Welcome back to The Deep Dive, the show where
we take the sprawling, overwhelming information
sphere and distill it down to the essential structure,
context, and surprising insights custom -tailored
for you, the learner. Today, we are definitely
diving into a challenging landscape. We really
are. We're attempting to map the rise, the thought,
and the ongoing controversy surrounding Jordan
Bern -Peterson. It is a vast and intensely scrutinized
body of sources we are dealing with today. I
mean, Peterson, born in Edmonton in 1962, is
a Canadian whose professional life began firmly
rooted in clinical psychology and academia. And
that's the key, right? He moved from that very
specialized world into the, well, fiercely contested
arena of cultural and political commentary. And
achieved global prominence, particularly in the
late 2010s, through these new channels of digital
media. And the complexity starts right... away
because he's an intellectual figure who resists
easy categorization, which is, I think, why he
generates so much heat. Our source material notes
this immediate inherent tension. Peterson identifies
publicly as a classical liberal and a traditionalist,
you know, claiming to champion enlightenment
ideals like free speech and individual autonomy.
But he's consistently described by journalists,
commentators and even conservative figures themselves,
like the philosopher Yoram Hazeni as one of the
most significant conservative thinkers to appear
in the English speaking world in a generation.
That dual identity, it's fundamental. The classical
liberal who champions traditional Western values?
It is. It's fundamental to understanding his
influence and his self -perception. His work
sits at a peculiar intersection. It's this combination
of deep academic analysis of myth and totalitarianism.
With self -help advice and highly polarizing
political rhetoric. Exactly. A very unusual mix.
Absolutely. Our mission today is to dive deep
into this extensive material. We want to extract
the structural architecture of his thought, tracking
his evolution from a specialized... professor
analyzing the origins of collective evil. To
a figure challenging modern cultural norms. We'll
be connecting the dots between his academic foundations,
his core arguments, the key legal and regulatory
controversies he ignited, and the severe, very
public health struggles that have punctuated
his recent career. We're here to understand the
context and the trajectory that created the Peterson
phenomenon. OK, let's unpack this architecture
because his intellectual blend is certainly unique.
We have to start with his early path. For sure.
His educational background established a pattern
of combining political interest with psychological
rigor. He has two BAs from the University of
Alberta. Right, one in political science, which
gives him that macro view. And then one in psychology,
which gives him the micro individual view. And
then he moves on to McGill University for his
PhD in clinical psychology. And his doctoral
work itself set the tone for focusing on internal
dysfunction that... you know, translates into
external chaos, his research wasn't abstract
at all. Not at all. It was intensely focused
on patterns of destructive behavior. His thesis,
Potential Psychological Markers for the Predisposition
to Alcoholism, focused specifically on familial
alcoholism and associated psychopathologies.
Things like aggression and hyperactivity. Exactly.
This demonstrates an early, deep clinical focus
on the measurable, destructive roots of personal
disorganization. What's fascinating here, according
to the biographical sources, is the narrative
pivot point early in his life. As a young man,
a pivotal moment in shaping his educational focus
and his whole worldview was reading George Orwell's
The Road to Wigan Pier. That's a key detail.
It seems like that wasn't just a casual read
for him. It was the trigger that shifted him
toward examining the psychological origins of
major social pathologies and political extremism.
That Orwell experience was crucial because it
led directly to an academic gap year that really
defines his intellectual foundation. He went
to Europe. He took a year off, specifically studying
the psychological origins of the Cold War and
20th century totalitarianism. He wasn't just
interested in what happened, but why. Why do
people succumb to these murderous, catastrophic
belief systems? And when you look at his intellectual
pillars. It all makes sense. It really does.
Dostoevsky, Jung, Neumann, Nietzsche, Orwell,
Piaget, and of course, Solzhenitsyn. You realize
this is not a toolkit for managing personal anxiety.
No, it's an intellectual lineage intensely concerned
with the dark side of human nature and collective
ideology. Specifically, as he would put it, the
structures of hell. Speaking of major careers,
he spent a significant amount of time in the
U .S., which accelerated his reputation. He taught
and researched at Harvard from 1993 to 1998 as
an assistant professor. And the sources detail
the extraordinary early impact of his teaching.
