Jordan Peterson

I’m currently reading Jordan Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life. Because why not? I probably would not have heard of Peterson if not for his loud and obnoxious detractors making overblown, hysterical criticisms and comparing him to a Nazi. (I sometimes wonder if these agitators understand just how counterproductive their methods are.)

This naturally piqued my curiosity, so I watched a few Youtube videos. He is actually quite mild mannered and reasonable. His overall message is not obviously contrary to the social justice movement, and it would be a stretch to classify him as "conservative" or "right-wing." The outrage directed at him is kind of confusing, but I can think of an explanation.

Part of his message (in my reading anyway) is that you can improve your own life through deliberate, conscious effort. This is threatening if your narrative is that people are assigned their station in life. If you believe that life outcomes are the result of power structures, classism, sexism and racism, then telling people that they can take command of their own destiny is threatening. It places too much moral responsibility back on the individual, rather than placing it on this amorphous blob known as “society” (or “the patriarchy” or “imperialism”). Well, he’s a clinical psychologist. What’s he supposed to tell his clients? “Sorry, there’s nothing you can do about anything, because all social problems are structural and beyond your control.” He started posting his lectures to Youtube because he thought that maybe people other than his direct clients might find some of his advice useful.

The social justice movement has become something of a religious movement in the following sense: People demonstrate their righteousness by making obscenely implausible claims. Anyone who signs on by affirming such claims is seen as having serious conviction. Anyone who pushes back is seen as insufficiently committed, perhaps even a turncoat. If someone makes a ridiculous claim like “All gender differences are socially constructed” or “All inequality is the result of structural oppression,” agreeing with such an absurdity signals your loyalty to the cause. If you object with some obvious criticism, you get a “How dare you go against the cause?!” kind of reaction. The more articulate and thoughtful your objection, the more of a threat you are and the worse you will get denounced for it. I think Peterson triggered this reaction by saying he wouldn’t allow his speech to be controlled by the force of law. (Specifically, he objected to the demand that he use someone else’s prescribed gender pronouns rather than the ones he and other English speakers are used to. More specifically, he objected to being compelled by the force of law to do so. That's a perfectly reasonable objection, unless you're trapped inside a virtue-signalling "How dare you betray the cause?" paradigm.)

All that aside. Peterson's book is useful in the same sense that all other self-help literature is useful. It's a big mix of "That's obvious to any mature adult" and "That's obvious enough, but plenty of people need to hear it" and "That's obvious after the fact, but I needed to hear it just now." Even if the third thing is only 5% of the book, it can still be worth it. There is a chapter on disciplining children that I very much appreciated, even though I was already following most of his advice (I think). His description of putting his defiant 9-month-old son down for a  nap was adorable and hilarious. He also describes teaching the same defiant son to accept a spoon-feeding. It's hard to describe how happy this made me feel. It was a heartwarming dose of humanity.