I saw a video of Jordan Peterson giving a college lecture in which he explained the problems facing the workforce as technology increases but human ability remains largely unchanged. In particular, he focused on those who are mentally below average and finding fewer and fewer job opportunities, and how the liberal view is to invest more in education and the conservative view is that these below-average people need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, but neither view reflects the reality that we're in an economy that increasingly has no use for these workers, though there are still a few low-wage areas that will employ these workers because technology hasn't yet advanced to the point where some things that are trivial for humans are not prohibitively complex for machines. He went into great detail, and his point was insightful and cogent and all of the information he used in his lecture related clearly to the topic. This is Jordan Peterson at his best. But there are those times when he's talking about something less concrete, and he doesn't have a compelling argument so much as a partially developed idea. It's hard for me to provide an example because, though there are many, it's difficult to explain what he said. But there does seem to be a pattern, of sorts, where he starts to talk quickly and starts pulling in lots of facts or tidbits from lots of different sources, but without clearly tying any of it to the topic at hand. It's just a flurry of information that doesn't make a point but instead obscures it — the epitome of "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." But it comes across as profound because a) he's a smart person and can draw on a lot of facts, and b) talking fast doesn't allow the listener time to process what he's saying so it isn't apparent in the moment that there's a lack of cogency. If I were to guess, I'd say that Jordan Peterson was a victim of his own success, such as it was (re his stance against compulsory use of gender pronouns), seeing a quick trajectory in his popularity that outpaced the arguments he had to offer. When it comes to religion, for instance, he didn't start out as vociferously in favor of Christian dogmas but instead talked about Jungian ideas and how shared stories are important as metaphor to society, but later he started intertwining that notion into the value of the Christian stories and traditions and making a case for that as something that should be followed as though it were literal, stopping short of saying he believes it's based in fact but also refusing to acknowledge that it's only mythology. And he has become a cult of personality among the incels and/or MGTOWs. I think his intention was good from the start, trying to help angry young men to deal with their emotions in a healthy way, but a lot of his philosophy seems to be reinforcing/validating their views and behavior rather than helping them to correct it and be healthier. I haven't paid much attention in the last couple of years, so I don't know what he's up to now. I heard he was quite ill for a time and that left him with some neurological problems or some nerve damage or something, impairing his ability to speak effectively, so perhaps he's not currently active in molding the minds of young misogynists — for better or for worse.

Troubled genius.

I think he’s a profoundly sick man who gets some critically important things exactly right...when he stays within his field of expertise. When he strays into politics he’s just spreading his sickness.