back
3 comments
I don't think the author's facts support his conclusions, but I commend him for what appears to be even-handed honesty. Peterson is not a saint, but warts and all he is bringing some different perspectives to the forefront.

Charismatic people tend to draw people who idealize them and put them on a pedestal, and it is these true believers who, when they become disaffected, usually become the most antagonistic.

The article gets a detail about ethical review boards wrong: ERBs and IRBs don't exist to protect the integrity and health and dignity of the patient. Their reason to exist is to protect the organization from legal liability by using experts to evaluate research from the perspective of liability.

Not the health and dignity of patients- review boards exist to keep universities from being sued.

He can be very persuasive, and toys with facts and with people’s emotions.

This rings true to me. He's very polarizing. And he knows it and chooses how to address topics in ways that further divide the different sides of the argument.