Listen now | In an episode months in the making, Krystal Kyle & Friends’s Kyle Kulinski is joined by psychologist and political commentator Dr. Jordan Peterson. For Kyle, it’s the “perfect situation” of getting to speak with someone whose work in psychology and philosophy has been particularly interesting to him — but who differs from him significantly on most political issues. They’re here for a back-and-forth on everything from Twitter controversies to Trump, economics, liberal versus conservative mindsets, and interpreting the results of Kyle’s personality quiz.
He’s not wrong about the trans issues with kids and the surgeries though, it’s a slippery slope and I don’t think a child feeling they are another gender is a valid enough reason to go into something as drastic as surgery for a child that’s brain hasn’t developed enough.
I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Hearing other lefties is great but I love hearing the other perspective especially when it comes with rationale and data. Didn’t agree with everything but thought it was fair. Learned quite a bit.
It seems like jordan has some lefty tendencies but he’s so focused on hating the crazy lefties that he ends up saying some shit i dont think he even believes. Him and kyle probably agree on a lot. Jordan is like a smarter rave dubin. “The far left is so crazy, i guess I’ll just be a right winger even though i disagree on most of the issues”. I’d like to see jordan talk to more “anti-woke” lefties like big dick kyle
Great job from both of you, well done Kyle & Jordan.
Psychology is his wheelhouse, but philosophy no, plus he injects too much religion into his philosophical discussions, he’s also a gish galloper and uses circular reasoning to sound like he is making a point and a good majority of the time he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about outside of his wheelhouse, especially when he talks about Marx and uses the phrase “Cultural Marxism”, it’s cringeworthy, that doesn’t have anything to do with Marx, he keeps talking about free market capitalism, but a truly free market has never existed, that’s a myth.
We're not advancing much in this world with Jordan Peterson's views. He's old school to the point of being painful. He almost posits that capitalism is the ultimate way of being and nothing else matters. So all in all his take on 'free market' is the only way. It's more complicated than that. There are other ways between State and pure Free market. There is a possibility of coops and other ways of organizing a society.
Good lord this guy has no understand of Marx. Also "we hold these truths to be self-evident... all men are created equal" was in opposition to the concept of the divine right of kings. It was a rebellious, secular notion at the time.
JBP thinks Marx was complaining about inequality (that's false), and that capitalism was criticized by the gospels- 1400 years before capitalism even existed. The man is so arrogant, he makes loud proclamations without basic information.
None of these two people ever read Marx and yet they proceed do evaluate his ideas as if they know what they're doing. That's American intellectual culture in a nutshell for you.
I never realized that bundling mortgages of different risk levels into one tradable security was a genuinely well-meaning – although not completely well-thought-out – attempt to provide more not that well-off people with access to quality housing that unexpectedly backfired. I was under the impression that it was all about leveraging financial speculations beyond any limits without raising any red flags from a risk management standpoint. And that was the case from Day 1. Would anyone with actual knowledge in the field and practical experience in financial and real estate markets – who additionally happens to be a person of integrity :) – be able to validate Jordan’s interpretation?
It’s also a little surprising that Kyle didn’t press his guest on the Assange case with regard to the freedom of speech topic. Jordan talks about this issue all the time but I don’t think he mentioned Assange even once. Moreover, he posted his another teary-eyed video where he praised the situation with freedom of speech in the UK right in the middle of the “legalized lynching” (as Chris Hedges put it) of someone who is probably the most relevant figure in modern history as far as the issue is concerned…
But Mr. Peterson is right about one thing – decentralization is key…
Longtime follower and fan of both of you, Krystal and Kyle. New subscriber though. So excited to finally be here and support your phenomenal work! <3
I hope this long ass post doesn’t come across as a gotcha or anything of the sort. I’m just a leftie gay guy who attended the University of Toronto and always found Peterson to be a skilled orator who cloaks his reactionary politics in sophistry. As a behavioural neuroscientist who now teaches at the same university, I find his use of the DSM and clinical frameworks as a tool for gatekeeping people’s identities to be intellectually lazy and/or dishonest.
