“Jordan Peterson”?

I came across, in a casual discussion, over the name of a certain Jordan Peterson. Apparently, he seems to be a kind of "guru" able to enlighten you and open the doors to success, a little like network marketing, but better.

So I went to look for this character, who seems to be very popular on Youtube, and I tried to figure out who he was.

I reveal my bias first: years ago a supplier offered us, aggratise, a course on “ The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People “. I mean, how to pick up the seven habits that will make you very effective.

It was a newage, or perhaps post-age course, which has no chance of resisting the Italian concept of "American".

The teacher was also quite funny, but I began to suspect something was wrong when I noticed, among Stephen Covey's pearls of wisdom, some Bene Gesserit maxims.

Now, you will say: what the hell was Dune doing among the habits to become "effective" people? Sure, I recognize that Paul Atreides might be considered effective, but you shouldn't bring worms that big on your farm. They don't park, really. And passing them off as "pet therapy" is tough.

However, after the first few days of "training" I recognized Jubal Harshaw, (Heinlein), Professor Dubois (Heinlein), Bene Jesserit, (Herbert), Bene Tleilaxu (Herbert), Tufir Hawat, (Herbert), Bron Ander Altern (Colin Kapp), Cirocco Jones (Varley), Larry Niven, François Rabelais, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Stephen King, and others.

At that point I started asking the other "effective" aspirants if they had ever read these books, and since the aspiring manager does NOT read, I discovered I was the only one who understood that it was a rehash of 1960s science fiction. / 70, with seven tips like "don't get off on both sides of the bed", "turn the saucers", and in the end I think I was too distracted when he got to "long live the cunt", which he expressed as "Distinguish the urgent things from the important things".

Peterson is one of these elements, with the difference that he is part of the universe of the American right. He became famous for opposing the Canadian law that obliges universities to recognize the pronouns of transsexual people (about 0.28% of the population) and as a clinical psychologist he understood everything about life, the universe and everything. .

And especially, he understood that by following 12 rules you will become successful people. His thinking is so catastrophic that one wonders how he managed to survive, and the technique he uses is very simple:

• He is very accurate when he denies having said something.
• He is very ambiguous when he says things.

If you ask him what he thinks, you find that he is "investigating the relationship between meaning and responsibility". A sentence that means nothing, unless it is better explained, which Peterson NEVER does.

After providing the interlocutor with a sentence that is too abstract and ambiguous to be understood, the polite interlocutor is led to ask questions.

EVERY fucking discussion with Peterson works like this:

• I'm talking about the relationship between meaning and responsibility.
• He means that he is trying to use the contents of the messages to define responsibilities!
• No! Shit, she's using a straw argument! I have NEVER said this. I said that I am breaking up the dispatch between lilliteness and carambaism. Because in recent times education has privileged TOO MANY rights and freedoms (insert a random fascist message here)
• But when he says lillness, does he mean a Walt Disney tendency to paint things like Lilly?
• Obviously not! And she should stop with straw man arguments. I have NEVER said such a thing. I just said that in my career as a clinical psychologist I have helped so many people to become successful people. The fact that no successful person has ever publicly thanked me is due to the fact that Italy needs a place by the sea and has to invade Libya (insert another random fascist message here).

ALL, ALL of his interviews are ALWAYS based on the same pattern, to the point of boredom . Ambiguous in declaring, precise to exhaustion in denying having declared something.

I understand that the feminist journalist they turned against him in England was a white dwarf in the universe of vaginal candidiasis, but honestly a dialogue against Peterson could just end like this:

• I'm talking about the relationship between meaning and responsibility.
• This phrase doesn't mean shit in any language in the world. Can you repeat it in an understandable way?
• I did not say this. Stop with the straw man argument. I said that lilac is refracted in the anachronistic personal doctrine.
• Do you mind expressing yourself in an understandable way? All I feel is a diarrhea of ​​meaningless words.
• This is a straw man argument! I did not say this.
• You didn't say that because you didn't say shit. You just got rid of words at random. Now, there are two cases: either you speak in an understandable way or the interview ends here.
• No, wait. How do I sell my book?
• Your cocks. This is an English broadcast. If you come up with a different language, even if you base yourself on the same dictionary, you can fuck yourself right away for me.
• In my life as a clinical psychologist, I have helped so many people to solve this problem, and they have all become successful people.
• Wait, thing: I'm going to google now to find any successful person who has ever thanked you for it. Wait… zero results! And your name is still on page two of the search!
• I never said that. It's a straw man argument. What I said is that….

And so on. It is a kind of robot that is very abstract and ambiguous in stating, to the point of blatant nonsense, only to become pedantically precise when it comes to saying that it did NOT say what you understood, from its confused and contradictory message.

---

Let's move on to his logical errors, which are even more catastrophic.

• the clinical psychologist does NOT do the work he says he has done.

The first is that he defines the work of the clinical psychologist as if it were a kind of "career coach". He keeps repeating how many people he has helped to succeed (without naming names, and without any of these people ever thanking him publicly: there is no evidence of all this help).

Unfortunately, even on a superficial reading by a layman, "clinical psychology" has nothing to do with any of this. The clinical psychologist will not teach you how to be successful.

So, if we explore this profession in an abstract sense, we can say that, according to what he said, the clinical psychology of which Peterson speaks is at least an exaggerated distortion of the work described by the degree courses.

Anyway, let's take it for granted. Go on.

