Another no-name online "news" journal, in an attempt to generate 'heat' over a current trending topic, has attempted to take on Jordan Peterson.

Why is this 'heat' so important, more so than ACTUAL reporting?

The answer lies in the response they achieve. People who are outraged or overly passionate about a topic will comment, share and, more importantly, ensure more clicks on your article. It all comes down to dollars.

Check out Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator by Ryan Holliday to read more about how the downfall of online 'journalism' cares more about the bottom-line than actual journalism.

Full Article 'Jordan Peterson’s Bullshit' Here

Articles like this are exactly why Jordan Peterson is dangerous.

Instead of actually engaging with his arguments and showing where he goes astray from usually sound premises to false conclusions, people like this author and the interviewer mentioned at the beginning of the article either dismiss outright everything he says or attribute beliefs to him which he doesn’t claim himself. Which, were I on the other side of the social/political divide, would provide great justification for thinking his arguments are fantastic and irrefutable.

For example, lobsters.

He’s not claiming humans need to structure society after the way lobsters structure theirs. He’s saying that some level of hierarchy is likely inevitable because of the way that brains respond chemically to winning—the lobster example is important because it shows that serotonin release after winning is a pre-social effect (it doesn’t happen in humans merely because of the cultural importance we place on winning).

To dismiss his arguments as thinking we need to model after lobsters is absurd, anti-intellectual, and shows a profound misunderstanding of scientific claims.

Instead, why not challenge the claim that structural hierarchy needs to play out in the ways that it currently does? It does seem likely that some sort of hierarchy is inevitable, but why not a hierarchy where those with power have genuine concern for those lower on the hierarchical scale?

Similarly, in response to the author here, why not point out that hierarchies existed prior to capitalism, and therefore can’t solely be the result of capitalism, and getting rid of capitalism wouldn’t get rid of hierarchies.

There are so many (rational) ways to rebut his arguments!! But sadly, this article is not an example of that. Instead it’s full of clearly biased attacks against scientific arguments the author doesn’t seem to understand (nor does he seem to want to).

I'm only halfway through Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. It's high-level stuff and you should check it out.

He strikes me as someone who really needs to be heard amidst everything that is going on in our world.