The Jordan Peterson Thread - The Architecture of Belief


Monogamy already **is **enforced by the state.

The tax and benefit systems of all western countries discriminate hugely against polygamy!


The lad in this post seemed to be doing OK out of polygamy on a western benefit system

Thomas Sowell and others would argue vociferously that the benefit systems of western countries discriminate hugely against marriage.


JP was on the Joe Rogan podcast getting another fawning 3 hour interview this week . Who knew “Long Form” was an anagram of “Fawning” ?

At one point he decries the 99% movement - “they never think aboot that when you look at it worldwide, they’re part of the 1%” (you have to say that aloud in a Canadian kermit accent)

I know the man talks some sense, but he talks some facetious bollox too. The example above is typical whataboutery used by shills on the Left and Right to shut down dissent on topics they have no response on.


Several hundred thousand Irish-resident people are in the top 1% of income globally.

No one with a welfare entitlement is below the 70th percentile globally. Only people in direct provision are below that level in Ireland.


Anyone hear Peterson on Marian Finnucane show this morning? Can’t make his appearance tonight but it was well worth tuning in. (I have some thoughts on the way the interview was handled - maybe later.) … nucane.xml


Heard it too - it was the best and worst of him, IMHO. Some interesting stuff about men and work, and on the gender pronouns thing in Canada. Maybe he just didn’t have space to speak his whole book but some of the tangents on male/female as order/chaos came across as flimsy and a bit bizarre without much context.

He reels you in with sensible and mildly controversial things like ‘It’s better to have two parents than one - that’s what the empirical evidence shows’. He loves his empirical dayda. Then goes for the ‘taking personal responsibility is good for men’ thing, which seems constructive - and shows he’s not stoking pointless alt-right hate. Pushes a bit further by saying the extreme left is intolerant and academia is hopelessly biased (I’m just about still with him) but then you get the bit about women being chaos…but that that’s actually good…and you need chaos/women because ‘too much order is tyranny’. *Ho-ho-kay then * We all know plenty of men who are ‘chaos’ and rely on women for a bit of order. And vice versa.
Anyway, that bit just didn’t seem serious - maybe the chapter in the book makes more sense.

He’s essentially just a modern, compassionate conservative. He reckons the world is pretty good and huge progress has been made on women’s right etc. (not by conservatives, it should be added). But he’s inclined to leave it there and say we’ve come pretty far - anything else might wreck it. He also seems to be an arch-individualist (groups have no rights because they can bear non responsibility; only individuals have rights and responsibilities, is his line). But then when it comes to the gender pronouns thing - which is actually an extreme individualism that demands that we all respect whatever pronoun someone wants to use today - he argues that language is socially negotiated over long periods. Therefore, he says, we shouldn’t indulge individuals who want to be called ‘Ze’ instead of ‘Ms’ and we certainly shouldn’t mandate that. I agree. But how does he square his ‘There is no society’ or group identity thing with ‘Shuddit snowflake, group communication is a collective enterprise’?

Marian Finucane Interview
Anyway, he’s a thought-provoking chap and it was good radio.
Hi-Fi, what’s your beef with the interview? Friend of mine had some complaints too.
Keep in mind that getting 45 mins on mainstream radio is pretty good for starters, but that it’s normal to challenge people in an interview - otherwise, just listen to a podcast or watch a YouTube video. Also, listeners to Marian Finucane are a diverse bunch but mostly haven’t heard of Peterson. It had to be the Peterson 101. I thought she was fair enough. Not as ‘fair’ as Josh Rogan, maybe, but better than Channel Four and many others. Seemed to get lots of reaction from both sides - and give us all something to think/talk about. Job done, from a radio point of view.


I thought it was good radio. I thought Marion was very fair and seemed even to agree with him at times. His tone and his use of academic language will likely annoy people and obscure his message. I think the female/chaos male/order thing was taking a radio audience way too far and was bound to end badly. I thought his point about it being obvious when the right goes rogue but much less so when the left goes rogue was very thought provoking.


+1 especially on the last bit


I just listened to it there now. He sounds angry at times and seems to asume that everyone is familiar with much of the somehwat obscure terminology he uses. However, he is provoking a form of debate that has been absent from public discourse for quite some time and he is certainly not afraid to challenge some of the current sacred cows of political correctness which is a plus IMO.

Re the order and chaos thing, I dont think hes saying that men are orderly and women are chaotic (although he could be a lot clearer on this point). Hes referring to masculine and feminine as being elemental forces across nature ie the basic components required for the creation and sustaining of life and he suggests that they are represented as such across numerous different cultures. Ive heard him use the taoist symbol of the Ying and Yang as being an example of this. In other words, he claims they are innate. For example I would assume that such labelling (ie masculine or feminine) could apply equally to a masculine woman or a feminine man. But again, Im not an expert and he should be clearer on this given most of the audience would not be familiar with such symbolism.

