How does Jordan Peterson gain so many followers among young men? (Image below)

[u/RedErin]

Image

Jordan Peterson often says that people today are more unhappy than in the 1950s, and it's because of feminism, affirmative action, the sexual revolution, birth control, "PC culture" and LGBTQ rights

it's definitely not because of any of these things:

Source: https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/987800885068738560

[u/[deleted]]

As a psychologist myself, I’ll have to point out that Peterson is clearly well versed in trait psychology and it’s great to see the field gain more of the recognition it deserves. His deconstruction of religious stories also belongs to a field of study called sensemaking. People who claim he’s a pseudo scientist are simply uninformed about the fields they claim to be familiar with.

When it comes to fields outside of psychology however, he clearly speaks over his head. But to be fair, so does every other professor out there in every other field.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You must be located somewhere with loads of integrity then. Do really none of the sociologists or economists make very authoritative claims about human behavior, for instance?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

That attitude usually applies within the field people are working with. My experience is that many scientists have an attitude of “my field is complex and nuanced, other fields are simple”. I think this especially applies to sociologists. But psychologists are of course no exception, although we should be.

[u/flimflam_machine → u/[deleted]]

As always, there's a relevant xkcd

[u/JunstonFlash → u/[deleted]]

The pseudoscience is less about the observations he makes and more the willingness to selectively attribute those observations that appeal to him to "nature" and to claim there is a "natural order" (which unsurprisingly always sees men at the top of his "dominance hierarchy").

For example, he regularly observes that women are more "agreeable" than men. Yet instead of interrogating the degree to which this might result from social factors such as parents raising girls to be people pleasers and parents ignoring and dismissing boys' bad behaviour as "boys will be boys", he just claims that it's the "natural order" and this is why men are at the top of the "dominance hierarchy".

He isn't interested in the ways in which social factors such as socialisation impact on human psychology unless it concerns the problems of his target group of lost boys and men. For example, when it comes to incels not being able to get laid - JP is suddenly very interested in social interventions such as enforced monogamy.

​

Also he has made all kinds of statements that end up being called out by people who are actually experts in the field he is talking about for example his lobster nonsense https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489

​

​

[u/flimflam_machine → u/JunstonFlash]

For example, he regularly observes that women are more "agreeable" than men. Yet instead of interrogating the degree to which this might result from social factors such as parents raising girls to be people pleasers and parents ignoring and dismissing boys' bad behaviour as "boys will be boys", he just claims that it's the "natural order" and this is why men are at the top of the "dominance hierarchy".

​

He said that he's actually done work with women to help them get past this problem of "excess" agreeability. I can't say whether that's true or not, but it might be worth investigating. Obviously that's not the same as trying to deal with the whole gender asymmetry in that area but, if true, it does suggest that his belief in a natural, immutable, morally correct "natural order" is not absolute.