They note he developed something akin to a cult
following. Which is an amazing phrase. We even
have anecdotes of a former PhD student recalling
students crying on the last day of class because
they wouldn't hear him lecture anymore. That
level of devotion for an assistant professor
of psychology is... Well, it's highly unusual.
It shows his charismatic impact was there long
before YouTube. It speaks to a powerful teaching
style that synthesized disparate fields, something
that breaks through the standard academic lecture
format. For sure. In 1998, he returned to Canada
to become a full professor at the University
of Toronto, where he spent the bulk of his traditional
academic career. And his professional focus areas
remained highly integrated. Right. Covering psychopharmacology,
the psychology of religion, personality psychology
and political psychology. And importantly, for
most of that period, he was intensely engaged
clinically. That's the part people forget. He
maintained a practice seeing about 20 people
a week. And he only paused that clinical practice
in 2017 right when his public profile just exploded.
That clinical background, the fact that he was
treating real individual human beings struggling
with the chaos of their own lives, seems absolutely
crucial. It is. It provides the essential bridge
to understanding his first major published work
in 1999, Maps of Meaning, The Architecture of
Belief. And that book is dense. I mean, it is
demanding and requires serious intellectual commitment
from the reader. Max of Meaning is the foundational
text. It's the Rosetta Stone for all his later
work. It's an attempt to synthesize psychology,
mythology, religion, literature, philosophy,
and neuroscience to analyze how belief systems
are constructed. And the core question. The core
question, as we noted, was why groups and individuals
engage in pathological murderous atrocities.
specifically cited the Gulag, the Rwandan genocide,
and Auschwitz. He was trying to map the structure
of meaning using archetypes and narrative that
allows ordinary people to justify or commit horrific
evil. So his first major work was a deep academic
attempt to understand ideological identification
and the origins of totalitarian mass murder.
Yes. This is the synthesis needed because this
intellectual architecture analyzing the origins
of collective pathology stands in stark contrast
to the books that brought him global fame years
later, which are, you know, focused on individual
self -help. This is the key pivot point that
needs to be synthesized for you, the learner.
The jump from the grand structural theory of
maps of meaning to the accessible, marketable
advice of 12 rules for life is bridged by his
clinical practice. Oh, OK. Maps of meaning was
the theory of collective chaos. But seeing 20
individuals a week for decades, people dealing
with depression, anxiety, alcoholism, relational
conflict, gave him thousands of data points showing
where the theory of chaos and order So he essentially
reverse engineered the grand philosophical and
mythological structure into actionable individual
psychological advice. That's a great way to put
it. The structure of meaning that prevents totalitarianism
also. perhaps prevents one from lying to your
mother or abandoning your responsibility. Exactly.
The complex abstract archetypes derived from
Jung and Nietzsche were simplified into maxims
for personal behavior. The collective responsibility
for avoiding hell was converted into individual
responsibility for cleaning one's room. And that
simplification proved extraordinarily successful.
Unbelievably so. In 2018, Penguin Random House
published 12 Rules for Life. An antidote to chaos.
It jettisoned the heavy academic tone for an
accessible self -help style promoted via a massive
world tour. And it became a multi -country bestseller,
making him a global figure almost overnight.
And then the sequel. Beyond order, 12 more rules
for life followed in 2021. And this publication
even generated internal controversy at Penguin
Random House Canada. Right, where employees criticized
the decision to publish it during an internal
town hall, viewing his public persona as problematic.
That internal dissent highlights the scale of
the cultural polarization he generates within
institutions, even the ones capitalizing on his
success. But structurally, the success of the
two rules books gave him the financial and media
platform to transition away from traditional
academic. life. Which culminated in his retirement
from the University of Toronto in 2021, where
he became Professor Emeritus. The foundations
were academic, but the consequences of that foundation
were profoundly public and eventually highly
political. And here's where the academic life
meets the digital culture war. Because the transition
from tenured professor studying Jungian archetypes
to global media figure was catalyzed by one specific
Canadian political flashpoint. Bill C -16. This
is the definitive pivot point in his career narrative,
and it's where he first achieved global notoriety.
In 2016, Peterson released a series of videos
criticizing the proposed Canadian federal law,
Bill C -16. Which aimed to add gender identity
or expression as a prohibited ground of discrimination
under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal
Code. Exactly. And his central and highly aggressive
claim was that this law. combined with existing
provincial human rights legislation, would legally
mandate the use of certain preferred gender pronouns.
