It’s been a few months since my last post. I took some time off to try my hand at some fiction writing. It went well in the beginning. I was enthusiastic, doing it daily, even writing at least 1000 words a day, but I quickly realized how different non-fiction writing is from fiction writing. Grammar, voice, and research were tough for me as it was, now I was having to think about narrative structure, themes, character development, setting, and a thousand other things.
And if you haven’t already noticed by reading some of my other posts – or even the last paragraph for that matter – I’m not very good at writing. But I’m aware that if you want to be good at something you have to keep doing it no matter how hard it gets.
At least that’s what I had been telling myself everyday for the last year or so anyway. Quotes like this one would often keep me motivated to continue even when things became difficult:
“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.”
Seneca
But there was a major flaw in my thinking. I was consistently hitting walls. I wasn’t getting anything accomplished. I felt like I wasn’t getting any better, nor did it feel that it was getting any easier. I had no small victories along the way, nothing to keep me motivated to continue except words like those previously mentioned. And they did for a while, maybe for a month or so, where I would force myself to sit down and write despite not wanting to. But discouragement is a heavy burden to carry alone. And our minds like to supply us with the most poisonous ideas if we let them. So as the days past I started skipping writing sessions, making excuses for myself, and worst of all, it was making me unhappy. So eventually I stopped writing altogether.
Then a few weeks ago, Jordan Peterson’s new book Beyond Order came in the mail. And I read this passage:
“If you make what you want clear and commit yourself to its pursuit, you may fail. But if you do not make what you want clear, then you will certainly fail. You cannot hit a target you refuse to see… Success at a given endeavour often means trying, falling short, recalibrating (with the new knowledge generated painfully by failure), and then trying again and falling short – often repeated, ad nauseam. Sometimes all that learning, impossible without failure, leads you to see that aiming your ambition in a different direction would be better – not because it is easier; not because you have given up; not because you are avoiding – but because you have learned through the vicissitudes of your experience that what you seek is not to be found where you were looking, or is simply not attainable in the manner by which you chose to pursue it.”
That hit me like a brick. It always seems like Peterson’s words have reached me when I’ve needed them the most.
He made me realize that I was on the wrong path, that I had made an error somewhere along the way and I needed to reassess why I was doing what I was doing, and where I wanted to be.
I still hope to write fiction on a regular basis, but he’s helped me understand the necessity of this blog for my mental clarity, happiness, and well-being.
Now, in hindsight, it seems like an easy fix, why didn’t I just start writing the blog much earlier? It’s because I was attached to the idea that giving up writing fiction would make me a failure. I had this vague conviction that someone would find out that I couldn’t do it, or that I was being foolish for even trying. I was forcing myself to prove to these phantom voices that I could and would show them otherwise. There is a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson that I’m reminded of now, he said: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” That was me. I was locked onto this unproductive trajectory and stuck in limbo, too stubborn to give up, but too blind to see that something wasn’t working.
Anyway, that’s my little intro to this piece. I often struggle with whether or not to include biographical information in these posts as doing so will no doubt alienate certain readers, but I think context matters here and personal anecdotes can be helpful to get a point across.
Jordan Peterson
I’ve written about Peterson’s first book, 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote To Chaos, in a previous post. He’s since made a return in the lime light so I thought that writing about him might be a good way to get back on the blog writing horse again.
If you have been living under a rock for the last few years and are unaware of who Jordan Peterson is, I’d recommend reading my other post, here. I get into who he is and what he stands for a little more in depth in that one.
Peterson is an extremely polarizing figure, which still continues to baffle me. His critics accuse him of being a misogynist, a bigot, a grifter, and that he encourages dangerous “far right” political thinking that arms young dispossessed white men with weapons with which to defend their declining social status. They fear his criticisms of Marxism and Postmodernism give the aforementioned white men an excuse to discredit the victims of marginalized groups suffering from the oppression of perceived white supremacy, a male dominated patriarchy, and economic injustice.
But the degree to which people misunderstand his work really is mind boggling.
The following is a question Peterson was asked in an Interview with Politico Magazine:
“Most of the people you’d characterize as advocates of “identity politics” believe that men inherently have more power and value in society. It seems that much of your argument … is predicated on the idea that that is not necessarily somehow the case.”
