Seldom watch the guy directly, and if I do it is usually him on a TV show or giving a talk rather than his lectures or his webcam videos, but do seem to see a fair bit of rebuttal and counter rebuttal concerning him. Haven't read any of his books either but I don't think I am the target audience, if I see one in a charity shop in a couple of years I might give it a go though. Not a fan of his religious stuff and there have been stronger science types in the past, though I am probably thinking more straight biology with an atheist objective and such rather than psychology and sociology with a... for want of a better term I am going with humanitarian bent. He does not seem to get challenged the best either -- usually get some shrieking harpy or some poor bastard that has never been taught to argue properly (or what they consider proper argument does not hold up under law, logic, most forms of morality or the things which typically underpin all of those), possibly one that also believes such utter nonsense as "there are no biological differences between men and women" (plus all the other sorts of things that spill forth from such circles), and then left wondering why their feels based reasoning or disingenuous* tactics fell flat on their face.
On the other hand other than the religious stuff most of what I have seen from him is pretty good, he is probably overly empathetic for my taste and approach to the world but such things are typical of medics really. Seen a few times where he has not got a formulated and reasoned argument to hand and unfortunately goes for the politician's answer or dodges the question -- I was always taught and can see the value in saying "I don't know" (usually before immediately breaking the problem down and learning what I need to solve it), however psychiatry occasionally has different approaches (see something like refocusing**) so it is not entirely unexpected. By similar token I have seen better historians but if we go with history is about critical analysis rather than memorising names, dates and events then I can see listening to what he might have to say.
With all that said he seldom seems to hold anything like a radical or indefensible position***, again often contrary to some vocal narratives but nothing most people out on the street would consider terribly radical.
Anecdotes I see mentioned above and that is an interesting one. It has been said that the plural of anecdote is not data and I agree, though it could be the basis for a hypothesis. At the same time one of my favourite book franchises is the freakonomics one and they noted that part of their success was the ability to make it presentable to the average person, something credited to the journalist/writer part of the pairing. Personally I actually like dry data but it is rare for me to meet a normal person that does, everybody likes anecdotes and observations though.
I once saw someone had said something to the effect of "every 20 years or so a charismatic figure arises to help direct "aimless" young men, Dr Peterson is then that today" and there is an element of that from where I sit. Not even close enough for me to want to dismiss him though and absolutely regard him as a considerable force for good in the world. So yeah seems like a dude with an abundance of empathy and a desire to make the world a better place, one that does not buy into a popular narrative at this point in time and thus suffers a bit for it.
*whether they know it, and indeed the likes of https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ , is a different matter. Sadly full reasoned debate and all that goes with it (classically you would probably find it taught as "rhetoric") is not taught so well these days.
**I can argue with other science/engineering types and with businessmen, can just about hold my own with lawyers and finance people as well, mentally distressed types is another matter entirely. I saw the sorts of things that someone with the relevant training can do the other day (far from the first time, but first in a while)... it was about all I could do to keep conversing and not screw things up and it is not like I entirely lack capabilities in that arena.
***relevant
Also you would have to qualify harms, something remarkably hard to do under the law and incredibly variable as well.
To that end their ain't any law against being a cunt, indeed such a law would probably be antithetical to the notions underpinning law making in any legal tradition in the more desirable parts of the world.
On the other hand other than the religious stuff most of what I have seen from him is pretty good, he is probably overly empathetic for my taste and approach to the world but such things are typical of medics really. Seen a few times where he has not got a formulated and reasoned argument to hand and unfortunately goes for the politician's answer or dodges the question -- I was always taught and can see the value in saying "I don't know" (usually before immediately breaking the problem down and learning what I need to solve it), however psychiatry occasionally has different approaches (see something like refocusing**) so it is not entirely unexpected. By similar token I have seen better historians but if we go with history is about critical analysis rather than memorising names, dates and events then I can see listening to what he might have to say.
With all that said he seldom seems to hold anything like a radical or indefensible position***, again often contrary to some vocal narratives but nothing most people out on the street would consider terribly radical.
Anecdotes I see mentioned above and that is an interesting one. It has been said that the plural of anecdote is not data and I agree, though it could be the basis for a hypothesis. At the same time one of my favourite book franchises is the freakonomics one and they noted that part of their success was the ability to make it presentable to the average person, something credited to the journalist/writer part of the pairing. Personally I actually like dry data but it is rare for me to meet a normal person that does, everybody likes anecdotes and observations though.
I once saw someone had said something to the effect of "every 20 years or so a charismatic figure arises to help direct "aimless" young men, Dr Peterson is then that today" and there is an element of that from where I sit. Not even close enough for me to want to dismiss him though and absolutely regard him as a considerable force for good in the world. So yeah seems like a dude with an abundance of empathy and a desire to make the world a better place, one that does not buy into a popular narrative at this point in time and thus suffers a bit for it.
*whether they know it, and indeed the likes of https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ , is a different matter. Sadly full reasoned debate and all that goes with it (classically you would probably find it taught as "rhetoric") is not taught so well these days.
**I can argue with other science/engineering types and with businessmen, can just about hold my own with lawyers and finance people as well, mentally distressed types is another matter entirely. I saw the sorts of things that someone with the relevant training can do the other day (far from the first time, but first in a while)... it was about all I could do to keep conversing and not screw things up and it is not like I entirely lack capabilities in that arena.
***relevant
There is a difference between respect and legal requirement, and it sounds like he was speaking out against the latter.
Also you would have to qualify harms, something remarkably hard to do under the law and incredibly variable as well.
To that end their ain't any law against being a cunt, indeed such a law would probably be antithetical to the notions underpinning law making in any legal tradition in the more desirable parts of the world.
