Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive5

Cross-outs in first sentence of article.
On documenting and critiquing the claims made by Peterson with respect to his various areas of expertise: This cross out technique does not belong in the first sentence. If I hady it would never be used. It clogs up the article at the very beginning. The counterclaims are a matter of semantics. Psychologists are not biologists, but they may well be well informed. Furthermore, biologists may not understand or accept the applications of biology out side of their own expertise. These points should actually be presented and defended in the text if they are not wholly facetious. Perhaps create a new section.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I mean, it's relevant because his idiot fans are obsessed with making arguments from authority, rather than specifically asserting that non-experts cannot understand things ever. He's kinda the ultimate ultracrepidarian constantly being just utterly wrong on things he should understand, then branching off into complete pseudoscience further afield along the way.  You definitely don't do yourself any credit by invoking the Courtier's Reply about Myers to undercut criticism on your pet pseudo-scientist.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the cross-outs are fine. Peterson is not an appropriate authority to cite about either of those two nor does he state claims that either of those two experts agree on. 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you care much about the readability of the article. Crossouts are neither humorous nor informative. They ruin the flow of any article. Also, two scientists disagreeing with another scientist on minor points is not noteworthy in itself, especially when it amounts to a credentials piss-off. It it quotidian.  Peterson does not offend me. I expect he does you. He clearly offends many people who frequent this wiki. I do not intend to troll them or you. I think the phenomenon of Peterson's appearance is interesting  and significant. Although you may regard him as a pseudo-scientist, this is not generally how he is regarded among scientists. My suggestion is to create a section capturing such awkward claims as can be found. However a psychologist who refers to himself as a biologist is at worst immodest. Since he has published a number of experimental papers, it is more prolix than improper to refer to him as a neuroscientist. Disapprobation is never an excuse for bad style. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This still doesn't change the fact that he isn't an evolution biologist or a neuroscientist. If he simply said "I know a lot about evolutionary biology" or "I know a lot about neuroscience" then it wouldn't be as much of an issue (though I guess as an actual evolution biologist (like Myers) or neuroscientist might have a thing or two to say about it). Psychologists may indeed be well informed about biology, but the key word there is may. Your dentist may be well-informed about orthopaedics, but that still doesn't mean speaking to your dentist about your cracked rib is a good idea.

Are you seriously telling me that Jordan Peterson, who has spent over half of his life studying psychology cannot differentiate his field from evolutionary biology or neuroscience? I mean I know this is somewhat anecdotal, but I've spent the last two years of my life working as forklift operator, and not even in my drunkest conversations have I said to somebody "I'm a crane operator" or "I'm a truck driver". To anybody with half a brain it's patently obviously what happened - Peterson falsely claimed to be qualified in fields of academia he is not qualified in in order to make a false appeal to authority, knowing full well his fans are gullible enough to take his claims at face value.TheSocktor (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My problem is with your notion of being qualified. A leading authority on the life and work of Thomas Huxley was a very good family friend: Charles Blinderman, a professor of English, at a small New England University. Work makes one qualified. Work.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So Peterson is a very good family friend of evolutionary biology and neuroscience?TheSocktor (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my exact reaction to your post.TheSocktor (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I was fairly clear. What puzzles you, friend. I am going to stop here if you are just angry.Ariel31459 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the slightest bit angry, I'm just a bit bewildered. What relevance does Thomas Huxley's friend have here? Evolutionary biology and neuroscience are not people. Yes, you might learn a few basic concepts about them from being in the presence of people who are evolutionary biologists or neuroscientists but still doesn't make you an authority on the subject any more than the fact I'm close friends with a teacher and a medical researcher makes me qualified to teach or research medicine. I mean, I'm sorry if I'm strawmanning you here but I really don't understand what you're trying to tell me.TheSocktor (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I am trying to tell you that you can not place people in categories of epistemological expertise based on their major subject. I knew an English professor who became an expert in an aspect of evolutionary biology. What were his credentials? Work. I should add that, he told me of being held in low regard by members of the University's biology department. Yet, he was eventually given a second office there as an adjunct professor of biology. You see, university biologists, as with all scholars, are experts not in their general field, but in very narrow sets of subjects subtending the general topic, such as the study of a particular species of primate, fish, or insect. I am pointing out the lacuna in your argument. not having to do with Peterson, but a general problem with respect to using arbitrary standards to disqualify opinions. I really don't blame you, on the other hand, because it is unusual to find even really smart people who avoid this particular problem. The AMA standard for credentials may have been necessary to prevent loss of life, otherwise, not so much. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I take a moment to shit on Ariel's source
This is irrelevant to changing the article because it was included as part of a whataboutism argument anyways, but I did some looking into the evolution institute, linked by Ariel. They're funded almost entirely by the John Templeton Foundation, which has a very public history of funding creationist papers to muddy the waters about evolution, and creating citation bait for public debate. Which is how most skeptics know of them

What's that you say? If they're a creationist org why are they funding a pro-evolution blog with an attached database of information about evolution? Well there's the weeds of it. The evolution institute only kinda vaguely brushes on evolution when it's convenient for their real mission, which seems to be publishing pro-Christianity social science research. By which I don't mean apologetics, but generating as much material as possible on the social value of Church, religious belief(especially in Jesus). In spite of the nominal goal of using evolution for social good, they still can't resist doing a bit of the old water muddying, like this kind of thing where they purposefully conflate social darwinism with evolution, and later goes on to say that darwin was good, because he was judeo christian. It might be worth a pass to make sure we don't cite them too much elsewhere. They're not bad per se; they hire real scientists for real research after all, but they should maybe be addressed with a degree of extra skepticism, given charges that the Templeton foundation has done a bit of the old "your future grants depend on current results" thing according to critics. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow up, we cite them in one other article, and it seems to be a relatively okay place to cite a source of that kind, talking about the history of "Descent of Man" and how it was overconflated with evolution. Prolly okay.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not vouching for the source myself. It should be viewed as just another cherry-picked article. We all swoon into them eventually. You already know the relevant epistemology.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, honestly, I think the way you used your source in that comment was not particularly relevant to your central point, so all this was a personal rabbit hole tangent on "who the fuck is this .org and what is their slant?"
 * Also, I don't get why you're invoking epistemology. The fundamental arbitration of truth and knowledge is pretty disconnected from the topic at hand?  And it doesn't seem to be why we're taking a dump on Jordan Peterson's very questionable expertise.  Unless you're going to bat for his presuppositionalism, where's it a fundamental question; I'll throw down on the epistemology of that any day.  It's a trash idea for kids taking philosophy 101 in a seminary school.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, it was an arbitrary choice of supportive media text. This the the standard for this wiki, not unlike the references supporting the crossouts: by relatively low status academics. I did not invoke epistemology, I demurred. I don't think Peterson is a presuppositionalist in the sense that Christianity is the fundamentally true doctrine. I think his assumption is something like religion is required for culture to flourish: the west has Christianity, other regions have other presuppositions. But, when it comes to religion, nobody really knows what other people believe.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (I meant you wrote the word epistemology in a sentence and I couldn't fathom why) I went out of my way to avoid anti-Peterson people saying he was a presuppositionalist, as it's pretty easy to see how the internet memeifies statements about people as truth. Instead, I found a presuppositionalist christian vlogger, documenting how he thinks Jordan Peterson clearly believes in presuppositionalism.  Here you go(everything about the site is just unbearable, though, from the design to every "related post").  You'd think it was satire, from the obsessive fanboyism reaching a creepy level, but no, it's real.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. So, I am not surprised that a presuppositionalist finds Peterson's views compatible with his own. This is typical of all religionists, I think: if you don't say bad things about me and my beliefs, you can be one of us. Very few religions are not accomodating in this way. As a philosopher, I can see how this might be unacceptable, to you. But it is the presup's error to make that assumption. I don't think I am telling you something you are unaware of. Why would Peterson do this? Lots of therapists are like that. Freud denied religion. Jung never said a word against it ( I think).Ariel31459 (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, famously not just spouting off personal speculation about how the human mind works psychologists Freud and Jung. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Jung's paradigm is pervasive in therapy: "you can stay in that walking daydream of religion. That's not the main problem." About this specifically, I remain agnostic.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm just here to add that Ariel, I saw your source earlier, scoffed at it, and promptly forgot about it. I read it and ikanreed described it as Courtier's Reply, but despite that label, I found it to be not helpful at all. It just says "PZ Meyers doesn't know how complex things are" and "he can just sum religion's harmful effects up with one word: WOMEN" but he doesn't proceed to explain why PZ Meyers is wrong or strawmanning, and is PZ Meyers really arguing that? The counterargument is "but sexual conflict in the animal world, look at Bonobos, so religion isn't a factor here", which completely dismisses religion's impact. So blah blah blah another topic. I wouldn't use that particular source for anything except to laugh at it. 18:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are clearly not following me at all Lefty. Of course the source is just more internet palaver. Although that wasn't the original point.The crossout sources were more of the same. You are, in effect, trying to change the subject. Ariel31459 (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, when I created a subsection with a new subject line, I was trying to change the subject. They responded to that.  Seems okay to me?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

