked deeper, not just at the surface” of Jordan Peterson’s remarks, implying (1) that there is something deeper; and (2) those who are criticizing him haven’t looked at anything much.
This is the same young many who has explained to me what it was really like to be a woman in the 80s (note: he was born in 1992) and also has stood in my office doorway trying to get me to agree that there must be something different in female thought processes because of the hormones. He’s not saying inferior, oh ,no, but…different. Much different. (When our boss asked a question about botany and environmental science on a recent trip, he jumped in and answered fast, just to make sure I, the person with a Ph.D. and field experience in both Botany and Environmental Science, would not screw up the answer to the question that he, a person who is in a field that is related but not the same, could answer more effectively. Because penis, I suppose?)
iknklast – Do you suppose that we’re supposed to agree to whatever on the basis of The Authoritative Insights of the Penis-Wielder? It’s just striking that the elevation of masculine reason comes combined with no argument whatever. Apparently, there’s some conviction that argument isn’t required, which is darn curious when someone’s making so much of “logic”.
Another curiosity, and I wonder if it’s related – Peterson lays it on thick about the eternity and inevitability of whatever he’s pronouncing so: “You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.” Me, I read them and I wonder what sorts of meds he’s off and find it remarkable Canada isn’t keeping him safe somewhere that locks from the other side of his door. I doubt that’s an idiosyncratic reaction, particularly when Ms. Bowles will break out laughing at some of it.
It reads a bit as if the assertion of necessity and eternity is meant to take the place of rational argument or empirical evidence: there’s no need for any of that since this is supposed to be axiomatic.
Sounds like he is an Elmer Gantry, but with a slightly different theology. Well they come and go.
The dogs bark, and the caravan moves on.
I feel like I know all I need to know about Peterson, and I can’t wait for his 15 minutes to expire, but it’s such good fun seeing how he’s practically self-refuting.
As serious people are wont to do.
I need to add “serious person” to my list of attributes the possession of which is denied by the act of claiming its possession. (And then I need to come up with a word for that category. Or steal someone else’s word for it.)
I can’t decide which is my favorite part. This:
Which makes me think:
1) yeah, if true, that sounds like a bit of silliness, but
2) it’s no worse than other corporate bullshit on tangential topics — I once had to sit through a discussion by marketing people as to whether it’s better at a networking event to wear your stick-on name badge on the left or right side of your chest, and
3) I’m supposed to think that the person who was driven to therapy in tears over a slightly tedious corporate email discussion is NOT the snowflake?
or possibly this:
Well, The Simpsons tried to warn us back in the 1997 episode Homer’s Phobia:
“Where you been Homer? Entire steel industry’s gay. Yeah, aerospace, too. And the railroads. And you know what else? Broadway.”
but I’m pretty sure it’s this:
When your mom says it, it’s nagging. When Jordan Peterson, Ph.D and Serious Person, says it, it’s deep spiritual wisdom. And masculine. So very masculine. (Seriously, “stand up straight, clean your room, and focus your efforts on achieving your goals”? I feel like the bar for guruship has been lowered.)
iknklast @7,
Which is why he favors affirmative action, right? Because getting some of those not-inferior-just-different female thought processes in the room will help spot problems or solutions or provide insights that the “not superior, just different” male thought processes would miss?
Ha ha, yeah, that was rhetorical.
But this proposal has already been falsified by those men that attack, even kill, their wives. Violent men gonna violent, I guess. And since there’s going to be violence either way, why enslave women? Violence may be bad, but violence plus slavery is worse.
And why is there zero suggestion of the reverse? He laments that police don’t acknowledge that women can be violent too… why not ‘solve’ that by forcing men to marry women they don’t fancy? A solution to violent women using the same means as the solution to violent men. Equality!
So, fictional depictions of women-as-cronesand women-as-chaos exist, therefore society is right to view women as such, because why else would they be portrayed so.
…
This is what passes for reasoning on the right.
Also. Forcible marriage; isn’t that what ISIS do?
