To help guide your expectations of what we’ll explore in this series of posts: there are 8 key points of contention, and one point of agreement, that I’d like to raise.
Here’s a Table of Contents.
Prologue: (i.e., the part after the Table of Contents…) 🙂
Foreplay) Agreeing on freedom of speech: yayyy!!!
Part 1) Problems with Fundamental Assumptions: “In this corner, Dominance hierarchies!!! (crowd goes WIIIIILLLLLLLD!!); and in this corner, Compassion!!! (Woooo…..????…*pin drop*)”
Part 2) More Problems with Fundamental Assumptions:
A) the naturalistic fallacy;
B) issues of scale
Part 3) The Bucko Mistake: why telling Bucko to straighten his shoulders, clean his room, and sort himself out can cause bigger problems
Part 4) The Problem of Collective Assholeification: the much bigger, much subtler, but even more important mistake in telling Bucko to sort himself out
Part 5) The Perfect House Problem: why being told not to try to change the world until you have your house in perfect order is, potentially, at least as murderous as Post-modern NeoMarxism and all that…
Part 6) The Myth of “The myth of white/male privilege”: Hi, my name is Dan, and I’m a white male. “Hiiii Dannn”. Smiles and nods all around while I take my seat in the circle.
Part 7) Psychology at the Ending of the World: Section A:”truth” (JBP-style) and collective action: The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us God.
Part 8) Psychology at the Ending of the World:Section B: Postmodernism: Why Rules are Agents of Chaos; and ‘Postmodernism’ is the antidote
Now let’s get started.
Prologue: A Personal Note
This might not be the right way to get this message out. I don’t know. I sure ain’t perfect. I am a bit concerned that something I say comes across the wrong way, or people think I have unsavoury motives of some kind or other. This is something that, more often than it should, holds me back from doing things. I’m sure you’ve felt that way before. Who hasn’t? Heck, it can be scary just talking to a person at a dinner party; walking into a public debate that often seems to draw fairly extreme reactions out of people? yikes…
But, I feel it’s important to try here, and share a few thoughts about the whole phenomenon of Jordan Peterson. It’s….complicated to get into, personally, for a bunch of reasons….which is why I’m starting this series of essays with this ‘personal prologue’, because I think it is important to contextualize my views appropriately.
On a personal level, I genuinely like Jordan, and always have, going on close to 20 years. We have never been personal friends per se, but always friendly and collegial. I believe in him as a person (more on that later), and totally get a kick out of talking to him. It’s great.
More than that, I have always felt an intellectual kinship with him in large part, despite the fact that we seem to disagree about some Pretty Big Things (climate change?…….) But we have quite overlapping intellectual backgrounds and interests, we draw from many of the same sources and we even teach some of the same courses in university. We also had fairly similar early lives, childhoods, teens, etc., in lots of ways, coming from similar sub-cultures, and having absorbed similar philosophies in growing up.
Of course, we’ve always disagreed about certain things, as I mentioned. But whatevs, right? That’s what science and learning and being a curious person are all about — exposing yourself to the unknown, being open to differing perspectives, especially well-reasoned ones, thereby challenging yourself to consider things in new ways.
And like Hamilton, “man, the man is non-STOP!”. Jordan is a super-smart dude; he thinks, and talks, and listens, and reads and learns, like ALL the time. He works like mad. Whoever thinks he’s just spouting bullshit is seriously not paying attention to the depth to which he has tried to articulate and explain his reasoning. So come on, let’s not straw-man people and write shitty essays where we try to tear them down and call them names. I’ve read a few of these online that have made me feel disappointed. I mean, sure, people are upset and stuff, but personal attacks and ad hominems are just low-quality ‘arguments’ that go nowhere except to further polarization.
Let’s do better than that.
Jordan and I had adjacent offices for about a decade, which was great; one of my favourite ‘things to do,’ the rare times when I got the chance, was when both of us happened to be in our offices and neither of us was immediately involved in a meeting or prepping for class. In these opportunistic moments, I would stick my head in his doorway, and say “hey Jordan, you got a couple minutes? I got a question for ya…”. I would ask him some deep, thorny question, and inevitably he would respond, without hesitation, “You know, I’ve thought a lot about that, because it gets right to the heart of….blahblahblah”, and I’d sit down, buckle up, and hang on for the ride. I totally understood why so many students and others are captivated in his lectures and get so much out of them. It’s great fun, intellectually stimulating, and you can learn a lot to boot.
