Jordan Petersonitis, Jonathan Rowson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2021
- Jonathan Rowson is a philosopher and chess grandmaster, who did an interview with Jordan Peterson at the Royal Society for the Arts in January 2018.
In the aftermath he received a lot of criticism online from Peterson's fans, and spent six months trying to make sense of his interaction with the 'Peterson Phenomenon'. This took the form of a long essay, trying to wrestle with what he called 'Petersonitis': integral-review.org/an-episte...
Now, more than three years on, he talks through the experience with Rebel Wisdom's David Fuller, the creator of multiple films about the Peterson phenomenon.
Full interview with Peterson at the RSA is here: • Twelve Rules for Life ...
Rebel Wisdom is hosting a Q&A on this film with Jonathan in our Digital Campfire on Thursday 10th June, to join, become a member: rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans
Check out Jonathan's project Perspectiva: systems-souls-society.com/
Jonathan will visit the Rebel Wisdom Digital Campfire for a discussion and Q&A about this film next Thursday. To join, check out membership options here (Explorers & Sensemakers): rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans
Listen, we don't need Chess Grandmasters spreading fitna against our Messiah.
they are outside cos their rooms are not clean.
@@VM-hl8ms TheyOfSoiledChambers
Him and his family are using their human ideas, just like how he promised and dressed himself up with his publishing deal to accrue social capital. Their actions are not genuine and out of truth. Jonathan should have stopped at "I was excited... that's what was driving me... I'm totally with him..." Always make room for unknown. Trust no human. He will serve own flesh of tree, for its fruits.
@@maingame1072 tell that to communists.
I don't know about anyone else but the reason for the 'Peterson phenomenon' seems quite obvious, especially in hindsight: there has been a growing dominance in elite spheres of western societies by a group of loosely associated ideological worldviews- and it has been increasingly rammed down everyone else's throats. Peterson spoke eloquently against it in a way which was common sense enough for many people to chime with it- and intellectual enough to push back against the ideologues' use of the pretence of intellectual superiority to enforce their ideas.
Perfect
Good summary. Peterson was constantly modelling how to endure an overwhelming ideological attack from principles, a type of resilience. He was in the thick of it for a long time, and I think it was Doshin on this channel who called him a 'lightning rod'.
Sitting in a calm forest discussing any failings of his abstractions doesn't understand what the larger phenomenon was at all imo. Peterson was not the beginning of the sense of this thing at all; as David says here he was appeared in response to what was going on and was seemingly unable to be stopped. Cometh the hour...
You nailed it. Thanks.
Precisely. Peterson became the most ideal symbol of a traditionally Westernized man. He brilliantly embodied the chivalrous spirit.
Hear hear!
The best thing I’ve heard Jordan Peterson say is “People shouldn’t outsource their ability to think critically. Don’t let any guru be a gatekeeper to knowledge.”
And yet he is a guru for many.
Hear! Hear!
and he is a father figure for thousands, and he absolutely knows it, hahahahaha what a paradox
"Think for yourselves!" "OK."
That's literally not the purpose of a guru at all. The purpose of the guru is to reflect your own essential nature that predates mental concept, and to repeatedly point it out to you, with the hopes that one day you will step into this substratum of awareness. And being free of attachment from all mental constructs (the cause of suffering) you will be able to live in pure truth as your default. No more attaching to or resisting what is, based on your mental constructs. A dance of reality.
Jonathan's critique of Jordan seems a bit petty at times here. Of course a single human doesn't have all the answers. Of course someone who speaks publicly to the extent of Peterson is going to make banal assessments at times. Banal is relative anyway and Jordan has been communicating to a wide audience.
Jordan isn't a messiah, he's a man who had some relevant insights to the paradigm shift we were all experiencing. It's the politically polarized atmosphere that made Jordan such a polarizing figure. The Overton window was shifting quickly and Jordan had the bag of intellectual tools to help others understand what was happening. Does he have all the answers? Of course not. No singular human ever does, but western society needed an academic intellectual to help articulate how the political left and academia was going too far.
Exactly !
I think it's relevant what he's saying, it's a criticism of the people who damn him for not being perfect as much as a criticism of peterson.
I read Rowson’s essay and thought it pretty junk. He doesn’t engage at all with Peterson’s main ideas.
100%
Oooooh my good poor Jordan the politically polarized atmosphere made him such a polarizing figure, that's really dum, that's putting him in the place of the victim. Read the article that Jonathan wrote about Peterson, it's quite good actually. Jordan is quite a neurotic Person himself, that's why his view is quite manichean, he even mentions in some of his videos how his psyche was split into two, this is also related to the fact that people see him as a father figure, as a judge, because he put so much emphasis on these polarities, which is bullshit. Let me give one of many many examples I could give you about it, he thinks the left hemisphere of the brain is for order / rutinization and the right is for chaos / novelty, this is not true, and Ian McGilchrist the world leading expert on brain hemispheric lateralization mentioned this to Peterson; the problem is that Peterson his a very divided and neurotic person himself and interprets the world through this neurotic lens, his psychiatric problems might be related to this.
As a North Londoner, practicing Buddhist and ex monk who grew up around hippies and lefties, environmentalist, multiculturalist and feminist activists and has dated transsexuals almost exclusively since the 2000s. I love Peterson exactly because he was so uncompromisingly binary, masculine, forthright and opposed to the social constructivism, barrier deconstructing, minority fetishising, majority demonising thought and activism of the establishment.
Born in London in the 70s, I’ve had a lifetime of feminism, environmentalism, denigration of native English identity and English history and the uplifting of minority identity, culture and history.
Peterson was a breath of fresh air and it was in large part his ability to go to a place like London which for as long as I can remember (since the 80s at least) has been a left wing monoculture, where in the pursuit of politeness, humility, compromise and collegiate liberal discourse, would be dissenters almost always conceded everything to the social justice types.
Any and all dissent either withered away or eventually fell into line with the metropolitan liberal orthodoxy, and that mindset just steamrolled all before it.
It was exactly Peterson’s binary data led view and combative unwillingness to compromise, that made him not only effective but compelling.
Were he to have done what everyone else always does when confronted by a feminist or minority activist, and conceded that they were right in many ways, and perhaps he had much to learn from them, he wouldn’t have been effective.
It was exactly because he said “NO you’re wrong and here’s why masculinity is essential. The idea that we live in a tyrannical patriarchy is WRONG and REPREHENSIBLE” that made him so damn important.
And polarising.
Western culture or at least British culture, hadn’t seen anyone challenge the metropolitan liberal status quo, with any strength or effectiveness for three decades or more.