Constituting what he called compelled speech.
Yes. He explicitly argued he could be prosecuted
under human rights laws for refusing to use them.
He linked this opposition immediately to a broader,
fiery critique of political correctness and postmodern
ideology. An ideology he felt was sweeping through
academic institutions and into the legal framework.
And this is where his rhetoric escalated dramatically,
demonstrating his willingness to use hyperbole
to underline the perceived threat. Just two months
after his initial video, he published an op -ed
detailing his opposition. And he claimed that
gender neutral singular pronouns were at the
vanguard of a postmodern radical leftist ideology
that I detest. And here's the kicker. And which
is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly
similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed
at least 100 million people in the 20th century.
Wow. When you link a law about pronouns to the
gulag. You instantly launch yourself far outside
the bounds of traditional academic discourse.
And right into the culture wars. Now, we must
treat the legal counterpoint with equal weight,
as the sources provide a clear refutation of
his central argument. A very important point.
Law professor Brenda Cosman and other legal analysts
firmly stated that Peterson's interpretation
of Bill C -16 was mistaken. They argued precisely
that the law does not criminalize the misuse
of pronouns and pointed out that his interpretation
conflated human rights legislation with criminal
law in a way that legal precedent. just did not
support. Which essentially dismantled his central
claim of actionable, compelled speech. But the
fact that legal experts disputed his core claim
didn't slow the institutional consequences he
claimed to face. Not at all. In April 2017, Peterson
was denied a Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council or SSHRC grant for the first time in
his career. And he publicly claimed this was
in retaliation for his C -16 statements and his
challenge to institutional norms. The SSHRC,
for their part, responded neutrally, maintaining
that committees assess only the information contained
in the application, suggesting the grant was
simply non -competitive on its merits. But the
audience response demonstrated a new economic
reality. The immediate robust response from his
emerging audience was dramatic. It really was.
A crowdfunding campaign, launched by Rebel News,
which the sources identify as a far -right outlet,
raised C $195 ,000. Which he claimed was equivalent
to three years of research funding. This moment
demonstrated the power of his newly galvanized
non -academic audience to financially support
him when institutional funding allegedly dried
up. It was a declaration of independence. It
signaled a new and powerful economic model for
public intellectuals. Direct audience support
as a counterweight to traditional institutional
approval. And this dynamic was then amplified
during the infamous Lindsay Shepard incident
in November 2017 at Wilfrid Laurier University.
Which became a global flashpoint in the free
speech debate. It really did. So let's unpack
that incident in detail because it was a moment
of stark institutional panic. Shepard, who was
a teaching assistant in a first year communications
course, showed her class a clip of Peterson debating
Bill C -16 just as part of a discussion about
language and pronouns. Seems pretty standard
for a university class. You'd think so. But she
was subsequently censured by her professors during
a closed -door meeting. The reaction was extreme.
She was told the clip created a toxic climate.
And it was aggressively compared to providing
a speech by Hitler in a classroom. and that it
was allegedly itself a violation of C -16. The
overreach was stunning and the incident went
viral, confirming for many of Peterson's supporters
that the intellectual corruption he spoke of
was real and pervasive within academia. The censure
was subsequently withdrawn, of course, and the
university and the professors involved formally
issued a public apology. However, this didn't
end the legal fallout. No. In June 2018, Peterson
filed a $1 .5 million lawsuit against Wilfrid
Laurier University, alleging defamation based
on the statements made during that censure. Shepard
also filed a separate lawsuit. Right. This raises
an interesting contradiction in the source material
we must reconcile. If his message is pure radical
individualism, clean your room and fix yourself
first. Why did he then dedicate so much time
and energy to filing this massive lawsuit against
WOU? That's a sharp point. Doesn't that reliance
on collective external legal action contradict
the mantra of individual responsibility? The
sources don't resolve this, but the synthesis
suggests a strategic choice. He frames the lawsuit
not as personal vengeance, but as fighting a
collective ideological cancer within the institutions.
