Credibility is earned through a variety of means in our world. There is no true free meritocracy of ideas. A theory about the multi-dimensionality of our universe proposed by a Physics Nobel Prize winner is going to have automatically more credibility and be more worthy of deep consideration and debate, than a Physics Professor, than a new Physics PhD, than a Physics undergrad, than a non-Physics Science students, than a non-Science university student, than a high school drop out, than a homeless person on the street.
Jordan Peterson is treated by his fans as someone with explicit credibility on the domain of human society and its problems and solutions. In my analogy they treat his ideas on string theory as somewhere between a Physics Professor and a Nobel Prize winner.
When in point of fact, his ideas and credentials lie closer to a 1st year English major talking about how the "Universe vibrates" right before they tell you about the healing crystals they bought on eBay. If you squint enough that may sound like String Theory, but it's not the same.
Jordan Peterson builds his entire philosophy on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. Note, I didn't say he basis his personal ethics on these values - which would be perfectly valid, but rather he believes that this is the only possible way for society to function. That means he is fundamentally, militantly, faithfully against gay marraige, against women in the workplace (he doesn't say he's AGAINST it, but he asks questions that inherently suggest he does not believe in gender equality), and is pro societal hierarchies - within the family, and across it.
All of his other "arguments" - about wages, employment, IQ, etc, are all built on top of this foundation, that I believe is fundamentally broken.
So yes, I will absolutely challenge any idea from Jordan Peterson by default based on his lack of credibility, just as I will challenge any idea about the origins of the universe from a hippie suggesting I rub some quartz crystals on my temples to get in touch with Gaia.
Jordan Peterson is treated by his fans as someone with explicit credibility on the domain of human society and its problems and solutions. In my analogy they treat his ideas on string theory as somewhere between a Physics Professor and a Nobel Prize winner.
When in point of fact, his ideas and credentials lie closer to a 1st year English major talking about how the "Universe vibrates" right before they tell you about the healing crystals they bought on eBay. If you squint enough that may sound like String Theory, but it's not the same.
Jordan Peterson builds his entire philosophy on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. Note, I didn't say he basis his personal ethics on these values - which would be perfectly valid, but rather he believes that this is the only possible way for society to function. That means he is fundamentally, militantly, faithfully against gay marraige, against women in the workplace (he doesn't say he's AGAINST it, but he asks questions that inherently suggest he does not believe in gender equality), and is pro societal hierarchies - within the family, and across it.
All of his other "arguments" - about wages, employment, IQ, etc, are all built on top of this foundation, that I believe is fundamentally broken.
So yes, I will absolutely challenge any idea from Jordan Peterson by default based on his lack of credibility, just as I will challenge any idea about the origins of the universe from a hippie suggesting I rub some quartz crystals on my temples to get in touch with Gaia.