So the criticism in this video, whilst well intentioned, is essentially a wish that Peterson would’ve become just another conciliatory liberal voice that compromised, leaving the establishment consensus intact.
It required an uncompromising, data led forthright, combatant to shake that consensus.
Anything and anyone else would’ve just been more of the same fodder I’ve seen since I was a kid. The tentative challenger versus the forthright feminist or minority activist. The careful compromising challenger, tentatively trying to pick his way through a minefield and seem empathetic to his interlocutors’ views without being accused of bigotry. The forthright, certain, confident feminist with the gun on the table just waiting to shoot her interlocutor down as a bigot.
A challenge to a feminist or race activist, slapped down by insinuations of racism and misogyny, so that next time the ground is almost totally ceded as the one who might challenge sits on their hands and respectfully opens their mind to the activist’s claims and concedes almost totally to their claims. If not in factual substance, morally and emotionally. In the meantime the diversity, inclusion and equality activists concede NOTHING.
By being conciliatory, willing to concede and charitable, creates an asymmetry to an ideology which concedes not an inch but demands and takes mile after mile.
Status quo unshaken and unshakable.
Peterson, by refusing to play the compromising, conciliatory game of polite to and fro, was the first person I’ve ever seen on British TV constructively win an argument against a feminist in my lifetime.
I doubt he could have done it were he to be yet another in a long line of compromising, conciliatory voices.
The discourse needed a nuke and Peterson was that nuke.
Is he perfect? Far from it.
I believe much of what he says about the individual is essential but incomplete. We are tribal creatures who need a sense of belonging which transcends the atomised individual. A civilisation and indeed individuals, cannot survive on individualim alone. We require a group, tribe or nation to coalesce around.
And his Western vision of life which places such importance on having a family and shouldering responsibility as a fully realised individual, whilst extremely important for the majority, also is in conflict with one of the core, transcendental tenets of Buddhism. That is the realisation that much of what we consider as us. The person, the personality and ego traveling around behind our eyes like a spirit driving a meat vehicle, is actually an mirage. And that by stepping back from those concepts of the self and worldly attainment, we can find a peace that is hard to find through the Western Christian lens.
So I agree with Peterson on the importance of the individual but I think he’s missing a piece of the puzzle and I agree with him that becoming a fully realised person with a strong sense of self with achievements and responsibilities is extremely important but that there’s also a deeper truth. That of the “non self” that actually post modern deconstruction points to, that is valuable.
Either way there’s so much wrong with the social justice, deconstructionist view when applied to a civilisation as a whole or to the individual trying to find their place in the hierarchy, that his uncompromising attack on the socjus deconstructionist movement was and is ESSENTIAL.
Brilliant
@@christiansgrignoli3351 cheers
Spot on!
@@bjlouis57 ultimately the woke aren’t into a collegiate dialectic. They’re there to take over and let’s face it they have. That requires an uncompromising response
Spot on. The establishment is not curious about JP as they are blind to the issues which make his message so compeling. Same reason they cannot understand Trumpism, Brexit, etc. The see him as a right wing bigot - what else could explain his popularity?
The so-called “controversy“ of Peterson is severely depressing. His principles are a very, very basic foundation stone of societal sanity, and our culture can’t even comprehend it.
Our culture has been distracted my the wrong things. Everybody seems to be chasing trinkets while forgetting to develop themselves. So the majority sleepwalk through life and the culture has been hollowed out and the well of knowledge has been poisoned with bad ideas.
Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris?
@@corb5654
ego sum suspicionibus meum
JBP was never a destination, he was a signpost pointing out a way that had been smothered under the intellectual weeds of post-modernism. His advice is indeed 'banal' & common place, but these common sense insights have been lost in the welter of dangerous, ideological, collectivist nonsense that governs the culture. They needed repeating & he was the man to articulate them. 'There is only the fight to recover what has been lost/& found & lost again & again..." (East Coker)
What common sense insights specifically have been "lost"?
@@TheHonorableRyu The importance of self-reliance over state dependency; truth over 'narrative'; empirical experience over ideology; stoicism over hedonism; free discourse over enforced speech; biological reality over hundreds of whimsical 'genders'. Pretty basic stuff, really. But enough to get you banned in some platforms.
You don’t even know what post modernism is. I was a Jordan Peterson fan until I started investing some of the things he said like “post modern Marxist “.
@@TudorsTigers all just repackaged neoliberalism and conservatism. There is absolutely nothing new there.
@@Eastbayrob I was at college when deconstructionism, the first symptom of the blight that is post modernism, was beginning to infest academia. Like all the variants springing from Marxism it was a simple power grab, undermining existing social structures by warping the language, changing the meanings of words & spawning endless nonsensical neologisms of its own. It goes back to Orwell, as most politics does: if you can't express an idea clearly in simple language, you're up to something nefarious. You're a cuttlefish squirting ink.
The guest seems like a very reflective person and also a bit injured by his experience. In this sense, very much like Jordan Peterson actually. It would be good to see him talk again to Jordan Peterson.
Jonathan Rowson is an interesting thinker in his own right. I'm reading through his writings on metamodernism... They are refreshing, for sure & there is certainly something there. Better not say too much maybe
Personally I think Peterson’s still a great performer, writer, speaker, and teacher. I think you guys just burned ur candles an little too far looking for an “ultimate”.
Like John the Baptist disciples to Jesus: Are you him or should we wait for another?
Rowson should do another interview with JP, now that he has “resurrected “ and Rowson seems to have his questions ready.
Yes please 🙏
I think you should discuss your views about him directly with him. Why don't you have a conversation with J.P. to put your points and questions about his views forward, and have the chance to clarify his ideas and your own perception of him? It would be more transparent and more interesting to watch. It's better than to just talk about him and milk his name for content.
This exactly. Dave has talked a lot about Jordan, but has not actually talked with him. I find this somewhat divergent and flawed from how he has conducted himself in the past. Especially from someone who speaks so highly of ethics in journalism.
Jordan has been invited, of course
@@RebelWisdom I'll look forward to watching it when it occurs. Peterson seems to have changed quite a bit over the past couple years, so can I hope he remains as open to talking with you now as he was then.
Best of luck!
JP only talks with 'safe' right-wingers now.
@@MightyChoctaw Just recently he spoke to Russell Brand, who's definitely not a right-winger. Same goes for Bret Weinstein. Also, if you browse the list of all the people whom JP interviewed in his podcast, I don't think you can say much about the political inclination of many of them. And, conservative and right-winger aren't synonyms.