God, really?
"His statements are notoriously incoherent and ambiguous, which allows him to handwave criticism as mere misrepresentations of his views." Jesus, fucking 1/10 see me after class.
 * This is entirely accurate description of one of his primary problems. Framing everything in caveats, and especially nonsensical caveats is like an infinite pile of Escape hatches.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not accurate to say it is a problem to say, everything is contingent. That is a valid perspective of philosophy. Loads of philosophers don't like it because it makes their assumptions contingent as well.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's not what he says. Everything being contingent on complexities would be an entirely fair (and, shock, horror postmodernist) perspective.  And would maybe invalidate gross generalizations like basing the entirety of human society on one or two documented behaviors of lobsters.  No, he often delivers specific contingencies that have no bearing on the things he's actually saying.

You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.
 * The qualifications are... pretty nonsensical, even when you understand that he's trying to talk about archetypes, "I know dragons don't exist but some things are dragons" is only technically a qualified statement, and the qualification would, as I said, let you escape hatch questions like "No really, what makes predators dragons? They don't have characterstics x, y, z, q, m, and k."  By saying you know they don't exist and "that's not what I meant".  But it doesn't actually qualify and circumstantialize the idea that predators are dragons into a specific context where that metaphor helps understand anything.  It's pseudo-profound bullshit.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Man, Peterson is hilarious. Dragons. Witches. There's no escape from them. So true. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That statement is backed up by a citation that goes into further detail about Jordan Peterson's obfuscation of arguments. 18:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Peterson seems to make terrible choices when explaining archetypes. I rather think he was pulling the NY Times reporter's leg. He does that quite a lot. Loads of people love it. I can imagine her face.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, postmodernism is quite excellent for generating a critical narrative from what is essentially a non-analytical narrative about an analytical subject: of course it was bullshit. He was trying to see if he could confuse her. Do you think he succeeded?Ariel31459 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * you mean he was going "lol I wasn't being dumb as shit I was just trolling guize" - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why David. You old bs-artist. Good to hear from you. I have watched many hours of Peterson's interviews. Does this stuff sound like him? Never mind, I am pretty sure you haven't wasted your time. So let me answer: no. He is a clinical psychologist with 30 years experience. Nellie Bowles' article "Jordan Peterson: Custodian of the Patriarchy..."  is well-acknowledged to be a hit piece. Even Bowle's would likely admit she approached the subject in bad faith. Yes, he was fucking with her mind. No, I don't think he helped himself.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an entirely accurate hit piece. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bad faith obstructs accuracy. I believe Bowles is experienced in Silicon Valley tech. So, the Times might as well have sent a lawyer to conduct the interview. Not being interested in critical narratives of non-analytical texts, I have no interest in debating non-academic journalism. Try a show of hands. This sort of thing reminds me what is often wrong with these types of articles. They rely too heavily on the conclusions of journalists working outside of areas in which they should be expected to show a high level of confidence.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also in good faith. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is for the record, not intending to win a kewpie doll: There are liberal-biased media articles disagreeing with you,e.g.. Many decline to agree with him about anything, yet call out the bad-faith attacks including the Bowle's article.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That sure doesn't talk about the citation we use for this at fucking all. Why are you complaining about Bowle?  That's a name that doesn't appear in our citations anywhere, and, in spite of the dozens of basically decent articles Meeks(your author) complains about, the Robinson piece we cite for Peterson being a bullshit artist, isn't mentioned at all.
 * There's some merit in rejecting sources, when they go too far. But rejecting a source we cite because of complaints with a source we don't?  That's some next level bullshit ariel.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Now I am confused.Bowles is the source of the quote you used in the above quote, and it is the one I am talking about: But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.
 * “Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category."
 * Now, that is a weird thing to say. I won't try to explain it. But you brought it up buddy. And the article I cited does mention the article Bowles wrote.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. you're a fucking idiot rejecting a primary source giving an exact quote fully in context because of "bias".  Glad we cleared up the misunderstanding I had.  I believed that maybe you'd be making that charge in a context where it made any goddamn sense.  Like, you know, analysis.  Or even attacks on character.  But no, we're just talking about the way he uses words, as established by a much more thorough breakdown(that we cite), and your pedantic, tendentious, and obsequious defenses of it that jump from topic to topic and move goalposts like crazy and never establish your own positive case.  And it fucking sucks.  I'm so sick of pretending that you're engaging honestly.  It's so stupid and annoying, and I could go out of my way to grab another illustrative quote of how Peterson speaks, but we both know that you won't engage the central point honestly.  You'll find an irrelevant detail, raise an at-best pedantic exception, and any answers to those concerns will only be met with a change of subject and new pedantry.  Stop it.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ariel's objections remain entirely inane - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What am I objecting to David? I wonder if you have been paying attention?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As per my reply. You know what you did. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As per my reply, you both appear to be deluded.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Times up! I am objecting to amateurs looking to articles written by amateurs to write critical narratives of no earthly use.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting the completely arbitrary topic shift without the pedantic objection. Now the conversation drifts towards the surreal.  One piece need bear no relationship to the part before.  It's a brave new world of you never acknowledging the point others are making.  Dadist argumentation.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You idiot. I thought we were just having a conversation. What are trying to do? Save the world?Ariel31459 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Deal with a chronic bullshitter who was pitching bullshit in a thread about cutting sourced content from the article. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is the chronic bullshitter? 174.29.49.197? You might be conflating a couple of different threads here... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, ariel is the chronic bullshitter. There's no conflation.  The thread had a subject, and a bullshitter came in and bullshitted.  Please stop.  None of us need two of you shits pedantically arguing explicitly wrong positions just to do so.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * *proceeds to poop all over things* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of the thread's late subject, can we get back on track to discussing it? If Ariel has an objection to the aforementioned line, would he please be so kind as to concisely restate it? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll restate my position, even if the statement didn't have a reliable source that lays out a fairly competent case for that exact sentence with lots of further information for those concerned, which it does, it's still pretty self-evident from a cursory examination of claims Peterson has made, whether prepared or off-the-cuff. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So please let me know if I am wrong about this, but is your position simply that the line OP mentioned is supported by Peterson's statements? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And the citation! ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But if his statements are incoherent and ambiguous, how did you manage to very effectively distill a clear and obvious meaning from it? ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of at my limit for devil's advocacy today. We both know how to do that.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

On a more metaphysical note
Why would you ask God "really?"? God made it manifest before your very eyes. Of course really. What a silly question. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, there's a demon that controls all of your perceptions, and merely feeds you lies and truth at its own leisure, and gods truth is obscured to an arbitrary extent. At least there could be.  That was descartes' thing.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 06:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, but God still put the demon there. The method of perception is kind of irrelevant. It's all real. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No john, you are the demons. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

He's not on Patreon anymore
He deleted his Patreon account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrZDcEix7uk Thinker(unlicensed) 10:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Cross out
I'm referring to this. First, how does the cross out tag work? If it works as " something false something true" then it seems to me that it is just an excuse to write false things disguised as humor. Second, in this specific instance, Jordan Peterson is not far-right (he lectured about the danger of National Socialism for years), so RW should not classify him as such. For this reason I think that:

"He has spoken of forming a far-right free speech alternative to Patreon"

should be replaced by

"He has spoken of forming an alternative to Patreon"

