Jordan Peterson certainly has a strong and appealing idea about what went wrong. But I think Eric Hoffer (a similar character half a century ago) already answered that question pretty much. And when I try to find examples that put their views into contrast, Hoffer wins.
For example, in this video Peterson gives one of his most powerful phrases: “Don’t use language instrumentally!” The idea is that, if you allow yourself to twist your words away from what’s perfectly truthful, you gradually begin to think like that too, leading straight to the horrors of fascism and communism. It all sounds very convincing.
But then I remember every product manager I’ve had as a programmer. They were all happy, well-adjusted people who had this incredible skill at using language instrumentally—convincing various decision makers to go along, sometimes not in perfectly honest ways. They all seemed to have learned that skill with their mother’s milk, and it hasn’t hurt them at all!
Hoffer wouldn’t be surprised by that. His only message is that you should have self-esteem, and not join any mass movements to compensate for lack of self-esteem. If you can manage that, it’s okay to be a liar or cynic or product manager—things still won’t go as wrong as they went in the 20th century.
I read Hoffer’s The True Believer in my early twenties, along with Solzhenitsyn, Orwell and other writers who tried to figure out what went wrong. Many of them had great ideas, but became kind of maximalist about them. Hoffer’s book stands out because it’s measured. It gives a diagnosis and cure that’s neither too little nor too much. You don’t have to be perfect as Peterson says (or as Solzhenitsyn says...) Just don’t join your local mob of fanatics, and other than that, do what you like.
I decided to squeeze my discussion of Hoffer’s frustration into a single paragraph that includes a link to an essay about True Believer, so it wouldn’t take over a post that was already getting long. If you’ve read Lou Keep’s review on Samzdat, do you think it’s worth spending the time to read True Believer itself?
As a big proponent of Horseshoe Theory, I actually find Peterson very disappointing in this regard. He treats the Red mass movement (the alt-right) as misguided souls who just need a little nudge and a discount to selfauthoring.com to become great citizens. But similar young people who joined the Blue mass movement because of a contingency like skin color are, to JBP, evil fanatics in the service of a murderous ideology. Of course, as Hoffer notes, creating a scary boogeyman is a great way to fuel the fire of the worst kinds of mass movements. I think Peterson is making the alt-right worse, not defusing them.
I find self-help Peterson to be useful, Bible study Peterson to be interesting, but culture war Peterson is net harmful.
If you’ve read Lou Keep’s review on Samzdat, do you think it’s worth spending the time to read True Believer itself?
Yes! Hoffer’s book is as clear as humanly possible, while Lou Keep’s review is more impressionistic.
I think reading second-hand impressions of Hoffer is like reading second-hand impressions of Machiavelli. There’s no way they can come close to the real thing.
Do you have any opinions on what comes closest if I just want a quick summary? Unfortunately, I found Samzdat’s article hard to follow due to the style.
I suppose that many people are less worried about the alt-right because they are very much a fringe movement, even on the right and even with the Trump presidency. But further than that, his opinion has probably been shaped by how he has had more success in turning people away from the alt-right, than from ideological forms of social justice (he has talked about how he has received many letters from people who said that they were drawn towards the alt-right until they started reading his content).
Jordan Peterson certainly has a strong and appealing idea about what went wrong. But I think Eric Hoffer (a similar character half a century ago) already answered that question pretty much. And when I try to find examples that put their views into contrast, Hoffer wins.
For example, in this video Peterson gives one of his most powerful phrases: “Don’t use language instrumentally!” The idea is that, if you allow yourself to twist your words away from what’s perfectly truthful, you gradually begin to think like that too, leading straight to the horrors of fascism and communism. It all sounds very convincing.
But then I remember every product manager I’ve had as a programmer. They were all happy, well-adjusted people who had this incredible skill at using language instrumentally—convincing various decision makers to go along, sometimes not in perfectly honest ways. They all seemed to have learned that skill with their mother’s milk, and it hasn’t hurt them at all!
Hoffer wouldn’t be surprised by that. His only message is that you should have self-esteem, and not join any mass movements to compensate for lack of self-esteem. If you can manage that, it’s okay to be a liar or cynic or product manager—things still won’t go as wrong as they went in the 20th century.
I read Hoffer’s The True Believer in my early twenties, along with Solzhenitsyn, Orwell and other writers who tried to figure out what went wrong. Many of them had great ideas, but became kind of maximalist about them. Hoffer’s book stands out because it’s measured. It gives a diagnosis and cure that’s neither too little nor too much. You don’t have to be perfect as Peterson says (or as Solzhenitsyn says...) Just don’t join your local mob of fanatics, and other than that, do what you like.
I decided to squeeze my discussion of Hoffer’s frustration into a single paragraph that includes a link to an essay about True Believer, so it wouldn’t take over a post that was already getting long. If you’ve read Lou Keep’s review on Samzdat, do you think it’s worth spending the time to read True Believer itself?
As a big proponent of Horseshoe Theory, I actually find Peterson very disappointing in this regard. He treats the Red mass movement (the alt-right) as misguided souls who just need a little nudge and a discount to selfauthoring.com to become great citizens. But similar young people who joined the Blue mass movement because of a contingency like skin color are, to JBP, evil fanatics in the service of a murderous ideology. Of course, as Hoffer notes, creating a scary boogeyman is a great way to fuel the fire of the worst kinds of mass movements. I think Peterson is making the alt-right worse, not defusing them.
I find self-help Peterson to be useful, Bible study Peterson to be interesting, but culture war Peterson is net harmful.
Yes! Hoffer’s book is as clear as humanly possible, while Lou Keep’s review is more impressionistic.
I think reading second-hand impressions of Hoffer is like reading second-hand impressions of Machiavelli. There’s no way they can come close to the real thing.
Oh man, I guess this means I have to actually read The Prince now too. I should have known better than to ask!
Do you have any opinions on what comes closest if I just want a quick summary? Unfortunately, I found Samzdat’s article hard to follow due to the style.
The summary on Wikipedia is good.
I suppose that many people are less worried about the alt-right because they are very much a fringe movement, even on the right and even with the Trump presidency. But further than that, his opinion has probably been shaped by how he has had more success in turning people away from the alt-right, than from ideological forms of social justice (he has talked about how he has received many letters from people who said that they were drawn towards the alt-right until they started reading his content).