Damn, this comment section, again, feels pretty one sided.. the mentality of "either your with us, or against us" is just indirectly stoking the flames of the polarization..
For me: peterson's teaching helped me alot, and i cannot express my gratitude. At the same time, the critics have a point aswell.
Please elaborate
Because he’s a bit mean is not an argument. He might be partly wrong about cleaning your room first part.
I am not getting that vibe from these comments Jari. Comments here seem to be very considerate and thoughtful.
I believe both Dave and Jonathan have both read much more into the "for or against us" phenomenon with Peterson. This comment is a perfect example. I have not read a single comment that I would classify as "stoking the flames of polarization".
Now, of course, anything on the internet will inevitably attract its share of bad actors. Jordan's followers included. But considering how many supporters he has, the number of bad actors is exceptionally low.
I agree. The biggest issue with early critics of Peterson was they simply screamed over and over that he was not only wrong but malevolent. The reason why was never explained, it was just asserted and many people just fell into line. If those critics were like Rowson from the outset there would have been a very interesting conversation. Instead it was just another mask off moment for a deranged and authoritarian cultural elite. The Peterson phenomenon triggered a non-stop parade of self-owns by these people. It woke a lot of the public up to how much of that rot was embedded in important institutions. It was a glorious first year or two that I'll always be grateful to Peterson for, whatever his faults.
Well it's the comments like
"his message is so much deeper and richer than most messages (which i agree with), that, if you disagree with a part of it, or the way he frames something, it means YOU simply don't understand him/ you're ungrateful for all the good he's done"
I just can’t get what is the problem with Jordan being a little feisty. What do you expect from someone who’s being attacked and smeared all the time. If Mr. Philosopher needed months to recover after just one interview with JP, imagine what Peterson was dealing with all the time.
I just don’t get what is the problem with masculine men, well I guess, I do. Some people are intimidated by them especially in the west.
Peterson is more than a little feisty, more like demented madman sorcerer suffering under multiple delusions, maladies and mental disorders who was freaking out for a year straight by shadowboxing his conceptions of what we were all going through as a culture. If you bought into his views you step into his worldview. It’s sorta like stepping into a alternate dimension between realms. If you were in that world you ‘like Peterson’. It reminds me of the train master in the movie the matrix. It’s his own little reality. If you don’t like him you can’t be considered in that reality.
His sense making for all its functional value, is very limited.
I can congratulate both of you on living safe and sheltered lives.
The man is loved by his supporters because he stands up for men and hated by critics because he stands up for men. I have all his books and wrote to him, he is aggresive when he needs, and weeps when he needs, he's the epitome of maleness, the strongest force on the planet, aim to be like him
@@biteme8905 or she just doesn’t have time for your woman hating diatribe. Maybe she’s just done with you because arguing with such a twat is beneath her. Don’t worry, I’m already done with you too.
@@g.r.2985 men are far superior at developing systems and developed the whole planet and women get pregnant, prove me wrong
The Silver Lobster is the most intellectually honest and open human being I've ever witnessed.
And wrong about religion, which Sam Harris exposed effortlessly
@@fullmatthew Please explain how.
@@fullmatthew "Wrong". Hahaha.
You funny.
@@fullmatthew yeah I would like to hear this.
@@fullmatthew LOL I'm sorry, are you refering to the standing ovation after Peterson crushed Sam Harris' arguments in Vancouver and then later in England? xD That said, I still like Sam Harris.
During this wonderful conversation, I found myself toward the end trying to whisper, then scream, "Father!"
I think that was missed in this conversation. JP served many as a father figure they never had, and that reaches very deep places in us.
I very much relate to having Petersonitis, and I'm grateful for it, and like so many things in life, relationships change, and we move on with the journey that only we can live out, without attaching ourselves so deeply to such powerful public figures.
They mentioned it in the early part of the video, when talking about the archetypal energies tied in with the Peterson phenomenon.
And again at 32:30 or so
I hear Peterson being criticised both for trying to make a theory of everything and for not making a theory of everything. He actually came to prominence with his push back against Canadian government bill C16 - everything he has done is to push back against a system of thought that has gone too far, and that's where his value is - I don't ever remember getting the impression he thought he had all the answers, but maybe that's just me.
No, he probably never intended to give out that impression either - but are you familiar with the halo effect? It has been super strong around Peterson. Best example: He was actually on stage debating Slavoj Zizek. Based on _what?_
@@biocykle I think the halo effect is less of a concern regarding an experienced clinical psychiatrist and lecturing psychology professor talking about what he mostly does than, say Hollywood actors political opinions (which they are welcome to but are no more interesting than mine) - and I think he does talk to interesting people in a genuine spirit of learning (who wouldn't, given the opportunity) which involves openly stating a contradictory point of view in order to test it - and I do admit that he does tend to get asked about things (like climate change) that aren't his area of expertise - but beyond that, I don't think you can blame people other than demagogues and con-men for the way others see them, and I don't think that he's either of those.
Watching now, but I had to pause it to say that the woods of West London are freaking gorgeous. Suddenly the forest law of William the Conqueror makes alot more sense.
Here's what bothering me about some of this. It seems to me that you can't claim that someone else isn't "telling the whole truth" unless you actually think you know the whole truth yourself. There's a huge problem here.
I don't agree with your assertion. It's possible to be sure that something is incomplete without knowing what completion represents/consists in. If someone tells me they know the mind of God I will find their assertion insufficient - but that isn't based on my believing that I know the mind of God.
@@sugarfree1894 Yes. Even mathematics are incomplete systems, yet we find use in the practice of them regardless.
Dave. I think you need to have Jordan back on your show. It has been a long time since you have chatted with him and a lot has changed since then. I believe much of your analysis would be reframed with a more up to date interview with him.
He has been invited
@@RebelWisdom I hope he will come back on, I keep seeing him doing all these seminary or other channels that I haven’t heard of as much. Also, I really hope he appreciates how much you’ve had his back, and seem genuinely interested in him, like the rest of us. I hope he hasn’t changed so much as to forget about how much you put on the line also. Plus, it would be so cool to see him with you and Daniel S. Having a full conversation.
Mr Peterson seems to have moved on to better things judging by his recent video's. He has had some great guests on and has definitely made an effort to not get stuck talking about the same stuff.
He's just a guy. Precisely. It seemed obvious, even to Peterson himself that the trajectory he was on almost guaranteed a wreck at some point.
I think Peterson had a philosophical direction that included the balance that Rowson finds wanting but the fame whirlwind and his physical collapse short circuited that progression.
I was always put off by the crowds of adoring fans, probably because I had heard his views before although not so well articulated.
