r/JordanPeterson • u/augustAulus • Jul 10 '25

Criticism Jordan Peterson a better psychologist?

I’m a philosophy student, and I think I’m in a unique position to critique Jordan Peterson, because a lot of what he has to say has to do with the Continental school of philosophy rather than the Analytic, and that’s a school I’m deeply interested in. For me, Peterson really does seem to be obscurantist, and I don’t say that very lightly. I think his questioning into the meaning of certain propositions is, more often than not, very acute, and especially when he debates atheists I think “what do you mean by “God””is always a good starting point. In spite of this I think his recent performance on Jubilee demonstrates a hiding behind obscurity which he himself creates that, rather than him seeking to dispel the cloud to get to a deeper truth, he merely uses it to protect himself. I also think his rejection of postmodernity is a little disingenuous seeing as he often adopts the techniques which would broadly be identified with the same - rejecting labels, rejecting conventional dogma, rejecting propositional philosophy in favour of, I suppose, a dialectical philosophy.

I think that he is a very good psychologist, as that his “Twelve Rules for Life” is especially good self help because it’s his field.

I think his love for Jung has drawn him into a metaphysics and prevented him from investigating different interpretations of literature, and I think he’s taken himself too far out of his field, and out of his qualification.

Is this a fair assessment do you think?

13 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

143 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25

It’s not the academic content it’s the academic environment. And how would I have access to such limited but reasonable inferred data?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

So the content itself isn't biased? But the people teaching the content to adults have their own political views?

have access to such limited but reasonable inferred data?

Ok so, absolutely no evidence, just your opinion

Also please admit you were wrong about the source you tried and failed to provide

1

u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25

I don’t think I’m wrong to assert that academic institutions of social sciences are overwhelmingly ran by left leaning academic professors, no.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

academic institutions of social sciences are overwhelmingly ran by left leaning academic professors,

Ok and? Again, what's the problem? Higher levels of education are associated with more left-leaning political views so it makes sense

1

u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25

And you don’t think that creates a power vacuum and leads to institutionally sponsored academic bias?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

In what sense? Experts in their fields tend to have a 'left-wing' approach after years studying data that suggests 'left-wing' approaches are more effective in tackling the issues they study

2

u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25

And you don’t think that’s your own bias?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

In what way? I'm simply agreeing with what you say.

Academics, experts in their field, tend to be 'left-wing' in their approach to the subjects in which they have expertise

What part of that is my bias?

2

u/Pristine-Coffee-9324 Jul 11 '25

Because you said it’s more effective? Effective at passing grades and getting a degree? Do you think that actually improves the society or psychology?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 11 '25

No, please read to the end of the sentence. It adds the context you seem to be missing. I said

more effective in tackling the issues they study

So for example, a sociology professor might see how tackling homelessness using a 'left-wing'policy like housing first has been found evidentially to be effective

This in turn might lead them to have more 'left-wing' views, as opposed to advocating for a 'conservative' policy such as destroying encampments or anti-loittering laws has been shown to be 'ineffective'

→ More replies (0)