The Jordan Peterson Thread - The Architecture of Belief


Guardian now riffing off the NYT article and JP’s blog response:

(tldr: they don’t seem to like him much especially his taste in Art)


Nellie Bowles joins the growing legion of highly opinionated but under read feminists to completely misunderstand JP. She just has no clue.
“Certain type of young man” … She means not the ones who took Comparative Literature with her at Columbia
“Understands Lobsters better than women”…he’s a CLINICAL psychologist with a wife and daughter not a nut. The really shocking possibility (to Nellie not me) is that Nellie is a woman but doesn’t understand women !
“Half the men fail. Meaning that they don’t procreate”…'l laugh because it’s absurd"…as a 3rd waved feminist wave not procreating is certainly not failure. It’s absurd to her. Based on his historical, cultural and psychological framework he probably would consider failure to procreate by a woman as something that’s not in her long term interest from a mental health or meaning to life perspective. But at least the woman can choose not to procreate. The men in JP’s scenario are not choosing to be childness. She can’t seem to appreciate that ?

Is there any interviews with JP and a feminist with a bit of sense, like Camille Paglia ?


Is it such a mindf**k to you, really ?
It means a recognition within society that we’re all better off when society promotes monogamy as the primary route to happiness for most, men and women alike . Start off from acknowledging that and work from there.

I read a related book recently called The World Beyond Your Head by Matthew Crawford. It’s hard going to read but highly insightful. It talks about “Autonomy Thinking” dominating life now. How autonomy thinking promises us happiness but depression is sky rocketing.


Well We already have culturally sanctioned monogamy. It’s called marriage. So what else does he want?
Now once and not too long ago women were property of men, either their father or their husband. In fact they were considered such a burden that a transfer of assets from the father to the husband was
Being a single woman was often both physically dangerous and financially precarious so it’s not surprising that many women opted for and stayed in less than ideal marriages.
Times have changed and we’re not going back no matter how much Peterson or others would like it.
Women now have more choices. It’s men who need to up their game


What is “Autonomy Thinking”?

@double down
“It’s men who need to up their game”

By way of example, what do you mean by that statement?


more hotels to choose from for a weekend spa break to go on the cocktails? what a time to be alive


Tough request but I’ll have a go. Crawford’s book is mostly about attention but autonomy is a theme.

Later he gives the example of autonomy thinking in Governor Rendell’s 2011 defence of bringing gambling to Pennsylvania (people should be allowed make their own decisions) in the below video (where he goes nuts at the interviewer)

That was my bolding not Crawford’s because it sums up JP. JP drives SJW’s nuts because he categorically affirms a substantive picture of human flourishing that they don’t like.


There is actually a huge taboo in all western (and many Asian) societies against polygamy.

This is impossible to deny, and Peterson is pointing it out.

If you’re a dude, try turning up to a dinner party with both your wives and see how quickly you get invited back.

I really don’t know (or care) if this is a better or worse way of organising society. But it has presumably emerged for a reason, and it should be okay to talk about it.


How about if you announce loudly on arrival, “Listen don’t go to any trouble. I have them both on a diet. They’ll share a plate” :-GC


Oh you’re going to hell for that one !


as the saying goes “polygamy is the last relic of barbarism”.

Polygamy is he ultimate pyramid topological societal construct. Take the saudis for instance, and each of the wives has to fight, plot and scheme to get her own sons to be the successor.

Polygamy is an axiom of cults, the cult leader gets to take the wives of his followers as his own. Only the leader may engage in sexual activity, the others must refrain for purity/spiritual reasons. See David Koresh and the Branch Davidians for an example.



This is the difference between organising society along the lines of lobsters as opposed to bees or ants.
That was what Peterson was proposing in the Cathy Newman interview wasn’t it?


That whole video is class. It really gets going about minute 33 onwards. It’s relevant to about 6 different threads on here



A very odd thing – the Guardian’s e-mailed daily news digest is updated every day including Sunday; the same article doesn’t normally appear two days in a row. However, “Jordan Peterson may be a ‘public intellectual’, but his latest theory isn’t very clever” ran for five straight days from Friday to Tuesday. I know it was a bank holiday weekend but it’s still unprecedented. Some gears getting grinded over at the Grauniad methinks.


That article is filed under “fashion” :laughing:

JP has entered the ridicule phase. I expect the attack phase to come along rather swiftly.


JP does lunch with the FT (made by his wife!). The journo goes for the jugular but gets destroyed in the comments.

Pro tip: google the headline if the article is behind a paywall.


This is about Nature Vs Nurture; Petersen says ‘Nature’, his detractors think all human advancement derives from social change; ‘nurture’.

While the actual answer likely lies somewhere in the middle, the ‘nurture’ side lacks 1. a coherent, united narrative or agenda and 2. substantive evidence.
Petersen has both thus Petersen is the winner.

My personal view is that while Petersen has the basis and evidence of science behind his views he is therefore right but this is not a fait accompli.
The Liberal/Left/progressive arguement loses because it surrenders its position to and measures its achievements by the notion of ‘Economy’ (a pseudo-science) and reduces the human experience to subjective economic values.
These values are incompatible with human and social evolution (because they are largely bullshit) and therefore jar with ‘traditional’ values.
We may take ‘traditional values’ in this sense to be a sort of proto-science or what we now call Religion.

And so we reach the current impasse; the merging of scientific and religious viewpoints into an alliance against an entirely theoretical construct - Economic Liberalism.
Our evolved notions versus our entirely constructed notions.
Nature Vs Nurture.


I agree. There’s a real tension between my liberal tendencies (let people do as they like) and the negative externalities argument (if everyone did polygamy it would be a mess).

This is the kind of thing where JP is a true conservative,and doesn’t wrap himself up in faux-libertarian clothing.


It depends on whether he mandates monogamy being enforced by the state or not. It would be consistent with a libertarian position (not to say that Peterson holds any) to favour a society where monogamy was encouraged. Or conversely where it was discouraged as long as the state wasn’t involved.
His point on the monogamy question as I understood it was that it was beneficial for society. This would correlate with monogamy being very prevalent in the most advanced and dominant cultures (at least until recently)
The argument would be that cultures and societies which upheld monogamy as a custom (whether or not or to what extent enforced by law) had an inherent advantage of giving the largest proportion of men the chance to procreate if they were productive and diligent enough to be able to support a family thus incentivising individual productivity giving the monogamy based society an advantage on non-monogamy based societies where a larger proportion of men would not have the chance to pass on their genes and therefore would be less incentivised to be productive and also less invested in the long term prosperity of the society.

As the old saying goes:
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in”
It seems logical that old men would be more inclined to do so if they had descendants to pass on their legacies to.