What I perceive to be one of the main tenets of his broader message is that much of what shapes us as human beings is innate in terms of both biology and indeed our culture which is partly a manifestation of said ‘nature’. And he uses what seems to be strong enough empirical evidence to back up his arguments. It was mostly new to me until I heard him first last year and Ive yet to hear it convincingly rebutted by those who posit ‘blank slate’ theories (which I would have bought into in the past).

Re the gender pronouns thing, my understanding is that he has no problem with referring to people by their preferred pronun if they come to him and ask him to do so in the context of one to one interaction. His problem is with it being compelled by law. Assuming that is the case, it seems fair enough to me.

All in all, 25 years ago much of his message would have been considered fairly mainstream. Its bizarre to say the least that nowadyas they can cause him to be labelled an Alt-Right Nazi or whatever.


I thought Marian Finucane did ok, she gave him plenty of room to explain his views without interrupting him, however at one point she misunderstood what he meant by high achieving women in their 30’s prioritizing family over work and tried to make it something it wasn’t. Then she ended up agreeing with him that it was up to the women to make that choice from themselves. Peterson’s view is that this decision partly explains why women are underrepresented in the boardroom, they probably won’t be the head of the company and head of the house, it is just too difficult.

Today people will accuse anyone/anything that is even a smidgen to the right of their views as being of the Alt-Right or Nazis. This other view might not even be right of center, but if it right of the accuser, it is right wing.

Finucane needs to lay of the smokes, her voice is appalling on radio.


Got an outing on Joe Duffy. TLDR Little light and plenty of heat!


I didn’t listen to Marian. But from listening to a few of his interviews recently I think JP is a bit muddled on the whole masculine feminine thing. It’s a bit David Deida to me. He can’t really prove what he’s saying. It’s “Truthy” and Biblical so he can’t defend it rationally but it “feels” right to him. He even says himself that if you were to bet on the agressiveness level of individuals in a group of people and always bet on the men you’d be right 60% of the time. Which is higher than 50% but excluding the hyper aggressive 1% who are all male, but 40% is still a pretty big chunk. I know he’s talked to a lot of women in his clinical practice and he’s married and has a daughter, but I get the feeling he hasn’t slept with and had relationships with broad enough group of women to really understand them. He has a philosophical and academic rather than a lived experience knowledge.

Anyway, interesting 2016 JP rebuttal of “Emotional Intelligence”, “Grit”, and “Self Esteem movement” … exist.html


first I heard of Peterson coming to Dublin was the week before when RTE ran an academic hit piece from some wan who claims to be an expert in observing the alt-right.

Heard Peterson on the radio and thought, the lunatics with Peterson derangement syndrome will be over on twitter venting their contrived disgust on the #marian hashtag. I wasnt wrong. The leg-ends of twitter thought they’d be able to do Peterson up like kipper whereas poor Marian wasnt up to the task, isnt that always the case.

Interesting stat is that more people attended the Peterson/Harris/Murray gig than will attend the government summer skools combined.


Laura Kennedy interviewed JP for the Irish Times today. I think she’s the only intelligent person working in Irish Times so I was very disappointed with her piece. She accuses other interviewers of “seldom examining the problems with his ideas”…and then doesn’t do so herself. Her critique amounts to acknowledging a few times the left’s perceptions of problems with his ideas but not examining them. The tone is that his critics should calm down, but can she not do a better job of critiquing him in a fair way ?


It was by far and away the fairest profile I’ve ever read of him in the MSM.

Caveat: I’ve only read 5 or 6 and had come across his youtube talks a few months before he had much mainstream attention.


I also thought it was good - the writer seemed very knowledgeable about psychology/philosophy and some other areas of interest, rather than just the cultural war/identity politics stuff.
Pity the sub-head mentioned ‘alt-right’ when the article itself noted that his supporters on the alt-right would need to ignore his criticisms of alt-right groups. Felt like she could have done another page on him but at least the article resisted the usual line of basically rehashing the Channel 4 interview as if it were an event in itself.

#117 … ous-views/

This is the best genuine critique of Peterson’s ideas that Ive come across…its wortha read and Id like to see him attempt a rebuttal…


+1 that’s the critique I was looking for. Something that calls him out on his personal redefinitions of words and general slipperiness. I respect his clinical experience and his erudition, but JP is a sophist.

“I’m telling you man, hell is real, I’ve met people in hell” - would you ever fk off with yourself, you’re talking about suffering
“The people who wrote the Old Testament and pre enlightenment readers of it didn’t look at it as equivalent to our idea of scientific fact” - yes they actually did, they go to great trouble to write out that such and such was the son of such and such who was the son of such and such. They did this as part of their case to show that it all actually happened.
The critique points out His insistence on the wisdom of (selective) bible stories is a bit mad. There’s loads of mad stuff in Genesis too, what’s his rationalisation of that ?

I like this small point too


Quite a long video but worth a listen (listen at 1.5x). Peterson’s misogynistic, transphobic, intolerant and alt-right views are on full display here. :angry:


Somebody went to see Peterson and didn’t really get what was going on…