My article is both a response and, to a certain degree, deconstruction of Bernard Schiff’s main points. There are areas I could have improved. For example, Schiff cites Peterson’s critique of research ethics committees. The reason for Peterson’s objections appear to stem from his opposition to political correctness. His early experiments had to do with alcoholism in men. With PC directives being institutionalized, scientific inquiry was being stifled for political reasons. (ex: one cannot study alcoholism in men, for example, without having a bureaucracy dictating quotas to make experiments equal with regard to gender of participants). Schiff did not mention this in his brief critique of Peterson’s position and made him out to be an eccentric pesudo-scientist.
Schiff also describes Peterson as ‘more of a preacher than a teacher’ as well as misrepresents his multidisciplinary approach toward major psychological topics as ‘cherry picking.’
Peterson’s critiques of the postmodern influences in academia are consistent with those of major intellectual figures of various political positions -these include Camille Paglia, Stephen Hicks, Peter Boghossian, Helen Pluckrose, Noam Chomsky, and many others. Having studied in the humanities at he graduate level (in history specifically), I can say from my own experience that postmodernism is very much present in the historiographical outlooks of many contemporary historians. What was once the ‘Liberal Arts’ has become an increasingly ideological series of fields.
Schiff goes off the deep end in suggesting that Peterson is out to silence left-wing professors. He has expressed concerns about radical professors using their classes to encourage students to protests in increasingly violent and counterproductive ways.
Bernard Schiff comes off largely as a crabby and ranty academic.
Schiff explicitly says: “ Currently, Jordan is the darling of the alt-right. He says he is not one of them, but has accepted their affection with relish.” This is totally false. Schiff is either lying or does not know what he is saying here. The 49-minute video below is a systematic debunking of the claim that Peterson is the ‘darling of the alt-right.’
I would be interested in hearing what specific issues you have with my article. You mention a few general things, specific examples would be helpful.