There is a fascinating critique of Dr. Peterson made by his former Department Chair who does not support what he is currently doing/saying.
Since discussions of Peterson have become so hostile, it's kind of taken the fun out of discussing his ideas and arguments, so I don't post much in these threads anymore. However, since I found that piece that you've linked to there to be one of the more offensive anti-Peterson pieces that I've read simply because that person should know more about how to conduct a responsible critique, I'm going to make an exception.
My general response to that "fascinating critique" is that it's nothing but vague nonsense masquerading as insight and critique with a huge helping of bald denunciations of which that guy should be ashamed. Sadly, that's the way a lot of people in academia work, and I have zero doubts about how awesome and righteous that guy thinks he is for having penned that embarassment.
The first red flag: He starts off talking about how Peterson's output is "voluminous" and that that voluminous output is "filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters." The oversimplification charge is the lazy man's way of avoiding the actual, responsible, intellectual effort of arguing; instead of having to demonstrate errors and produce counterarguments, you can just call that which you disagree with an oversimplification and you (can convince your arrogant self as well as the uninformed that you) have just "proven" that (a) they're stupid and (b) you're smart because
you can (by implication, not by demonstration) understand (yet can't/don't explain) the complexity.
Despite that enormous early red flag, I still went ahead and read the whole thing. Some thoughts as I was going along:
1) "Even though there was nothing contentious about his research, he objected in principle to having it reviewed by the university research ethics committee, whose purpose is to protect the safety and well-being of experiment subjects. He requested a meeting with the committee."
I totally understand where he's coming from. There's nothing more frustrating in a research environment than having to deal with bureaucrats who don't know what you're doing passing judgment on it as if they know better than you. And I think it's eminently reasonable to want to have a face-to-face meeting with the people who are going to be passing judgment on you and your work.
2) "As the undergraduate chair, I read all teaching reviews. His were, for the most part, excellent and included eyebrow-raising comments such as “This course has changed my life.” One student, however, hated the course because he did not like “delivered truths.” Curious, I attended many of Jordan’s lectures to see for myself [...] The class loved him. But, as reported by that one astute student, Jordan presented conjecture as statement of fact."
Again, no examples, no context. Just vague denunciation. And Peterson is allegedly the one with the "questionable relationship to truth [and] intellectual integrity"?
3) "What was off-putting was his tendency to be categorical about his positions, reminiscent of his lectures where he presented personal theories as absolute truths. I rarely challenged him. He overwhelmed challenges with volumes of information that were hard to process and evaluate."
Yet again, vague denunciations are taking the place of contextualized examples. Still, it's worth pointing out that describing a person as being confident enough in their "personal theories" to think that they're true is not the same as describing a person incapable of modifying the personal theories that they thought were true in light of new evidence/arguments. But given this guy's questionable relationship to truth and intellectual integrity, it's not surprising that he's continuing to weaponize vagueness.
Added to which, I like how at first he complained that Peterson's work consisted of volumes of
oversimplifications - the implication being that he's trying to con his way out of arguments - yet here he's complaining that what Peterson offers is volumes of
information, and information that's "hard to process," at that - the implication being that Peterson isn't trying to con his way out of arguments but is just really good at arguing because he knows what he's talking about and
never oversimplifies things and that
he has trouble "processing" the complex information and arguments Peterson presents.
But, again, it's
Peterson who has the questionable relationship to truth and intellectual integrity. Gotcha.
4) "I have a trans daughter."
Bury the lead much?
5) "It was an abuse of the trust that comes with his professorial position, which I had fought for, to have misrepresented gender science by dismissing the evidence that the relationship of gender to biology is not absolute."
The only abuse here is this moron misrepresenting Peterson's position on "gender science" by claiming that it's Peterson's position that the relationship of gender to biology is "absolute" when his
actual position is that according to the data - and let's not overlook the fact that between the two of these people the guy who allegedly has the questionable relationship to the truth is the only one citing any evidence even though you'd think he'd want to cite evidence in his favor as well as cite Peterson's dismissal(s) of said evidence - there is a 99.7% correlation.
