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.
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
More options
Context Copy link