I also believe in his integrity as a person. I want to be really clear about that. I wholeheartedly believe that Jordan is fighting for The Good as he perceives it, and is doing so out of genuine caring for people to live better lives. For anyone who has criticized Jordan at a personal level, written nasty things, etc., you gotta remember, even if you disagree radically with his conclusions (which I do, in many cases that I will articulate), this is a person who has devoted many, many years, thousands and thousands and thousands of hours, to helping people — in his clinical practice, as an educator and advisor to countless students, as a colleague and collaborator on a vast number of research projects and collaborative relationships. I have ‘overheard’ through the wall between us, the research meetings and Skype meetings and phone calls and interviews he has given in his office for many years. The guy works his butt off trying to help people. And sure, being a psychologist or a scientist or a teacher doesn’t immediately mean you’re a good person, and counter-examples are easy to find, no doubt. But you have to give a person the respect they deserve. Someone who has spent their many-more-than-10000-hours in studying and working directly with human suffering and growth, deserves some serious respect. IMHO.
Having said all this, I do want to spend some time developing a critique of some of Jordan’s key points and public communications. We do have quite deep points of disagreement, and for those who care about what Jordan has to say, I think the implications are important. I hear a lot of people say things like “Yeah, he makes a lotta sense, but you know, I don’t agree with him on everything…”. But if you press people for precise points of disagreement, you don’t find many, or at least many that aren’t based on a misunderstanding of what Jordan has actually said.
So, I think I have a good sense of what Jordan has said, and what he means. And I will try to convey as clearly as I can, the important points of divergence. I think I have sufficiently expressed, here and in other places, my appreciation with much of his teachings, but it’s time to look at the other side. I think some of it is, unintentionally I’m sure, downright dangerous and could cause harm. Which is why I feel it’s necessary to talk about this.
Before we get into all this, let’s go experiential first. Let me break the fourth wall here, and ask you for a moment, what is your own personal construal, your theory, about people expressing a public disagreement like this? Like, how are you subtly framing for yourself, this “series of essays” I’m telling you I’m going to post? What IS this all about? What am I up to here?
Do you see this as a dominance contest? Is this Dolderman’s attempt to get into the ring. Is this a “vs” match? Are we gonna compare claw sizes?
Or, even darker, does this reveal something nasty and slimy about me? Am I ‘attacking’ Jordan? Is this an attempt at one-up-man-ship? Maybe my own “personal issues” or whatever, are motivating me to aggress, to try to assert myself, or score points?
After all, seeing it like a Dominance Contest is a pretty easy interpretation to make. It has the ‘archetypal’ characteristics of a battle, you might say (minus swords…).
So, what’s YOUR theory?
This matters. And to be fair, who knows what the truth is? You don’t know my motivations. Heck, if you believe Science (insert practically all of psychology here…), then I don’t even fully know my motivations! They are probably “multiply determined”. Because pretty much everything is.
BUT, the specific frame or narrative or interpretation or story, that you tell yourself about this, matters. Framing has many ‘downstream’ outcomes, shaping your perceptions, interpretations and judgements, the memories you form and the way you communicate to other people about this in the future. The consequences of framing things a certain way can “ripple out” in all sorts of ways into your own belief and actions, and thus, into the collective experience of society. It is fair to say that, how we frame things influences our entire culture.
Let’s say I make some really damning point that eviscerates some of Jordan’s key arguments. Or let’s say the opposite happens, and it is proven that the things I say are simply dead wrong. Okay. So, in these situations, what will the End Result be? That one person “won” and the other “lost”? Is that how it will register in your own consciousness, as a win or loss, and then you move on? I’ve certainly seen a lot of videos posted online with titles like Peterson DESTROYS Liberal Professor!!, or something like that, with lots of shit-talking in the comments section…
I can’t help but wonder if humankind can’t figure out how to get more out of all this communication we have with each other, than to simply create more and more ways to basically sit around the ring cheering while people beat on each other. What if, instead of approaching dialogue as combat, we approached it as….you know….dialogue! ….That thing that happens when people share perspectives, are genuinely open to and interested in learning from each other, and maybe even achieve a “greater wisdom” through synthesizing different perspectives into a more complex and holistic understanding?