This was his response:
“Well, it’s clearly not necessarily the case. I mean, men do all the dangerous jobs. They’re much more likely to be killed. They’re much more likely to be victims of crime. They’re much more likely to commit suicide successfully. They’re much more likely to be held back in school. They’re much more likely to get poor grades. They’re much less likely to be in university. They’re much less likely to graduate from university. The vast majority of the seriously dispossessed are seriously dispossessed men. Like, this whole split of the world into one privileged gender compared to the other is—I think the whole viewpoint is pathological. Like, I don’t even like to argue about it from within that confine—“Oh, well, are men more oppressed than women? Well, how about that’s a stupid question? That’s the right response to that question. Because as soon as you enter into the argument, you’re validating the question. It’s like, I don’t think we should be dividing up the world that way. That’s part of the pathological game. Both men and women suffer immensely in life. Both men and women suffer immensely in life. And not only that, they also contribute unnecessarily to that suffering as a consequence of their own unexamined malevolence and resentment. And then to say, “Well, who’s more oppressed?” or “who’s more malevolent?” is like—well, first of all, you shouldn’t be analyzing at the level of a group. You’re making a fundamental error right then and there.”
The way I see it, and the reason why I’ll continue to defend Peterson, is that his messages that address the “unexamined malevolence and resentment” we see in our society are extremely necessary and pertinent right now. He’s helped millions of people change their lives for the better, mine included, and his popularity speaks to the fact that people had been starving for his message.
But I won’t get into his ideas here, nor will I attempt to defend them – he can do that much better than I can – I only want to talk about his reception in regards to a much larger phenomenon I’ve been observing.
There is a movement present in our culture, a sort of unhinged religiosity regarding social justice and this idea of a utopian ideal of moral purity. There are unhealthy narratives and cynical theories being discussed right now which endanger objective scientific debate. Criticisms of these ideas, based on principles of logic and reason, appear discriminatory and offensive to some. And it’s their iron- fisted conviction of these ideas that makes an alternative view seem to them to be unworthy of debate.
In some of my previous posts, I talk extensively of stoic philosophy and the pragmatic wisdom it has to offer, but the truth is, is that Stoicism’s main proponents like Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, and Seneca, were all wealthy and privileged slave owners who justified their behaviours by claiming that slaves needed to accept their unfortunate place in life. I’m sure we can all agree that slavery is bad but it doesn’t mean we should disregard all the useful wisdom they’ve imparted either. But through the lens of critical race theory for example, these men are putting forth ideas of white supremacy and therefore should be ignored.
People have let their myopic view of the world shroud their ability to think critically.
In a similar fashion, but on a smaller scale, any description of Peterson or his past is bound to stir up talk of his recent issues with bezodiazapene dependence and the subsequent health issues that befell him because if it. His most vocal critics will say “how ironic and hypocritical it is that this man is preaching self-help advice while his own life is in tatters.”
They treat him as if he should be this morally perfect being capable of transcending humanity’s faults. But I don’t see why we have to judge an individuals message on the basis of their own adherence to it. If someone with bad teeth told you to brush your teeth everyday, would you disagree with that advice just because they don’t follow it? Is “practice what you preach” really the responsibitly of the preacher, or perhaps something that should be overlooked by the learner, especially when the lesson has been proven to have a positive impact?
Regardless, most of the criticisms Peterson receives are nothing but these thoughtless ad hominem attacks from people who likely never read his works anyway. This is how I see it:
“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”
Addison Whithcome
It’s as simple as that.
But no matter how much good someone might contribute to the world, our current culture is obsessed with finding and exploiting their faults, especially if they run contrary to their political ideologies.
Because that’s what this is all about: Politics.
People have forgotten what it’s like to think for themselves. Political discourse is about identity now more than ever. And once an individual aligns themselves with a certain group or a certain way of thinking, they don’t need to listen to or to read Peterson’s book for example, because they might have heard that he is associated with christian conservatism, or that he is pro-capitalist, and that’s enough for them to dismiss him as the opposition. Their minds are already made up.
