Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Talk:Jordan Peterson

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>

Article re-write[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: / 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, "subjective reality" is a contradiction in terms. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kbittala Now that you've established how stupid and insecure I am, come back and explain things to me slowly and carefully. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
PS:Definition 2, A and B, not 4, A and B ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 00:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kbittala Sir, I must demand that you return at once and explain your behavior. I have many important questions you have yet to address. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

meat only diet[edit]

"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 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 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)
"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. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]... 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 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"
@John66 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 [8] 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.
—Jordan Peterson in 2018[9]

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)

@John66 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 [10], [11], 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 [12] "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 [13] "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." [14]. 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 18:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A source[edit]

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.""


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? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 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". (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.
" 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. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 17:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


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 @Soundwave106. 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)

Lump of labor fallacy and enforced monogamy[edit]

Didn't this page use to have a quote of him claiming that women entering the workforce reduced wages? It should still be here because it is both untrue and indicative of misogyny. Surely the enforced monogamy quote is still dubious even after he clarified himself. It also might be worth including him saying that art requires god to exist in a similar vein to his statements about quitting smoking and presuppositionalism. In 12 rules for life he also tries to use an example of an Indian man making menstrual pads for his wife to prove patriarchy never existed. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Marraige and Divorce Section Assumptions[edit]

In the Marriage and Divorce section there seems to be the implication that divorce rates have had little to outright positive effects on society. The evidence supporting this is the high education rate and low crime rate.

Considering we're getting some of the worst suicide and depression rates ever seen in history, it seems a little harsh to just dismiss Peterson's thoughts on marriage.

Latest Health Update[edit]

Jordan Peterson is currently battling COVID-19. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

that was over a month ago, so probably not anymore AMassiveGay (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


Joke Alert.svg RW's joke detector has detected jokes in the following. Warning:Humor levels may vary. Please don't say,"This is a joke, right?" or act like this is serious on the talk page.
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: — Unsigned, by: Marbra / talk / contribs

All Meat Diet[edit]

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)~

He's Ba-ack![edit]

Jordan Peterson is back in public life, apparently; he isn't on the lecture circuit yet, but he put out a YouTube video recently and has written a new book called 'Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life.' Considering that the article's timeline ends with him retreating from public life to recover from addiction to benzos, I think it's in need of an update. — Unsigned, by: Hyasynthgirl / talk / contribs

What the hell happened to this article?[edit]

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)