I have been following Jordan B. Peterson for quite some time.
Surprise! It’s not just misogynists or stupid white males, or “self-help junkies,” that follow Jordan Peterson, a fallacy the left is so desperately trying to advance. Turns out, some of his audience is made up of educated, successful, assertive females.
[Holding tight for leftist screams …]
Leftists are wrong about him because the left is deaf when hearing Jordan Peterson.
Peterson uses big words to say simple things, the left is right about that. But what the left cannot grasp is the essence of what Peterson’s audience gets out of his lectures. And it’s not the size of his words that impress us. It’s his rationality.
The reason why the left does not understand Peterson is the same reason why they do not understand economics: partly because they don’t want to, and partly because they oppose logical reasoning.
Example:
Peterson: One plus one equals two.
Left: One plus one feels like the answer should be three.
Liberals reason with feelings instead of logic. I’m not like them. One plus one equals two, no matter how nasty or offensive or unlikable that two might be. For me, there’s nothing concerning or wrong about making an observation that will make someone feel bad, or even inferior - because feelings and inferiority are irrelevant when observing self-evident truths. One plus one equals two.
That’s why I like Peterson. He is logical and he is fearless. He doesn’t decide on an answer based on feelings; he opines based on observations and logical deduction. He doesn’t change his view based on what the observation should be. Peterson isn’t concerned about hurting your feelings. Peterson just makes the observation and you need to deal with it. It’s as simple as that.
Recommended
Many of Peterson’s observations are based on free-market philosophy: he observes virtually the same things that were observed by Adam Smith, Leonard Reed, and other free-market philosophers.
There’s nothing novel about his reasoning; certainly, nothing dangerous about the age-old conclusions.
What makes the left cringe is the fact that the old-school conclusions still hold true today. The left is particularly vexed by his observations of gender, which uphold some classic stereotypes and undergo economic analysis as opposed to a liberal emotional analysis.
For example, Peterson says things along the lines of men are better at certain things than women. The left’s response is along the lines of: HOW DARE HE! HE IS OFFENSIVE! THIS IS DANGEROUS!
But why is it offensive if it’s true? I am a woman. I can handle the truth that men are better at certain things than I. I do not feel embarrassed by this truth. I do not feel ashamed. I also don’t want to live a lie; I don’t want to pretend that I’m exactly the same as a man when I am not. I instead concentrate my time and efforts on finding my true strengths and capitalizing on those strengths. Sometimes my strengths are ones usually found in men. And so when I say I am better than most men at a particular task, it’s because that fact capitally proves true, not because it makes me feel good to say that.
My rationale for wanting the whole truth and nothing but the truth is simple: why waste time and profit on imaginary sameness when I can gain on my true comparative advantage. Obviously, something is different between me and my liberal counterparts.
So here’s the difference: just as I find comfort in the truth and can navigate the real world with confidence when I know my strengths and weaknesses, while leftists find comfort in the illusion of strength and obtain confidence from navigating the world with optimistic concealment of weaknesses.
Leftists don’t feel like men should ever be better at certain things than women. Logical deductions which lead to such conclusions are upsetting to them, and they feel that they can change the answer. So they do. But that type of deceit prevents one from being able to find a real competitive advantage. It’s handicapping oneself in reality.
The left has extended this deceit into a complete and utter misunderstanding of opposing views.
In the case of Jordan Peterson, when leftists listen to him, they are unable to objectively hear his words. Instead, they hear their own interpolation of conservative ideology. What they do is interpose their own interpretation of conservative politics into his speeches, and then write about their own judgment of such politics, evaluating their own judgment as if it is Peterson’s word.
It’s rather fascinating. The left doesn’t hear Peterson - they create their own judgment of Peterson.
Left-wing media has spent the past few months dragging Peterson’s name through the mud — based solely on these interpolations.
Article titles include: Is Jordan Peterson the stupid man’s smart person?, How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest’?, The profound sadness of the Jordan Peterson phenomenon, The Vapid, Sexist World of Jordan Peterson, Jordan Peterson’s Bulls**t, and Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred?, to name just a few of the most recent gems. All positive, as you can see. [Ahem.]
The amount of time and effort dedicated to these articles indicate that the left is deaf to his message, terrified of Jordan B. Peterson and confused by his popularity.
There is even a market for articles responding to the inaccuracies of representations made in these hit pieces on Peterson. Jonah Cohen had to defend Peterson from allegations of anti-semitism in Forward, calling the reporting “shameful, unethical.” Even Forward had to correct themselves in an article entitled, “No, Jordan Peterson Is Not An Anti-Semite.” Ben Shapiro had to write a response to the liberal New York Times piece entitled “Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy,” aptly calling it “dishonest, malicious crap.”
The response articles are accurate. He is not an anti-semite (in fact, he teaches about the dangers of the Holocaust and the mindset that lead to the most atrocious deeds of modern humans), he is not anti-woman (he is pro-economics and reality, which means that women should be paid based on value produced, not value decided), and he is not dangerous (he is encouraging people to solve problems with economics, introspection, and benevolence - not violence.)
Remember, leftist media lost their minds over Donald Trump’s presidential run and victory. They propagandized countless lies and exaggerations about Trump in a desperate attempt to stop him.
They appear to be doing it again with Peterson. Peterson is having a substantial effect on young people and leftwing media is running amok trying to undo it. This is a great sign — it means Peterson is so influential amongst conservatives that the left is taking notice and trying to stop him.
One of my favorite hit-pieces on Peterson was written by his long-time friend who decided to write in order to warn the people that Peterson is dangerous. So what is the danger? Peterson endangered “Marxism, a respectable political and philosophical tradition,” his friend wrote. He had me at Marxism is respectable. I knew right away why the capitalist Peterson was such a threat to this socialist.
Jordan Peterson once said: “If you worry about hurting people’s feelings and disturbing the social structure, you’re not going to put your ideas forward.” Just like Peterson, I don't worry about feelings. I will put my ideas forward. Thank you for the support, Dr. Peterson.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member