Some of my immediate thoughts regarding the interview:
1. Kyle, you had a very admirable degree of patience throughout the interview. Not surprised by this but still worthy of note. Mad respect to you, man.
2. At some point, Peterson said: "For every one person of that sort that we hypothetically save, we doom a thousand more as a consequence of confusion."
He also said: "It's absolutely and definitely the case that we've doomed thousands of kids to brutal and mutilating surgery and premature sterility."
Peterson speaks of a so-called social contagion/mass hysteria of gender confusion. You rightly called this a moral panic. Where is the evidence that anything resembling a catastrophe is occurring? That there's more people (openly/publicly) identifying as LGBTQ nowadays? That there's more people getting gender affirming surgeries than ever before? Those are the only pieces of 'evidence' Peterson cites to support his argument that gender affirming surgeries cause much more harm than good. He's basically saying that gender affirming interventions (and support for said interventions) is harmful because now there's more gender affirming surgeries. It's a circular argument: supporting and normalizing gender affirming surgery is bad because it leads to more gender affirming surgery which is totes catastrophic. In essence, it is a statement based entirely on a subjective revulsion to the notion of gender affirming surgery - or as he calls it, genital mutilation. Frankly, that choice of language/articulation is consistent with my characterization that his argument rests solely on a juvenile puritanical sense that there is an 'ick factor' to gender affirming surgery. Show me the data that warrant this high degree of alarmism...
3. "The clinical literature is clear: 80% of kids with gender dysphoria identify as homosexual when they mature. That means the vast majority of people who are being converted surgically are gay. How is that an advantage to the gay community?"
People can be trans and gay. They're not mutually exclusive. The fact that there is some overlap does not in any way mean that transness equates to confused gayness. Also, people's identities aren't static. Some people can and do question their sexuality and gender for years (e.g., coming out as a gay man and later coming out as a trans woman who is attracted to men). This shouldn't be shocking nor hard to wrap one’s head around: if you've always felt an incongruence between your assigned sex and gender identity in a society that is implicitly and explicitly telling you that you should feel no such thing, then figuring out whether or not to reconcile that incongruence is not going to be easy. In a similar vein, figuring out what conclusion to draw from that incongruence and what the next steps are for you to feel at peace with yourself is not going to be simple. In those circumstances, people's self-concept and self-identity can evolve. It's not always a linear process. To the untrained (read: cisgender) eye that may seem like reason to question the validity of people's identity (i.e., clearly you're confused and that confusion must mean that you're, in reality, a cis person in need of guidance. It is your confusion that needs addressing, rather than anything related to your gender or sex). But as you suggested, Kyle, anyone who values personal liberty and has a shred of humility would likely defer to the person since they're likely to be a better judge of who they are. Peterson made no compelling counter-argument here.
Another major assumption Peterson makes is that transness = gender dysphoria. But people can be trans and not have gender dysphoria. This is consistent with what the DSM-5 says, which one would think Peterson would take seriously given his dogmatic obsession with clinical guidelines and diagnostic criteria. Gender dysphoria is not a requisite feature of transness.
4. Peterson also says: "What used to be repressed? - first of all, they're not a community. No, neither I understand it nor you. First of all, they're not a community. That's just a catchphrase. It's a buzzword. "
The notion that there is no such thing as an LGBTQ community is laughable and honestly embarrassing. Was he making a semantic argument? I don't know but that is the most charitable interpretation I can come up with and I think that's a testament to the poor quality of his argumentation. I'd concede if his argument was that there is not ONE community but several (e.g. lesbians and gay men tend to socialize in separate circles, on average). But the notion that we have no community is so far removed from reality. Nevermind the countless subcultures, neighborhoods, establishments, art forms, vocabulary that can be directly traced to LGBTQ people. Yass hunty werq those backrolls the house down boots mawma, okurr. Unless you are part of the community or consume queer media, you will likely find the above lingo a tad foreign/novel. Twink. Bear. Chaser. Reading. Shade. Ballroom culture. Bathhouse culture and etiquette. These are all things that stem from various LGBTQ subcultures and continue to be relevant primarily to those who are LGBTQ. When people experience years of structural discrimination, they bandy together and form community. We queers may not be a monolith but our marginalization is rooted in rigid conceptions of gender and sexuality. We have a common enemy: cis-heteronormativity.
