View from
The Left

Why We’re Writing a Book-Length Critique of Jordan Peterson

Diverse as they may be, these four authors are united by a desire to confront Peterson on his own terms—that is, to eschew tawdry criticism and ad hominem attacks and instead to get to the nucleus of his thought.


“Modern man does not understand how much his ‘rationalism’ (which has destroyed his capacity to respond to numinous symbols and ideas) has put him at the mercy of the psychic ‘underworld.’ He has freed himself from superstition (or so he believes), but in the process he has lost his spiritual values to a positively dangerous degree. His moral and spiritual tradition has disintegrated, and he is now paying the price for this break up in world wide disorientation and dissociation.”

Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols

Since 2016 Jordan Peterson has enjoyed a remarkable burst of popularity, due to attention-grabbing, anti-politically correct activism—alternative pronouns, no; enforced monogamy, yes—as well as a series of lectures and a bestselling book on how to find meaning in life. He has been embraced by both the far-right and stuffy classical liberals, writing columns for conservative newspapers and appearing on popular programs and podcasts which sympathize with his—how shall we say—unique worldview. David Brooks at The New York Times even lauded him as among the most influential public intellectuals of our time. 

Naturally, Peterson’s popularity on the Right has made him a target of critiques from the left. He has been called everything from “the stupid man’s smart person” to a fascist sympathizer whose thought serves as a gateway to the far-right. Some of these criticisms have been interesting and adept—most notably Nathan J. Robinson’s and Natalie Wynne’s (that is, Contrapoints). Others have been less so. But almost all of them have been incomplete in the sense that they take issue with one element or another of Peterson’s oeuvre. Left-leaning critics either point out flaws in his understanding of so-called post-modern neo-Marxism, or they observe that his actual knowledge of left-wing thought and positions is dubious. Some point out that Peterson’s own political theorizing can be frustratingly vague, relying on bizarre homologies (his association of Jungian psychoanalysis with neurobiology) or fanciful leaps of logic (his frequent conflation of sociological data with evolutionary structures).  But so far no critique has sought to comprehensively address the body of his work as a whole. This is an oversight that our book Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson intends to correct. 

Taking Peterson Seriously

Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson, to be published with Zero Books, is written by four authors, each of whom take a different angle on Peterson. Ben Burgis analyzes the logical—or illogical, as the case may be—structure of Peterson’s argumentation. Marion Trejo examines Peterson’s reckoning with feminism and argues that it is wracked by contradictions and tensions. Matt McManus looks at the existential underpinnings of his philosophy and critiques how Peterson brings it to bear on politics. And Conrad Hamilton interrogates Peterson’s understanding of post-modernism and Marxism. Diverse as they may be, these four authors are united by a desire to confront Peterson on his own terms—that is, to eschew tawdry criticism and ad hominem attacks and instead to get to the nucleus of his thought. Peterson’s anti-woke, truth-telling patriarch act has, whatever else, generated a great deal of attention. None of that would be true if he were incapable of resonating with a mass audience. So it is vital to acknowledge where Peterson makes valid points about the limitations of the contemporary left. But it is equally important to make clear that his own thinking is characterized by acute limitations—when it comes to his substantive claims, and, especially, when he engages with intellectual opponents. The goal, then, is this: to take Peterson more seriously than he takes the Left. The book will also be introduced by Slavoj Zizek, who engaged in a popular recent debate with Peterson in Toronto. Zizek’s introduction will summarize his account of Peterson’s popularity, while responding to some of the criticisms and comments surrounding the debate. His piece should provide vital context to the book as a whole, helping to frame both the theoretical issues at play, while explaining how Peterson became a popular figure to many on the political right.

Peterson is the most significant anti-leftist critic in the Western world today, and answering his charges in a reasonable and popular manner is necessary if progressivism is to be convincing both practically and intellectually.

Our ambition is that the book will be readable, accessible to anyone with even a working knowledge of some of the issues, and maybe even funny here and there. Anyone with an interest in Peterson, in the political left, or in some of the big questions of our time will hopefully find something of value in it. The diversity of viewpoints presented should also make the book interesting to readers from a wide variety of backgrounds—and readers who prioritize different political struggles and perspectives. This is partly why, as we shall discuss below, our project goes beyond just the publication of Myth and Mayhem.


