Well written article. It’s also refreshing to see some realism in understanding that the more extreme ends of the current philosophies tend to be minorities.

We see these negatives not because they define the left but because the minority who embody them understand the power of narrative and are skilled and opportunistic at making their voices heard. However, public perception of the left is affected all the same.

That said it’s always odd to me how Peterson gets such a reputation for being brilliant. He has certainly mixed plenty of subject matters but I feel he fails at most of them.

Someone, for instance, called out the lobster hierarchy and Peterson’s analysis of serotonin. There are 17+ serotonin receptors in the body (depending on the latest science journal and whether or not it has reclassified one or two).

For as much as we have studied serotonin, we don’t know that much about it and the argument that the higher the serotonin level in the lobster the happier it is and dominance increases this is simply a projection on the situation. It isn’t a confirmed theory in the slightest.

We could really posit anything here. For instance, serotonin often follows dopamine in the “reward chain.” Dopamine is associated with everything from drive to fear, anxiety, and stress.

It could very well be that the lobsters “on top” are the most anxious ones that decided to fight off the rest due to their anxiety.

He rarely cites sources and he believes too much in his models. From a Jungian perspective, I feel he projects an awful lot for someone pushing a Jungian perspective.

You see this in his analysis of philosophers, Marxism, and historical figures. Honestly, my biggest complaint on Peterson is the belief we can do a hell of a lot better if we really wanted an intellectual worth all the fan fair worship.