Lobsters thrive in a hierarchy, therefore we should distribute wives to anyone who wants them.
Got it.
The stuff about chaos and witches and dragons and inescapable archetypes sounds like some nonsense I would have been on about when I was 22 years old and had a vast overestimate of my own wisdom, but even then ‘forced matrimony’ would have been far too nasty for me to get on board with. So it’s like undergrad philosophy but with an added layer of malevolence. Yep, he sounds utterly insufferable.
What gets me about these quotes is the degree of certainty and conviction with which laughable absurdities are delivered. “It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore. They’d be something else.” Just because a very few selected traditions had an order – chaos axis that suddenly turns into “forever”? And if I realise that that is all made-up just-so stories, I am Not A Human? Does he even realise what he is saying there? If he did, would he care?
That being said, I find that even the most obnoxiously absurd views are generally based on a real concern or true observation that is, sadly, then used only as the starting point for a trip that goes way off the rails. In this case I think it is very plausible that monogamy – i.e. limiting everybody to a maximum of one spouse at a time – arose, in the societies where it did, as a social contract to manage a potential source of unrest and upheaval. A situation where in every village one powerful guy has a harem of 60 wives, and 59 men are forever unable to find a partner, is probably not entirely conducive to social stability.
But limiting the number of partners is something very different than enforcing marriage, and just because something was once seen as useful by our ancestors does not mean that we are forever bound to it and cannot consider other arrangements. The idea that things have to be this one way I am used to right now or society will fail is shown as absurd the moment we consider the amazing diversity of cultures and societies that have existed and continue to exist on this planet.
That’s an issue with the FDLS (the fundy Mormon offshoot) – all those guys with multiple women, so what do they do about the surplus men? They throw them out in adolescence. Literally just make them leave, with little or no assistance.
I’m just going to leave this here: Mr. “Enforced monogamy” Peterson’s hero, Carl Jung, was married and also had a live-in mistress.
Men protested monogamy in the mid-20th century. (As so often happens, Barbara Ehrenreich was here long before the rest of us: see her 1983 book, The Hearts of Men.) Even before the Playboy ethos we were all instructed:
That bit of doggeral has been attributed to William James, among others. Dorothy Parker elucidated:
From the nineteen-seventies until very recently, we’ve been lectured at by
sociobiologistsevolutionary psychologists about how of course males are more promiscuous than females, it just makes sense, they are impelled to spread their seed far and wide at little cost to themselves whilst women look for good providers yada yada. This was held to be the general rule amongst mammals, and it only went to shore up the old double standard. Of COURSE female infidelity is a graver sin than its male equivalent. The wise wife looks the other way! Etc. ad nauseum.Then advances in molecular genetics happened, and, oopsie. Looks like all those monogamous female mammals (and birds!) were cheating on their mates at the same rate their mates were cheating on them. The higamous hogamous rule no longer had the backing of science. (Could it be that it’s all too easy to construct evo psych rationalizations for the sexist status quo? Never mind.)
Anyhoo. Meanwhile, those uppity Western Women were finally getting a taste of sexual freedom. Some screwed around, some didn’t, but all were insisting that they get to fuck if they wanted to without being shamed for it, and choose for themselves who they’d mate with and who not.
Belatedly, it’s occurred to the would-be playboys among us that every man can’t be a pasha with his own harem of playgirls. Math, nature, and women (those bitches), working in cahoots, won’t allow it. Women aren’t any more or less suited to monogamy than men; give women freedom, and they will insist on dismantling the double standard. Choose monogamy, and face the consequences if you cheat; choose promiscuity, and take the chance that you may not be as flame to the moths of your desired sex. Them’s the breaks.
And now, suddenly, men want monogamy back. How about that.
Why, it’s almost as though all that matters is what’s optimal for men’s dicks.
That’s our show for tonight. I’d like to thank our guest, Lady Mondegreen…
Has Jordan Peterson mentioned Marc Lépine yet?