Thinker(unlicensed) 13:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The cross out is riffing on the dogwhistling on "free speech" far-right sites tend to promote, Gab and PewTube are two examples. Also, the statement does not label Jordan Peterson as far-right, it hints to the "alternative" to Patreon as "far-right" because this exact thing has happened to other far-right people getting booted off mainstream platforms. Also, I would argue that Jordan Peterson is far-right at this point because his audience certainly are, he speaks to those people and makes money off them, and he formed the "free-speech" Patreon in support of far-right Youtuber Cargon of Sakkad getting booted off Patreon. So, your proposed replacement removes all of this and therefore, I revert. 23:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The dog-whistle of free speech." Unfortunately the denials of free speech are fighting words in America. Often the demand for free speech is legitimate. Believe it or not, this wiki also promotes, even insists upon, free speech. Why do you think we can't get rid of robsmith? Peterson can not be placed on the far right without disregarding the current characterization of the far right as white supremacist, antisemetic, and against the redistribution of wealth through progressive government programs. None of these are typical in Peterson's presentations. He may be called extreme in some views. But I don't think he is in ideological consensus with any far-right established mode of thought. This in itself would make Peterson of little interest to those on the far right. Ariel31459 (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My main argument would be that this guy is at least complacent with far right and has nurtured the far right, so I don't see much functional difference between saying he's far-right or not; it's splitting hairs in Peterson's case. Aside from this, this free speech Peterson promotes is a farce, just as how Gab and PewTube are. 03:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is evidence that Peterson's presentations draw his audiences away from the far right. Do you honestly believe anything we have done here has had that effect? He has subtly criticized the alt-right and intolerant conservatives right under their noses and on their own broadcasts. It is breathtaking for you to imply that it doesn't matter that Peterson keeps people in his audiences away from the alt-right. You are not conservative. That's fine, neither am I. What they do is still significant.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested in seeing this evidence. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to overstate the case. In as much as mainstream conservatives can be said to reject the alt-right, the conservative and moderate press accepts Peterson's claims to oppose far-right perspectives, mainly racism and antisemetism. Then there is his acknowledgement that wealth redistribution could be necessary. Peterson, in his talks, has spoken of the need for wealth redistribution. This is a position that sends the far right into a rage. Peterson himself reports receiving letters from or conversations with  persons stating they prefer his views to those of alt-right speakers they had considered. Peterson is a conservative. There is no avoiding that solid fact.  Ariel31459 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this contradicts right wing populism or nullifies my accusations that he is far right or complacent with the far right. It's like Cargon denouncing his audience but keeps attracting them, failing to reflect on why he cultivated an audience to begin with. Your arguments are a stretch. I even think calling him a conservative is a stretch. Some of his ideas are reactionary, particularly his idea that we should return to Christian traditional gender roles for women and I say no freaking thanks. Or maybe I am going insane and if Peterson drivel this passes as just conservatism, conservatism must be rotten to the core. 05:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Put it this way: Richard Spencer has dismissed Peterson as a conservative interested in self-help books and unwilling to address racial questions. Political ideology sounds like drivel if you have a very contrary ideology. You could say he is a right-wing populist who: 1) recognizes necessity in both the political left and the right, 2) rejects racism, 3) offends the left by advocating traditionalism and rejecting contemporary feminist movements while accepting the need for economic justice, 4) advocates individualism and opposes joining movements 5) applies scientism to illustrate and justify his baroque moral philosophy. There is plenty to criticize if you know what you are doing. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "the statement does not label Jordan Peterson as far-right"
 * The statement is "He has spoken of forming a far-right free speech alternative to Patreon" which labels Peterson as somebody who is trying to form a far-right alternative to Patreon, hence it labels Peterson as far-right.
 * "it hints to the "alternative" to Patreon as "far-right" because this exact thing has happened to other far-right people getting booted off mainstream platforms."
 * Guilty by analogy?
 * "Also, I would argue that Jordan Peterson is far-right at this point because his audience certainly are"
 * What proofs do you have that, for example, his 1.8 million youtube followers are certainly far-right?
 * "Some of his ideas are reactionary, particularly his idea that we should return to Christian traditional gender roles for women and I say no freaking thanks."
 * Source? Thinker(unlicensed) 06:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't be this daft. 22:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your reply? I find very disturbing that a moderator ignore some very easy arguments and resorts to personal attacks writing in the block log "Ikanreed is right about you, you are either really dumb or dishonest". Insults is all you got? Thinker(unlicensed) 22:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your initial comment and all your replies have been daft, but I assumed good faith in your argument, which has been a waste of time. I don't think they deserve serious responses. People are calling you a sea lion and you're not doing much to dispel that notion. 23:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Yeah, your initial comment and all your replies have been daft"
 * English is not my first language, what do you mean by "daft"? Because on the dictionaries I find at least two quite different meanings.
 * "I assumed good faith in your argument, which has been a waste of time. I don't think they deserve serious responses."
 * Let's break it down:
 * Me: "Jordan Peterson is not far-right (he lectured about the danger of National Socialism for years), so RW should not classify him as such."
 * You: "the statement does not label Jordan Peterson as far-right"
 * Me: "The statement is 'He has spoken of forming a far-right free speech alternative to Patreon' which labels Peterson as somebody who is trying to form a far-right alternative to Patreon, hence it labels Peterson as far-right."
 * My argument it's really easy. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Daft" in my usage is an insult described to people who continue to misunderstand what appears to be obvious points. I am sorry about that, but I believe your difficulty with English is making you misunderstand a lot of key points. The logic is not good. "Far-right" is an adjective that describes "alternative", not Peterson. The sentence does not actually argue that Peterson is far right, only that the platform he is making is. The cross out does not necessarily mean a statement is negated.
 * Peterson has talked about making a free speech alternative in response to Sargon (someone most people can comfortably describe as far right or at least farther right than Peterson). Patreon removed Sargon because Sargon had used offensive language, "faggot" and "nigger". Also, this event is like other times where people made free speech alternatives when far right figures had their platforms removed for also using offensive language. The cross out is a criticism of how far right people use the term "free speech" as an excuse to say offensive things. The cross out illustrates this by making it seem like the word is removed, but you can still easily see the words.
 * This is not guilt by association because these two events have very strong parallels being 1) People lose their account on a popular site like Twitter or YouTube because they used offensive language which violated the terms and conditions and 2) these people or their supporters have made alternatives to Twitter and YouTube, and I have cited examples being Gab and PewTube. They creators have deemed them free speech alternatives, but in reality, they host offensive content, often offensive far right content.
 * I am not arguing that Peterson's equivalent site that he is proposing to Patreon is offensive, but it is reasonable to predict that it will be similar to PewTube and Gab because it attracts similar offensive accounts and it will be a failure. 09:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "'Daft' in my usage is an insult described to people who continue to misunderstand what appears to be obvious points."
 * OK, at least I appreciate your effort in breaking down language barriers.
 * "The logic is not good. 'Far-right' is an adjective that describes 'alternative', not Peterson."
 * I agree with the grammar, but if I say that LeftyGreenMario has spoken of forming a far-right platform, then I'm accusing you of being "far-right", even if "far-right" is just an adjective of "platform".
 * "The sentence does not actually argue that Peterson is far right, only that the platform he is making is."
 * The sentence is "He has spoken of forming a far-right free speech alternative to Patreon" which means that Person has said something like: "We should form a far-right free speech alternative to Patreon!" Who the hell will speak of forming a far-right platform if not a far-right person?
 * "The cross out is a criticism of how far right people use the term "free speech" as an excuse to say offensive things."
 * So the sentence says that Peterson used the term "free speech" when talking about forming a new platform, and it is there to criticize how far-right people (your words) use "free speech" as an excuse to say offensive things, but it does not say that Peterson is far-right... That doesn't make any sense. Thinker(unlicensed) 12:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me clear this up for you: you're jawdroppingly bad at reading words, and are quite definitely the one with the problem here - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are removing an adjective that describes a platform with your reasoning Peterson is not far right. This is a non sequitur. This is because whatever this platform is, it does not automatically describe who Peterson is (and it simply is not describing who he is; it can hint to what his beliefs are but the cross out modifies platform and not Peterson), and you are removing information based on your disagreement on Peterson's political beliefs. The logic doesn't follow. If you want to make a more logical argument, you should be removing the cross out because you disagree that it describes the platform Peterson wants to create.