Yeah,….That’d be cool, right?
Roughly speaking though, it seems unlikely that this coming-together of differing perspectives into a higher synthesis, will happen, if people approach it like it’s combat. Because in combat, the whole point is that one person walks away victorious and the other bleeds into the dirt. And if dialogue feels anything like THAT, then people are sure as hell not going to tolerate the possibility that they might be wrong, or even partially wrong! Shields up! Swords drawn! CHARRRRGE!!!!!!
God, haven’t we done enough of that already for a few thousand years? Is there truly no better way?
So let’s try, just as an experiment here, NOT to see the world as a pissing contest, or lobster-claw-battle or whatever. Just for shits and giggles, try it out as a “thought experiment”.
Yes, yes, I know, I hear the counterarguments just exploding inside your head right now. “But the world IS so deeply structured by Hierarchy. It’s TRUE! etc…”
Yes, that’s fine. It’s true. Cool. High-five bro. No argument here. But there are other truths too. And higher-order truths that you get to when you consider how it all works together.
So let’s look past what is and what was (or rather, what the hierarchy-way-of-thinking suggests “is and was”), and try to imagine what’s possible and what could be.
Is it POSSIBLE that dialogue could be something-more than a dominance-contest? (That’s a rhetorical question, in case that’s not clear…) Is it POSSIBLE that we could emphasize this “something-more”, and that doing so would have value? Is it POSSIBLE that our choice of interpretive frame might be so powerful that it could affect the very outcome of human civilization? Jordan himself thinks that, and I agree with him. So, it’s pretty goddamned important to figure out just how likely these possibilities are. If they’re just idealistic pipe dreams, then….okay, good to know. But if they’re not…
I believe it is possible to ‘transcend’ the classic dynamics of dominance hierarchies in important ways, and work to structure human civilization in a different way than what has been the dominant mode for our civilization thus far. Not only is this possible, I think that it’s fundamentally necessary. I would cast my vote for this to be the single most important thing that humanity works on figuring out in the next 20 years. As Dr. Strange said, “We’re in the EndGame now.”
Now, this is going to take some time. I was advised by several people (with good reason!) to try to keep this short, otherwise “TLDR”…. I’m obviously failing at that…. ooops.
But you know, that just can’t be right. I refuse to submit to that limitation. I have more faith in people than that. If a person is genuinely interested in Jordan’s ideas, then they have likely consumed MANY hours of online video content, and read many, many pages of argumentation and reasoning online. It is totally, ridiculously unfair to expect someone to develop and articulate a critique of this body of work, and expect “500 words or less!” Ha! Ain’t gonna happen and it would be wrong to try to do otherwise, because it effectively cripples and straw-mans the challenger.
Besides, you cannot hold yourself to be a well-reasoned, open-minded, critical-thinking, rational person, spend 100s of hours re-confirming your own beliefs, and be unwilling to spend, say, 10 hours deeply considering “alternate perspectives”, or you might say, critiques to those beliefs.
What, are you scared? Lazy? C’mon, don’t be a wimp! Or, a snowflake? 😉
I’ve taken a long time to think about all this, because it’s weird, you know. Statement-by-statement, specific use of theory after specific use of theory, etc., I find myself agreeing something like 95% with what Jordan says. (I don’t know that for sure. But it’s like, a lot.) And yet, I find myself disagreeing with many, many of the overarching conclusions he seems to emphasize. We use practically the same reasoning, share most of the same starting assumptions it would seem, and yet we end up on opposite sides of almost every fence. It’s weird.
I realized, after thinking about this for a long time, that if you don’t tackle the whole ball of wax, then any individual argument is too easy to counter-argue or just dismiss outright. Truly, “the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts”. So I’m going to develop “the whole”, and see where it takes us.
I hope this is useful for you, and as we move along here, I invite you to share your own hopefully-carefully-considered thoughts. It would be nice if we all learned something from each other, and had good times.