Jordan Peterson’s Point of View

Introduction

This article draws from a Jordan Peterson interview by Steven Edington from the Telegraph in 2023. It provides a critique of JP’s personal perception of the world. The full transcript is here. There is considerable evidence that JP has very entrenched and inflexible opinions. Early on, JP demonstrates that his understanding of the concept of ‘truth’ is weak. These two qualities explain his popularity among people who share his entrenched opinions and perception of ‘truth’.

Perception of Truth

A combination of abusive language directed at people with left-leaning politics, combined with assertive positive language when talking about the political right, leaves the listener in no doubt that JP will tolerate no criticism of the political right-wing. In the first minute he says “And because they’re conscientious, conservatives are conscientious, it’s easy to hoist them on the petard of guilt. And the psychopathic narcissists of the radical left are unbelievably good at that”

Repeatedly through the interview, JP asserts that adhering to the truth is of utmost importance. JP assumes that the meaning of ‘truth’ needs no explanation. Most adults do this, they interpret a very broad concept like ‘truth’ as a rigid set of criteria, unaware that they have constructed these criteria themselves as they navigate through life. They fail to recognise that most linguistic concepts like ‘truth’ and ‘freedom’ are open to very different interpretations in different contexts and perspectives.

When JP refers to the radical left as ‘psychopathic narcissists’, we must note that he is a qualified psychologist. JP repeatedly advocates in this interview that telling the truth is of utmost importance; and yet, in this very unprofessional manner, he diagnoses a serious mental illness in a large of group of people, based solely on their political leaning. One could argue that this is just a manner of speaking; but this is a very disrespectful and inflammatory style that is in direct contradiction with the Judeo-Christian religious teaching which he frequently references. It is not surprising that he has been requested to undertake some social media relearning before he can resume his practice.

In this way, JP clearly demonstrates how a broad concept like ‘truth’ can be very different depending on your perspective and your personal skills at rationalising. At about 30 minutes, he claims that the Judeo-Christian narrative is a necessary precondition for a free-society because it holds ‘truth’ as the highest principle. JP’s definition of ‘freedom’ seems rather constrained to the concept of commercial freedom.

“..free societies are only free to the degree that everyone is a dissident, right? Because the freedom is maintained by people’s trivial decisions to engage in truthful interactions, in trade and in the relationships with each other. And so, free people are truth-speaking dissidents. There’s no difference between that and being free. So, it’s when that starts to become silenced that things start to tilt in the tyrannical or the chaotic direction. Now, it seems to me that the bedrock provided by the Judeo-Christian narrative corpus is a necessary precondition for that, not least because that corpus has as its central proposition that the spirit of the truth is the highest principle.”

We cannot know on what grounds JP makes the claim that the Judeo-Christian narrative holds truth as the highest principle. My research could not find any supporting evidence. My conclusion was that someone genuinely guided by the Judeo-Christian narrative, is encouraged to treat everyone with dignity, respect, and love. This is certainly not the guiding principle that we see in JP’s dialogue, which is peppered with angry accusations at different sections of society who do not share his own perception of what constitutes vague concepts like truth and freedom.

Weaving in Words of Wisdom

During much of the interview JP delivers platitudes that are helpful examples of wisdom from different sources. He weaves borrowed wisdom in seamlessly with his own rigid view of the world, so the listener becomes lulled into trusting his judgement. At about 38 minutes he says:

“And you can’t be a good leader unless you’re capable of listening and and you have the humility that would go along with that.”

This is likely to persuade the listener to believe that JP is capable of both these worthy qualities; despite considerable evidence that he is very entrenched in his thinking, and is unlikely to listen to anyone that does not already share his political leanings and general view of the world. At 42 minutes he shows his lack of respect for any academics who dare to encourage the student population to challenge the status quo, and describes moral virtue as ‘whiny’:

“And of course the idiot universities are absolutely complicit in putting that message forward. It’s like everybody should be an activist. It’s like really, that’s your solution for the world’s woes is to train potentially competent young people to parade their whiny moral virtue publicly.”