 * I also think you do not understand cross out. Notice I said "far right people", but I did not necessarily include Peterson, only that Peterson's actions echo what actual far right people do. But I did not argue that he is far right here. My initial comment on arguing that he is is intended to be an additonal personal comment, and it has no direct relevance to the text in dispute, but I anticipated that you disagree with his labeling, even if your edit negates how far right describes only a platform. 19:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "You are removing an adjective that describes a platform with your reasoning Peterson is not far right."
 * I don't see the point of debating if you are only able to repeat that "far-right" describes the platform and not Peterson, ignoring that I have already replied to that with "if I say that LeftyGreenMario has spoken of forming a far-right platform, then I'm accusing you of being 'far-right', even if 'far-right' is just an adjective of 'platform'."
 * I'm not gonna continue. Thinker(unlicensed) 08:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sargon apparently got kicked after a mass-reporting campaign by his fellow totally-not-Nazis, because these guys hate each other as much as they hate everyone else. I'm looking for a writeup of this to cite - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yum. Though we should be discussing this in Cargon's article, unless this is relevant to Peterson as well? Not clear from your comment. 23:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Worth mentioning in passing here, though the Sargon article needs it too ofc. All I can find is Jared Holt of RightWingWatch, though Carlgon concurs but somehow it's the "far left" at Patreon's fault his "friends" hate him - David Gerard (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't touch his "hierarchies are natural" pseudoscience
But if we did we could definitely cite this modeling-based paper about how individualistic hierarchies can seem stable, but are prone to rapid collapse. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Pseudoscience" meaning you don't like it and refuse to discuss it or look at evidence because it conflicts with your a priori "equality" fantasy? And if you do you'll just cherry pick studies that confirm your bias? How ironic. 82.10.143.238 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Before anything, it should be stated exactly what are Peterson's claims about hierarchies. Because "hierarchies are natural" is too vague to be discussed, it could be obviously true, obviously false, and everything in the middle... depending on the context. Thinker(unlicensed) 11:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Peterson: There’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.
 * Newman: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?
 * Peterson: I’m saying it is inevitable that there will be continuities in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable, and there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that … It’s a long time. You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that’s similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status—and the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion. 82.10.143.238 (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a vast amount of research on taking into account both practical observations and theoretical models (e.g. game theory). The only conclusion can be that there's a huge variety of systems conditioned by a large number of factors (costs, benefits, nature of food supply, reproductive policy, intruders vs residents, etc, etc, etc). In some systems, fixed hierarchies are advantageous, in others not at all (e.g. some hymenoptera live in hugely complex social structures and others are solitary). This can be proven both a priori (modelling, game theory) and a posteriori (field biology). Peterson doesn't seem to advance any evidence for his claims and to ignore contrary evidence e.g. there's a lot of evidence suggesting that primitive human societies were egalitarian. --Annanoon (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The abstract given states "In contrast to dominance hierarchies in non-human primates, human simple forager bands are typically egalitarian, with male hunters often serving as the collective alpha." This seems to describe a simple dominance relation between male and female activity. Am I missing something? Also, the given prolix jargon of methodology is hard to fathom. That might be a problem in such a speculative area. In addition, I don't believe science can prove any sort of claim about nature a priori.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should figure out what "collective alpha" means. Alpha relative to what? I don't think it necessarily means alpha to female. I tried looking up the term, didn't find immediate relevant results. 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Peterson doesn't seem to advance any evidence for his claims and to ignore contrary evidence e.g. there's a lot of evidence suggesting that primitive human societies were egalitarian."
 * Primitive human societies being egalitarian (if true) does not necessary implies that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. Before throwing new material to the discussion and consequently make it more and more confuse, it should be better to focus on what Peterson actually said, see 82.10.143.238 previous post. Thinker(unlicensed) 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, accusing you of bias and running off while failing to address the paper in question at all? While thinking making claims of scientific legitimacy while, you know, not having any reasonable scientific substantiation is not pseudoscience?  That useless garbage pile of a post is what I should see?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "That useless garbage pile of a post is what I should see?"
 * If you want to disprove something then, yes, you should first read it. If you think that Peterson's claims are "useless garbage" then don't read them, but then you cannot disproved them. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that in such a case Peterson's claims are correct. Personally, I'd like to read a skeptical analysis of what Peterson said. I doubt that such analysis will come from you. Thinker(unlicensed) 00:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hierarchies are prone to collapse, e.g., the Fall of the Roman Empire was rapid in relation to periods of time required for evolution to take place. It is intuitive that smaller and smaller systems would be less and less stable. Sounds natural.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be. Could be assigning a phenomenological universality to a situational phenomenon.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Biased page
I read this article and it's so full of biased assessments I'd like to cry. "... differences between men and women[20] (which the sexist reactionaries all love)," what the frick is that? He got many political enemies for his views and it feels like this article was written by one of them. I don't know if ratioalwiki has a political bias itself. Is work to overhaul this appreciated? 84.59.247.87 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki has a generally left-liberal/social justice bias. 21:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * oh ok thanks for teling me. Guess a neutral point of view isn't appreciated then.84.59.247.87 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cries of "bias" is a common, lazy, and boring criticism. Bias is not necessarily bad, as long as those assertions are backed up by evidence. If you try moderating the tone of the article because you don't like what it says, you're not going to have a good time. You change bias as long as you got support on your side, not because bias is evident. We don't mince words here. 22:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I already lost my interest in the site itself. Doesn't suit the name "wiki" if you ask me. It's just disappointing for me to see a site having more resemblance to a propaganda page than to an actual wiki when it has the name rationalwiki. To me it's no different compared to e.g. wikimannia. But if you find joy in the project then it's perfectly fine. 84.59.247.87 (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. You seem to care enough to post about your concerns with this page, but you're not constructive or original, as we get swamped with complaints about "bias" and "propaganda" or the article is bad and then there's the grand conclusion that the site isn't "RATIONAL" or a "wiki" or whatever. It's an algorithm of lazy criticism, I've seen it so many times. There's the rare "okay here's the problem with that article, X source isn't supporting that statement; link to study says otherwise; conclusion from that statement is crap", which is far more useful than "I hate this page it's so biased and unbalanced I hate that assessment and it's propaganda and so this site sucks". 05:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "as long as those assertions are backed up by evidence". I tried to remove the bald assertion, with no evidence provided, that Peterson's audience is incel-heavy, from the article, and was reverted by David Gerard. Please see the debate page which I started about assertions like this about groups of people, which is a repeated phenomenon I have seen on RationalWiki: Debate:Generalising about groups based on little evidence --Greenrd (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For some reason we have faith that Peterson's audience consists of large numbers of "deplorables." This is ostensible nonsense. There is no evidence there even exist large numbers of MGTOWS and incels. We know millions of people have bought his books, or watched his lectures. The appearance of these terms is just our way of saying "fuck you mister," because some of us are afraid of his influence.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He says awful things if he's not promoting complete gibberish. While we don't have hard evidence quantifying Peterson's audience, I also don't think it's much of a mindwarp to say his audience has a lot of awful people. 02:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course it's biased, this is Rationalwiki, like Wikipedia, but even more petty and pedantic. I didn't read it all, it was clearly not well written but scribbled in crayon by people with the slightest contact with reality!  I do not need to visit this little echo chamber again.
 * Had you said nothing, your silence would have had greater importance. 00:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "I didn't read it at all, it was clearly not well written"
 * If this article is bad enough, imagine actually reading Peterson's books. 19:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "I didn't read it all, it was clearly not well written" - adding 'at' to a quote is a poor effort, surely copy and paste of quotes would serve you better, unless deliberately defending bias is your thing.
 * "imagine actually reading Peterson's books" - I think that nicely sums up the total experience of contributors to the contents of this page, imagine something, type it at rationalwiki.
 * Gasp, your entire argument is completely different and valid now. Help me, walled garden lobster dragon of disintegrating chaos. 22:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see the point.
"He is selectively very passionate about freedom of speech and ignorant of clear violations of freedom of speech, depending on whether it's his friends involved or a 'regressive leftist'. He defended the YouTuber Sargon of Akkad after he was banned from Patreon for repeatedly using racial slurs on a Twitch stream, but completly ignored his friend Ben Shapiro's attempt to destroy Representative Ilhan Omar for mildly critiquing the Israeli military lobby."