One of the reasons the authors committed to this project is their belief that it is necessary to argue against political opponents in as sustained a manner as possible. In Burgis’ terms, we feel it is necessary to “give them an argument.” Peterson is the most significant anti-leftist critic in the Western world today, and answering his charges in a reasonable and popular manner is necessary if progressivism is to be convincing both practically and intellectually. This is one of the virtues practiced by the Zero book line, which aspires to present critical theory to a broad audience, where possible. We have also prepared a website where interested critics can also submit short essays and commentary on where they think Peterson’s thinking goes wrong on political issues—or in his criticisms of the Left. We invite anyone who is interested in submitting to the website to contact us at any time. Your essay will be reviewed by the authors and uploaded quickly. The goal is to prepare a forum which both supplements and goes beyond Myth and Mayhem, offering progressives ongoing intellectual resources in their disputes with both Peterson and other classical liberal and right-wing commentators. We are also very interested in reading pieces defending Peterson, so long as they are presented in a spirt of dialogue and debate. Articles which defend Peterson while taking seriously some of the criticisms against them by providing a lengthy answer would be especially helpful. Submissions from all theoretical backgrounds are welcomed.

Matt McManus is currently Professor of Politics and International Relations at TEC De Monterrey. His book Making Human Dignity Central to International Human Rights Law is forthcoming with the University of Wales Press. His books, The Rise of Post-modern Conservatism and What is Post-Modern Conservatism, will be published with Palgrave MacMillan and Zero Books, respectively. Matt can be reached at or added on Twitter via @MattPolProf.

Conrad Bongard Hamilton is a PhD student based at Paris 8 University, currently pursuing research on non-human agency in the work of Karl Marx under the supervision of Catherine Malabou. He is a contributor to the text What is Post-Modern Conservatism, as well as the author of a forthcoming book, Dialectic of Escape: A Conceptual History of Video Games. He can be reached at, and a catalogue of his writings can be found on

113 thoughts on “Why We’re Writing a Book-Length Critique of Jordan Peterson

  1. “…due to attention-grabbing, anti-politically correct activism—alternative pronouns, no; enforced monogamy, yes—as well as a series of lectures and a bestselling book on how to find meaning in life. He has been embraced by both the far-right and stuffy classical liberals…”

    The ad hom introduction portends shallow waters, low-resolution thinking.

    1. What’s “ad hom” about that? It’s an accurate description of what JP has done, not an attack on his character. “Ad hom” apparently doesn’t mean what you think it means.

      1. The quips in relation to pronouns and enforced monogomy are not ad hominems, they are however poisoning the well…as they refer to misinterpretations of Peterson quotes and why he said these things. These quips make it look as though Peterson hates trans people and wants all white men to have a woman…and that is not what he said or meant in either instance. If these guys purport to tackle Peterson on his own terns sans ad hominems…why does the very first paragraph contain said gross misinterpretations??? The Poisoning the Well fallacy is what that is known as….and is just as grossly unfair as an ad hominem. Any self respecting challenger of any topic should know this…but then again…its probably too much to expect from those who seek only to discredit and not approach a subject or person in an even handed way. The funny thing is I would actually like to read a book that takes on Petersons ideas and seeks to counterpoint them fairly….however the introduction there makes it seem like another amateur hit piece in the vaim of soooooo many many more.

        1. You seem rather overwrought. What exactly makes you think you know what my opinion of Jordan Peterson is? Don’t make unwarranted assumptions. Also, how is the use of an incomplete description and attempt to poison the well? Is everyone who writes about Jordan Peterson required to give a precise complete rendering of every word or action that he takes? Only sycophants expect such things. I have never seen, or at least have not often seen such hostile reviews of a book that has not even been written.If Jordan Peterson’s fans we’re so interested in facts and logic they would welcome such a book. I have a higher opinion of Jordan Peterson than you think, and perhaps even than you have. I think he is far superior to his fan base, at least where intellectual Integrity is concerned

          1. Way to attack the base audience your expecting to buy this book. This is exactly why people on the right can’t stand people like you, you think your shit doesn’t stink.

        2. Yes, they are ad hominem. They imply he is a bigot. They lay the framework to make the reader believe he is a bigot, and very falsely so.