Production note:. I love the green background of this interview. Great idea. Well done.
His courage and resolve to stand firm in the face of tremendous opposition is hardly something you can just dismiss...like semi Socrates levels here
background: Grünfeld
Jordan Peterson is masterful
Yeah, masterful at getting you to think that he's masterful 😅
He is a sophist
Masterful grifter lol
I'm not sure that people are captivated by Peterson himself, but more what he represents. There's a void of substance in the world at the moment and he fills that void. I think he's a good place holder, and what I expect is that many other people of substance will feel encouraged to step forward too knowing that there is an audience that is interested.
You're certainly right on the oney about his role in filling a cultural void, but in addition to that many, many, many people are also captivated by Peterson the man himself. Go check out a comment section under any of his videos if you're doubtful.
No one should ever ask themselves what a sociologist thinks about what they’ve said.
That’s Bollocks lol
Thoroughly enjoyed this interview. I find what Jonathan mentions of the lack of curiosity, about the intrigue that Peterson sparked in large sections of communities, very relatable. Thanks, timely conversation again
I have watched the RSA Interview and read Jonathan Rowsons „Epistemic Thunderstorm...“
After I watched various challenging interviews with Peterson, I think Rowson was a very competent partner in this dialog and I can’t really understand the backlash? I never heard an aggressive undertone, just that he wanted to go to the bottom and challenge him. I couldn‘t see either that Peterson was annoyed of his questions.
I think I have Petersonitis too I‘m afraid, and I completely agree with Rowson, that we must understand why this is happening. I kind of felt that this „obsession“ isn’t „save“ (because „intellectuals are wrong in what they deny“) and that I must have a blind spot somewhere. I‘m happy that I found Rowsons take on this issue and I like his approach.
He helped me on this, because I had problems with e.g. the chapter 6 „Clean up you room befor you fix the world“ (or so) too in the beginning. I felt that same paradoxon too and was struck by the counterintuitive feeling of not doing something eventhough I had that sense of urge to contribute something to make a better world, society etc.
I have found my answers (mostly) and I found them in Petersons work too, but also in some of the podcast of people he was interviewed by.
I do see that Peterson is on that developmental path himself. Maybe not at the rate Rowson wants too see him develop, but still. Everyone has his own speed, even a sharp thinker.
I‘m glad that Rowson has put out some critics about Peterson, that are well articulated and constructive. This helped me a bit to cure my Petersonitis. About his integral revue I have to say that I had to look up more than 30 words I have never heard before 😂🥵
I learned a lot from Rowson and I liked what he wrote about his presupposition that in life it could be either/or AND both/aswell.
1:04:20 You mean find a balance between 'order' and 'chaos'? That's central to Peterson's whole schtick! "You never really heard that from Peterson". Really? Did you actually listen to what he was saying?
Peterson's key message is "take personal responsibility". That's not Ayn Rand style self interest for it's own sake as Rowson seems to be suggesting. It's the idea that you take responsibility for yourself first, so that you can then manage your responsibilities to others (family, friends, society at large) properly. I haven't even read 12 Rules for Life and I know that.
If Rowson missed that basic element of Peterson's work, it's pretty hard to take him seriously on the topic.
Peterson is working to prevent another genocide caused by collective utopian fantasy thinking. Thus the conclusion on strengthening the individual. Look at what Peterson is trying to accomplish, not what you think he should accomplish.
Agreed. Genocide is caused by collectivism unopposed.
Good point - in fact its the "clean your room" Peterson talks about focusing on goals and creating sthg or just practicing some chosen thing. Some people like to point fingers and behave like cafe intellectuals who has many ideas how to fix the world , how ppl should tjink and behave according to their vision. And they are triggered that others do something , are triggered by Peterson because he encourages people for responibility and when one is responsible and pursues his/her path they no more need "intellectuals/gurus"
I think this speaks to the heart of the matter, actually. It's a simple extrapolation from my perspective in America.
How can you say life expectancy is getting better bc Capitalism and then proceed to assert "people are dying young" bc of Capitalism? Contradictory my man
I recently heard, that life expectancy has reached it's peak in USA some time ago and the latest data showed a small decline. Maybe that was meant.
I have never heard Jordan Peterson make a claim that he was the be all or end all, nor have I ever been left with the implicit impression from anything I have heard him say that that was the case. I think that, like most of us, he is a work in progress. His true value, and I believe this is the source of popular interest in what he has to say, is that he has worked out a cohesive framework for interpreting the world and our response to it that makes the most sense and gives us the greatest probability of success.
8:46 - This is something I came to recognise after having gone through my "Petersonitis" stage. There's a fine line between admiration and deification. The moment you're unable to critically engage with somebody is the moment you give a part of yourself over to them so to speak-they then have a "part of you". When someone criticises them, they simultaneously criticise this "part of you". There's a lot of projection involved. I don't think Peterson does enough to engage empathetically with those he disagrees with. A friend of mine described him as "combative". Gabor Maté has gone as far as describing Peterson as "an agent of repression", and that he's "seething with rage". It'd be very interesting for Peterson to sit down with another psychologist/psychotherapist, one who is perhaps well versed in Buddhist thought & practice, something which I think Peterson is lacking to his detriment. Peterson's recent spate of videos have left a bad taste in my mouth, not so much for the words as for the vehicle that's driving them. It'd be interesting to hear him discuss the role of practice with some kind of meditation practitioner. He says he's studied Buddhism, studied Taoism. This is great...but any Buddhist or Taoist worth their salt would say this means nothing. Meditation and some kind of meaningful spiritual practice is where the wisdom of humility resides. Peterson is book smart, sure, but he lacks the wisdom of the great sages. I'd love to see him sit down with the following people: Gabor Mate, Pema Chodron, Thich Nhat Hanh, Bon Soeng (Empty Gate) etc.
Goddamnit I love this channel. there's not enough people having conversations like this bringing the developmental angle in and searching for the nuance. Keep up the good work!
Great dissection of the Peterson phenomenon. I was always curious about his metaphysical views, specifically about consciousness. In his bible series he speaks about how consciousness should be regarded as a fundamental property of reality, but I haven't heard him speak further on the subject.
I think that is because he wanted ti make the bible as tangible as possible, kinda for everyday use. I wouldn't mind a Jordan Peterson and Graham Hancock to discuss this.
Read Carl Gustav Jung!
He is like the Nikola Tesla of his time...
It’s because just like the work he bases his views on they lack direct knowledge of consciousness but they know it’s a big deal. Metaphysically for him I get the sense that it’s a impenetrable question mark.