There are a couple of things wrong with this paragraph: two points comprise an inconsiderable sample space, but snarky can somtimes be unscientific, I suppose. It is not a violation of freedom of speech for a Jewish American to lambaste a member of Congress for anti-Israeli comments. Members of the US Congress are among the most influential people in the world. Shapiro was clearly punching upward. Most importantly, "attempt to destroy" is bizarre language one might expect to see entitling a Sargon of Akkad video.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at the source.


 * I like to see what this source means by "she was immediately silenced by her own party". I looked at the recent news and I don't see any sort of "silencing" as much as I see people lambasting her views. I'm tempted to remove this entire thing. Peterson has double standards on things (like attempting to sue his critics), but this isn't one of them. If those figures had a history of complaining about censorship because they were condemned, then there would be a point there, but the language in question doesn't indicate that, so it's not a good analogy. 02:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Orbán
What was the problem with Litanscombe‎'s edit, ? Bongolian (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It seemed very speculative. Most of the references are on Orban. Maybe put this in an article about him.I don't see how the two persons were connected. Insinuations of Antisemitism are incoherent. Peterson met with a bad guy? I don't think he endorsed Orban. What's the point? That Peterson is a pro-crypto authoritarian? Not much evidence for that.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The article that is supposed to show Peterson supports Orban does no such thing. It appears to be a Hungarian state propaganda piece, and is a traslation of a translation so we have no idea of any possible nuance. Even so, I fail to recognize praise for Orban in it. I give you the opportunity to defend this weak hypothesis before I remove it, again.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed this section, again, for the reasons given above: essentially slander.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I see an argument that amounts to "this is state propaganda" and "this guy met with dictator but that doesn't mean he's bad". Also, the translation does seem pretty consistent with Peterson's usual tripe. Translation does seem to show support for Orban? Saying "this dictator is trying to re establish culture" while also engaging in right wing talking points such as "Islam bad", this doesn't reflect Peterson well at all. The thing about Peterson is that he's capable of spewing verbal flimflam so who knows if translation is botched but I highly doubt Peterson is in any "nuanced". 16:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I at least corrected the "explicit praise" bit. Didn't seem too explicit to me either. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but again, he is pretty supportive. Saying someone is wanting to re-establish cultural foundations is pretty high praise. 16:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have corrected some of the more obvious torts. Please be careful with accusation. This man has resources and can be vicious.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't have special authority to revert my edits without discussion. I am willing to discuss them. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer his edits. He did indeed threaten frivolous lawsuits, but your edits just went to a flimsy "might be or not be" when it's clear and supported by later in the article. The "were said to discuss" part is not only passive voice (and also relies on weasel wordy "were said") but removes the accurate "discuss positively part". Finally the last part "This is not a surprise as opposition to political correctness has long been at the center of Peterson's thinking.", no, Peterson doesn't "think" (he just says things white conservative men like to hear and dresses it up in jargon, vague and ambiguous language, incoherent graphs, poor sentence construction, and nonsensical metaphors) and also he has his own "political correctness" (see his use of tired "muh freeze peach" tropes to defend known assholes like Cargon of Sakkad) and he is not opposed to it, he just doesn't like the left-wing ones (see article, see his "problems" with trans people, see his outrage-porn-loving right-wing audience including figures that interviewed him). 19:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Peterson is a fan of "Conservative correctness", who would have guessed? (Aside from anyone who read his books...) 19:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I get it, ariel, you want there to be something to this guy, but Peterson is pretty intellectually vacant at all levels. No matter how much of his work you engage with, no matter how much credit you extend, there's no there there, just fairly typical right wing ideology with only the thinnest veneer of any credibility.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That "pretty" qualifier is charitable. He's wholly intellectually vacant. 19:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who actually has read his books (12 rules to life), listened to him speaking and generally went from "who the fuck is this guy?" to "this guy is a dumbass", yeah, Peterson is a dumbass. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, dog-whistles for far-right nutjobs, and otherwise has nothing to say. Strip away his gobblygook Jungian nonsense and there's nothing there. He's pure style over substance. So, don't go telling me I need to read his crap or listen to him ramble, I have, he's crap, the end. And if you're an atheist, (which seems to be a thing now) you should be especially embarrassed, given that this is the exact same crap literalists pull when cornered on how shitty their worldview is. "Just go read the book(s)" they'll say. "Listen to this speaker" they'll say. all while completely missing the point. I did, they're crap. 22:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you GC. I have not read any of Peterson's books, because life is too short. I am not religious and he seems to profess to be a sort of Christian. I understand from your manifestations in the saloon that you have had it with centrists. I see Peterson as a centrist, so, I understand. You see he is not an atheist. Being atheists, you and I, we can't say much about one another based on that alone. But Christian casuistry tells us almost everything about Peterson. I don't buy it. Many many people do. I still count them as people. You and I agree on most things.
 * Lefty, you just have your opinions and I'm not going to argue with you, being myself ignorant of where they come from.
 * Seriously, ikr, thanks for thinking about this. My position has never been that Peterson has a good ideology. He is more of a theologist than anything else. Of course it all sounds like crap. Religions generally do. If you view Christianity as right-wing, then you are technically correct. The thing is, it just doesn't sound that way to many people. He attracts massive attention. His annual income has been estimated currently at two million US dollars, and he is not without real credentials. I should at least try to be accurate in the things we say about Peterson. Sneering is fine, and is not a tort. Saying he praises authoritarians may be one.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Peterson is one-man evidence(though there are others) against credentialism. A trivial understanding of evolution, or modern psychology is enough to understand he is talking straight out his ass.  Income is indiciative of his work being grift.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this is awkward. I meant to post my last comment two sections above, in response to a BoN subtly trotting out the "but if you read his work, he'll magically make sense" argument. Sorry. This discussion, by contrast, has been much more civil. 01:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ariel - nobody here is buying your implausible theories of imminent legal danger. Like, I've actually been in legal danger of defamation suits and this really just ain't it in any way whatsoever.
 * Also, I'm actually on the board, and this question is literally my problem. And your hypothesis is nonsensical.
 * Rather than bluster and edit-warring, I suggest you might try convincing others and building consensus for the edit you want to make. Do you think that might work? - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, I cooperated with you earlier. But I also present my case as clearly as I can when explaining edits. I don't think it's fair for me when I get a "it's just your opinion" response for my efforts. 06:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, ariel is right in that peterson is an anti-free speech lunatic who sues critics. He's wrong that the intended chilling effect of that should have any effect on our article.  Be wary that you don't step up this line of thinking to where you start making legal threats in alium, because then it would be in line with wiki policy to ban you.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson and IQ
What about all of the claims Jordan Peterson makes about IQ scores actually possessing merit in their utility as a predictor of one's cognitive functioning and resultant life success? I can't find anything on RW that refutes him, even though he's a very hardline IQ test proponent and surely there must be people on RW that are skeptics or critics regarding the validity of the metric. I mean, there are so many variables that come into play when interpreting the meaning of the statistics within each deviation range, as well as when assessing Bell Curve placement at the individual level. Not only are these tests inaccurate, they are completely unethical! It's biased humans who put stock into them.Bumpy Toad (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Article re-write
I have taken the liberty of re-writing this wiki page with a more fair and unbiased description of Jordan Peterson. The criticism of Jordan wasn't objective by any means. It contained numerous inaccuracies, extremely biased viewpoints and a swath of ad hominems. Every negative claim made about him wasn't actually supported. Those that contributed to it were clearly trying to push a narrative about him simply because what Jordan argues contradicts their subjective reality. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 65.122.120.42 / talk
 * I've reverted and locked the page because you're a whitewashing twit who gets butthurt even when someone provides sources. Basically you're an idiotic fanboy. 20:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the record, "subjective reality" is a contradiction in terms. 20:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do the key combinations that produce the words "bias" and "objective" just sound nice typing on your personal keyboard or am I missing something? You're being super dishonest. You didn't even "rewrite" the page, you straight-out removed properly sourced content, his own quotes including his own incomprehensible diagrams. You're not being fair to Peterson either? It's apparent from removing his dross that you don't like his nonsense either! So much for fixing those "numerous inaccuracies" and I guess removing Peterson's extremely biased viewpoints. 20:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @ - I am a "whitewashing twit"? What am I "whitewashing"? I am half black. And I am certainly not a "twit". I am not an "idiotic fanboy", either. I am just someone who actually has the ability to think rationally and has a neutral perspective on topics or people, even if I don't agree with them. Evidently, you don't possess the intellectual capacity to hold such traits. Also, how old are you? Do you always get triggered this easily? The fact that you insult or personally attack me over wanting an article, about Jordan Peterson, that describes him in a more rational sense [because this is RationalWiki], tells me everything I need to know about you - you're a bigot. By the way, "subjective reality" is not a contradiction in terms. Subjective reality is the reality that stems from the act of perceiving. In other words, Jordan contradicts what you perceive as reality, because what you perceive as reality, isn't actually reality. Are you following me? Or do I need to further simplify this explanation for you? One other thing - stop being a keyboard warrior. It makes you look weak, small, and insecure.