So he's using the collective legal system to
fight what he perceives as a collective ideological
disease. Exactly. It's a form of cleaning the
world's room rather than his own. It's the political
application of his individual rules. And the
legal update, according to what we've gathered,
is definitive. In November 2024, the court dismissed
Peterson's lawsuit against WLU. And a day later,
Shepard's lawsuit was also dismissed. So a major
high stakes legal chapter in the fallout from
the C -16 pivot has now officially concluded
and neither side walked away with a monetary
victory. Moving on, Peterson has developed a
comprehensive intellectual framework to explain
the perceived corruption of modern Western culture,
particularly within universities. It centers
on what he famously terms the postmodern neo
-Marxist. critique. For a deep dive like ours,
we need to take the time to really understand
what he means by this fusion of ideas, since
it forms the central pillar of his cultural messaging.
This concept is central to his public appeal,
but it's also highly controversial and, as the
sources show, relies on a conflation of two distinct
philosophical traditions. His core diagnosis
is that universities are largely responsible
for the rise of political correctness in North
America and Europe. A rise which he claims has
been happening since the early 1990s. So let's
break down those two components, postmodernism
and neo -Marxism. Through the lens of his critique.
OK, so Peterson sees postmodernism, the philosophy
often associated with figures like Foucault and
Derrida, as fundamentally corrosive because it
denies objective truth. Right. In his view, it
posits that all knowledge is merely a subjective
interpretation used to exert power. And this
leads to profound moral relativism and the belief
that the structures we live in, law, hierarchy,
competence, are merely oppressive social constructs.
And then he connects this to neo -Marxism, which
is the class struggle repurposed. So race, gender,
sexuality. Exactly. Therefore, the oppressed
groups, minorities, women, and so on are pitted
against the oppressive groups, who he identifies
as white, heterosexual, competent men. He refers
to this fusion as cultural Marxism and views
it as actively undermining proper culture and
Western civilization. So he essentially uses
the terms cultural Marxism and postmodernism
interchangeably because he sees both as tools
designed to deconstruct the established Western
narrative and overthrow existing hierarchies.
Hierarchies, which he believes are largely based
on competence. That's the entire architecture
of his critique. And his solution is highly provocative.
He explicitly advises students to avoid subjects
he claims are indoctrination cults. Yes, like
sociology, anthropology, English literature and
ethnic and racial studies. He even suggested
cutting funding for these liberal arts programs.
He once threatened to launch a website to systematically
reduce enrollment in these postmodern neo -Marxist
cult classes by 75 percent across the West. His
opposition to identity politics follows logically
from this critique. It does. He argues that identity
politics is practiced by both the left on behalf
of the oppressed and the right with nationalism
and ethnic pride. And he says both are equally
dangerous because they force the individual to
dissolve into the collective group identity.
The correct game, in his view, the antidote to
both fascism and cultural Marxism is radical
individualism. Focus on your individual life.
Assume maximal personal responsibility and strive
to articulate your own truth. This is. the bedrock
of his self -help message. This focus on the
individual path naturally leads to his views
on gender and masculinity. He frequently discusses
what he calls the crisis of masculinity. And
a backlash against masculinity in which the masculine
spirit is under assault. He connects this to
the perceived political push to feminize men,
warning that if men are pushed too hard in that
direction. They will be left without a healthy,
integrated model of male being and will subsequently
become more and more interested in harsh fascist
political ideology. He believes the rejection
of natural, competent hierarchy is inherently
dangerous, and he addresses this hierarchy directly.
He does. He argues that the left characterizes
the existing structure as an oppressive patriarchy,
but ignores the possibility that the hierarchy
might be predicated on competence or natural
biological drivers. He believes that male aggression
and competition are inherent. And that one of
civilization's greatest achievements was transforming
destructive aggression into productive competence.
He also makes a compelling, if historically controversial,
argument connecting the reduction of male violence
in society directly to the social institution
of homogamy. Claiming it stabilizes male -dominated
society. Yes. Perhaps the most globally circulated
visual representation of his views on gender
and hierarchy came from that 2018 Channel 4 News
interview with Kathy Newman. Oh, absolutely.
Specifically the debate over the gender pay gap.
It was explosive viewing. That interview went
viral immediately and became highly contentious.