        3. Read the Robinson piece: The Intellectual We Deserve.” If you still find ANYTHING of value in Peterson, an absurd and pathetic figure of no intellectual value, then you are in desperate need of cult deprogramming.

      2. He has never advocated for “enforced monogamy”, not once. At least not in the context Implied in the introduction . He has stated that a lot more goes into sexual encounters then the present narrative would have you believe- wouldn’t you agree?

      3. “Alternative pronouns ,no
        Enforced monogamy, yes”

        That is not an accurate description. Peterson has never campaigned against “alternative pronouns” nor for “enforced monogamy”. Perhaps “accurate” or “description” don’t mean what you think they mean…. But more likely you have never actually read his works, listened to his lectures, or done any biographical leg work. Watched a few “destroyed” clips and guessed at the rest?

      4. Are you kidding me? “He has been embraced by both the far-right and stuffy classical liberals…”
        That’s like me saying “Obama, the president embraced by both Antifa and social justice warriors.”
        It’s such a blatant mischaracterization. Not to mention that the far right hates Peterson, because he’s denounced them repeatedly. The article clearly paints Peterson negatively, which is ironic, because it claims to only go after his ideas, which they already misrepresented by saying “enforced monogamy: yes.”
        You’re not going to get an unbiased critique of JBP here, sorry.

        1. Please. Peterson has made one fawning tribute after another to Nazi lice including Faith Goldy, Lauren Southern, Gavin McGinnis, Ezra Klein, Tara McCarthy and on and on. Everyone knows where this kook stands.

      5. It completely missed the context in which his utterances were given. Implying he is anti-trans, and believes we should force ppl into marriage. That is as ad hominem as you get.

      1. Care to expand on that remark, or aee you satisfied that merely being able to write that sentence is proof of it’s truth value?

        1. JP is NOT a proponent of forced monogamy. He has dealt with this mischaracterization of his views on multiple occasions. If anyone would like to know what JP thinks, all they need to do is listen to the man. Apparently, these authors couldn’t be bothered.

        2. “Enforced monogamy: yes” is a very bad misrepresentation of his quote on the topic. It’s easy to find and very clear to understand. Yet again and again these “journalists” keep misrepresenting him on this.
          Enforced monogamy is, for example, if you find out your brother is cheating on his wife and you ask him to stop. That’s it. It has nothing to do with forcing women to do anything. The rest of the article is just a negative characterization of Peterson. Only “stuffy classical liberals” and far right people embrace Peterson? If you can’t see how biased that is, you’re probably biased yourself.

  2. I have worked in social services for 23 years in everything from child welfare to counseling abused women and children, and anyone who thinks there is not a pronoun war taking place orchestrated by the LGBTQ+ is seriously mistaken and very foolish. Major airlines are not using ladies and gentlemen in their greetings any longer, lest we offend the non – binary and gender fluid population, which by the way, is a delusion not rooted in any credible science – hormones and chromosomes do matter after all. Nurses are told to no longer say ” women” in the maternity ward, rather, say ” people”, as if men can bear children. In male bathrooms at colleges tampon machines have been placed to appease the pc crowd. My colleagues who work in child welfare told me they must now ask any children over 8 about their gender identity. How absurd! In Canada Bill 89 allows for the removal of children from their parents care at very young ages if they do not agree to put toxic puberty blockers into their children’s bodies. This is called, state sanctioned child abuse. Ask yourself this question why did Dr. Peterson become so insanely popular in such a short span of time? Is it because those of us who are inspired by him are all bigots….No, it’s because he points out the harsh truths of how the left has suppressed any type of criticism of its political ideologies which are rooted in an anti – science narrative that targets people who believe in biological essentialism. Really, 72 genders on Facebook since last count, that’s considered progress? An incessant and vengeful cancel culture that has taken birth and targets those who dare believe in biological essentialism. Yes, write the book….free speech is the bedrock of a democratic society and the more voices the better. However, please be honest and look deeper into Dr. Peterson’s lectures, his criticism’s of the far left and identity politics which is destabilizing our society. An acquaintance at Oxford tells me of efforts to abolish writings of ” cis gender white Christian males of privilege”. This includes the greatest literary giants from Blake to Chaucer. My friend tells me of emails sent to staff at banks in Canada advising people to state their choice of pronoun, and insurances companies are changing voicemails to a generic ” they are not able to take your call”. Again, more leftist lunacy. Children and young teen girls forced to share change rooms and bathrooms and boys who identify as girls, losing all female spaces where women once felt safe. Dr, Peterson is the antidote not the disease. For the record, I am a former leftist, social justice warrior and former feminist. It is the anti -science gibberish about gender and identity theory which is leading people from the left, not Dr. Peterson. I would advise the above authors to write a book about how it is possible to be non – binary, and where is the science to support such an erroneous hypothesis? Please write a book on why we have laws for children on when they can drink, drive, vote and even use a tanning bed, yet, suddenly they have cognitive maturity to decide that they are born in the wrong body and are ready to have puberty blockers administered to them at age 11. Nonsense!