I probed Peterson on this after one of his talks. He referred me to Jung. I just think he has no clue what he is referencing and relies on second hand accounts that sound good to him.
I mean Jung is far out enough, add his overly complex diagrams and he comes off as rather nutty to the establishment he is entrenched within. The greatness of Peterson is his ability to nimbly and wonderfully communicate the best parts of the lessons from the twentieth century thinkers. He is a great professor.
@@michaelnice93 hmm, I think he sees consciousness as fundamental. Check out his more recent conversations with Ian McGilchrist, Jonathan Pageau and the guy from John’s Hopkins talking about psychedelics.
@@donaldcharles3331 Ah yes, Graham Hancock, the master pseudo scientist himself. Man he made up so much crap in Fingerprints of the Gods.
Before I watched this discussion, I watched Rowson's discussion with Peterson at the RSA. Rowson did a fine job, there was nothing "controversial" about it, yet he seems to have paid a heavy price for it, how sad. Perhaps it was because it was the same day as Cathy Newman's, which was appalling.
People are dying young because of Capitalism? LOL (31:39)
The current life expectancy for U.K. in 2021 is 81.52 years, a 0.15% increase from 2020.
The life expectancy for U.K. in 2020 was 81.40 years, a 0.15% increase from 2019.
The life expectancy for U.K. in 2019 was 81.27 years, a 0.15% increase from 2018.
The life expectancy for U.K. in 2018 was 81.15 years, a 0.07% increase from 2017.
I think this was a half-baked way of saying any system winds up leaving some people behind. Yes, capitalism has drastically improved life expectancy on a population level, but there are still people being screwed over by unforeseen or unaccounted for negative externalities of this system. That’s where instabilities that threaten the entire system arise.
Why do you say this is a result of capitalism? You missed the first rule of science: correlation does not equal causation.
@@martinzarathustra8604 He's saying that, not me.
I don't believe for a second that Capitalism hurts people. People hurt people, and governments are even worse.
@@podfjsfgsspdjapos8888 All system leave someone behind, and some people are behind by their own fault, but it is much easier to find the guilt somewhere else.
To make sense of the Jordan Peterson question for myself I have used the metaphor of Peterson as a lighthouse. He warns ships and their crewof the dangers
.(........trickster messing with my metaphor............) Peterson as lighthouse warns boats and ships with crew and passengers (progressive left) from sailing over the same rocks as before(socialism communism) and wrecking them again. Yet there are many other ships and boats on the seas that aren't sailing in this direction but understand the need to set sail in these times to find new land. Peterson doesn't shine his light on these ships. The lighthouse sits on solid rock and is unmoveable yet the light beam can search quite far. Peterson is fastened to the rock, he is not sailing on the high seas. We need lighthouses warning of rocks and we need ships and passengers brave enough to cope with new found ocean currents.............
Life is suffering and an individual has to work supper hard not to become someone who hates themselves. That's what JP talks about.
Peterson is just a person. He's not a 'phenomenom' - he's a human being, with good qualities and flaws. His ideas are interesting and coherent, but not sacred or holy. You can disagree, partially or wholly, with his philosophies. It seems you two are really projecting a lot of your own stuff onto him.
Disagreeing is great,
misinterpreting is normal,
one-sided disrespecting is not good at all.
Facts.-
My biggest gripe with Peterson is his whole Logos = True Speech = the defining property of the west idea. In reality so much of the communication surrounding us daily is deceptive, misleading or persuasive in nature that at times it seems we're almost drowning in ads, billboards and crap. Everything is for sale, even the news is made to fit the interests of shareholders, and we think nothing of it. Peterson never really acknowledges the dark side of capitalism and how often it's actually juxtaposed with living truthfully.
Excellent. He hides behind ‘this is the least bad’. That is his strongest point but also his weakness because he dose not put up a positive ultimate perspective. He just leaves us hanging with a few vague metaphysical statements. Philosophy and literature have come a long way since the cats he quotes were walking around.
Logos = true speech. Straw man. The guy is Jungian, drawing from the mythic as much as the “rational,” and his discourse on the shadow is central to his work. You haven’t done your homework.
@@marcusTanthony I don't see how this juxtaposes with the point I make. If you believe in a rule like "tell the truth or at least don't lie" how do you live in a society completely saturated with deception and manipulation? There's probably more truthful speech in extremely primitive cultures in papua new guinea than there is in "the west" currently.
One man can not be expected to be enough unless your lost
Jbp is not the only academic who is very much distressed by the state of universities.
Even though I appreciate an eloquent person with a different perspective who can challenge JBP, the talk clearly shows how much more clearly thought out and superior JBP’s views are over the interviewer’s.
Hi Jonathan, I know you're reading the comments, and just wanted to say well done. You mentioned that this conversation might be cathartic, and I hope that was the case for you. Like others have said, it would be great to see you link up with J.P. again, and perhaps that experience might provide you with a measure of closure or the chance to further make sense of the last three years. Whatever you do in the future, thank you for your work.
For me, The Jordan Peterson that I became aware of in 2016 is gone. I was there in the interview he had with Russell Brand; Jordan Peterson has transcended. You are looking down the old path, that is probably why your conversation sounded lost and disappointed in someone you formed in your own mind.
Please elaborate. Interested in understanding this comment better.
I'm 28 minutes in. Are either of you going to say anything solid at some point? This is just word salad so far.
„What I understood was that the fourdimensional self is that your potentiality is calling to you through your interests, and I had these moments where felt like that inner spirit but also everything that I have done up to this point has given me exactly the tools and exactly the experiences to do what I need to do next. It’s an awe-inspiring feeling to have, even that thing that made no sense at the time has given me this tool now which is what I feel is like my particular burden to carry, my responsibility to take on.“
Well said, David, thank you. Something I experience more and more of too, it's such a great (and also scary) feeling, because responsibility uh oh.
Made it worth going through this otherwise painful conversation. It seems to me every time when there was an edge of interesting exploration opening (and there were quite a few of those moments indeed), it was quickly ended when Jonathan was speaking, in what to me seems like a lack of willingness to really openly inquire into it. This was confirmed at the end when he described that he seems to have lost curiosity around Jordan, which is of course fair enough after three years, but also oddly reminded me of how he talked about most of his colleagues not even being willing to really look into him. At least he did that, but a lot of the critique showed that there is a lack of understanding of Jordan's work, e.g. hearing him talk about Maps of Meaning. Ironically, 30 seconds after he described Jordan to have ideological elements in his thinking, he showed his own ideological framing, describing humans as "totally constructed by its surrounds and its history". Wow! Thanks for challenging that in
Great conversation. I am reminded of something Suzanne Cook-Greuter said to me a long time ago, that has been very important in my intellectual life: "Just because it is profound and authentic, doesn't mean it's universal"
Not quite in agreement with Rowson about Peterson being ideological. From what I understand of Peterson's meaning of ideology, he would probably negate Rowson's claim.