Peterson claimed during the debate that a multivariate
analysis of the pay gap indicates that it doesn't
exist. And he argued that the observed gap was
primarily attributable to factors other than
discrimination. Right. Things like different
career choices, working hours, and critically,
personality variations between men and women,
such as risk tolerance and agreeableness. What's
crucial to recall about the aftermath is the
sheer scale of the online toxicity. Kathy Newman
became the victim of a vicious online harassment
campaign following the interview. Including threats
and vicious misogynistic abuse, which prompted
Channel 4 News to consult with security specialists.
And this is a recurring and crucial pattern we
see in the sources. It is. Peterson, while calling
on his supporters to back off, simultaneously
denied that the harassment reflected fundamental
misogyny within his audience base. It's this
paradoxical dynamic. He preaches individual order
and self -mastery. But his commentary seems to
activate a high degree of collective, aggressive
chaos in the digital sphere. Which he then dismisses
as an aberration rather than a consequence of
the intensity of the ideological conflict he
incites. Now we transition to two major areas
where Peterson has attracted enormous criticism,
beginning with his stance on the environment.
And here the sources are unequivocal. Peterson
is identified as a climate change denier who
publicly expresses disbelief in the robust scientific
consensus. His involvement here is deep. He has
been identified by climate scientists as a key
organizer at the global level for efforts to
oppose and delay action on climate change. So
his public statements on the topic are not merely
skeptical. Not at all. They are profoundly provocative
and, according to critics, deeply mistaken about
the underlying science. We must detail the claims
he made during his notorious 2022 appearance
on The Joe Rogan Experience. He stated, shockingly,
that there is no such thing as climate. Claiming
that climate and everything are the same word.
He argued that the concept is too complex and
diffuse to be modeled or acted upon scientifically.
And he denied the accuracy of climate modeling,
confusing them with simple, short -term weather
forecasting models, a fundamental scientific
error. Furthermore, he actively cited the prominent
climate change deniers, such as Fred Singer,
to bolster his arguments. And falsely asserted
that fracking has not polluted water supplies.
A claim explicitly contradicted by extensive
studies and reports cited in our source material.
This shows a profound reliance on non -peer reviewed
or politically motivated sources over consensus
science. The reaction from the scientific community
was swift and decisive, and we must report the
severity of that response. We do. Professor John
Abraham referred to Peterson's statements as
a word salad of nonsense spoken by people who
have no sense when it comes to climate. And Michael
E. Mann, a high profile climate scientist, called
it pseudo intellectual and pseudo scientific
drivel. Accusing Peterson of betraying either
a total lack of understanding of how science
works or more likely a total disdain for his
audience and an intention to disinform. The sources
positioned him as a central cog in the denial
machine. providing a platform for figures like
Judith Curry and Alex Epstein. And researchers
highlight what they term the new denial. It's
no longer about denying climate change exists,
as the evidence is too pervasive. So instead,
the current strategy, which Peterson employs,
is to argue that solutions won't work, that the
science backing those solutions is unreliable.
Or that the economic cost of action outweighs
the benefits. His own organization, the Alliance
for Responsible Citizenship, or ARC, hosted a
conference that promoted human flourishing over
climate apocalypticism. Shifting gears completely,
let's explore his religious views, which are
characterized by a profound, sometimes contradictory,
ambivalence. It's a real tension between his
Jungian foundations and traditional belief. When
asked in a 2017 interview if he was a Christian,
he said yes. But his response when asked if he
believes in God is famously evasive. Right, it's
intellectualized. Uh, no, but I'm afraid he might
exist. This response captures the intellectual
wrestling match at the heart of his work. He's
concerned less with literal theological belief.
And more with the pragmatic evolutionary reality
of archetypal narratives. He approaches God functionally.