 * @ - I am not being dishonest. Since when is wanting to be rational and unbiased equate to being dishonest? That's absurd. Only someone with a one-sided viewpoint of the topic would ever think that. Additionally, I removed his quotes and diagrams because they were taken out of context and/or being misrepresented. I was going to re-add everything but with proper context and I was going to re-add the proper sources. I just couldn't do everything right away because I have a career to maintain. I suppose I should have waited until I was off work entirely [I was on lunch]. But I am not being dishonest, and you have no evidence for that claim. It's baseless and absurd.


 * You see, this is the problem I have with RationalWiki and why I barely use it - it is not a credible site by any means. Most of the community of authors, as evident by you guys, have a narrative they want to push and constantly misrepresent or twist facts in a way that aligns with their narrative. There is nothing rational about the site, ironically enough. The authors tend to be snarky, or insulting. They are extremely biased and often make biased political points. The administrators or moderators just allow it to happen. For example, the narrative of the author of this page doesn't align with the facts that Jordan Peterson conveys. Those facts seemingly align more-so with the conservative narrative, and that bothers the author of this page, and you two as well, apparently [maybe one of you wrote this Wiki article, I don't know]. And since they are facts, the author can't argue against them. Instead, they intentionally misrepresent what Jordan is saying or they misrepresent his work in a way that allows them to discredit him.


 * Unfortunately for you guys, he cannot be discredited, because, ultimately, he is right. That's why you guys are so defensive about this. And that's why GrammarCommie is so angry about it and seems to come off as holding disdain and hatred for Jordan and anyone that agrees with him.


 * Later. I am moving on. And don't waste your energy responding. I won't be back. This website's community consists of too many people that are, simply put, delusional. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Kbittala / talk / contribs


 * Yeah, I'm a keyboard warrior. It's not like I get so triggered by an opposing worldview that I ignore 219 citations and just dismiss them offhand with no argument or reason, edit warred on a website I claim has no credibility, and then wrote a giant screed about my previous behavior and how much I don't care while saying I'm going to leave. Sure, I'm the insecure one. 23:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that you've established how stupid and insecure I am, come back and explain things to me slowly and carefully. 23:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS:Definition 2, A and B, not 4, A and B 00:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Protip: calling youself "rational", "unbasied", "neutral", and "fact-based" while calling the things you disagree with are "one-sided", "biased" "misrepresented", "twisting facts", "irrational", "narrative-driven", "delusional", etc. are not substitutes for arguments nor do they magically strengthen any argument you make. They're vapid, intellectually bankrupt, lazy argument by assertion. Your arguments require support.
 * The diagrams are not "misrepresented"? They're perfectly illustrative of the incomprehensible gibberish Peterson trots out. One source quotes a massive swath from Peterson that exemplifies his diction. Peterson and his fans completely miss the point when they say that Peterson is "taken out of context" as there's little way of knowing what he's really saying in the first place. To quote that source: "A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying." We've heard that dishonest "he's misrepresented!" horn being tooted out many times. We provided his quote and we try our best to provide that context. If you're accusing otherwise, you need to demonstrate what context is removed and how that drastically changes the nature of the quote.
 * And how are the other quotes "misrepresenting" his views? Don't you agree with his views that "there is any evidence that women are systemically held back. Not in the West. I think we're past that by a decade." or that "Frozen served a political purpose: to demonstrate that a woman did not need a man to be successful."? Do you just not like that he says this?
 * By the way you do realize you're also removing content that discusses fake quotes unfairly attributed to Peterson. So again, you're not being fair to Peterson either and you're just hiding behind lies and intellectual laziness that justifies your lies.
 * And tough shells if you just "wanted" to readd stuff later after you removed content and we're just being unfair to you by interrupting your work. That's not how wiki editing works. You remove everything you don't like including the templates and categories, that's going to get reverted even if you have all the sources in the world tucked in your HDD. You have to discuss problems first in the talk page, provide your sources and put some effort and intellectual honesty. Or you create a draft page outlining your attempts to overhaul the page. But maybe try not attacking our articles as "biased" or whatever either because that criticism is used a million times by the laziest of critics including homeopaths, Neo-Nazis, moon landing hoaxers, 9/11 truthers. That's not going to get anything done, and congrats, the wiki remains a problem to you. 00:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir, I must demand that you return at once and explain your behavior. I have many important questions you have yet to address. 01:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

meat only diet
"Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila are proponents of a pseudoscientific meat only diet."
 * Mikhaila Peterson is a proponent of such diet. But is Jordan Peterson a proponent to? I cannot find any source supporting that.

"Peterson claims the diet has eliminated the symptoms of "His lifelong depression, anxiety, gastric reflux (and associated snoring), inability to wake up in the mornings, psoriasis, gingivitis, floaters in his right eye, numbness on the sides of his legs, problems with mood regulation."[168] There is no scientific evidence for these claims. "
 * There's no scientific evidence that this diet is a cure of such symptoms suited for everyone. But it is entirely possible that, for whatever reason, maybe even placebo effect, this diet actually helped Peterson.
 * The image https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Peterson_-_Our_Carnivore_Diet.jpg could lead to believe that Jordan and Mikhaila Peterson wrote about how the only meat diet cures depression. This is false. Maybe who added the image through that it was clear it is a parody, but a fake book with that cover was actually sell on Amazon https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/fake-jordan-mikhaila-peterson-meat-book-amazon-toxicology/ falsely reporting the Petersons as authors.
 * In short, I think that the section is misleading and should be fixed. If Jordan Peterson is not a proponent of this diet, then he should not be accused of that because his daughter is. Probably a RW page on Mikhaila would be more appropriate. Tokyo (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, I think that the section is misleading and should be fixed. If Jordan Peterson is not a proponent of this diet, then he should not be accused of that because his daughter is. Probably a RW page on Mikhaila would be more appropriate. Tokyo (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In short, I think that the section is misleading and should be fixed. If Jordan Peterson is not a proponent of this diet, then he should not be accused of that because his daughter is. Probably a RW page on Mikhaila would be more appropriate. Tokyo (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "If Jordan Peterson is not a proponent of this diet", not sure if you are trolling us or not but Jordan Peterson is one of the main proponents of this crackpot diet (you can check out article on the carnivore diet which has other sources on Peterson and this diet). Or you can use your friend Google. And this source is on the article already, "The Jordan Peterson All-Meat Diet". John66 (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "Is Jordan Peterson a proponent to? I cannot find any source supporting that". Hilarious. Run a Google search on "Jordan Peterson" and meat diet, there are hundreds of sources on it, even YouTube videos and personal interviews he has done., , , , , , ... the list goes on. John66 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * About that image, I can't fit the information on a caption, but it does say so in the image file that it's probably not by him. It says so right in the very page you're linking. As for the meat diet, the Daily Dot article you link also documents the meat-only diet by Peterson. 23:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "not sure if you are trolling us or not but Jordan Peterson is one of the main proponents of this crackpot diet"
 * Then can we put at the beginning of the section "meat only diet" a quote with source of Jordan Peterson where he suggests to adopt such a diet? This would remove all doubt. You gave me a lot of links but no specific quote and I have no time to read all those articles. Also, in the article that you linked I actually read that "Prof Peterson says that he's not recommending the diet"  Tokyo (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Tokyo - Peterson is not a dietician or physician. It would be career suicide if he actually recommended this dangerous diet publicly (although his daughter does, as she making a living from it, lecturing etc). He promotes the diet and eats it himself. Our section covers this. We say that he follows the diet because he does.