When asked about the gender gap, he says something right, which he evidently does not understand himself: there are many predictors of income, and not just gender. Quite right. This suggests that he knows the problem, has examined it statistically, and at that point has a definite opinion.

But forget to mention the important factor in a labor MARKET: the price is the balance between supply and demand. The MAIN predictor of income in a labor market is the balance between supply and demand. But Peterson is so busy pointing the finger at the educational path of women that he NEVER takes into consideration the problem that determines the price of a job in any market: the relationship between supply and demand.

He is so busy proving that women are successful in other fields (nurses, and so on) that he just forgets to ask himself what the demand for nurses is, as if market conditions had nothing to do with the price of work.

One wonders if he really knows the "multifactorial analysis" of which he rinses his mouth. When he talks about the gender gap he never mentions supply and demand, elasticity and inelasticity. For him, everything depends on the differences between man and woman, as if a surgeon (a job for which there is no longer any demand on the market) had more chances of earning a lot if he were a man.

And I'm not tapping on this button by chance: this mania for not investigating market factors was picked up by some Italian journalists from the Repubblica, who drank the whole story without saying a word. They explain how to earn as much as a man, ignoring market factors beautifully, and focusing everything on the fact that "you have to choose the right studies".

Now, I have always said that the lack of female computer engineers is due to the fact that there are few of them in schools, and I have always said that it is certainly not patriarchy that prevents girls from enrolling in engineering.

But if they do not register, there must be a cause: and since there is no "patriarchy" of which a model is known, while there is certainly a MARKET, for example I wonder if by chance the relationship between supply and demand has nothing to do with it . I would be more inclined to affirm that there are precise MARKET reasons in the tendency of girls not to enroll in STEM courses, for one simple reason: when it comes to quantitative issues, the rules are almost always those of a cost / benefit balance.

It is not my intention to unload EVERY cause of the gender gap on the market. But seeing the MARKET factors excluded from the LABOR MARKET analysis fills me with mistrust. Ditto for the relationship between costs and benefits, which is NEVER mentioned by Peterson and his followers of the Republic.

The fact that Peterson's "philosophy" is making adepts in the newspapers leaves me thinking a lot. It is true that a multifactorial analysis denies that the main predictor of income is sex (the number of men reduced to bums is much higher than women, for example) but it is also true that a multifactorial analysis that you examine the behavior of a market WITHOUT entering supply, demand, costs and benefits, it looks like a steaming pile of shit to me.

After all, Peterson seems to continue to coat with a patina of science those that were entirely philosophical theses of the American right: for him the characteristic of success is that of not being "agreeable", that is, of saying things that will irritate others. , if you think they are true. Which is the thesis of the American right against the "feeling before of facts".

Now, we can be as opposed to politically correct as we want, and I am, but the situation of EXTREME polarization is NOT a situation of politically correct: when the American black comes out blaming all the white male it is not politically correct. , when the feminist says that every male is a rapist is not politically correct, the SCUM Manifesto is not politically correct.

The extreme polarization that society is experiencing, that is, is not a situation where “agreeability” increases, on the contrary it is quite the opposite. From both sides.

The thesis according to which the politically correct (which manifests itself MUCH more in the periods in which everything is "bipartisan") would be "agreeable" seems to me pure delirium. If there is a world that says things that are not “agreeable” it is that of the American radical left, which Peterson considers the mother of the politically correct, mother who is instead in centrism. A polarization where the two poles insult each other (when they don't shoot each other) is not "politically correct". It can't be.

To attribute a feminist who tells you that if you are a male you are the shit of the universe to be "politically correct" is, honestly, another one of Peterson's steaming piles of shit. Feminists are NOT politically correct, and if you don't believe me you just have to read the kind of Mein Kampf that is the SCUM Manifesto.

Even the story of "consciousness" is quite ridiculous.

It's true: consciousness, agreeability and others are the traits of personality that are used in big data to make profiling.

But Peterson continues to make claims that are NOT at all proven by real data. According to him, this society has seen a decrease, in addition to un-agreability (which is obviously not true because society is polarized), even consciousness.

But not even this is true: a company where everyone has a calendar in their pocket, where people are constantly contacted to verify that they have completed their work, where the work is digitized and controlled by machines, IS NOT a society where consciousness falls.

Again, a company where productivity rises is NOT a company where consciousness dims. A society with aesthetic standards that are increasingly difficult to follow, yet increasingly followed with commitment and sacrifices, is not a society where consciousness is lacking.

Also on this fact, Peterson makes completely apodictic statements, which have their roots in the idea of ​​the right: "good times make weaker men, weaker men make bad times, bad times make stronger men, stronger men make good times".

But there is no scientific proof of what these entities are: Peterson's thesis is pronounced by substituting the couple {freedom, rights} for “weak” and for the word “hard” {un-agreeable, conscious}. But there is no evidence of this cycle.

Peterson's job is to take the arguments of the US right and rewrite them using the buzzwords of clinical psychology, in order to cloak right-wing ideas with a veneer of science.

A patina that falls almost immediately, on rational examination.

But of course, you know what?

"Peterson has NEVER said this."

Which is obvious, since he never said NOTHING.

Because his BORING dialectical technique consists of being ambiguous and abstract when he states, and then being precise and pedantic when he denies having said the ambiguous diarrhea you have heard.

If only someone stood up saying "this shit means nothing in any language" when making his abstract statements, Peterson would simply not be able to win a debate anymore.

One of the many scoundrels who sell American, in short.