In a 2022 podcast, he stated that God is the
ultimate fictional character at the top of the
hierarchy of attention and action. meaning the
ultimate representation of the highest good we
must strive toward to avoid catastrophe. This
philosophical engagement with scripture led to
his massive video series, The Psychological Significance
of the Biblical Stories, where he analyzes archetypal
narratives in Genesis as patterns of behavior
ostensibly vital for personal, social, and cultural
stability. He has since done series on Exodus
and Proverbs on Daily Wire plus Moan. His interpretation
draws heavily from Jungian analysis, finding
common ground. with Christian existentialists
like Soren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. And
this brings us to a significant academic critique
introduced by Daniel Burstyn, who utilizes Tillich's
framework to diagnose a crucial absence in Peterson's
religious philosophy. This is a dense academic
point, so let's use an ELI -5 approach to make
the Tillich critique absolutely clear for you,
the learner. Sounds good. What did Paul Tillich
mean by the vertical and horizontal dimensions
of religious experience, and how does Peterson's
focus fit into that? Simply put, Tillich viewed
faith as having two inseparable dimensions. The
vertical dimension is the individual's confrontation
with the transcendent, the struggle for meaning,
the search for God, or the effort to achieve
personal psychological and moral order. So that's
the private internal journey. Exactly. And Peterson's
work is almost entirely focused here. Clean your
room, confront your chaos, embody the logos.
It's all about achieving internal order. So if
that's the vertical, your soul reaching for the
divine, what is the horizontal? The horizontal
dimension is the outward expression of faith.
It's the commitment to the human community, social
justice and political action. The tradition of
the biblical prophets who demanded justice for
the poor and marginalized. It's the application
of moral order to the social sphere. Precisely.
Burstyn argues that Peterson's views reflect
a heavy preoccupation with the vertical transcendent
dimension while neglecting the horizontal dimension
of social justice and the implication of neglecting
that horizontal dimension. Burstyn characterizes
Peterson's one -sided emphasis on internal or
interworldly transformation as a hallmark of
the traditionalist conservative mindset. It essentially
removes the political and communal obligation
from the religious experience. Arguing that if
every individual fixes themselves, the social
structure will automatically fix itself. Which
is a key critique from the left, this dismissal
of structural injustice. That preoccupation with
the psychological utility of belief over theological
certainty was thrown into the spotlight very
recently. it was in may 2025 during a viral jubilee
media debate originally titled one christian
versus 20 atheists peterson surprised the participants
by refusing to definitively identify as a christian
He remained evasive about his religious beliefs,
which forced the platform to retitle the debate.
It shows he remains intellectually elusive on
this core identity question, even while he discusses
the Bible constantly and claims to be defending
Western civilization. The speed at which Peterson
built his platform outside of academia is staggering,
and it provided him with the financial independence
required to sustain his controversial cultural
interventions. Absolutely. He launched his YouTube
channel in 2013, initially uploading just recordings
of his lectures. August 2018, his channels had
amassed millions of subscribers and hundreds
of millions of views. The democratization of
knowledge offered by YouTube was key. But the
shift in monetization was just as vital for his
independence. From early 2017, his funding skyrocketed
through Patreon. Donations went from about $1
,000 per month in August 2016 to over $80 ,000
per month by May 2018. That level of direct funding
provided unparalleled independence from institutional
and traditional publishing constraints. He didn't
need grants or university approval anymore. But
then he made a major symbolic statement by deleting
his account in January 2019 in public protest
over the platform banning another content creator,
Carl Benjamin. Better known as Sargon of Akkad.
Right. That move reinforced his image as a champion
of free speech fighting against big tech censorship.
Following that, he attempted to create his own
alternative platform called ThinkSpot. Designed
specifically for free speech. But unfortunately,
the sources note it received largely negative
reviews from media critics upon its limited release.
Proving that building a successful tech alternative
is harder than critiquing existing platforms.
He also recently launched the Peterson Academy
in 2024, an online education platform. His partnership
with The Daily Wire in 2022 was another major
strategic move. That deal handles the distribution
rights for his entire video and podcast library,
integrating him firmly into a major conservative
media ecosystem. And he's also built institutions
outside the standard academic matrix. He became
chancellor of Ralston College, a private, unaccredited
liberal arts college in 2022. and co -founded
the alliance for responsible citizenship or arc
in 2023 this is a landscape built on alternative
media alternative funding and alternative institutions
all designed to bypass the perceived woke And
that alternative structure has been absolutely
essential for him because it provided a base
of support as he faced relentless regulatory
battles and legal challenges. Challenges stemming
directly from his public speech. The most significant
is the ongoing scrutiny from the College of Psychologists
of Ontario, the CPO. His professional licensing
body. And this is a crucial area that highlights
the fundamental tension between his public persona
as an unfiltered media commentator. and his private
professional responsibilities as a licensed clinical
psychologist. So what were the CPO's findings?
