Verified by 
What I like about Jordan Peterson is that when he speaks, what he says is justified. By justified, I do not mean that it is "just", "righteous" or "moral"; rather what he says is based on evidence. Often, his evidence-based statements contradict the beliefs held by the many—in this sense, they may appear on the surface as controversial; but he doesn’t apologize for it—he uses it to try and educate. I think what he does is admirable and, indeed, a sign of critical thinking.
That’s not to say that Peterson doesn’t express his own beliefs—of course, he does and he fully admits to it. Everyone is inclined to exhibit bias in their views. It’s not something we can escape. However, what makes such dialogue an exercise in critical thinking is that: we can be open-minded and engage differing beliefs (regardless of whether or not we object to or support the view); and when we do present our beliefs in this manner, we do so based on evidence. Jordan Peterson has been pretty successful in this regard.
However, what makes Peterson’s impact curious is not how he goes about debate or even the content of his debate; but rather, the manner in which it is interpreted. His interview with Cathy Newman in January was the topic of one of my recent posts, where I discussed at length how media can, not necessarily on purpose, misinterpret information (particularly information with scientific/statistical terminology). Such misinterpretation can have negative consequences, perhaps: implying findings are more (or less) than they actually are; or, even painting an individual in a particular light (e.g. Peterson as a misogynist). It was a common perspective following the interview that Newman could have done a better job debating Peterson—a view I agree with in that there was a lack of critical thinking on Newman’s part at certain junctures of the interview. On the other hand, many applauded Peterson for a debate well done. Still, others called it a disgrace on Newman’s part and some viewers even sent her death threats. Newman did not deserve this—no one does. What a world we live in.
What is crucial to note is that Peterson did not do this to Newman, rather it was some of the public—the same public who did this to Peterson not so long ago after his stand on free speech. It is fair to say that some of this public is "extremist liberals" who, by default, go on the attack (whether it be gloating over a win or in reaction to suffering in defeat), often without thinking. However, it would be an error in judgment to not see that the same is happening on the other end of the spectrum —let’s call them extremist conservatives. They do the same thing: attack—whether it be gloating over a win or in reaction to defeat.
The "problem" with Peterson’s impact is not Peterson. It’s not his logic or even his content. Maybe it’s not even media misrepresentation—maybe it’s just down to people’s pre-existing beliefs. The problem with beliefs is that they don’t have to be supported by evidence for people to have them—they can be accepted based on faith alone; and as any psychologist knows, beliefs are very difficult to change.
When Peterson speaks in public forums, like the Newman interview, it’s generally about topics that can be controversial; because, as I mentioned in my recent post, emotional reactivity makes for good television! When discussion of a controversial topic arises, emotion takes over and people’s beliefs become the foundation of their thought. A side-effect of this phenomenon is that people start drawing spurious links with those engaged in debate. For example, Peterson was wrongly accused of being "anti-women" and thereafter, he successfully argued how this was not the case. The next day, we look online and metaphorically see the extremist right building a shrine to Peterson alongside Trump as the fathers of some pseudo-conservative movement. Where did this come from? The extremist conservatives hear what they want to hear and take a victory where they can get it. The very same can be said for the extremist liberals. What people often fail to remember is that dialogues are not about taking sides or about identifying what’s righteous—they’re about exchanging knowledge. We need to stop looking at discussion of these topics as battle; we need to start seeing them as collaborations towards attaining truth and better ideas about how best to progress in our collective existence.
But, how do we do this? What is the solution to this problem? How do we stop news journalists from getting death threats from angry viewers? Here’s a critical thinking ‘recipe’ for this particular problem:
- Try your best to remove emotion from thinking.
- If you have an ‘extreme’ or controversial view (perhaps based on belief), re-evaluate it. Ask yourself: Do I have credible, reliable, unbiased evidence to support this view?
- Be open-minded towards others. You don’t have to respect them (respect is earned, it’s not a right); but be courteous (sure, we may be in disagreement; but, hey, we’re still civilised people).
- Remember, a person said what they said, not how you interpret what they said. If you are unclear as to what has been said, ask for clarification. Asking for clarity is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of successful problem-solving.
So, is this recipe a potential step towards a solution? Easier said than done, I know; but, if we can look at the problem for what it really is and can identify potential paths towards a solution, maybe that’s at least a step in the right direction. Stop looking at Peterson as a messiah and stop looking at him as a war criminal. Stop viewing people as victors and victims. Be open-minded, suspend your beliefs, evaluate and infer for the purpose of successful knowledge exchange.