I eat beef and salt and water. That’s it. And I never cheat. Ever. Not even a little bit.

Please read up on the sources. There is no excuse to be lazy because you came here asking for sources. John66 (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that you edited the section and I think it is improved. Still, I keep finding no sources for the sentence: "Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila are proponents of the pseudoscientific meat only diet." I read the two articles, , and I did not find any paragraph where it is said that Jordan Peterson is a proponent of such diet (as I said before, the second article actually reports that Jordan Peterson does not recommend the diet). I understand that many here wants to bash JP on any things, but it is important to be intellectually honest and make a distinction between doing something and being a proponent of something. I can be vegan, for example, without proposing that everyone should be vegan. Tokyo (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk) 16:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with focusing on this peculiarity of the Peterson family is nothing can be proven, apart from the general hazards of using this diet. Is the carnivore diet unhealthy? I suppose so, but what if it makes me feel healthy? Will I suffer anyway? What if it actually works for me because of my genetic background? Is this really impossible? Why would they lie about getting benefits from the diet? They are not selling diet-related materials, and discussion of this topic comprises a nominal part of Peterson's media opus. I get that they shouldn't talk about it, because others might be harmed by taking it too far. On the other hand there is no accounting for stupidity.Ariel31459


 * Tokyo, I think this this boils down to a semantics issue you have. Jordan Peterson is definitely a proponent of an all meat-diet (which is pseudoscientific), many sources clarify this. Look at the definition of the word proponent "one who argues in favor of something". He has been interviewed about this diet (I included the interview as a source on the article) and there are many references out there where he explains his belief that the diet has helped his health (which is disputable), but he is still advocating the diet for personal reasons. So he personally favours an all meat-diet and that is what is explained on the article. Bottom line is, yes he is a proponent of this diet. Our article does not say he is recommending the diet for others. He is not a dietician, physician etc so he wouldn't come out and recommend this diet for others because people's health may suffer and they will blame him, but like I said, his daughter has no academic career and nothing to lose, she recommends the diet for everyone and goes around lecturing on the topic and making money out of it.


 * As for your other claim "I did not find any paragraph where it is said that Jordan Peterson is a proponent of such diet", it is literally in the article's subtitle "The famous psychologist and his daughter swear by a regimen of eating only beef", and the other article in the first line "the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson informed listeners of an interview he did recently that he eats only beef, salt, and water, and never cheats." . Which ever way you cut it, he is a proponent of the all meat diet! Please don't waste our time with this anymore. It is hard to assume good faith when you are coming on this talk-page claiming Jordan Peterson is not a proponent of an all meat diet when we have loads of sources saying the opposite. John66 (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * On another note, Tokyo seems a bit too good at pinging users and indenting his comments which is not what a new user would do, with only 3 edits. I suspect this is a sock-puppet of someone else we have dealt with before. So I will not be further responding. Others can take over :) John66 (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "The main problem with focusing on this peculiarity of the Peterson family is nothing can be proven"
 * I disagree. It seems to me that we can prove that Mikhaila is a proponent of the meat-only-diet, that Jordan Peterson is eating according to this diet, and that this diet is unhealthy. My doubts are about calling Jordan Peterson a proponent of this diet, since he doesn't seem to me that he is saying to his audience to eat only meat.
 * "Look at the definition of the word proponent [13] "one who argues in favor of something""
 * That's what I did. As far as I read, Jordan Peterson argued that eating only meat is good for him, not for everybody, so he is not a proponent.
 * "it is literally in the article's subtitle [14] "The famous psychologist and his daughter swear by a regimen of eating only beef""
 * This means that they are following the diet, not proposing it.
 * "and the other article in the first line "the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson informed listeners of an interview he did recently that he eats only beef, salt, and water, and never cheats.""
 * Again, saying that Jordan Peterson is eating only meat, not that he is saying everybody should.
 * "On another note, Tokyo seems a bit too good at pinging users and indenting his comments which is not what a new user would do, with only 3 edits."
 * Yes, I admit that I'm guilty of understanding how pinging and indenting work after reading some talk pages sources... Tokyo (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * John, that's not swell to say someone who's competent at pinging and indenting (neither require a B.A. in dietology as far as I'm concerned) must mean that person is a sock. Might be just experienced editing other wikis and knows how to read help or just saw the formatting on older comments and copied it. 18:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A source
I found a source of Jordan Peterson himself saying that he does not recommend the only meat diet to anyone:
 * Joe Rogan: "I'm curious about this. Very curious. I might try it. But I eat a lot of vegetables but I don't have any problems. Like health problems."
 * Jordan Peterson: "Hey man. Like I'm not - Disclaimer number two - I am not recommending this to anyone. However I have had many many people come up to me on the tour and say: "look I've being following your daughter blog and I've lost like a hundred pounds.""

Source: https://youtu.be/HLF29w6YqXs?t=720

Tokyo (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think he's an overall proponent. That's only one example of it, and that's still shaky imo, since I don't see a reason for the contradiction. As for the "proponent" word quibble, humans are good imitators. You don't have to explicitly tell people to follow you. Peterson is clearly trying to set an example here; we know he dispels advice to his audience, and when he talks good about his meat only diet, that's an endorsement to follow it even if he intended it or not. What's irritating about Peterson is that he's often incoherent and self-contradictory (note he retweets climate deniers but says retweets aren't endorsements but he made his own tweets consistent with the denialism), but the weight of the evidence says he's more of a proponent than not. Why would he talk so enthusiastically about his diet? 18:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't take me wrong: It is entirely possible and even probable that Jordan Peterson wants to push his daughter's diet. He knows that he has a large audience and, being a psychologist, he probably also knows that speaking to them about how the only-meat-diet improved his health would push many people to try it. However, these are not facts. There are hypotheses. If we want to be honest we must stick to facts.
 * I think that a honest version of the "Meat only diet" section should states that:
 * - Mikhaila Peterson is promoting a meat-only-diet. (sources)
 * - Jordan Peterson is following this meat-only-diet and claims it improves his health. (source) However, he does not recommend it to anyone. (source)
 * -There are no scientific evidences that the meat-only-diet is beneficial, on the contrary it is dangerous. (links)
 * -It has to be made clear that the image of the book cover is not a real book of the Petersons.
 * Do you disagree with editing the section in such a way? Tokyo (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the part "Jordan Peterson is following this meat-only-diet and claims it improves his health. (source) However, he does not recommend it to anyone. (source)" is misleading and does not correspond to what really happens. Reading this sentence, one understands that he is just following the diet in his private life, but not that he is so vocal and enthusiastic about it. Taking one element without context is not "honest", even if this element is true, when it creates an incorrect impression. I would prefer "he is very vocal and enthusiastic about this diet (long list of links), but when asked explicitely, says that he does not recommend it to anyone (source), as usual from his strategy of promoting indirectly ideas and concepts but protecting himself by then claiming that the consequences are just an accident". 84.70.37.35 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "I would prefer "he is very vocal and enthusiastic about this diet (long list of links), but when asked explicitely, says that he does not recommend it to anyone (source) ..."
 * I'm completely fine with this proposal.
 * "...as usual from his strategy of promoting indirectly ideas and concepts but protecting himself by then claiming that the consequences are just an accident""
 * I believe "as usual" is too broad. What about something like: "This could be a strategy for promoting the meat-only-diet but at the same time protecting himself from possible consequences". ? Tokyo (talk)
 * I made it more clear that the book cover is a bootleg. I also still think he's enthusiastic about is and still is a proponent of it just from the sources. While I think we should say that he says he doesn't "endorse it", I also think we need to note that Peterson is frequently obfuscating things and I just find this another example of him not ever being really clear on his viewpoints. Anyhow, I did attempt a "show don't tell" approach. Peterson's daughter is more explicitly an advocate, which even the Atlantic article talks more about her, and I rewrote to say Peterson has claimed benefits of it, which readers can then determine this means if he's a proponent or not. Hopefully, it's not controversial that Jordan thinks it's good for him. Then, we can add that when asked directly, he doesn't endorse it though it's self-contradictory stuff he's known for. 17:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Twitter
In the consent section, Peterson's tweet "How, precisely, exactly, do you know when there is consent? Does it need to occur at each step (as it now does in Canada)? What, precisely, is a step?" is linked to Just Asking Questions. I don't think this is an example of JAQing off. His intent seems clear, there are no wild accusations (as there is in the tweet "Is it possible that young women are so outraged because they are craving infant contact in a society that makes that very difficult?"). He is asking questions to make the point that the issue of consent is more complex than some may claim. Whether this point is one that holds merit is of course a different issue.