Also, I love that he started out challenging the idea that we've experienced repression and then proceeds to argue that there is no LGBTQ community. Perhaps he realized that arguing that we haven’t experienced repression was a losing battle. Not sure where he was going with that one.
5. Peterson also argues that the banning of conversion therapy is catastrophic because it has made it illegal/impossible for therapists to have an honest discussion about identity with their clients. Again, this is bullshit. People can still talk about their identities. Conversion therapy is a very specific thing and it is wholly separate from discussions with a therapist about things like gender dysphoria or questioning one's sexuality. This is another instance where Peterson promotes baseless alarmism. People defer to him because he's a clinical psychologist. It is an unfortunate case of the appeal to authority fallacy.
6. Peterson argues that the Abraham Accords warrant a Nobel Peace Prize. The same Accords that emboldened Israel to further oppress Palestinians. Who are the accords really good for? This, to me, is one of several instances where Peterson demonstrates that he isn't the heterodox thinker that he is often painted as. His positions on most issues are quite predictable. He just delivers his arguments in a manner that seems more evidence-based. But more often than not, the substance of what he's saying is textbook right winger shit.
Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the episode!!! Just wanted to share my two cents. Thanks again for the great content <3
Respect. If you want to talk to Jordan again, tell him you want to drill down on this question of when the Left goes too far. And also I think if you have a conversation with him beforehand about wanting to be succinct on issues and get to the next one, and that you are going to have to interrupt him, that he will be man enough to understand his failing when it comes to ranting and rambling. Even huge fans of his are frustrated by his inability to stick on the point and be brief. He also doesn't let other people talk, and again he's had this criticism from his supporters, so I think he'd take that well. Also, he needs a smart, sharp person of good will from the left to have reasonable rational conversations with him. You'd actually be doing him a favor - he can be his own worst enemy - and I say this as a huge supporter of his.
In answer to Peterson's rhetorical question related to the prevalence of conversion therapy: "How many times did that happen in the last 20 years?" researchers have found that approximately 698,000 LGBTQ2 adults in the U.S. have received conversion therapy at some point in their lives, including about 350,000 who were (mostly) coerced into receiving it as adolescents. (This data is from the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law and their methodology is explained in detail on their website.) No one who grew up in an evangelical or fundamentalist Christian environment would question these numbers....I'm 71-years old and I remember hearing testimonials from gay man who had been successfully converted back when I was in my early twenties (of course, what got less attention is when these conversions failed). It's common practice in evangelical Christian circles and has been for a very long time. Admittedly, this is a small number given the total population of the US and I'm not sure that I'm comfortable legislating something like this despite the harm it causes...I just don't know. Finally, without offering an opinion on anti-conversion laws, I'm confused about why Dr. Peterson asserted that these laws forbid therapists from discussing a client's identity during the course of their therapy. Is he unhappy that a therapist can no longer use talk therapy to facilitate a conversion in their sexual orientation? Not sure, but it seemed to me as if he was confusing the issue.
I wish Kyle had talked to Peterson about his thoughts on climate change and what we should do.
Two legends collide.
I just hoped you'd pull him more to the left.
This was both enlightening and sad. Peterson used to be a voice I gravitated towards. What he's turned into post addiction and rehab is much different but sounds just similar enough to be considered the same.
Dr. Peterson, the reluctantly famous academic usually struck to his field of study, wasn't afraid of new information, would come up with new ideas on the fly, and was fun to watch debate people. Jordan Peterson the left bashing pundit moves the goal posts a lot and seems to have forgotten how to say"I don't know".