In line with the OP, I'd like to put forth some other criticisms of Peterson. I think starting with the post from another user in the last thread is a good place.
"Like what? I have never heard him misspeak on evolutionary biology or neuroscience. My wife a Psychiatrist, has never heard him misspeak on either. This is where the left piles on because for them truth is social orthodoxy. Maintaining the collective lie is the most important thing because all they care about is the status gained by remaining within that collective, so when it collapses they are left looking the fool." - @Kindacrazy
Peterson wavers from one point to another, cherrypicking facts and using semantics, wordplay and pseudoscientific claims. As an example in regards to evolutionary biology, let's examine his reiteration of the literature on primates and social dominance hierarchy. Notice his appeal to science here btw (hypocritical considering his metaphorical truth spill).
He often choses the aggressive and linear dominance part of chimp social relations, which in reality varies from different groups which he fails to mention (
1), instead of chosing examples like the Bonobos who have an entirely different social structure. They are much less aggressive, do not readily fight over territory and use sex as a primary conflict resolution (
2). They are equally related to humans as chimps on the genetic level. Moving further, there are other primate species like woolly spider monkeys that are entirely egalitarian with no hierarchiel structures (
3), and the vast majority of the research shows that more tolerant and socially inclusive primate species do better AND are more intelligent (
4).
Anthropologists suggest that the first tribes of humans lived in egalitarian socieites. This is hypothesized to be part of our evolution and what seperates us from most other primates, and many evolutionary scientist further hypothesize that altruism is a necessary evolved trait of humans (
5,
6,
7). Looking further towards human societies today, rank fluctuates between groups and cultural norms dictates vastly different social structures. We funtion as a species and a society within rank today, but that's not the entire picture given to us by the scientific literature. It's NOT as black and white as he makes it out to be and either he is unaware of this fact, or he is deliberately misleading his audience.
In regards to neuroscience and biology lets talk about the famous lobster analogy, which no neuroscentist would make. A lobster doesn't even have a centralised nervous system (
8). Lobster live at the bottom of the sea, they don't walk upright (in regards to lobster posture), they can regrow limbs, they don't grow old and they eat each other. So what they have serotonin? So does almost every other living thing, including plants. Serotonin in ants also modify their behavioral (
9), they are also social creatures, is that therefor evidence of the inherent collectivism, as another poster mentioned, and does that show us our natural state is the matriachy? Afterall, they are both anthropods and ants evolved from crustaceans (
10). There's so many things wrong with this "analogy", and the fact that Peterson tries to source it as scientifically valid link to human neurophysiology and behavior is disingenuous.
Serotonin in crustacians and other invertebrates does not represent human social interactions, and in humans the role of serotonin is obviously much more complex (
11). In fact, even in the research linked on Petersons own site, the study on lobsters claim that while there was a behavorial change in willingness to fight when crustacians were injected with serotonin, this change did not occur if they were placed in close proximity for prolonged periods (
12). So EVEN THE REDUCTIONISTIC MISLEADING ARGUMENT is being presented factually incorrect and misleading.
He claims to be an individualist and liberal capitalist, and that government imposing their will on the people is totalitarianism, yet in the case with Alex Jones recently he opted for goverment intervention making these business public utility (I strongly disagree with Jones being banned btw, as much as I think he's a dangerous POS):
He champions as an absolute free speech and rights advocate, yet he supports and participates in propaganda pieces for Prager University (which do not offer a degree btw). Prager U, created by Jewish fundamentalist and neo-conservative Dennis Prager, vehemently censor evolution theory and LGBT rights. Blasphemy is a deadly sin in the bible, hardly the text you'd want to rely on for free speech. Peterson even wanted to create his own university, and was talking about it last year (
13). He is seeming more and more delusional.
In a follow up, he also posted a blatantly incorrect, and easily debunked, climate change denying video from Prager U on his twitter:
Peterson rose to fame by fighting the "Social Justice Warriors" which he claims are destroying the very fabric of society, yet he, like many of the anti-SJWs, completely overestimate the impact and prevelance of gender pronouns, safe spaces and anti-free speech sentiments on the left. The entire LGBT is about 3,8% of the population, which is far below what most think (
14), and trans people are only 0,6% of the population (
15). Have you ever met a single person in real life that wanted you to call them another gender? Homosexuals and trans people have always existed, why is it so important? In regards to the "totalitarian neo-marxist postmodernists" college campuses, while it is true that the left generally are more inclined to want restrictions on hateful speech, a survey from the Knightfoundation and Gallup shows that the clear majority of college students, including democrats, prefers an open environment with offensive speech to a prohibted one with with positive speech (
16,
17):
This is not to say that there are not real problems with a minority of college students shutting down speech and being idiots and insufferable, but nothing supports it being the world ending apocalypse that the "anti SJWs" propose and propagandize.
What else... He misrepresented bill C-16 which was already in effect for 5 years in the state the was living in before they started talking about it, he says the bible is archetypes and stories, yet he wont say whether or not he believes jesus rose from the dead, he believes there are no atheist because they would be murderes, he makes presuppositional arguments and claims we cant have morality without the bible, he claims people can only quit smoking because of supernatural experiences, he believes in the supernatural, he claims to hate postmodernism while being the biggest postmodernist around. He waffles and shifts on the topic of religion completely and mixes half truths with pseudoscientific sophistry and lazy philosophy. He's constantly inconsistent in his claims. He calls on science when he needs to, but he cherry picks and misinterpret research, then when he science gets in the way of his argument it means nothing and it's all "metaphorical truths" and "darwinian truths" which he also misinteprets.
Want me to go on? This is just what I can remember without thinking about more of his claims. Dare to say I am taking him out of context.
