On a different Jordan Peterson note, I saw a clip of him on Bill Maher. He challenges the liberal panel with a question about what they are going to do about the divided country. He says he agrees Trump is a problem, but even if he gets booted out of the White House, he asked how these liberals are going to help heal the country. The video includes subtitles by the YouTuber that pointed out how they never answered the question.
My answer, it's not their question to answer. Sure, we can all be nice to crappy people and show them how to act like grown ups. But we've been giving them better health care and trying to help them improve their schools although that's mostly a local issue. I don't control comedians so I can't tell them to stop mocking people who vote against their own economic interests. Jordan is very good at asking questions as if there should be answer, but he ignores the context and doesn't respond when asked to clarify.
I learned about Peterson from "Real Time" as I watch its bits on Youtube. I really like Bill's style, he is well informed and can grip certain topics from both sides, while still clearly describe his own position.
They spoke how Peterson got attention, and it was related to transgenderism on universities .Peterson is a psychologist. I think he still perceives transgenderism as a form of psychological delusion, and his training tells him to assure the patient about reality.
From the start of the discussion i have an impression he maintains his training as well. He intejects Matt and confronts his thought before its actually completed. Its slightly coercive approach. Later he provides tons of different information to explain his position while adding LOTs of context. But i found interesting to hear a psychologist to say that "conscionsness is mysterious". I found it complicated, but thats due my previous work on AI, but not mysterious.
It seems to me that Peterson keeps getting back to poetry, metaphores and his training as psychologist. He uses that as a way how to explain things. Less logic, more emotions, better impact within the discussion. Thats the way how certain religious texts are written.
Peterson has little to no idea about the "golden rule". His statement about the axioms as a religion tells more about him, than about objective truth.