The Jordan Peterson Thread

While we’re at it, I’m not sure if suffering from akathisia for prescribed medicine is equivalent to being a screwed up drug addict.


That’s not exactly how he achieved fame, the assumption by far leftists that he was a bigot helped him become globally famous, but he had a regular segment on TVO for years before that. Your ignorance here, and your lack of compassion, do not do you credit.

I don’t know the details of JPs drug habit, but I do recall seeing this in the news lately, so I just hope everyone is being careful to have consistent opinions…

1 Like

I’m not sure if suffering from akathisia for prescribed medicine is equivalent to having a drug habit.

I’m going to think about that while I put on the coffee, get the sugar ready, and have a smoke.


I’ll drink to that.


JP has a new self-help book out. A (mostly favourable) review:

Ignore the subhead, which is typical Guardian moaning

Seems like a fair review, not that I have read anything by JP nor do I plan to read this book. Here’s my favourite paragraph:

Still better than Robin DiAngelo (who I’ve actually read skimmed), though thankfully one need not choose between the two!

Also, brace yourself, Jordan Peterson articles are coming


I was going to say perhaps the lack of sense of humor in public is due to the constant attacks he gets. But his lectures of before he became famous was about the same. Maybe he’s a bit more easy going in his personal life, but it’s a solid criticism of him that I can agree to.

Steven Pinker (who has critics, but I have enjoyed his books as a linguist, the Blank Slate is most relevant to this thread), Richard Dawkins (Selfish Gene), and Daniel Kahneman (Thinking Fast and Slow) are academics who wrote funny books on interesting topics; these I have read and would recommend

1 Like

A pretty funny Twitter thread here…

1 Like

Haven’t watched Peterson and Matthew McConaughey but I’m interested and will watch it later.

I found the discussion around identity fascinating:

1 Like

Nearly two hours? :eek:

Can you give us some highlights or tell us when the interesting part starts?

1 Like

JP’s not renowned for his brevity and eagerness to get to the point (if there is a point), although he thinks he is.


He’s an interesting interviewer though. I was watching his one with Paul Rossi the other day, it was like a psychoanalysis session.

I’m listening to the bit about the response to Covid which is certainly interesting to me.

Weinstein talks about that a lot.

The bit about young people’s online presence taking primacy over that of the real world is great.

Bugger, time to teach.

I would say that you could skip the first 38 minutes, which largely focus on Bret’s experience at Evergreen (which I new generally but I didn’t know many of the details he talked about here), Jordan’s 2 years of health issues, and general conservatism (i.e., reticence to change something without thoroughly examining results). They keep coming back to the third point in different ways. While they continue to talk about each others’ views as generally conservative and generally liberal, they seem to recognize that they aren’t really in those buckets as they seem to agree on the problems and the need for holistic analysis to solutions.

So the general set up for much of the later discussion is in 38-48.
At 48 Brett starts talking about the Wuhan lab leak theory and how it relates to unintended consequences and the mixtures of politics into decision making, specifically as it relates to covid.
At 57 they start talking about psychological development (which I thought was the most interesting part of the talk). This part talks about the difference between people who’s actions or thinkings are rooted in the physical world and those rooted in the digital world.
This morphs into a discussion of identity at 108.
This morphs into a discussion of how people choose to become a part of a group with people of the same, similar, or contradictory views at 119.
This comes back to online vs physical rules for interaction and existence at around 127, and soon after into male/female roles/definitions and the big life tasks for meaning in life.
This leads to the relationship between identity and how you choose to live.
At 136 Brett starts outlining the premise of his own book: that humans (I think he means human culture) are evolving and a hyper-fast rate that no one can keep up with, and what that means for people.


I’ve seen 2 other extended interviews with Rossi so I skipped that one. Is it worth it under those circumstances?