Anja’s answer to “Why is Peterson getting so much hate?” > Likes and Comments
23 likes · Like
This is exactly my problem with him and I couldn't have expressed it any better than you have, Anja. :) Thank you.
I appreciate your perspective and concern. I had similar feelings when I first heard him talk. I have since gone and listened to his 12 lecture series and after listening to these I get the impression that he is claiming these are his thoughts and perspectives. They are his interpretation. Once I understood that it seems less like he is saying everything he is stating is scientific fact and more like these reflect his theories. I'm OK with that. I read scientific magazines and they are always discussing new theories and some i can relate to and some I can't. Some seem to make sense and some don't seem to align with my common sense knowledge and experience. All good. It's part of the human experience to be exposed to different perspectives and think about them.
Which scientific theories?
You are quite guilty of glossing over with half-baked assertions that you don't seem to be willing to flush out completely
"he doesn't know much about how the brain actually works",
Do you?, why I did not heard your name as one of the Nobel prize winner, if you are such an expert so why not you tell all the world researchers and scientists about it.
This review purports to offer a critique of a book that, to many readers around the world, stands as one of the most influential and profound works of our time. Yet it commits the very faults it accuses the author of—namely, dismissiveness, subjectivity, and an undercurrent of intellectual condescension. The reviewer makes sweeping statements about the author's supposed lack of scientific grounding, while ironically providing no specific counter-evidence or alternative interpretations—just generalized academic skepticism.
The reviewer claims to have studied Psychology and Neuroscience but fails to engage meaningfully with the core concepts of the book. Instead of addressing the symbolic resonance of archetypes or the metaphorical function of the now-famous lobsters—which serve as illustrative devices rather than empirical claims—they reduce them to "subjective ideas," ignoring the long intellectual tradition of narrative, myth, and comparative biology that supports them. One wonders whether the reviewer expects every great thinker to confine themselves to a narrow, peer-reviewed cage, rather than venture into the philosophical terrain where true insight often lies.
The accusation that the author uses "half-baked evolutional speculations" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how metaphor, interdisciplinary synthesis, and conceptual bridging work in public intellectual discourse. Great thinkers have always drawn connections across fields—consider Darwin, Freud, Jung, or even Sagan—not because they claim expertise in everything, but because they recognize that wisdom often lives in the intersections.
The reviewer’s closing concession—that the book may provide helpful advice for life—is telling. Despite all the objections cloaked in academic authority, they cannot deny that the book speaks powerfully to the human condition. Perhaps the real discomfort lies not in the book’s supposed lack of rigor, but in its ability to inspire readers outside of academia to think, act, and find meaning.
In short, this review reads less like a reasoned critique and more like a defensive reaction to a book that dares to transcend disciplinary boundaries and resonate with millions. A book doesn’t become “the best in the world” through sterile objectivity—it earns that status by changing lives, stirring debate, and enduring where lesser works are forgotten.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Nicole
(new)
Mar 02, 2021 04:49AM
This is exactly my problem with him and I couldn't have expressed it any better than you have, Anja. :) Thank you.
reply
|
flag
I appreciate your perspective and concern. I had similar feelings when I first heard him talk. I have since gone and listened to his 12 lecture series and after listening to these I get the impression that he is claiming these are his thoughts and perspectives. They are his interpretation. Once I understood that it seems less like he is saying everything he is stating is scientific fact and more like these reflect his theories. I'm OK with that. I read scientific magazines and they are always discussing new theories and some i can relate to and some I can't. Some seem to make sense and some don't seem to align with my common sense knowledge and experience. All good. It's part of the human experience to be exposed to different perspectives and think about them.
Which scientific theories?You are quite guilty of glossing over with half-baked assertions that you don't seem to be willing to flush out completely
"he doesn't know much about how the brain actually works", Do you?, why I did not heard your name as one of the Nobel prize winner, if you are such an expert so why not you tell all the world researchers and scientists about it.
This review purports to offer a critique of a book that, to many readers around the world, stands as one of the most influential and profound works of our time. Yet it commits the very faults it accuses the author of—namely, dismissiveness, subjectivity, and an undercurrent of intellectual condescension. The reviewer makes sweeping statements about the author's supposed lack of scientific grounding, while ironically providing no specific counter-evidence or alternative interpretations—just generalized academic skepticism.The reviewer claims to have studied Psychology and Neuroscience but fails to engage meaningfully with the core concepts of the book. Instead of addressing the symbolic resonance of archetypes or the metaphorical function of the now-famous lobsters—which serve as illustrative devices rather than empirical claims—they reduce them to "subjective ideas," ignoring the long intellectual tradition of narrative, myth, and comparative biology that supports them. One wonders whether the reviewer expects every great thinker to confine themselves to a narrow, peer-reviewed cage, rather than venture into the philosophical terrain where true insight often lies.
The accusation that the author uses "half-baked evolutional speculations" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how metaphor, interdisciplinary synthesis, and conceptual bridging work in public intellectual discourse. Great thinkers have always drawn connections across fields—consider Darwin, Freud, Jung, or even Sagan—not because they claim expertise in everything, but because they recognize that wisdom often lives in the intersections.
The reviewer’s closing concession—that the book may provide helpful advice for life—is telling. Despite all the objections cloaked in academic authority, they cannot deny that the book speaks powerfully to the human condition. Perhaps the real discomfort lies not in the book’s supposed lack of rigor, but in its ability to inspire readers outside of academia to think, act, and find meaning.
In short, this review reads less like a reasoned critique and more like a defensive reaction to a book that dares to transcend disciplinary boundaries and resonate with millions. A book doesn’t become “the best in the world” through sterile objectivity—it earns that status by changing lives, stirring debate, and enduring where lesser works are forgotten.