Well, in November 2022, the CPO ordered him to
complete a specified continuing education or
remedial program regarding professionalism in
public statements. And the Inquiries, Complaints
and Reports Committee concluded that his public
language between January and June 2022 may be
reasonably regarded by members of the profession
as disgraceful, dishonorable and unprofessional.
What specifically triggered that determination?
I mean, his comments are almost always aimed
at political targets, not clients. They cited
two key issues. First, that he engaged in degrading
comments about a former client, which is an immediate
egregious violation. A huge deal for a psychologist.
Massive. Second, they cited that he made demeaning
jokes on the Joe Rogan experience. The CPO determined
that his statements posed moderate risk of harm
to the public by undermining public trust in
the profession of psychology itself. They weren't
judging his politics. They were judging his professional
comportment in the public sphere. Precisely.
And Peterson denied any wrongdoing and immediately
filed for judicial review, arguing violations
of free speech, claiming the order was political
retribution. This is the moment we need to pause
and analyze the true professional significance
of this regulatory defeat, which is a key. The
implication of this legal loss cannot be overstated.
For a psychologist of his global renown, having
his professional governing body mandate remedial
social media training is a massive, highly public
professional sanction. A unique form of regulatory
shaming. It is. He fought it all the way up,
arguing that his status as a public intellectual
should afford him greater leeway. But the courts
disagreed. In August 2023, the Ontario Divisional
Court unanimously upheld the CPO's decision,
finding the ICRC's reasoning transparent, intelligible,
justifiable, and reasonable. And ordered him
to pay $25 ,000 in legal costs. His final option,
an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, was
declined in August 2024. This action closed his
legal avenues for resistance, forcing him to
agree to the social media training mandated by
the college. It's a definitive judgment. His
license to practice, which is the ultimate professional
marker of his expertise, comes with regulatory
boundaries regarding public professionalism.
Boundaries that the court found he repeatedly
violated. In addition to the CPO battle, there
was the highly publicized Cambridge University
rescindment in 2019. This wasn't about his academic
work or his license, but the institution's reaction
to his political associations. That's right.
Cambridge University rescinded a visiting fellowship
invitation due to a photograph of Peterson with
a fan wearing a shirt that read. I'm a proud
Islamophobe. And the university felt that this
casual endorsement by association conflicted
sharply with its institutional commitment to
interfaith dialogue. Peterson, in response, called
the decision an error of judgment and accused
the divinity faculty of submitting to an ill
-informed, ignorant and ideologically addled
mob. He also noted the practical difficulty of
his celebrity, saying the photo was just one
of 30 ,000 taken with fans and that he would
stop posing with fans wearing provocative. political
garb. It demonstrates the tight rope he walks.
His global platform is powered by controversy,
but that controversy makes traditional institutional
engagement almost impossible. A difficult position
to be in. As his public life exploded, his private
life was consumed by severe personal and health
crises, which began with radical dietary changes.
Changes that garnered almost as much media attention
as his political views. We need to discuss the
infamous lion diet. In 2016, Peterson initially
restricted his diet to only meat and a few select
vegetables to manage depression and autoimmune
issues. And by mid -2018, he restricted it further
to only beef, salt, and water, the ultra -restrictive
lion diet. His daughter, Mikayla, also adopted
and heavily promoted this diet as a remedy for
chronic conditions. While he championed it as
a cure, experts warned, and we must include this
balance, that such an extremely restrictive diet
diet can result in severe dysregulation and nutritional
deficits. And this radical diet was closely linked
to the catastrophic health period that followed.
It was. He was prescribed Klonospam, a potent
benzodiazepine, for anxiety starting in 2016.
And his usage reportedly increased significantly.
From 0 .5 mg a day to 4 mg a day by 2020 due
to a confluence of factors, stress from his explosive
public career, the reported violent reaction
to his meat and greens diet, and his wife Tammy's
serious kidney cancer diagnosis. Here is where
the crisis peaked. He suffered horrific benzodiazepine
withdrawal syndrome as he tried to stop the drug.
