Response below is from my partner who likes some (but not all) of what Peterson has to say. He wrote the below response to me when I asked for his thoughts on Tarzan's blog. Tarzan asked if I could post his comments below (with his permission):
I guess I agree with the shortcomings of Peterson Tarzan identified, but I don't agree with the substance of her evaluation of Peterson.
To elaborate a bit, she picked up on things that I agree with:
- I agree that Peterson seems to lack humility and plays the 'expert on everything' role. I've increasingly felt this lately. It's offputting and yeh, a bit culty.
But I also think Tarzan missed the substance of why people like Peterson. I'm not sure how much Peterson she has actually watched, but it sounds like she was triggered by an out of context brief clip (one where Peterson was triggered without showing the start of the interview) + things that Peterson didn't do and can't control (the click-baityness of the clip title, and the virulent comments).
And from that, she seems to have formed a simple and identity/group-centric view of Peterson as a transphobe, misogynist and racist. As one example, how she doesn't get how people can still call him brilliant despite him "slandering some of the most important social movements of the last hundred years".
A more nuanced, less identity based view would consider that even the most important social movements have their excesses and failings, and that calling this out doesn't equate to slander or bigotry. So, what is she missing about Peterson? If she thinks that support for Peterson is just because white heterosexual males "don’t want your life to be affected by certain social movements, or do the necessary work of becoming informed on these topics", then quite a lot.
I think some of the things that attract people to Peterson include; that he is quite an expert on myth and the wisdom it contains, that as an experienced (Jungian and personality) psychologist he has a lot of deep insights into people, that he had the courage to take a stand against the excesses on the diversity and inclusion movement, that he articulates the value in masculinity at a time where we hear much more about its toxicity, that he articulates the value and contribution of western cultural at a time when we hear only about its faults.
His focus is on helping men improve themselves so they can be good, respectful members of society. I wish you had watched the other 29min of that video, where the interviewer spoke over him and was purposefully combative.
He says he refers to people as any pronoun they like, but was opposed to the law because the government should never dictate how we communicate as it opens the door to further censorships.
If you ever have the time 12 Rules for Life is a powerful book, nothing about race, religion or politics. Its a good read and what changed my mind about him. I couldnt be further from his target audience too (young female and POC)
And if you dont like the book I guess you could always toss it out the side of your canoe, or recycle it.
Response below is from my partner who likes some (but not all) of what Peterson has to say. He wrote the below response to me when I asked for his thoughts on Tarzan's blog. Tarzan asked if I could post his comments below (with his permission):
I guess I agree with the shortcomings of Peterson Tarzan identified, but I don't agree with the substance of her evaluation of Peterson.
To elaborate a bit, she picked up on things that I agree with:
- I agree that Peterson seems to lack humility and plays the 'expert on everything' role. I've increasingly felt this lately. It's offputting and yeh, a bit culty.
- He does evoke righteousness and rage. Why? I think Gabor Mate nails it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOJ0lUSBI14.
But I also think Tarzan missed the substance of why people like Peterson. I'm not sure how much Peterson she has actually watched, but it sounds like she was triggered by an out of context brief clip (one where Peterson was triggered without showing the start of the interview) + things that Peterson didn't do and can't control (the click-baityness of the clip title, and the virulent comments).
And from that, she seems to have formed a simple and identity/group-centric view of Peterson as a transphobe, misogynist and racist. As one example, how she doesn't get how people can still call him brilliant despite him "slandering some of the most important social movements of the last hundred years".
A more nuanced, less identity based view would consider that even the most important social movements have their excesses and failings, and that calling this out doesn't equate to slander or bigotry. So, what is she missing about Peterson? If she thinks that support for Peterson is just because white heterosexual males "don’t want your life to be affected by certain social movements, or do the necessary work of becoming informed on these topics", then quite a lot.
I think some of the things that attract people to Peterson include; that he is quite an expert on myth and the wisdom it contains, that as an experienced (Jungian and personality) psychologist he has a lot of deep insights into people, that he had the courage to take a stand against the excesses on the diversity and inclusion movement, that he articulates the value in masculinity at a time where we hear much more about its toxicity, that he articulates the value and contribution of western cultural at a time when we hear only about its faults.
His focus is on helping men improve themselves so they can be good, respectful members of society. I wish you had watched the other 29min of that video, where the interviewer spoke over him and was purposefully combative.
He says he refers to people as any pronoun they like, but was opposed to the law because the government should never dictate how we communicate as it opens the door to further censorships.
If you ever have the time 12 Rules for Life is a powerful book, nothing about race, religion or politics. Its a good read and what changed my mind about him. I couldnt be further from his target audience too (young female and POC)
And if you dont like the book I guess you could always toss it out the side of your canoe, or recycle it.