In the "Popularity" section, it is perhaps worth updating the numbers: Peterson has over 2.7m subs and 148m views on Youtube, 1.4m followers on Twitter, .88m followers on Facebook, and 1.4m followers on Instagram.

There are also some links to tweets that are no longer useful, because either some tweets or youtube videos were deleted or the accounts from which they were posted have been suspended. These are the ones I found: sources [83] [14] [19] [34] [36] [40] [51] [57] (it's the same as [55]) [63] [76] (same as [73]) [96] [The Atlantic] (in "Porn and Sex Ed Opponent" section) [112] (same as [110]) [111] (same as [109]) [116] [119] [123] [126] [127] [139] [185] [198] [219] Jeremy808 (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For that particular quote, I would personally say that's not JAQing off, but it *is* an example of a loaded question. It's easy to Google the legal definition of consent in Canada, for instance. So the answers to his questions are therefore easy: A) to know what consent is, read the fucking law; B) yes, it needs to be present for the entire process, and C) "steps" are irrelevant to the discussion, sexual activity isn't a turn-based game (unless that's your thing, of course). His questions only work if you have a completely out-of-whack view on consent, both from a legal and practical point of view. Soundwave106 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Glad you agree . Wondering if we can get that and my other suggested edits pushed. Jeremy808 (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I updated the stats and redefined the quote category. The dead links I'll look into in a bit (if someone else doesn't get to it first) but that's a little more time consuming to comb through. Soundwave106 (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Latest Health Update
Jordan Peterson is currently battling COVID-19. https://torontosun.com/news/world/former-u-of-t-prof-jordan-peterson-contracts-coronavirus
 * that was over a month ago, so probably not anymore AMassiveGay (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Complaint
Ariel31459 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) No credible source on the picture of Peterson with caption saying: "Peterson explaining that atheism causes hair loss" Should be removed. Link: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Peterson_Advertising_Atheism_The_Agenda_With_Steve_Paikin.png &mdash; Unsigned, by: Marbra / talk / contribs

All Meat Diet
might it be worth mentioning how his all meat diet led to the health issues that got him hooked onto Benzos, and then onto the absolutely hilarious path he took from getting munchausen by proxy'd, rendered comatose in a Russian alt-medicine hospital, and then taken to a clinic in Serbia where his daughter got him COVID after traipsing around the Eastern Bloc, and then the Serbian clinic restored his health through IV fluids which restored his health due to giving him all the nutrients that he'd been depriving himself of years from his all-meat diet 23:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)~

What the hell happened to this article?
I had never read RationalWiki’s take on Peterson before, and seeing it now for the first time I was surprised at how it reads. So much equivocation! I feel like almost every paragraph wants to end with, “Ha ha, all right, fellas. All in fun. We’ve had our laughs, but seriously he never said that specific thing and we know he’s actually kinda cool, right? - hey, here’s an example of him saying the complete opposite thing to that horrible thing he only dog-whistled earlier, so he must not be that bad, right?” Really, Peterson denouncing or being denounced by the very people and ideologies he panders to is nothing new and only speaks to his non-commital, self-serving and obsequiously inconsistent nature. I’ve never seen a RW article get watered down like this. All the typical RW humor and punches are thrown, but somehow it seems like someone dropped some sugary arsenic into the pool and it hasn’t been cleaned out yet.

If any article on Rational Wiki could ever be accused of splitting the difference, it’s this one. --BeauPepys (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think you can improve the article, have a go at it. I have seen a common tactic among the alt-right of bait-and-switch. They know that their own true views are odious and unacceptable by most people so they generally try to hide them, occasionally letting them slip out in a 'just kidding' sort of way as a wink to fellow fascists. It could be that some of the writer(s) of the page didn't get what was going on. Bongolian (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, maybe so. Unfortunately the "altright" has become just another dog whistle for some on the political left. You can call Peterson a crank. That sounds appropriate. But prove he is "altright" with a definition and evidence? Just speaking with odious people does not make one odious unless one expresses approval for their bad behavior. We get a lot of views from the great unwashed who might say "I just know he is a fascist, a misogynist, a transphobe, etc., etc." The evangelical left wants to treat thorny issues by way of insults and insipid jokes. That's fine. I am noticing that the above complainant makes only generalized criticisms. Let's abuse the guy for things he has actually said. How about that?Zatoichi (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I remark about a pair of comments, and that to you is concern trolling? I called Peterson a crank. What the hell do you want? Use your words, eh?Zatoichi (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

On black people and climate change, from Joe Rogan podcast
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jordan-peterson-joe-rogan-interview-climate-change-1290696/ https://www.salon.com/2022/01/26/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-give-their-definition-of-black-and-say-theres-no-such-thing-as-climate/ 05:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL, "intellectual dark web" "mastermind" can't even fucking understand Statistics 101 principles. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * A Rolling Stone political writer is not a good source for scientific references. All his articles are about politics, some with a science angle. Anything used should be lifted directly from the Rogen interview.UncleKrampus (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Bible was the first book
In the most recent interview with Joe Rogan, Mr. Peterson said:


 * "Now, in many ways, the first book was the Bible. I mean, literally. Because, at one point, there was only one book. Like, as far as our Western culture is concerned, there was one book. And, for a while, literally, there was only one book, and that book was the Bible, and then, before it was the Bible, it was scrolls and writings on papyrus, but we were starting to aggregate written text together. And it went through all sorts of technological transformations, and then it became books that everybody could buy -- the book everybody could buy -- and the first one of those was the Bible. And then became all sorts of books that everybody could buy, but all those books, in some sense, emerged out of that underlying book, and that book itself -- the Bible isn't a book; it's a library. It's a collection of books."

There's a marvelous takedown by a historian here. I don't know if it's worth including in the article. --Interiot (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even take a historian to debunk this, though the historian's efforts are valuable. Who invented paper???? Going by "books aren't books if they are written in silk, bamboo, papyrus, etc." Which is just arbitrary stuff. There were great literary works that predate the Bible like Epic of Gilgamesh. 02:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Technically" he may be word-salad-ing the notion that the Gutenberg Bible was probably the first mechanically printed (movable type) book. Maybe. (Well, nah.) But "good God" as the expression goes, that whole rant was an unfocused ramble. I don't even know what the point of that was. Some vague notion of the Bible being the bedrock of Western civilization, I think, with a strange side detour into linguistics, kind of (and AI chips?), and weird phrases along the way ("way more true than true", what the fuck is that?) I mean, yes, the Bible's pretty prominent in Western culture, but so is things like ancient Greek and Roman myths even "back in the day", just for a start. It's a pretty easy rant to disprove, I imagine, in many ways, as the historian did for a start. Peterson's known for his deepity bullshit so I guess it's no surprise that he's basically taking this tact here. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Without giving the quote anything like a pass, the statement is fairly nonspecific and cleverly prefaced. "Now, in many ways, the first book was the bible..." Which is not the same as claiming the bible was the first book. So, a Greek literature scholar found a number of ways in which it was not the first book. Many prose narratives, like this one, sound like bullshit to me. This one is nothing special.UncleKrampus (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)