I mean, flying across the world and being put
into a medically induced coma because of benzodiazepine
withdrawal. That is a level of desperation and
extremity that fundamentally changes how we view
his public image. Let's talk about the context
of that decision. It's a staggering ordeal that
demonstrates the severity of benzodiazepine dependency
and withdrawal. The desperation of his condition
led to extraordinary measures. In January 2020,
he traveled to Moscow because he claimed he couldn't
find North American doctors willing to place
him in a medically induced coma for detox treatment,
which he felt was his only option. He was in
the coma for eight days, followed by four weeks
in the intensive care unit and suffered a temporary
loss of motor skills as his body reacted to the
sudden cessation of the drug. That is an unbelievable
medical crisis involving international travel
during a health emergency and radical invasive
treatment measures. He stated he was back to
his regular self by mid -2020, but his health
struggles seem ongoing and severe. They are.
The sources detail very recent health issues,
current as of December 2025. Since August 2025,
he has suffered from chronic inflammatory response
syndrome, or CIRs, requiring five months of hospitalization.
He was diagnosed with polyneuropathy and myopathy.
As of December 2025, his family confirmed his
return home, noting that he'd shown little improvement.
This suggests a continued serious battle with
complex chronic illness, even as he attempts
to maintain his robust public life and lecture
schedule. Finally, let's synthesize his influence
and the lingering criticisms of his public perception.
The New Yorker called him one of the most influential
and polarizing public intellectuals in the English
-speaking world. This polarization is reflected
in the criticism he faces, often aimed not just
at his ideas, but at his perceived audience.
McLens famously characterized him as a pseudo
-intellectual popular with the alt -right. And
labeled him as the stupid man's smart person.
A phrase frequently repeated by other publications
to imply that his profundity is superficial and
easily digestible for those who resist critical
thought. And one of the most recent high profile
criticisms connected him directly to online male
toxicity and the incel community. That was Olivia
Wilde promoting her 2022 film Don't Worry, Darling.
She claimed the sinister character Frank was
inspired by Peterson, calling him this insane
man, Jordan Peterson, who is this pseudo intellectual
hero to the incel community. This exchange perfectly
encapsulates his current status. It does. Peterson,
predictably, hit back hard, calling the film
propaganda disseminated by woke, self -righteous
boars and bullies. And regarding the term incel,
which means involuntarily celibate. He argued
it was merely a casual insult used against lonesome
men who are already struggling again, applying
the individual responsibility lens to a collective
social problem. He is the intellectual who is
inextricably linked. both by critics and by his
own defensive reactions to the cultural conflicts
currently defining the digital landscape. Whether
he likes the association or not. So what does
this all mean? We've traced the remarkable decade
long trajectory of Jordan Peterson. From a specialized
clinical psychologist researching mythological
archetypes and the pathology of totalitarian
ideologies. To a figure who leveraged technology
to become a global media phenomenon, constantly
challenging cultural norms. His move from academia
to public intellectual was catalyzed by a fundamental
disagreement over speech and ideology. specifically
Bill C -16. And that moment rapidly transformed
his work into a comprehensive critique of postmodern
neo -Marxism and the perceived crisis of masculinity.
This path has been paved with multi -country
bestsellers, extraordinary fundraising success,
but also a definitive regulatory defeat by the
College of Psychologists of Ontario, constant
professional scrutiny, and severe, highly public
health battles that continue to the present day.
What's undeniable is the unique blend he represents.
Deep academic... grounding in figures like Jung,
Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky, combined with highly
politicized, culturally engaged commentary that
challenges institutional norms, particularly
in the humanities. He simultaneously advocates
for profound individual responsibility and engages
deeply in collective culture wars. Which brings
us to our final provocative thought for you,
the learner. We've seen how Jordan Peterson advocates
for finding internal order, cleaning your room,
focusing on the individual journey, taking responsibility.
He spent his early career studying the pathology
of collective chaos, arguing that unintegrated
individual evil leads to totalitarian destruction.
Yet his global influence is inextricably linked
to external, highly polarizing group conflicts,
the very collective chaos of the culture wars
that his platform helped fuel. Given this context
drawn from the source material, how might the
initial goal of achieving individual psychological
order intersect with or be fundamentally undermined
by the extreme and external chaos required to
maintain the platform that preaches that order?
What is the ultimate psychological price of being
a globally focused public intellectual versus
the quiet, private academic he once was?