Some of this discussion is very good but I also think it misses what Peterson is actually putting fourth - his synthesis - as set out in Maps of Meaning, and the underlying methodological framework of the book within which his ideas are expounded. Rowson does bring up Peterson's axioms and this is important because I think 1st and foremost Peterson is a foundational thinker and his MoM is laid out according to presenting the axiomatic foundational framework 1st and then that core framework is filled in with myth and other metaphysical postulations.etc etc.
Peterson is also coming back to some semblance of full intellectual health as his recent plethora of interviews attest. But one in particular is very much worth noting. It is a zoom session with other academics and writers in SAFS (Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship at McGill). He is on fire at the 1.40.00 mark when talking about the lack of a spine amongst academics.
I object to the nuanced and balanced nature of this conversation
I too am voicing my discontent for even light criticism of the individual I utilize to cognitively offload my entire worldview.
@@jackallenproductions good for you. We stand together
Peterson is able to example a mode of being that most philsophers cant.
Whether they thibk him as deep as themselves is moot. If they dont embody it then their views are dead on the page
Rowson: good intellect. Maybe take his critique to heart.
Peterson's early lectures were really well balanced, but his public persona transformed him into the guy that defends and protects the idea of the sacred individual, free markets, and religion above everything. I totally understand his points in the context of the proliferation of harsh and dishonest critics of our society that have been taking over all institutions (to the point that a good chunk of the media and academia accepted that we live in a white supremacist society). I think that the battle with that distorted view made the public perceive him as a right-wing figure, and in fact, many of my friends have shifted towards the conservative spectrum after entering in contact with his ideas.
But I think that what caused this in many of us was the shock and horror of first noticing that all of our institutions are being dominated by the extreme left narrative, that is totally disconnected from reality. I'm afraid that Peterson has been in this battle for so long that it fundamentally distorted his balance. Lately, he sounds way too optimistic about our societal model, and I rarely see him notice that many of our problems were caused by a free-market society, with greed corrupting the medical institutions, media, big pharma, big tech algorithms, the scientific community, etc. For me currently, the most reasonable voice of the old IDW is Bret Weinstein. He is able to see the problems caused by market forces and also see its benefits.
Spot on. I'd say Sam Harris has a reasonable perspective as well but I get that some people find him to be not really their thing. To be honest, Peterson actually does still reply positively to criticism of capitalism, for example in one of the recent podcasts with Bret, it's just that he doesn't seem to see it as pressing for him to address. But then again, that kinda gets back to this idea that people were so thrown off by Peterson that they expected him to know everything or have a better alternative for everything when he just didn't.
First principle of Collective Insight Practice: "You have to individuate in order to authentically participate."
Thanks to you both for this. You are articulating my concerns about Peterson as well as the things that I admire.
A well balanced comment. thanks
There is a hunger for agency. People want a way to make a meaningful difference in their own experience and for those they love. Peterson (and others) speak to this.
I also have my qualms with Peterson, but it seems like a difficult, long leap to say that he’s “not really saying much of any substance behind his theatric demeanor”.
Where is his substance? What theories does he have that can be backed up with empirical facts and studies? He is a self help guru, and that's fine, his fans may get some value from him In a common sense way, but beyond that I don't see anything original with his ideas
@@seanlennon5986 have you even read Maps of Meaning? Clearly not. The entire thing is sourced and cited. His ideas pull from evidence in a huge range of fields. You dont know what you're talking about.
Comments to the first 30 minutes:
The term "mainstream", and "the mainstream wasn't ready for this at all" ("this" meaning Jordan Peterson and the wave of emotional recognition he had unleashed which caused him to have a following). Firstly, Peterson was not an 'overnight success'; he already had gained a substantial following based on his online lectures which made his listeners/viewers stop and think and reassess their lives to the point of improving their lives!
The "mainstream" seem to consist out of people who are constantly in the public eye, who make sure that they stay relevant among those who THEY think are relevant. They have become a group where the members scratch each other's back metaphorically speaking, and think they make and form and hold the truth of everything when in fact they are very superficial people who live a comfortable and want to keep it that way. So anyone who challenges them have to be diminished, cancelled, wiped out.
If Jonathan Rowson thinks Peterson is "hyper masculine" it tells more about him than about the subject of conversation. Did he feel threatened by this man who is clearly articulate as well as emotional? And what he Jonathan, felt when criticized by the audience, well, that is exactly what Peterson himself has been talking about on a few occasions and tried to describe how it made him feel to be attacked and bashed online by people who don't even know you and who don't seem "to get" what you are about...
The interesting thing is that people of the street seem to understand what Peterson is on about unlike intellectuals and academics who can talk a lot until one wonders what the point is It is as if you two are expecting Peterson to be per-fec-tion and feel disappointed that he isn't. Well he is a human, a man and he had/has health problems and it is a miracle, in my estimation, that he was/is even functioning the way he is. So take what you can use and since he is not harming anyone, don't analyze yourself and him to death. That is what I think.
Jbp has a feeling of certainty?
There are many videos wherein he would say he would like a conversation partner/a wherein it is ideally not a debate per se .
He never said he knows enough nor everything. On the contrary, he always clarified that what he does NOT know would fill large volumes of books.
He always said that his lectures is real time of him thinking out loud (My words).
Of course he is essential but not sufficient. Nobody IS sufficient.
That burden of being “sufficient” were never something he claims nor aspire to be.
I sort of understand the “disappointment” these guys feel about him because they seem to have hoped jbp the answer to the culture wars.
But that is not on jbp.
What i like about JBP is that while he is very well read and analytical and all that, he does seem to be honestly trial to figure out and sort out what’s happening in the culture wars.
Beautiful setting for a convo.
David Fuller is spot-on about Peterson being the right key for the right time. You would have had to be exposed to the bottom of various social hierarchies to understand why Peterson was such a wildly popular hit. I've learned that people who still don't understand his level of popularity are the same individuals who are too unaware of their more economically and socially privileged bubbles. This isn't trying to make a jab.
It's like arguing why Nirvana's Nevermind album was so popular. Young people in the 80's were tired of the superficial gloss and commerciality of the mainstream and wanted something more real and honest.