    1. I want to know how these Orwelllian fascists get away with changing definitions of existing words in the Webster’s dictionary (get a paper copy and look up gender) and bully the psychologists who write the definitions for gender dysphoria where the terms have changed and the status of being a disoder has changed and there is now a note saying they have no evidence to back why it is changed.

  3. And why is Peterson not allowed to have his own thoughts & opinions, likes the “United” authors that feel the need to write about, with “Their” own opinions & thoughts, absolutely fn ridiculous. Perhaps in some way they feel threatened or just plain jealous as I suspect many are

    1. The word you intended is envious, not jealous. The writers appear envious of Peterson”s broad reach that their work is highly unlikely to match. Ditto for the academic work of Dr. Michael Rectenwald, who may be even more dangerous to progressivism than Peterson, because he is a reformed progessive himself. These thought leaders have found a contemporay antidote for progressivism and it is powerful medicine indeed. Conservatives will soon have young women and ethnic minorities speaking persuasively and honestly with the same voice. It resonates.

    2. Nobody is saying he can’t have his own thoughts and opinions buddy! And it’s everybodys right to challenge them. Sit down and shut up. You’re letting the side down.

    1. Jordan Peterson v. these four relative lightweights? Not really a fair fight . They should call for back up, or keep a clear path of flight back to their safe spaces.

      1. The old joke…a company knows they are in trouble when “60 Minutes” shows up in their lobby.
        An entertainment ‘reporter’ (note: not using journalist anymore…cause…well…find one!) knows they are in trouble when they have to interview Peterson.

      1. I mean it only takes about four lines in to realize they haven’t listened to JP at all and want to hold on to their thoughts of what he says instead of what he says.

        1. Only someone who is a hopeless JP fanboy would “realize” sych a thing based on the first four lines. JP was right about that Canadian pronoun law; that doesb’t make him right about everything else. I’m glad so many people feel they’ve learned something from JP; now learn how to learn something from those who respectfully disagree.

          1. Show me a single line in that piece where respect was shown, 4 academics writing a book launching a website and requesting a pool of resources to discredit an individual. More leftist madness. Where’s the debate the dialectic? Just libel, misrepresentation and ad hominem.

          2. Now you are guilty of the very thing they are being accused of. They are welcoming the opposing views of his supporters too. Read what they are saying and don’t cherry pick.

          3. There was no such thing as a “Canadian pronoun law”. He conflated a policy of the University he worked at and Bill C-16 and confused anyone who hadn’t bothered to read either at thinking there was such a law.

    1. As Peterson has mentioned, to have a proper discussion both sides have to completely understand one another, to absolutely understand why the ‘other side’ is presenting their arguments. I will wait for some reviews of said book to come out first before I will pick it up…only to fully understand ‘them’.
      Who knows…it may strengthen even more my impression of Peterson.
      “Shaw: Have reserved two tickets for opening night. Come and bring a friend if you have one.
      Churchill: Impossible to come to first night. Will come to second night, if you have on.”

  4. This is so sad. You can’t win on the debate stage, so gang up four-on-one in a one-sided self-masturbatory attack to make yourselves feel better. This book is going to backfire on these four in a profound way.

    1. How would you know? The book hasn’t even been written yet. All you know is that they’re ctiriquing your worship object. Appreciate JP all you want, just quit acting like a 14 year old groupie in the presence of a rock star.