Lady Mondegren: Looks like all those monogamous female mammals (and birds!) were cheating on their mates at the same rate their mates were cheating on them… Math
I have always been puzzled about the idea that men cheat at higher rates than women. Leaving aside homosexuality, the means must be the same on both sides of the ledger, although of course there could be more monogamous people and a really, really polygamous minority on one side.
But when surveys showed women to have less partners on average than mean, then that just won’t work out. Either women didn’t admit how many partners they had so as not to be seen as promiscuous, or men exaggerated their number of partners so as not to be seen as a loser. (Or a bit of both.)
Jordan Peterson was on Radio 4 earlier this week. I was in and out of the car during the program and I am pleased to report that in every coupla-minute stretch I heard, someone else was not taking any of his nonsense.
Ben #13
Of course lobsters also tend to spend a long of time under the ocean without oxygen tanks, so by that same logic…
Screechy @Monkey #10.
I go for your first selection. Because in a similar situation I might find it silly to avoid a word in one context because it is a homonym which is a slur in an other context. I also don’t think it is important insisting to keep using that word, just to show “you are not politically correct” or something. I would probably have tuned out most of the exchange and gone with whatever was decided.
So my guess is this person was resisting the word change and actively participated in the exchange and just had a hard time coping when her arguments weren’t given the attention she though they deserved.
Why is our society so fucking ‘tolerant’ of deranged Old Boy pomposities about gender, while we’ve at least learned to cringe when its about ‘race?’
Of course it’s easy to collect anecdotes about annoying, cartoonish PC-ism in under-educated youth and self protecting bureaucracies. Just now, I remember being physically attacked in grade school…because I referred to the wall-hanging the teacher was chalking upon as a ‘black board.’
Am I about to build a worldview, a political movement, a pseudoscience, out of some carefully nursed resentment about a one-off experience like that?
Oh, to understand that, you need to read all the discussions about why Rachel Dolezal is wrong, wrong, wrong, while Caitlyn Jenner is just expressing her true self….
Women aren’t an oppressed minority.
Women haven’t been raised to think poorly of themselves.
Women haven’t been prevented from achieving everything possible for them to achieve.
Women aren’t making less money than their counterparts.
Women are happy in their skin with the way they have been raised and presented by society.
Women aren’t being constantly stereotyped by movies, television, books, comic books, plays, music, and society in general.
Oh, wait, maybe that stuff isn’t really true? Oh, yes, it’s…women are bitches.
I am currently reading Dan Barker’s God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All of Fiction. His misogyny chapter is one of the longest so far…and so much of it has to do with being unclean. Oh, and property.
Ed Brayton wrote a piece lauding the NYT article over on his Patheos blog. Peterson fanboyz descended en masse, and Brayton actually ended up deleting quite a number of their comments, due to their execrable content.
Needless to say, there are a lot of people defending Peterson’s “enforced monogamy” comments this way:
Them: Nobody is saying women should be forced to have sex with people if they don’t want to. They should just be “persuaded”. After all, if you’re in favour of the redistribution of wealth you can hardly be against women donating sex for the greater good”
Them: Men are violent so naturally we need to address this by regulating women. Really, though, you’re focusing too much on the “forced” bit (even though it is built right into that word “enforced” we keep using). What we mean is that it society should persuade (totally not force) women to have sex with men when they don’t want to for the good of society. A society they benefit from, after all. And Christ knows women are incapable of contributing in any other way.
I think I can see how this ‘encouragement’ would go down:
Father: That man is single so very likely to go on a violent rampage, killing everyone you care about. You should have sex with him (after marrying him, of course) for the good of society, otherwise the killing spree will be your fault, both as an unmarried woman and, specifically, you.
Daughter: Er…. no, I think I’ll pass.
Father: Fine. It’s totally your choice, obviously. I’m not going to force you. But don’t come running to me when I’m riddled with bullets and drowning in my own blood alongside all your other loved ones. And while you’re at it, don’t expect to be allowed to leave the house or have a career or any friends.
Sharia Law isn’t enforced in the UK either but many women here are “persuaded” to act as though it is.