All it takes is one thing he said or believes in for them to ignore his entire work. But by doing so they miss so much. I don’t agree with everything he says either, but I’m smart enough to parse through his work and find things that mean something to me, useful things that I can apply to my own life.
One of his rules from his last book: set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world – a rule that has since become a meme and joked about by many – has had a huge impact on me. I’ve taken it to heart and joined the Big Brother program because of it, hoping to be the change I want to see in the world instead of mindlessly criticizing it. He’s also inspired me to be open minded with regards to ideas I don’t agree with.
But what do I get in return for being a fan of his? I’m told that I’m being “groomed for fascism”, or that I enjoy his works because he’s a “dumb persons intellectual.”
And what’s motivating these people to resort to personal attacks instead of the genuine debate of his ideas? It’s because popular left wing media organizations like to write hit pieces slandering Peterson in order to push their political agendas. As Bret Weinstein put it on one of his podcasts recently, they are trying to create a stink around Peterson that is sufficient enough to drive people away from looking into who he is themselves.
And I can feel it, or smell it rather. A part of why I wanted to write this post was because I have felt the subtle pangs of embarrassment by publicly supporting Peterson. But I couldn’t quite figure out why. My response to his work has been overwhelmingly positive; I discovered the courage to leave a job I was unhappy with, my relationships are stronger, I’m contributing to my community, and I’ve become more open minded, so why should I be ashamed of that?
I can’t really blame the corporate media for vilifying him. They’re just gonna do what sells and I understand that. It’s the people who eat that shit up unthinkingly that bothers me.
But why?
There is a book called Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States. In it, author Dannagal Goldthwaite Young talks about how the political left tends to use irony and satire in their political discussions. That’s why most of the talking head programs on comedy central, for example, are predominately left leaning. And this is true of Hollywood as well as all the big social media companies.
And it’s by this mingling of entertainment and politics, that the influence of popular shows like Last Week Tonight With John Oliver or Saturday Night Live are unconsciously reenforcing political ideologies disguised as comedy. Our beliefs are constantly being validated and reinforced by the broader cultural forces around us.
Peterson, however, points to the flaws of misguided satire: “Most of the so-called critiques of my work from the left aren’t critiques of my work – they’re parodies of it, and then critiques of the parody.”
There is an interesting concept that could help explain why Petersons is such a polarizing individual.
The author David Foster Wallace, in his essay E Unibus Pluram, wrote that television “can train viewers to laugh at characters’ unending put-downs of one another, to view ridicule as both the mode of social intercourse and the ultimate art form.”
He continues: “television can reinforce its own queer ontology of appearance: the most frightening prospect, for the well-conditioned viewer, becomes leaving oneself open to others’ ridicule by betraying passe expressions of value, emotion, or vulnerability.”
This mode of psychosocial influence is not just perpetuated by television, I only used those shows as examples because of their popularity, it happens in all forms of media.
If you need further proof of this phenomenon, look no further than the Marvel comic book universe.
The comic book in question makes an obvious allusion to Jordan Peterson and his ideas. Except the problem is that the character is a nazi named The Red Skull.
But this isn’t just happening to discussions surrounding Jordan Peterson either.
What Wallace was touching on is something that the intellectual polymath Rene Girdard was famous for: Memetic Theory.
Instagram Influencers, “blue-checks” on twitter, and popular YouTubers, all help contribute and define our socially acceptable modes of behaviour. They all encourage this internet mob mentality. Now all we have to do is pay attention to “upvotes” and “likes” to learn how to conform to public opinion. This is referred to as the informational mechanism of social influence. We’d rather just fit in rather than risk being vulnerable by betraying our honest values and emotions.
There is a famous study by Solomon Asch in which people were asked to identify which two lines on separate pieces of paper were the same length.
Source: Wikipedia
What Asch discovered was that there was an enormous number of people who lied about their answers in order to imitate others who had been planted in the study to give wrong answers on purpose.
Without the planted participants, less than 1% of people would get the wrong answer. With the added group pressure, people were wrong 36% of the time.
70% of the subjects just followed along with the group!