    2. Whats all this 4 on 1 nonsense? Does it matter if the numbers are odd or even? They are approaching 4 different topics in the debate. And I’m pretty sure Peterson can hold his own against more than 1 individual. You’re view is one of a child. And the fact that you have 48 likes to your comment is rather worrying.

  5. The first sentence following the Jung quote shows you haven’t taken the time to listen to what Dr. Peterson has to say. Why even pretend, you’ve already shown your true colors.

    1. Care to expand on that, or are you satisfied that your declarative statement is self verfying? How does that 1st sentence not accirately, if somewhat incompletely, describe the acts and effects of JP? I think even JP would agree with it, with the caveat that it is an incomplete description.

  6. When you write things like this article/book you gotta think that with how popular Dr. Peterson is that most of the people already know the whole true story and can easily see through your word salad BS lol….what did you call the radical left? The ” contemporary left” lol

    1. Agree. The radical left is destabilizing society -their influence is seen everywhere in media, education, Government, art, policies and laws. We are now teaching children a radical LGBTQ1 agenda that teaches them anti – science gibberish like one can be non – binary and gender – fluid. The last I checked their were 72 genders on Facebook. Dr. Peterson is a sane voice in an insane world.

  7. I hope they do a good critique of Peterson, but Petersons ideas are not his own. They are the combination of all ideas from every major religion and philosopher through history, including socialism… so if you believe you are right and he is wrong, you assume that you are genuinely the very first correct person in history… its possible… so I cant wait to read it

  8. Well if there has ever been a more “blinders on- damn the torpedoes ” approach to criticism that doesn’t align with my own smugly egocentric political beliefs then this litany of herpetic hyperbole you call a book will be sure to remedy that foresight. The fact that Mr. Peterson runs counterintuitive to your pro/prescription for a tidy little world and the sheer amount of influence he has garnered for sharing these beliefs ought to be an indictment of some serious issues within your own political, personal, or social construct and the public’s general antipathy towards it. All of which is not to say that Jordan is infallible but rather that he may have his finger on your jugular and you hate it so naturally you must do everything to shore up the vulnerabilities. 4 scholars to pick apart one man’s ideas do not equate to you fixing your own dogma. The left’s fatal flaw is that they are so loud diagnosing the slaws in our culture and shrilly prescribing their own homeopathic snake oils that they cannot hear the vast majority of humanity grumbling in distrust and disgust. In short the medicine you tout for the wounds you so casually inflict on us tastes like shit and the very beast you have awaken to do your bidding now eyes you hungrily.

  9. This article admits that Peterson is a legitimate critic that needs to be taken seriously, but instead of considering whether or not he might be right, and your view is flawed, it just shows you would rather undertake writing a book to justify your pre-existing beliefs.

    1. Idiot – nobody writes a book in order to consider the possible wrongness of their own opinions, not even your beloved high priest and graven idol, JP. And JP would be the first to verify the truth of my 1st statement. Fanboys (and girls) are a bunch ofvembarasding slobberers.

  10. Jordan’s world view is not unique. If you have been living long enough you will know that western society lived by his proclamations for centuries. It seems post modernists have forgotten a lot. Now you are writing a book to counter attack him?

  11. I may go back and read but the first sentence misrepresents Peterson. His notoriety is not from ‘no to alternative pronouns’ but (for the millionth time) ‘No to the government mandating that you use the speech they demand’. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp or to be fair to. He has always claimed that personally he. Is inclined to call people he deals with by whatever pronoun they want but he will be damned if he will allow the government to dictate his speech.

    1. what makes you think that the first sentence was intended to be a comprehensive representation of his views? How could it be? This is what being a fanboy does to your brain.

      1. Oh come on. Stop it now. You’re being childish. It deliberately implies that Peterson is against using pronouns. Everybody can see that. Yes it’s not a comprehensive representation of Peterson’s views, but it was almost certainly a deliberate mis-interpretation of one of his views which leads anyone who is biased towards Peterson or indeed any neutral person who has the capacity to think independently, to assume that this book cannot be taken seriously.

