This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Jordan Peterson deserved it.
You may be aware that an Ontario court recently ruled that Jordan Peterson is required to undergo social media training. This was discussed in a previous CWR, and the general vibe from that discussion was that this was a political attempt to silence or punish Peterson for unpopular political opinions, but I disagree. Instead, I think Peterson genuinely crossed the line with regard to the professional conduct required of him.
First, this argument rests on the belief that it's ethical for certain professions to impose limits on practitioners' freedom of speech. We've decided that certain professions require some degree of public trust and accountability. We expect lawyers to provide correct legal advice, auditors and adjustors to provide unbiased reviews of the facts, and physicians to treat any patient equally, regardless of their personal beliefs. However, we establish limits on this, generally agreeing that these professionals are individuals and are free to express their opinions when it does not cause direct harm to their profession, their clients, or the public at large.
Accepting this, the College of Psychologists of Ontario, of which Peterson is a member, is responsible and obligated to investigate and act on complaints against its members when acting as a clinical psychologist. Now the question is whether or not Peterson made these statements as a clinical psychologist, and whether or not his statements violated professional standards. Specifically:
The Complaints
From the court's decision, which I highly recommend you read yourself, these are the complaints against Peterson:
The Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee ("ICRC"), in their investigation, determined that some of these complaints were valid, and others were not. Specifically, they determined that statements a and c, while provocative and inflammatory, could be interpreted as innuendo, a joke, or parody, and did not rise to the level of "disgraceful, dishonorable or unprofessional" conduct.
They argue that the remaining statements do, but this is where I disagree.
The most relevant complaints are b. and f, and including the other statements in their decision cheapens their reasoning. By focusing on the more subjective criteria of "disgraceful" and "dishonorable", they miss the low-hanging fruit of "unprofessional".
Between statement B and F, Peterson disparages a former client as "vindictive", dismisses their complaints as a "pack of lies", and refers to a fellow practicing physician as "criminal" for performing an otherwise legal surgery.
Regardless of his political opinions, these statements seem to easily pass the standard of "unprofessional" conduct you would expect of a psychologist.
Past Complaints, and Aggravating Factors.
Peterson has been registered with the college since 1999, and he's no stranger to complaints. To date, this coaching is the first action taken by the ICRC against Peterson with the most recent investigation closing in 2020 with no action taken. 2020 was arguably a "hotter" year for the culture war and the college likely would have had more political cover for any sanctions. So what materially changed?
Peterson's counsel describes him as "a prolific author, podcaster, and YouTube content producer who maintains an active social media presence. In his social and political commentary, Dr. Peterson is often colorful and controversial.” Arguing in effect, that Peterson the social and political commentator is not Peterson the clinical psychologist. And I think this is a fair point because in the conclusion from the 2020 investigation that resulted in no action, the ICRC noted:
In 2020, Peterson's Twitter bio made no mention of his being a clinical psychologist. Peterson, in addressing this at the time, stated he "opted not to advertise this title on his Twitter". However, in 2022, this changed, he added "Clinical psychologist" to his Twitter bio.
Since Peterson effectively stopped practicing in 2016, this was a position of contention by the ICRC. Peterson, in responding to concerns that he continued to publicly identify as a clinical psychologist stated:
If we accept Peterson's reasoning that he continues to practice in a broad and diffuse manner in public - it stands to reason that his primary interactions with the public via his Twitter and podcast appearances should be examined under the lens of the standards expected of a clinical psychologist. And even if you don't agree with this argument, Peterson himself seems to agree based on his rejection of the board's recommendation
Peterson's Counter Proposal
In rejecting the board's recommendation for social media training due to the recurrence risk of unprofessional tone and language, Peterson argues that any social media coaching would be redundant - as he had already taken steps to address these concerns.
I'll quote the relevant section from the decision:
The ICRC, to little surprise, found that his business associates, close family members, and "various professionals", many of whom would have a financial incentive not to restrict Peterson's brand of controversy, were not capable of being independent, and would not examine his behavior through the lens of his obligations as a member of the College.
The Conclusion, and Why You Should Care.
At this point, I've laid out why I think Peterson's statements crossed the line of professional behavior, and why the board was fully justified in taking action against him. Along with outlining his counter-proposal which feels particularly poor.
I'm under no illusion that "social media coaching" is anything but laughably ineffective. Peterson's brand is controversy, and he's unlikely to take any serious advice to heart. In my opinion, the College is already providing Peterson with incredible leeway that would not be granted to less inflammatory members, and his framing of this dispute as a suppression of free speech instead of a professional dispute is incredibly hypocritical for someone who spends so much time pointing this out in others.
But the true nefarious reason I spent time on this write-up, whether you agree with my conclusion or not, is because I didn't see -any- of this discussed previously. As someone whose opinion differs strongly from the average expressed here, I've grown spoiled by the high-effort discussion this community normally generates. It was disheartening to see a culture war topic engaged with so heavily without a cursory discussion of the opposing view.