JP’s slick combination of genuine snippets of wisdom, interwoven with a very entrenched worldview, will appeal enormously to those whose share his entrenched worldview. This makes him a clever cultural salesman, he sells the culture of colonial growth economics in a shiny, seemingly spiritual wrapper. At no point does he declare himself to be either a Jew or a Christian, therefore these deceptions are not attributable to either religion. Similar techniques are used by many politicians, but they are obliged to be more respectful to groups that they oppose.

Shades of Grey

JP’s very simplistic black/white perceptions, explain why he chose to challenge Canada’s Bill C-16 about gender identity rights. Many others will share his distress, for the same reason. Ironically, JP’s whole career trajectory, since he shot to fame in 2016, looks suspiciously narcissistic. However, I am sure that his calling to challenge Bill C-16 happened in a powerful, albeit misguided way, and resonated with many.

JP has clearly attracted considerable criticism, as well as support. This is symptomatic of the cultural change that humanity are embroiled in right now. JP is an exaggerated example of the damage that an addiction to growth economics can do to a fairly healthy, but rather irrational mind. At 1:23 he offers a comment, dismissing ‘rationality’ and the European Union in an offhand manner. For JP, and many others, rationality and truth are two unrelated concepts.

“Well, first of all, rationality makes a very, very bad master. A very good servant, but a very bad master; that characteristic of the EU can be laid at the foot of the same spirit that motivated the French revolutionaries.”

The gender issue requires much gentler handling than either the feminists, or the alpha-males appreciate. There is an interview between JP and Helen Lewis recorded by British GQ in which JP puts many challenging points to Helen which she fails to answer wisely. The transcript is available here.

According to my own perception of the ‘truth’ neither JP nor Helen Lewis seemed aware of the speed and scale ecosystems collapse, nor the impact that it will have on all our lives. So their debate took place in this awareness vacuum. This same vacuum applies to most debates that happen in mainstream media.

The interview with Helen Lewis reveals that JP is very enamoured of the existing hierarchical structures and rigid rules of law. Nowadays, most modern organisations understand the need for flexibility and networking to arrive at the most imaginative solutions. The existential challenges that we face will require everyone to get involved and to shoulder responsibility. JP understands this at some level; this is reflected in his involvement with the Alliance of Responsible Citizens.

Right now, no gender discussion is helpful unless it is directly linked to urgent need to return within the carrying capacity of Earth. We cannot afford to prioritise raising families right now. Once we accept this, many aspects of our commercial civilisation become questionable, and will seem ridiculous in retrospect. About 5 minutes into the GQ interview, JP claims the following. I am guessing that his claims are probably evidence-based in this instance:

“A huge proportion of people who are seriously disaffected are men. Most people in prison are men. Most people who are on the street are men. Most victims of violent crime are men. Most people who commit suicide are men. Most men, most people who die in wars are men. People who do worse in school are men. It’s like, where’s the dominance here precisely. What you’re doing is you’re taking a tiny substrata of hyper successful men and using that to represent the entire structure of the Western society”

There is no doubt that many of all genders are disenfranchised within the current global civilisation. We are seeing horrendously uneven distribution of financial and ecological footprint per capita. There would be scope to address this injustice within a society seeking equitable economic Degrowth. There is a separate article that discusses the role that gender dynamics plays in the radical cultural changes needed to enhance our collective chances for the survival of our species.

Conclusion

Many of JP’s characteristics are very common indeed in todays society:

• failure to recognise that broad concepts like ‘truth’ and ‘freedom’ are relative to perspective and context
• recoiling from the debate around gender issues
• inability to understand the scale and speed of ecosystems collapse
• failure to recognise the need for profound culture change
• desire to cling to existing hierarchical structures and rules

JP’s popularity is an indication of the depth of the problem faced by humanity. JP is leading many equally misguided people, in an unwise direction that will make our predicament worse. What he is doing, is no different than our politicians and institutions, who are still deceiving themselves that growth economics can fix the problems that it creates.

These are all well-meaning people, but they are steering others further and faster down the precipice of ecosystems collapse. They are all equally dangerous to the survival of life on Earth. Sadly, I cannot see any wise leadership emerging anywhere as yet.

Barbara Williams is the architect of the UN Charter for Ecological Justice