  12. “how shall we say—unique worldview”
    The media still doesn’t get it. The only thing “unique” in this world is the tiny but very loud echo chamber of media outlets and academia. Just because you are louder than the rest of us does not make you more correct. Trump was not elected because he is a great leader or person. He was elected (I didn’t vote for him) because he was the only one listening. Clinton and the press labels at least 25% of the American public as deplorable after Obama made an idiotic comment about fly over country clinging to their God and their guns. Wages suck, cost of living keeps going up, the middle class is now a minority. Are their still racial tensions, homophobes, and sexists? Yes, and they need to be addressed. However, these are NOT the biggest problems facing the west. Trump being elected is a symptom of those in power ignoring their constituents. Wake up and kindly quit making excuses for the political elite. Dr. Peterson has provided hundreds of thousands of lost souls purpose and strength to live again. Please try doing real journalism and investigate the rampant corruption that is destroying the American dream for the next generation.

  13. Wow you guys sure are brave, going 4v1 against a guy who’s wife is currently dying of terminal cancer and whose currently withdrawing from toxic anti anxiety medication. I have my criticisms against the guy for sure, but jesus.

    1. I love how the proponents of logic and reason over facts and feelings cry as soon as a rebuttal of their cult leader is offered. “It’s not the right time, it might hurt him!” “Why four authors? That’s unfair!”

      1. One might reckon that the “facts” in “facts and feelings” would be more comfortable with its friends “logic and reason.” Warm, fuzzy feelings are rarely congenial with cold, hard facts :-)

        1. What? Hes saying that ‘logic’, ‘reason’ and ‘fact’ are cut from the same cloth. As opposed to ‘feelings’ which are subjective.

  14. I like Peterson and thus I employ his edict to find the truth in your critics’ arguments. Thusly, I am interested in a clear detailed Critique.

    However, I worry about 2 things.
    1) the authors seek to engage each facet independently and thus is not looking to engage Peterson’s message as a whole.
    2) Their critique is not limited to Peterson’s published works and unfairly dings him for linguistic short-cuts and idioms that are more a product of off-the-cuff speech rather than considered documented thought.

    Basically I hope they first steel-man his thoughts before tearing them down rather than piling just another straw-man debunking so common among the ideologically possessed.

    1. with regard to worry #(1), i think engaging with each facet independently may be necessary. the most persuasive critiques of Peterson i’ve read posit that he while he presents his ideas as a synthesis of various schools of thought to give them the appearance of academic rigor, he fails to correctly or completely understand and engage with those philosophies and concepts. if you want to understand the reason the table as a whole is shaky, sometimes you really do have to investigate each of its legs.

  15. I’m sure this book will have the same effect on the tens of thousands (that’s probably a low estimate) of people who listen to JP and have improved their lives because of him. Sounds like a great use of your time.

  16. Sounds like they want to engage in a political debate that Peterson doesn’t want to have, and by doing so demonstrate a psychological dysfunction that Peterson understands very well. Bottom line, the aim to save Progressive politics requires the diminution of popular scientists.

  17. I’m expecting that the neighbourhood bullies are out again, masquerading as intellectual pundits. Looking forward to a televised debate with the Gang of Four with JP

  18. I am a municipal maintanence worker in Toronto. Jordan Petetsons’ lectures and writing have been a major factor in my journey to stop making excuses for my self, finding sobriety and getting my finances in order.

    I don’t understand why some so called intellectuals have a problem with JP. In my opinion he is a fundamentally good person. He’s imperfect like we all are but only wants the best for people..And has helped thousands of people like myself.

    Best of luck with your book.

    1. Whatever & whoever contributes to this book they must acknowledge that they stand on a base of quicksand. They are no same, logical, science based arguments which refute what Joran is advocating. Your sophistry & fanciful nonsense is not welcome. Progressive? Progressing to what? Chaos!

  19. It is telling that it requires four left wing intellectuals to respond to one centre right (traditional liberal) intellectual

  20. Wait wait … so this entire article was marketing for the sale if an ANTI PETERSON BOOK? who the hell has time for something like that? I’m a Fan but I surely do not agree with everything he says, and I dont need an anti peterson book to point out flaws in his arguments. This is a bit silly if you ask me, but oh well.

  21. It’s funny how left wing intellectuals previously would not diegn to lower themselves into the murky waters generated by criticism of their esoteric ideologies. Peterson has coopted the power of relatable common truth and this has proven to be garlic to an intellectual power which does not believe in common objective truth. So good luck winning hearts and minds with your unrelatatable sermonizing.