This could explain why some of the debates on social media surrounding Peterson are filled with the character assassinations that draw attention away from his claims, as if they somehow invalidate his arguments. They are keeping in tune with the rest of the popular narrative without thinking about it themselves. Just like how Petersons’s criticisms of identity politics are misconstrued as misogyny or racism. Or how many claimed that Trump was responsible for the 400,000 deaths in the U.S. from his mishandling of Covid-19, as opposed to the abnormally high death count being attributed to Americas high rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. People will mindlessly follow any unsubstantiated claim as long as it adheres to their political stance.
What I see happening is that these uncritical minds are regurgitating the same old criticisms instead of risking the vulnerability of thinking for themselves and facing the backlash of public opinion – backlash that is not driven by objective truth and honest debate, but by subjective social grievances and fallacious red herrings.
Wallace touches on the motives of this Mimetic Theory in his own words and why we might choose to avoid taking a stand instead of following popular narratives:
“…to be hip and cool is the same as to be admired and accepted and included and so Unalone. Forget so-called peer-pressure. It’s more like peer-hunger. No? We enter a spiritual puberty where we snap to the fact that the great transcendent horror is loneliness, excluded encagement in the self.”
Because if you do to choose to support Peterson and his work, you’re glossed over as a “die hard groupie” or “fan boy,” or even a nazi, who will blindly follow him anywhere, unhip and uncool. At best, you’re carelessly grouped into a category of identity that is used to minimize the effectiveness of his message somehow. At worst, your labeled an idiot, a fascist, or a misogynist.
I’ve also noticed that despite the thousands of people reaching out to Peterson thanking him for helping them get their lives in order by overcoming issues with alcoholism, drugs, and depression, his critics will still obsess over the fact that he said something inflammatory or contentious and judge his character solely based on that instead. There is no reasonable weighing of the good and the bad, it’s just strict adherence to political ideology.
It’s ironic because it runs directly counter to the message that people like myself have interpreted from his books.
He’s even publicly admitted that his goal isn’t to “defeat” the people on the other side of the political dialogue, it’s to negotiate them back into a peaceful discussion.
As our moral relativist and politically divisive society grows, the more polarizing Peterson will become. Because his lessons about personal responsibility, free speech, evolutionary hierarchies, and the embracing of masculinity as opposed to condemning it, is in direct conflict with the Postmodern ideas of subjective social grievances and today’s wokeness.
And the people hell-bent on ending Petersons career don’t want to educate themselves anyway, they only want to validate their existing beliefs. And people eat it up because they love when other people think for them.
But if they did think for themselves, they’d learn that instead of being labeled as extremely right-wing, in his new book, Beyond Order 12 More Rules For Life, Peterson talks about the characteristics of liberalism and conservatism in depth and the necessity of balance between the two in order to achieve political harmony.
It’s indicative of the swinging political pendulum that someone as centrist as Peterson really is, is now considered to be far-right. They are moving the goal posts.
My conclusion, if I have one at all, is to be mindful of the baggage that is associated with political bias. Think for yourself. Don’t get caught in the false dichotomies. Don’t be afraid to be question things. And be weary of cynical theories.
I’ll leave you with this unfortunate but incredibly relevant quote:
“All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field.”
Albert Einstein
Thanks for reading.
Very insightful article. Thank you for your words.
Thanks so much for reading Lydia, glad you enjoyed it!
On social media, my daughters (20ish) are petrified of the character attacks they would endure if they were to disagree with any aspect of the inane diatribes that are often insipidly put forth. As a result, they remain silent . Many of us do the same in our daily interactions. I fear this silence is misconstrued as agreement.
It would be fascinating if a study could be done to show how many individuals withhold honest, respectful opinions/ideas which may diverge (often modestly) out of fear retribution.
I have read several of your posts now; they all have been very worth my time. Well researched, well written and even keeled. All have been very interesting and thought provoking.
Keep doing these
Thanks for the kind words Jason, it means a lot. I’m really glad you enjoyed them.
Also, there has been some polls that show exactly what your referring to, I reference them in another post. Here is the link if you’re interested:
https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016.08.27-Political-CorrectnessFinal.pdf
Having read your blog, you obviously know what you are talking about. I’m sure visiting my page YH9 about Thai-Massage will be worth your time!