In general, I like Peterson, though he's been going a bit too far into right wing punditry for my tastes, and I'm not fond of the Daily Wire, which he has recently allied himself with. He mentioned going to the training and recording all of it, which does sound mildly entertaining.
It makes some sense for the College of Psychologists of Ontario to want to distance themselves from him, and he really does seem to have turned into more of a pundit or preacher lately, which is probably somewhat at odds with being a psychologist. In that vein, maybe public money shouldn't be going to psychology, and the courts should tell them to handle the situation themselves. Go ahead and excommunicate the heretic, that's their own business, but they shouldn't receive public funds from the state run healthcare or university system.
Whether B is a problem or not depends on whether or not the person in question was in fact vindictively spreading a pack of lies. If they are, I would rather they were called on it than that it was politely obfuscated behind a wall of disclaimers. If they aren't or it's uncertain, then yes, that's bad on his part.
On F, Peterson phrased that poorly, he should have been more careful (as he likes to say he usually tries to be) and said that what the doctor did should have been criminal. Maybe he should have said evil instead? But I doubt the exact phrasing is really why the College of Psychologists was upset about it.
Ultimately it's probably fine if Peterson goes all in on his transformation to being a secular pastor. Evidently the demand is there, and he's hardly able to engage in professional psychologist duties already. He was talking with Jonathan Pageau the other day about working on fairy tales. I just hope he doesn't go too all in on constantly complaining about #CurrentThing, which tends to ruin that kind of work, even if from the conservative side.
I mean I can understand them having pull if he were doing this stuff in his practice and telling an environmentalist patient under his care that “there are too many poor kids and F the poor kids there are too many of them anyway” or anything else on the list. I could even see there being a blanket rule of not becoming a public celebrity while being a practicing psychologist. If what he’s doing is clearly harming his ability to care for his patients, they’re right to step in. On the other hand this is not only not things he’d done in his practice, but they’re plainly his personal political opinions and not even said in the vein of “as a psychologist, I think that doctor is a criminal,” or something along those lines.
I don’t think professional organizations should have the power to police every private statement you make.
To be clear, he was mocking the attitude of “they are just poor kids so who cares.” That is, the complaint missed the obvious satire.
But all the licensing board has to do is pretend they missed it too, and since they're the ones in charge that everyone else defers to, the complaint stands.
Yet it does show how the board isn’t making a principled decision but a political one. Once you’ve established that it should really make you question whether JP “deserves” it.
It doesn't, though. People just defer to the board's decision. They will accept that it was unacceptable to say even as they realize it was saracastic. The idea that a final authority might have decided wrongly is something most people will do extreme mental gymnastics to avoid.
Is that true? See Dobbs
Of course it is man, it's part of the foundation of the 'pretending to be retarded' political strategy that dominates modern discourse.
More options
Context Copy link
Abortion is more or less the one exception, the one place where the right wing normies will not accept authority and will not accept a "victory" in name but a defeat in practice (like Bruen and SFFA v Harvard and a million others).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's your argument refuting itself.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see the problem here? There's a good chance that the client was vindictive, and their complaints were based on lies. As long as he doesn't reveal any of his clients' personal information, there's no issue with him expressing his views on these matters.
Obviously he's using "criminal" in this case to pass moral judgment on the physician's conduct, rather than making an accusation about actual illegalities. Censuring Peterson for this statement comes off as an attempt to establish this physician's conduct, and the medical establishment's treatment of gender issues more broadly, as being beyond ethical scrutiny - which is something that I certainly cannot accept.
For the most part I disagree with the OP's post, but I do basically agree with the idea that describing someone as "criminal" is defamatory in a way that describing them as "evil" isn't.
On the other hand, this standard is probably applied inconsistently (hard to imagine a psychologist getting into trouble for describing Trump as a criminal, even if Trump had never been convicted of any crimes).
I don't think this is a desirable standard.
Imagine if a psychologist in the 1960s was disciplined for describing another psychologist who performed lobotomies as a "criminal."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Reading the complaints, most of them are him giving personal opinions. As far as I can tell, none of it is advice given in a professional capacity (as a clinical psychologist do this or don’t do that) with the exception of him talking about a client and calling a doctor criminal.
The statement in response to the overpopulation guy is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the position. If you’re convinced there are too many people on earth, you’re perfectly able to reduce the population by one (yourself) rather than advocate that others shouldn’t be born. Taken with Peterson’s other statements about climate change policy, the “it’s just poor kids” line is almost certainly sarcastic. Peterson’s positions on climate policy are generally that the needs of the climate are being taken from the poor both locally and globally in the form of increased poverty and decreased options. In short the rest are political opinions, and obviously ones the cathedral doesn’t like. So the question then becomes are professionals allowed to have opinions and express them publicly?