    1. Very well put. If you ignore the political fog that surrounds him, Peterson is picking up where Jung left off – the power of relatable common truth as you say.

  22. 4 lame ass turds complaining about someone’s personal beliefs? If they had evidence I’d be more inclined to listen but all they spout is my feelings are hurt. Fuck yo feelings they can’t trump cold hard facts.

  23. More like trying to make money by writing about a popular character. They are desperate and hoping to make big money they even have his name on the title of their book. LOL

  24. I didn’t even make it past the intro. Peterson does not call for or support forced monogamy. To say that he does, you have to be ill informed, uninformed, stupid or a liar. He has specifically addressed the accusation many times. Did you folks watch any of his videos?

  25. Wow! Article on upcoming anti-Peterson book is filled to the brim with thoughtful, pro-Peterson comments. Oh Snap!!!

  26. Stopped reading after “enforced monogamy: yes.”
    This is just blatant and intentional misrepresentation. It’s so easy to check the context of his “enforced monogamy” quote, that anyone who misrepresents it is either lazy or incompetent.
    Enforced monogamy means shaming people who cheat on their partners, in order to stop the cheating. That’s it… When you catch your brother cheating on his wife and tell him to stop, that’s enforce monogamy. It has absolutely nothing to do with forcing women to do anything.
    Ultimately, this petulant hitpiece just hurts your credibility. I’m on the fence about Peterson, but when I read things like this, I think you either have no critical thinking skills or you’re a dishonest journalist.

  27. Jordan Peterson has helped innumerable people through his advocacy of finding meaning through challenge of being the best person you can be, but here we have 4 people who instead of trying to match or exceed Jordans good work instead attempt to destroy the good he has done. What does that say about these 4 people? All the hate you can muster for Jordan Peterson won’t make the world a better place to be.

    1. I’m a liberal, and completely agree with your comment. Professor Peterson isn’t radically right wing. He is cimpletely logical, and respectfully addresses the dangers of radically left ideologies. He also clearly addresses the dangers posed by the far right. Again, I am a moderate liberal, and in my opinion, those who despise Mr. Peterson do so not because he is incorrect, but because they wish he was.

      1. I like your last sentence “those who despise Mr. Peterson do so not because he
        is incorrect, but because they wish he was.” That is why he is disliked in a nutshell.

  28. Since when is the left at all interested in debating anyone on any serious issues. All I’ve seen from the left is the tyrannical fascist demonization of any viewpoint that doesn’t inherently 100% agree with what they believe, while at the same time calling the other side fascist.

  29. I would expect the book be split equally between all four authors, obviously. That is, unless one of the authors is a minority in which case xhe should recieve more attention in direct proportion to the victim-score their minorityship affords them. Should one author be a cis gendered caucasian Male his (ew) piece of the book should be redacted and replaced with an apology that’s written for him but he must later swear to have authored. The author listed first should obviously be a female, ethnic minority from humble beginnings or a non-binary ethnic minority from any socio-economic class. Should neither be available it’s imperative that two be found to ensure proper representation, unless one is found that self identifies as two in which case they will do nicely. All fonts must be used equally throughout the book (obviously) and the book must be written in all languages at once and alternate, word by word, for each with the exception of English which is a tool of the tyrannical patriarchy. The book will be sold online and in stores at a sliding scale based on income level where those with the greatest ability to afford it will be charged more to provide extra copies for those who can’t.

  30. What trash you’ve written here. It takes four people to gang up on one person to make some kind of point? You bafoons. The man just wants to help people get their acts together. He’s helped tens of thousands of people and you idiots just want to take him down because you’re utterly unhappy with your lives and jealous of the extraordinary impact that he’s made. You’re less than nothing.

  31. Tealdeer; we’re afraid our dogmatic ideology doesn’t stand up to criticism, so we wrote a book about our biggest critic where he cant defend himself or his ideas and instead interject our interpretation of him and his ideas. We dont want to debate him because we fear the outcome and cannot let our ideas be challenged in the open.

  32. I for one welcome the attempt. I hope the arguments are not based on falsehoods or misquotes and that they don’t collapse under a stiff breeze. It will make JP stronger.

