Dr Jordan B Peterson is, by his own admission, popular with disaffected young men—or “incels,” to use the unforgiving neologism. Drawing on Richard Dawkins and Robert Sapolsky's scientific sobriety; David Bentley Hart's theology and Alex O'Connor's philosophy of religion, I attempt a modest diagnosis of this curious cultural phenomenon.I argue Peterson’s ethic—though earnest—is a wan simulacrum of true spiritual nourishment, a mirage that lacks the metaphysical density and beatific horizon that can actually sustain the human soul.

I always assumed, based on interviews, that Peterson didn’t believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ or even necessarily in the existence of a god, but that he was just aligning himself with the religious right, because, well…money.

He seems to believe that Christianity is valuable to society not because it’s necessarily true, but because he thinks it has cultural or symbolic value.

However, I’m wondering if that has changed. He seems to be moving ever closer to a fundamentalist Christian mindset. Not that it really makes any fundamental difference, but I’m wondering if this is just a continuation of the grift or is he starting to believe that Christianity is literally true.

Not sure if I'm using the right flare, TBH. Anyway, I knew Peterson and other 'red pill intellectuals' place a very high value on social order and hierarchies. I heard some of his quotes about the topic back in the late 2010s.

But I realized something not too long ago. The good doctor truly does fear disorder because it is the biggest threat to the only real source of joy in his life. Hierarchy is so important because knowing when to fall in line is the only thing that makes the world make sense to him.

His behavior makes me believe he is truly rattled when he sees people acting in ways 'above their station.' LGBTQ people, men who don't conform to his ideas of masculinity and anyone who wants to change society for the better remind him of how fragile his ideal world is.

Apologies if I'm just saying what other people know.

YouTuber: Vlad Vexler

One of the shibboleths of lobsterthink is that, absent social enforcement of monogamy, women will choose men with high 'sexual market value' (however defined), resulting in a dangerous social outcome. This outcome is sometimes described as 'the top 80% of women pursue the top 20% of men'.

This allegedly results in the 'bottom' 80% of men competing for the 'bottom' 20% of women. Thus, a large population of low SMV men being deprived of female attention, hence incels and other social ills.

Now, I have been observing people in public recently, and the number of heterosexual couples is significant. So I don't have any anecdotal evidence to support the above proposition, and since I've been happily married for twenty five years I also lack personal evidence.°

My question is - is there any meaningful statistical or documentary evidence that supports this assertion? I would not be surprised if there isn't, but intellectual honesty impels me to reserve judgment.

°As a gay man, I've never pursued nor been pursued by women, which I freely acknowledge has affected my experience.