6) "He could have spared his students and chosen to sidestep the issue and refer to them by their names."
Did he forget all the faux compliments he'd been giving Peterson about how all of his students love him? To have avoided tackling something he believed was wrong head-on may have spared this douchebag's feelings but it would've been a disservice to his students.
7) "Jordan has studied and understands authoritarian demagogic leaders. They know how to attract a following. In an interview with Ethan Klein in an H3 Podcast, Jordan describes how such leaders learn to repeat those things which make the crowd roar, and not repeat those things that do not. The crowd roared the first time Jordan opposed the so-called “transgender agenda.” Perhaps they would roar again, whether it made sense or not."
The key phrase here is "whether it made sense or not." The dictionary definition of a demagogue is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument." Peterson uses rational argument first and foremost, and, to a great many people, what he says makes a hell of a lot of sense, and it's
that that gets the roars.
8) "Calling Marxism, a respectable political and philosophical tradition, “murderous” conflates it with the perversion of those ideas in Stalinist Russia and elsewhere where they were."
And Marxism is respectable according to whom? On what grounds? This guy is smuggling in his own beliefs as if they're incontrovertible truths. Wait a minute, why does that sound familiar? Wasn't someone complaining recently about making absolute truths out of personal opinions?
9) "Jordan has a complex relationship to freedom of speech. He wants to effectively silence those left-wing professors by keeping students away from their courses."
"Effectively silence" isn't the same thing as McCarthyism, which is what this guy compared Peterson's project to, since not signing up for classes that shove Marxism and postmodernism down students' throats isn't taking away the university platform on which professors can preach that shit. He's just trying to inform consumers of university courses as to what it is that they'll be consuming if they sign up for class A as opposed to class B. The professors wouldn't be silenced any more than company A "silences" company B by being more popular and profitable. It's just the free market of ideas. And that's the way it should be.
Incidentally, I was so surprised teaching 18-year-old university students this last term and hearing so many of them complain about how all of their courses cover the exact same theories and theorists and how all of the professors think the exact same things. Forget about the merit of those theories/theorists, which is a separate conversation. I was astonished enough at how perceptive these students were. Yet it's obviously a crime to offer explanations as to why all of their courses cover the exact same theories and theorists and why all of their professors think the exact same things and why it might be a good idea to look for other theories, theorists, and professors if for no other reason just for some balance and to be able to dialectically work your way through competing theories and ideas and arguments. Give me a fucking break.
10) "In the end, Jordan postponed his plan to blacklist courses after many of his colleagues signed a petition objecting to it. He said it was too polarizing. Curiously, that had never stopped him before. He appears to thrive on polarization.
I have no idea why he did that."
Despite his having talked about it countless times. Clearly this guy is well up on Peterson's ideas, arguments, and positions and obviously in the best position to critique Peterson's ideas, arguments, and positions.
11) "He has done disservice to the professoriate. He cheapens the intellectual life with self-serving misrepresentations of important ideas and scientific findings."
Whoa, when did he stop talking about Peterson and start talking about himself?
12) "There was no reason to think he would lose his job."
Seriously?
13) "Jordan is seen here to be emotionally explosive when faced with legitimate criticism."
Once again, "legitimate" according to whom? On what grounds? Because it's critical and bolsters this guy's own beliefs it's by definition legitimate?
14) "I was warned by a number of writers, editors and friends that this article would invite backlash, primarily from his young male acolytes, and I was asked to consider whether publishing it was worth it. More than anything, that convinced me it should be published. I discovered while writing this essay a shocking climate of fear among women writers and academics who would not attach their names to opinions or data which were critical of Jordan. All of Jordan’s critics receive nasty feedback from some of his followers, but women writers have felt personally threatened."
Oh, the irony. The guy who spends an entire article making fun of Peterson's playing the victim shtick and making fun of him as "a true warrior, of whatever," is now playing the victim warrior card. Come on, man. How can anyone take this shit seriously?