    The alternative is yellow garbage capitalizing on popularity to make a quick buck, and nobody learns anything.

  33. It takes very little to reduce the left to absolute nonsense. It is meant to hoodwink lazy minds. Literally every aspect can be picked apart with hardly any effort. As for the audience, goes, A huge number of absolutely stupid people can get a lot done. That is all the left is, a mob of stupid people.

  34. Four “authors” are trying to gain fame by completely misrepresenting a psychology professor. No need to read this book; I can get more useful information from watching the movie, Clueless.

  35. Conrad Hamilton and Matt McManus, take your cocks out of each others mouths and go find a life worth living. You’re not fooling anyone with your nonsense.

  36. JP is not anti left. He simply is trying to point out that the left can also take it to the extreme and establish where the line is. Because if we don’t we can walk into another genocide as experienced in Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China. Rather than deal with this the left seem happy to attack his character. As if this will somehow diminish his argument. This is why the left in the USA is in such trouble in the first place and why they have no candidate that can touch Trump. Which is scary… Because if Trump is your opponent and you can’t beat him your position has to be seriously flawed. I’ll get the book just to read what Zizek has to say. He is an equally charismatic and insightful thinker. He also won the debate against JP in my opinion.

    1. Always HILARIOUS seeing Peterson’s cult filth accuse others of being attention whores, when their guru is the biggest attention whore in North America and has to make a new moron video every .08 seconds up until the moment he implodes from his own stupidity and winds up vomiting in a Russian dope house.

  37. The same people that would swear they are pro science are getting quite triggered over Peterson’s theories being subjected to pier review. Take your medicine you reactionary hypocrites. You want to be taken seriously here it is. Don’t start throwing a temper tantrum because your circle.jerk is being interupted. I used to be one of JPs followers until I took a single day to look into why his ideas are flat out moronic on most fronts. I suggest you do the same if you have a morsel of.intellectual honesty.

  38. It took FOUR of them to argue against Peterson’s work–in a book, nonetheless, so there is no opportunity for him to respond. Why don’t they just debate him instead? I think we know why.

  39. Some lefties jumping on the Dr Peterson money trail… hoping to carve a name for themselves with some sensationalist and biased complaining.
    One of the commentators in this comments section is clearly one of the authors, stirring that pot of controversy to promote their own book. Shameless.

  40. I appreciate this was written quite respectfully yet one cannot help but expect a riding on Dr. Peterson’s coattails of popularity. His best work and the main reason he has become so popular is a resounding message for the most important thing in our World – Family. No matter how many Authors gathered, you won’t ever win going up against the fundamentals of that.

    (I will not be revisiting this thread.)

    1. “His best work and the main reason he has become so popular is a resounding message for the most important thing in our World – Family. ”

      Interesting hypothesis. Is that why when his family needed him most, he fled to Russia for a quack treatment for dope addiction instead of tending to his ailing wife and obviously mentally ill daughter?

  41. Yeah, I am going to say NO.
    You leftist are done convincing us of your baseless arguments masquerading as modern science and fake compassion.
    I for one am exceptionally glad that I finally am free of your dangerous ideology.

    1. A follower of cult loon Jordan Peterson, currently languishing in a stupor due to his meat-only lunatic diet and quack treatment for dope addiction in Russia is going to lecture us about sound science!

      Oh goody!

  42. I enjoy many of JP lectures. Also discussions when opponents prove him right when the deny a difference between the sexes, plead for equality of outcome or just shout him down. So I am looking forward to your book as dialogue and exchange will move us forward.

  43. Completely disagree with the fundamental premise. There is absolutely nothing to take seriously in Jordan Peterson. He’s a dull con artist, full stop. Those in the scientific community just laugh at him.

    Recall that this is the guy who told Joe Rogan he went 25 consecutive days with absolutely zero sleep after overdosing on APPLE CIDER, the guy who claims there are GHOSTS in the trunk of his car (see H3 interview), the guy who insists that ancient Chinese, Egyptian and Hindu people knew the structure of DNA and depicted it in their paintings, the guy who made one outrageously clumsy blunder after another after another regarding evolution and nervous system development, also a climate denier based on the laughable horseshit of fellow con artists Bjorn Lomberg and Prager U.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.