Why We Should Be Cautious of Jordan Peterson

I always found Jordan Peterson a little full of himself and his videos on YouTube complex and to deep to understand for the average person.

Michie said:

Catholics should hesitate before getting on the Jordan Peterson bandwagon.

We live in a period of mass deception. We cannot trust politicians, be they establishment or anti-establishment. Even anti-establishment figures such as RFK Jr., Donald Trump, and Javier Milei, all of whom I have praised in the past, have shown inconsistencies with what originally made them appealing and seemingly authentic figures. Here are just a few examples: RFK Jr. chose Nicole Shanahan, who helped finance Event 201, as his running mate; Trump launched the Covid vaccine Warp Speed program, resulting in unprecedented deaths and extremely harmful side effects for an allegedly safe and effective vaccine; and Milei recently instituted a mandatory registry for Bitcoin and all crypto currencies.

Another anti-establishment figure, Jordan Peterson, is no exception. As the saying goes, all that glitters is not gold.

I have met Peterson twice, and both times he was very congenial and open. I have written many articles about him, some published on Crisis, a chapter in an academic book, and elsewhere. I also reviewed 12 Rules for Life quite favorably. I have always tried my best to have a balanced view of Peterson, or any thinker or influencer for that matter. In contrast to some I have introduced to Peterson’s work, including academics who idolize him and place him on a pedestal, I take a balanced approach, offering both praise (as I have done in some of my past articles) and criticism when it’s due.

Continued below.

Why We Should Be Cautious of Jordan Peterson

Catholics should hesitate before getting on the Jordan Peterson bandwagon.

crisismagazine.com

Click to expand...

I am not going to say this, but I just did: His cult following is kinda messed up. Jordan Peterson may be a false prophet, a lukewarm Christian at best. It is not a good idea to trust any internet personality, as fame gets to one's head.


Here is a summary of the long article:

Scott Ventureyra's article, published April 16, 2024, expresses the author's disillusionment with various anti-establishment figures, including Jordan Peterson. Ventureyra shares his past praise for Peterson and his criticism, focusing on inconsistencies in the figure's positions and actions.

Ventureyra argues that despite Peterson's claims to defend Christianity, his denial of God and subjectivist worldview lead him to inconsistencies in his political views and ethical stances. The author shares examples like Peterson's change of heart on Covid-19, his defense of Israeli aggression, and his ambiguous relationship with God.

Furthermore, Ventureyra questions Peterson's motivations for his public positions, suggesting that his pragmatism and adherence to Darwinism may influence his political alignments more than genuine beliefs. The author also accuses Peterson of playing both sides between believer and nonbeliever to increase his influence and wealth.

Throughout the article, Ventureyra maintains a balanced approach, acknowledging Peterson's past contributions while critiquing his inconsistencies and contradictions. He concludes by urging caution towards figures like Peterson, emphasizing the importance of aligning one's actions with their beliefs and values.

I keep reading about this Jordan Peterson fella and I have looked up who he is but I can't for the life of me figure out why I (or anyone else) should give a flying fascination about anything he says or does.

To me he's on par with the Kardasian's. Just famous for being famous.

So what ?

People shouldn't jump on bandwagons. <-- period

Bandwagon jumping is the result of not thinking critically and carefully.

However, I found most of the articles criticisms to be rather empty and really stretching.
It essentially struck me that the author was upset with Peterson, because Peterson is not what the author wanted him to be. He sounds like he thought Peterson was X, and now is attacking Peterson because he is not X, when Peterson never claimed to be X in the first place.

For example, Peterson has never claimed to be a Christian. Why would you get upset at someone who never claimed to be a Christian, because they don't perfectly adhere to Christian orthodoxy?

Much of the article kind of seemed like the author was making a veiled personal attack on Peterson by implying that he is portraying himself as one thing, but in reality he is another. Yet the things that he seems to think this regarding are things I've never heard Peterson ever claim or present himself as.

He literally has nothing to report, except personal statements by other people who don't like Peterson?

For example, he essentially has three things from Peterson himself.
#1 - He claims that Peterson threatened a Journalist with violence. In reality Jordan Peterson got angry, called the guy names and then said "if you were in the room I'd slap you." Calling that a threat of violence is a stretch, that in my opinion borders on dishonest. The best you can say is Peterson got mad and was a little out of line.

#2 - He cites a tweet where Jordan Peterson told another journalist that the journalist tried to analyze his religious view, which he didn't understand, and compared him to someone that Peterson doesn't remotely agree with, and that this was wrong and unhelpful. The author cited this because he tended to agree with the criticism from the original journalist.
I have no idea why anyone would ever cite this as a criticism. Whether you agree with the original article or not, Peterson's response was not out of line, and he has every right to think that the original journalist didn't represent his beliefs accurately.

Using this, again, seems like a huge stretch. It makes it seem like the author is desperate to have something to throw at Peterson and this is the best he could find.

#3 - The author criticizes Jordan Peterson's past response to Covid as being too soft and going along with the establishment narrative too much. Ok, Peterson was wrong in the past... Again, big whoop. Who hasn't been wrong in the past? This again, strikes me as incredibly minor. He isn't happy that Peterson has come around more to his view on Covid recently, he's too focused on being upset because Peterson wasn't perfect.

Basically all the things where he actually cites Peterson himself, don't strike me as carrying any real weight and don't make Peterson look particularly bad. I didn't think any of them were particularly unreasonable.

This article really doesn't judge Peterson on what Peterson actually says and does. It is doing its best to try and nitpick problems in order to have something to say.


Here is my view on Peterson...

Peterson, currently, is not a Christian and has never claimed to be a Christian. For that reason alone, he should not be viewed as a good source of Christian doctrine. Why would you ever think a non-Christian is a good source of Christian doctrine.

Jordan Peterson is a psychologist and is incredibly smart and well educated. He does not see the world from a Christian foundation. However, he is something akin to a modern day stoic, or maybe even a modern day neo-platonist. As such he has some very worthwhile things to say about human nature, mental and emotional development, commentary on society and philosophical insights that are at least worth considering.

For example, when Jordan Peterson talks about Bible stories or Christian things like Easter etc. He will offer psychological and mytho-philosophical perspectives on it. Those things miss the full truth, and as such are not to be fully relied upon. However, that is not to say that they have nothing profitable or worthwhile.


Peterson is also deeply concerned about the direction society is going and he, along with some others, are actively trying to gather intellectuals to plot another course and try to influence society.

Peterson is human, of course, and as such is flawed just like the rest of us. It is evident from his own statements that he is struggling with his beliefs about God, Jesus Christ, and Faith. Maybe the best thing is not to try and attack him for not being a Christian, and instead pray for him that might become one.

I don't know what's going to happen with him. He seems to be on the cusp. Maybe he will encounter Christ personally. Maybe his hang ups will prevent him.

It is true that Christians should be careful about our reliance on "cultural allies" who are not Christians, because as much good as they might do, they will always fall short. They ultimately have something other than God as the highest good. However, this doesn't mean we should throw "cultural allies" away and attack them, because they aren't perfect.

Ultimately, if you don't care about Jordan Peterson, fine, ignore him and go about your life. If you are curious about him, or want to know what to think about him, go listen to what he himself says, not what people say about him.

A final note. I don't know anything about Peterson's "cult following". I've never read his book or met anyone who's read his book.