SIO10: Jordan B. Peterson is Just Wrong (or lying…or both).

This week we listened to Waking Up with Sam Harris and as big fans we were very disappointed in how he handled his interview with Jordan B. Peterson.  So in this episode Thomas goes over exactly why that is, in the hopes that this message reaches Sam.

We also have some more great listener voicemails, thank you so much for all the great feedback and keep it coming!
Find the record of Bill C-16 from the Canadian Parliament here
Find the Ontario Provisions Peterson mentioned here
Find Brenda Cossman’s article rebutting Peterson’s Claims here
Some even argue that C-16 doesn’t go far enough! here
And VICE has a pretty good breakdown of everything here

Leave us a Voicemail: (916) 750-4746!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/seriouspod

Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/seriouspod

For comments, email thomas@seriouspod.com

Questions, Suggestions, Episode ideas? email: haeley@seriouspod.com



Direct Download

Leave a Reply

43 Comments on "SIO10: Jordan B. Peterson is Just Wrong (or lying…or both)."

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
St. Ralph
Guest
Give it a couple of years. We’ll look back at this time as the “luxury years” when personal pronoun preference was a thing and refusal to acknowledge it could assume the proportions of a tragedy. In the next few years, things are going to get a LOT worse here in Trumpistan. When Trump starts “freezing out” sanctuary cities, as he has promised to do, and deportation squads start rounding people up and sending them to camps for “processing,” personal pronoun preferences are going to assume a more realistic place on most people’s list of priorities. You really need to listen… Read more »
Baller14
Guest

Beautiful comment-imagery on the estuary line there, lol

Tom Noggins
Guest
I strongly suggest paying stronger attention to Peterson (his lectures, not his appearances on podcasts) if you think he is that kind of professor. Or, to the podcast with Harris again, if you really think that Harris “just wanted to get past the pronoun issue and get on to more philosophical discussions.” Peterson suggested several times that they agree to disagree about the truth thing, but Harris wouldn’t let it slide. Harris wasn’t arguing for pragmatism. Pragmatists don’t argue for ontological truth. They argue that we are too limited to know more than whether something is “true enough” or not,… Read more »
Noelle
Guest

I like what you pointed out about Peterson having major biases but he explicitly states in his philosophy the opposite of what you accuse him of … he says the only “real” thing is pain because you can’t be neutral about it no matter how hard you try – you believe your pain when you experience it or see it in others unless you spiritual bypass it or are numbed in your heart. In this way he says nihilists lose footing.

Me
Guest

Whack job? Why?

Danz
Guest

Lately your tone changed, and the whole show seems more toxic. We are approaching buzz feed level here. I think the ecochamber effect is getting to you. From being balanced and logical, your tone / atmosphere of the show is becoming more Eli like – Devisive, Accusatory, One sided, and most of all too much hyperbole lately.

Jon
Guest

I disagree wholeheartedly. What about this podcast was hyperbolic or insular? It was absolutely accusatory, but I think that’s needed when Sam Harris is giving his blanket endorsement to a conspiracy theorist like Peterson.

Ahuman
Guest

This seemed like a pretty fair take on the discussion. Which points that Thomas made are you disputing? Or are you just butthurt that Harris isn’t perfect?

Wayward Atheists Podcast
Guest
Wayward Atheists Podcast

I had asked myself this question. I think he is being wilfully untruthful when he speaks about bill c-16. He is also only about free speech when it fits his ideologies. I did an episode months ago taking him down. Message me I will link you to it. I am about to check at yours.

Kyle
Guest

Not to drag this out, but a recent PPP poll asked about punching nazis.

“-And finally only 18% of voters think it’s acceptable to punch a Nazi in the face, to 51% who say it’s unacceptable and 31% who are unsure on the moral quandary of our times. Clinton and Trump voters are actually in alignment on this with only 18% of each saying it’s ok to punch a Nazi. 78% of Jill Stein voters though say that they are pro punching a Nazi, this may be where Hillary fell short.”

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/01/americans-think-trump-will-be-worst-president-since-nixon.html

vorb
Guest

Peterson said in another interview that he will call a trans woman she and a trans man he but not the xi, shi or similar made up pronouns.

He may be an petty asshole but I don’t think it’s completely bigoted to refuse to use fake pronouns. Part of his anger comes probably from the attacks he had from some of his students. There is an infamous video that shows how poisonous the climate at his college is.

Also I think you are wrong. That’s not the same as
racial discrimination.