Not sure I agree he ignores epistemically plurality - he goes to great lengths to integrate a number of different lines of thinking, behavioural research, psychodynamic research, neuroscience, biology, literature, history etc..
Great discussion. Thank you. Would love to see more talks focused on spirituality. Your discussion around 1hr6min mark or so touched on it and would love to see more interviews focussed on such topics and intersections.
I think JBP's style and personality played into the phenomenon as well. Jonathan Haidt has said a lot of the same things but he's just such a likeable teddy bear of a guy that no-one could be mad at him.
exactly, but there are other reasons as well, he's not an absolutist and manichean per example
C.S. Lewis lecture, ‘Men Without Chests’, challenges the idea of Post-Modern thinking permeating all aspects of education. You don’t know what is being done to you, until you find yourself on one side of an argument where you aren’t sure about the reason for your position, other than that this is the way things are done (similar to Orwell’s little pigs that accept the status quo because the older pigs didn’t tell the truth). I think he speaks to that discomfort.
Its just amazing that we live in the world that this conversation can happen. Usually there were no place for this in the media before, people would talk after like 30 years about some phenomenon but now, its just different. Having perspective from the actual acters that were part of the story and hearing their insight in human non prepped way is so insane. We do not have to think and assume what was happening in their minds then, you can actually hear them.
I think we are wrong to find the certainty in Peterson, because the core message is being in the border between order and choas. It's a process and a destination.
He talks about giving back to society in his second book. The hero's journey does not end at slaying the dragon of chaos and getting all the gold. It is also returning to the community and sharing that knowledge with the community. The story of Bilbo Baggins. He also talked about this in his recent podcasts.
I would ask Rebel Wisdom to do another interview with Jordan and bring out these issues to him. It would be a good reflective thing to do for all of us.
I’ve listened to half of this Interview and have yet to hear even a single cogent point that counters his positions, aside from some slight critique of his focus on individualism and how that might be at odds with some of his Judeo-Christian leanings… and that he has a psychological perspective at the foundation of his thinking, which he extends into areas about which he knows little. Arguably, neither of these interlocutors know enough either about his areas of expertise or those they think he knows too little about to opine on publicly to make this either interesting or insightful. He makes overarching observations about Peterson’s audience, his public flaws under great duress, his persona. this is Peterson as phenomenon. You’re better off cleaning your room. I can’t get these minutes back in my life, but you can save them for yourself.
i would like to add some context to the rise of JBP:
1- at the time SJW cringe compilations were a big thing with young people on youtube
2- JBP arguing against some silly SJW students fit that appeal
3- the existing work of JBP was interesting, vast and not common (he was not some typical right wing pundit or something like that)
so, JBP already having a significant body of work available online, then when he first gets notoriety, the young people notice that this man has more to say than "SJW bad", like "you should take responsibility" and a general message of "you should make sacrifices for the good of yourself, your family, your community and the world". this element of surprise, in the sense that he had more depth than expected, was the big catalyst for his gain in notoriety
As a working class builder all I hear is a fella who's missed the bus !
I didn’t appreciate the Jonathan Rowson interview. However he’s growing on me here!
Aaaanndd now I’ve went off him again!
Wow so rational
@@beluga2841 - Wow! I’m so offended!
As if rationality is God as such. Lightbringer hoopla
This is so good
It's always a good idea to ask critical questions and constructive feedback. But it seems Jonathan is missing the point by saying that Jordan never talks about giving to the community or charity. What is he doing? He helped so many people becoming more aware about their own lives and taking responsibility for better themselves and for their families and friends. I Mean, if you can't even clean your own room, how do you become able to take their of your community and the rest of the world...
It seems that you have differences in opinion with Peterson (which everyone should since only Peterson is Peterson) and are positing that this is because Peterson is not the literal messiah (big surprise) and that somehow dirties him. I don't think we have to turn this into such a big deal. Communication is difficult. I don't think Peterson ever stopped being "novel". Every one of his live talks was unique and thrilling. He may occasionally express his opinion on things on which he is not an expert but it is not as if he hasn't read a lot and thought a lot about it. Like I say, communication is difficult. I think there are things that he's saying that you're not hearing and things that you're saying he should say that are not necessarily his to say... (I am especially unsure of what the vague references to his ideas about "men and women" or "masculinity and feminity" are alluding to.) He's not the messiah. He's just trying to get things right. He models self-reflection and humility better than any other public figure. He doesn't have every piece of the puzzle of reality and the utterly vast majority of people listening to him do not think he does - obviously. They have their own lives and experiences. They just find him enlightening and inspiring. All in all, not really sure what this critique of Jordan Peterson actually is or who it's for. It's not as if he's tricked everyone into thinking he's one thing and then the mask has come off. He's always been sincerely Jordan Peterson. Trying to make his way in the world, as we all do. Trying to be better. Trying to correct his past mistakes. He's never claimed he had all the pieces, nor that the pieces he "had" were "his". It's not much more complicated than that.
"The disappointment was something like: you have the audience; you have the intellect; you have the curiosity; you seem to have the good will even ... and you have the capacity to understand opposing points of view... But... you don't agree with me!"
Now I better stop because I don't feel too comfortable continuing to talk about this man on the other side of the world as if he is just an "idea".
As for the collective individual issue, Peterson's whole "self-help" frame has always been: put yourself in order to the extent that that's possible and then, in harmony, get your house in order and then, in harmony, work to bring the society and the world up with you. Note that to get these things "set in order" does not necessarily mean to impose order on them and purge chaos, this is a meta-order / meta-mediation (the Tao, the Way of the Logos) that allows you as an individual, and your family, and your society, to negotiate the fractal landscape of order and chaos in such a way that minimises unnecessary catastrophe and maximises further growth.
The argument that Peterson "doesn't see" or doesn't verbalise a view of Postmodernism in all it's shades is fair in my opinion. He's put his finger on something there but should also give the "Devil" his philosophical due.
"He's never claimed to be something, then taken the mask off."
Exactly!
Thank you. I’d not been familiar with Rowson but how refreshing to hear him speak.
It’s not “leave him alone and don’t criticise him”. It’s more criticise him well and fairly.
I do agree though that people fans and people who don’t get him to people who detest him are all tribal in their reactions. They can all be very intense.
Such that someone who is likewise still sorting it out who challenges his thoughts can get the brunt of a lot jbp’s fans.
However, there are several interviewers who did ask him difficult questions and did it in a much better way than this guy came off unscathed. I guess it was the way this guy interviewed him that rubs people the wrong way.
It’s not his questions, its the way he did it. But understandably, time was a concern that made the interviewer seem like “abrasive” for lack of a better word.