Certainly, provided they are consonant with the opinions of the regulating body. As I've said before, once you get a license that you need, in general the licensor owns you; they can do anything they want to you by threatening to pull your license, and there's not a damn thing you can do because the license is a privilege and not a right, and the licensing authority generally gets to interpret its own regulations freely even if that interpretation is contrary to the plain words of the regulations. The main exception in the US is non-commercial drivers licenses, and that's because the courts generally have given them a quasi-right status, so they can only be pulled for things mentioned in legislation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm reading N.S. Lyon's magnificent piece, The China Convergence, and I'm reminded of one of the distinctions he makes. Rule by law versus rule of law. In the latter the law itself is the arbiter of justice. It has no biases not contained in its words, neutral parties merely apply the law to the facts and a result nearly produces itself.
In the former, rule by law, the law is a tool for the ruling class to enforce its will. Exceptions in both directions are expected. It's the ruling class that gave the law its power, and they can take it away or modify it as they see fit.
More options
Context Copy link
As a member of a professional association, there is a sense where I can see where they are coming from. I also feel like there is no way if he was using the same invective against say, Nazis or Donald Trump (like calling him an odious thing, or saying "Not Beautiful!" About him), that he would be in this situation. In fact, I've seen him say pretty rude things about anons on twitter (much to the consternation of them) but that didn't make it into the complaints...
However, it comes with the territory. If you want to be a member of the College you gotta pay the jizya, which is to say, cool it. I do enjoy the irony in complaint a, which could likely become an official government recommendation (under MAID) when/if they extend it to mentally ill people. It may literally become a College practice to tell patients that "they are welcome to leave at any time"
More options
Context Copy link
Quack doctor accused by quack doctors' association of engaging in wrong form of quackery.
Why is this in civil court? Why does Peterson care about being associated with these hacks? Does he think having "clinical psychologist" in his bio helps his credibility?
I suppose if we accept the premises that you've laid out then you have a valid argument. Criticism of The Lancet Letter surely caused "direct harm" to the professions of virology and public health, but I would certainly say that rank-and-file members of professional organizations have the right, if not the obligation, to speak out if they feel the leadership is wrong. The tail is wagging the dog here. The organizations obtain credibility from having members who are professionals, professionals don't obtain their credibility from being members of the organization.
Loved the first part and is my view of psychologists.
And for a public intellectual actually having the clinical thing helps him. Or maybe I’ve spent too much time on Reddit and seen the show me your experts arguments. Without the clinical thing he’s just some podcaster with a bigger following.
He’d still have a phd in psychology and have been professor at several universities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Concerning C:
"The same complainant took issue with this statement of Peterson’s: “Well, it’s just poor children and the world has too many people on it anyways.” Rogan had replied, “You’re being facetious.”
In his communications to the college, Peterson referred to this comment. “I respectfully submit that anyone truly listening to that podcast and not merely focusing for a moment on that statement out of context (and who has bothered to familiarize themselves at all with anything else I have ever said before leveling such an accusation) would note instantly that I do not for a second believe and never have that ‘it’s just poor children’ or ‘that the world has too many people on it.’
“The comment was aimed ironically exactly at those who make such claims and I am frankly rather amazed that the ICRC [the college’s Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee] would make such an error in accusing me of propagating those views.”"
From https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/jordan-peterson-reveals-details-of-regulatory-colleges-complaints-against-him-4967732?saved=0?welcomeuser=1
More options
Context Copy link
There is a finite amount of time and energy in any given lifetime but there are virtually infinite ways to spend them - choose wisely
More options
Context Copy link
I don't agree with the ruling. I believe the board has taken the idea of acting professionally while undertaking the duties of a clinical psychologist (eg when dealing with clients) and selectively applied it as a requirement to act professional at all times in the public sphere. This would effectively restrict the opinions and personalities of psychologists outside of their work if it was applied broadly (which of course it won't be). As Barron2024 has said, this is lawfare.
Peterson isn't helping himself by being a firebrand which will continue to attract these kind of attacks, but that doesn't mean that this type of takedown is fair or just.
Edit:
I don't agree with this either. I think Peterson was trying to negotiate a resolution and you've taken this as a sign of acknowledgment of guilt.
More options
Context Copy link
Just Google “psychology white people” or something and see that these sorts of rules are never applied fairly. This is just more lawfare against non-progressive people/causes and you don’t need to read the particulars of the case to realize it.
This is the correct takeaway. The best response is not to hope that Jordan Peterson wins his case against the board. The best response is to realize that the entire profession is corrupt and based on pseudoscience. We should strive to disengage from it and fight to defund it wherever possible.
More options
Context Copy link
Quite right.
Defining autonomy and dignity in this case is 90% of the battle. We could imagine the chad Peterson thundering back 'No YOU'RE the one who's sabotaging the autonomy and dignity of men and women, creating and encouraging transgenderism, irreversible mutilations, inflicting wretched half-lives upon children by deception and manipulation. I'VE defined the words, now you are to pay homage to ME, paying for your own re-education and attending hearings where you will show homage to MY beliefs." Yet in reality they'd probably get him for a hate crime of some sort if he said that, because of the balance of power.
I think he would've been wiser to defy the ruling and counterattack, calling them politically motivated. He has plenty of money, no need to practise psychology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link