St. Ralph
Guest

Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to limit the possibilities to English personal pronouns. Expecting a professor, or anyone else, to remember and use made up or foreign language personal pronouns is tantamount to requiring them to speak whatever language each student prefers to speak, which would degenerate quickly into chaos, to the detriment of the just plain no special needs majority.

Kyle
Guest

Not to be pedantic, but you realize that “he” and “she” are also “made up pronouns,” right?

St. Ralph
Guest
Not to be pedantic, but you realize that the entire fucking English language is made up, right? If you’re going to speak English, you’re going to use he, she, you him, her, them, etc. If you want to change the language to accommodate non-binary genders with more precision than simply “it” or “that,” you’ll have to add words (and accepted definitions of them) to the language. In a country so severely dumbed down that the Metric System is considered the work of the devil, good luck with that. A Finnish friend who was having trouble getting the gender of his… Read more »
Kyle
Guest
Yup. You got my point. English is an evolving language that adds, forgets, and redefines words through use and geographic migration. Interestingly, English is a derrivation of German with Latin grammar rules applied, and it steals from nearly every other language it comes into contact with. Another fun fact, “male” and “female” are not derrived from one another, but evolved separately from completely distinct terms relating to different attributes through other languages (Latin and French) only to become complimentary terms in the 14th century. The idea that it would be outside the norm for English to adopt new terms is… Read more »
St. Ralph
Guest
Has anyone ever suggested new pronouns for non-binary genders? I’ve only ever heard them bitching about binary pronouns, I’ve never heard what we’re supposed to use instead. I’d be really honestly interested to know. And how many will there be? And will that settle it? Or, as Harris and Peterson were going on about, will every non-binary gendered person insist on being referred to by their own designer pronouns. If we’re really seriously going to add some new words to the language, complete with definitions and rules for usage, I’d be interested. If it’s going to diva-mandated chaos soup, I’ll… Read more »
scott
Guest

Naturally occurring change in the language, not compulsory.

Noelle
Guest

You are fucking awesome. Thank you.

Kyle
Guest
Vorb (cool name, btw), sorry to reply twice, but I re-read your comment and wanted to address your last point. I’m not sure I see where you’re coming from, when you say that it’s not the same as racial discrimination. If what you’re saying is “refusing to use a person’s preferred gender pronoun is not as bad as the culmination of racial discrimination in all its forms,” I agree. That said, I don’t think that’s the claim anyone’s making. I think the claim being made is more akin to “if you hold a position of power, deliberately misgendering a person… Read more »
Showtakingdive
Guest

Thomas did so much research before chastising Sam for not doing research that he though Jordan Peterson wouldn’t use he and she, which he has explicitly said he would on many occasions.

Wow.

Jon
Guest

You’re right. He only said he would deny the personhood of his gender non-binary students.

Kyle
Guest

Yeah, he has a weirdly specific fixation on enforcing a gender binary while claiming to be magnanimous enough to accept and respect trans people so long as they identify with one of the categories he deems valid.

ShowtAkingdive
Guest

Never heard that said

Jon
Guest

His whole issue is that he doesn’t want to use “made up” pronouns, and he has said multiple times that it’s because he doesn’t believe non-binary people exist.

Showtakingdive
Guest

He’s not denying their personhood, just the concept of gender non-binary. Considering their personhood and gender identity one in the same is the issue here

Jon
Guest

If I am a non-binary person, and you deny that non-binary people exist, then you are denying a huge part of my personhood. You are saying that the person who I perceive myself to be doesn’t exist.

I don’t really know what to call this if not “denying someone’s personhood.”

St. Ralph
Guest
Do you have a set of personal pronouns you want used when people refer to you? I don’t personally know any non-binary gender people. The two trans people I do know wish to be referred to by pronouns opposite those of their actual physical sex, but that’s not hard to do because those pronouns exist and everyone knows them. SLWs who claim to speak for non-binary gender people (as well as for everyone else on the planet) claim that we must use their preferred pronouns when referring to them, but, so far, no one will say what those pronouns are.… Read more »
Tom Noggins
Guest

It’s not denying somebody’s personhood to say that you won’t refer to them in the way that they want to be referred, sorry. That dog won’t hunt. I can say “nah, sorry, you’re a he or you’re a she, and if I can’t tell the difference, I’ll pick one of those two, or I’ll go with whatever the consensus among everyone else is,” and that might not be cool with you, but it’s not “denying your personhood.” That’s a specious, bullshit argument.