I think I would've been on the 'real debate' side. I'm always interested in people who can talk to Jordan without trying to get him into a 'gotcha' situation. I like Jordan Peterson, but I don't fully agree with him, nor do I feel that any challenge is inherently an underhanded attack. Underhanded attacks happen, and they're more common than not. But if you listen to how people are talking to him, you can hear what people are after.
Russel Brand challenges Jordan Peterson. He was prepared to rip him to shreds the first time he met him. But Russel is someone who listens to people, and as soon as he heard Jordan, he realized he wasn't the demon that he was portrayed to be. Their most recent exchange has a lot of talking past each other, but it does not contain any underhanded attacks, just serious questions and challenges.
1:15:00 - People want something that they can understand. They want a map for their lives they can structure them around. The map doesn't have to be a "This is what you do.", but it has to be practical, and tied to something meaningful. That's why churches have rituals. They are practical things you can do that connect to something beyond themselves.
The natural limitations of too much burdened by one man. I still watch and respect him a lot though.
Thank you for this, fabulous! So much to percolate over. Yes, sometimes just a bit of common sense and passionate guidance can become wanted and loved and needed, in a culture (most of North America) that squirrels away all it's elders.
Fascinating dialogue, very measured and an interesting critique with some great references cited for further knowledge and learning.
Jordan Peterson is the voice of common sense in an increasingly irrational world.
Today, common sense is playing the identity politics game, not seeking hierarchy of values, which culminated, after thousands of years, in belief in God.
It just blows my mind that Peterson can be considered controversial…
Beautiful conversation. As someone listening a lot to JP, I can find counter examples to some of the opinions/objections voiced here, but mostly I found the discussion very interesting and useful. I learned a lot.
You both keep referring to Peterson in the past tense. Don't write him off quite yet :)!
Very good breakdown. thanks guys. this helps to deprogram our human condition of being caught up in speaker's auras.
Is this taken down?
Yes: individuation through self-transcendence (association with and service to the sacred) before congregation. Else the congregation is untethered from core/base reality (the sacred).
This has really helped me process some of my own reactions towards Peterson. Great conversation.
Only 13 min. in and I am glad you did this already. There is so much more to mine out of this story. I like how you say Peterson filled a hole in the culture. He brought depth and nuance. I’m interested to see if you discuss the limitations of the ideas he espouses.
He is a teacher. He has a teaching and it should be wrestled with and the weaknesses and strengths found and discussed. Good job guys.
For of ty guys for the just brilliant conversation just awesome guys ty for sharing peace as we fight hate love all 🌳🌱❤3
The wood location is great. The dappled light is nice. And I understand control of dappled sunlight is very hard. Especially when no camera operators.
Rebel Wisdom has had a history of constantly overexposing the picture by a stop and bleaching out David’s face detail. That’s detail that can’t be recovered later in grading in post-production.
If the autoexposure is adjusted (it can be done as an auto adjustment in the camera) so that the camera exposes a stop down from what the auto exposure is giving-that keeps the detail in David’s face and if it turns out is a lil low ...it’s easy to bring it up a bit in post without requiring a render.
We want you to look your best as a handsome man. 😉
I love this setting, its wonderful
His first mistake was taking YT comments seriously.
I enjoyed this discussion, Peterson has had an immensely positive effect on me,though I found that I have outgrown the need to keep up to date with every new post. The critiques made are fair and I haven't formulated a full opinion, I'm still absorbing the discussion.
Same here, while having remained mostly a fan throughout the years, I have always welcomed sensible criticism of the man. I think this video is one of the best examples of that, along with disagreements he has with Harris or Fry or Brand, but one the other hand it still frustrates me immensely whenever people try to push him (or people inspired by him) into one or the other camp. I have always seen him as one particularly powerful expression of a much wider phenomenon, something more concerned with regaining honest conversation on difficult topics than any particular content or narrative within those topics.
Ps. David's question relating to how much weight we attach to 'teachings' of one individual is a good insight. Jonathan's summary of what Peterson seem to be addressing and what not (around m55), is also a good and fair observation I believe. But I don't think Peterson is so clear about that for if he was, would you buy his books? And I really liked the end part discussion (questioning over-individualisation purported by Peterson) and Maslow's final insights about self-transcendence as the ultimate awareness really filters through.
32:40 i was under the impression that was exactly what he was offering: a glimpse at tentative truth and encouragement to move forward with imperfect knowledge, but humbly. that's where your point about revision comes in.
Why are we making such a big deal about Peterson? As Dr. Gabor Mate implied, he has reasons to believe that Peterson carries within himself pent up unresolved, and unexamined anger that manifest unconsciously in Peterson 's thoughts, feelings and beliefs about the world and his place in it. His anger and resentment about liberals and especially postmodernism is one in which he perceived as the greatest evil yet it's not like postmodernism was created with malevolent intentions. All isms are man made and therefore none are up to the task of solving our most dire socioeconomic and existential problems. I see Peterson as a repressed angry man with a deep lack of self awareness. The kind of awareness that can give him what I believe he lacks most: empathy, compassion, and the courage to accept that human problems are far more complex than what be believes them to be.
There is a paradox when an individual acknowledges the "truth" that each of us is a collective of our past selves, our present self, and our future selves. In other words, there is a distinct possibility that my sense that I am "me" is a useful illusion, which is vital to my ability to act in the world (even to maintain my own sanity) - but, if memory serves, I am quite a different person to the many Me's across time in the past (hence the phenomenon of "regret"); and I will probably be quite a different person from the (hopefully) many different Me's that will exist in the future.
Yes! The self is a useful fiction subject to change.
Many people including myself discovered JP work searching for topics and his University lectures on Personality and Maps Of Meaning book. Before his supposed success online. The drama around him is linguistic cannibalism which I guess he signed up for and enjoys.There are quintessential insights he can help people learn how to experience. An entertainer and orator now. And beset with health issues that are mind-numbing to consider in his time frame. He's a true genius bugger. Not unseen before, a voice worth hearing.
Still holding on to your beliefs about Peterson, on seeing, by you own disclosure, not much material of his and of what you describe you did see, sounds like it was after your discussion together not his material before that time.
I have always expressed that interviewers should be able to challenge JP and the viewers must be able to accept it. I know that Jordan finds it hard to face hostile treatment from interviewers, though he's able to handle them gracefully. What I don't accept from his fan base is the mob behavior, because then you're no different than the ideologues.
I think there is a strong pull to find a savior in some other person and I think it’s normal to do that and then be disappointed. But maybe you can find a place where you can see him as valuable but not better than using your own judgment.