Haeley Derby
Guest

To everyone commenting about what pronouns Jordan Peterson will or won’t use: that has literally nothing to do with the issue covered in this episode. It was about Peterson’s misrepresentation of the law itself, his profiting off of that lie, and Sam Harris not looking into the law before speaking with him about it and blindly supporting Peterson’s false assertions. What pronouns Peterson says he will or won’t say has no bearing on any of that.

ShowtAkingdive
Guest

For some reason honestly portraying the arguments of Peterson seem relevant here… Maybe it’s the criticism of intellectual honestly on the part of Sam and Jordan… Idk

Jon
Guest
I feel like there was a huge amount of intellectual dishonesty on Sam’s part. He spent the entirety of the first 20 minutes offering his blanket agreement with Peterson about bill C-16 only to say at the end that he actually has no idea what the bill actually does. It seems as though Sam’s confirmation bias has run amok to the point that he is no longer able to see outside of his bubble. Sam and his “classical liberal” compatriots are so fixated on the “regressive left” that they are effectively blind to the republicans wielding actual anti free-speech legislation.… Read more »
St. Ralph
Guest
No one in the blogosphere can see outside their bubbles. The function of a podcast is to report from inside your bubble to those inside your bubble, and maybe a few alien souls peering in with their hands cupped around their faces like kids at the seahorse exhibit at the aquarium. The point is to convince yourself that your bubble is the bubble. And remember, just for giggles, that Rush Limbaugh is richer than all of the podcasters on the web put together. People, and the makers of the products they buy, will pay a lot to be told what… Read more »
slighted
Guest

I find it interesting how the focus always seems to be the fear straight white people have that is to blame for gender and race issues when last I checked amongst most minorities and religions there are serious problems with gender and race issues. Can we not blame all bigots and racists rather than only focus on the white straight ones?

Nerosii
Guest
Jordan is definitely not a Bigot.. Go watch some of his videos.. Also, your link to bill c-16 doesnt tell anyone anything about what is in the bill.. His argument is ” it is not right to force people to say a certain thing” . he even goes as far as to say that if we do not have this freedom we will lose the ability to properly communicate and correct ourselves.. Also, the fact you cannot see what he is saying.. Is very much the point of his argument against the bill… Think about it.. Lets say he is… Read more »
Nerosii
Guest
Jordan is definitely not a Bigot.. Go watch some of his videos.. Also, your link to bill c-16 doesnt tell anyone anything about what is in the bill.. His argument is ” it is not right to force people to say a certain thing” . he even goes as far as to say that if we do not have this freedom we will lose the ability to properly communicate and correct ourselves.. Also, the fact you cannot see what he is saying.. Is very much the point of his argument against the bill… Think about it.. Lets say he is… Read more »
Michael Rathbun
Guest
Yeah, sorry man I don’t think you’re fully grasping Petersons argument. I’m 20 min and all you’ve done is taken the ideas he’s adamantly opposed to and made them seem less emotionally charged and light hearted. There’s no real philosophical argument here. You say its the same thing as discriminating against someones age or race, but there’s some fundamental differences you’re missing. Race and Age are based in objective reality, whereas these made up gender pronouns “wormself” etc. are not based in reality and these people suffer from gender dysphoria. To indulge into their fantasy in the sake of feelings… Read more »
Noelle
Guest

Appreciating your post.

Reginald
Guest

What is the difference between gender expression and fashion choices? I currently have not found a significant difference between the two:

https://gillfoundation.org/grants/gender-expression-toolkit/gender-expression/

http://gender.wikia.com/wiki/Gender_Expression

Ted Scanlon
Guest

Excellent podcast. Jordan Peterson is building a large audience of credulous people who do not fact check his paranoid ‘theories’.

Pip
Guest

Oh no, another well-educated, credited intellectual disagrees has slightly violated your worldview! He is either lying, crazy, or both!

Doug Mitrovic
Guest
Jordan Peterson should be stripped off his doctorate and banned from teaching at credible universities. I’m not a feminist but he’s making millions on youtube with half baked theories and downright lies. Most of them are false statistics. He gives conservatives a bad name. This is as dangerous if not worse than Gender Studies and other pseudo-subjects alike. On the Joe Rogan podcast he went as far to say that primate females do not chose their partners and that they are forced into submission. This is false. Studies show that primate females indeed are selective. Putting it simply, he is… Read more »
trackback

[…] SIO10: Jordan B. Peterson is Just Wrong (or lying…or both) (1.26.2017) Serious Inquiries Only, Thomas Smith […]

trackback

[…] SIO10: Jordan B. Peterson is Just Wrong (or lying…or both) (1.26.2017) Serious Inquiries Only, Thomas Smith […]