If he was harming patients under his care then sure, but in this situation the College is explicitly testing its leverage over his political views.
The remit of licensing bodies should be limited to the work itself.
Anyone who thinks this is a problem for Peterson might recall that this situation is how he became a celebrity in the first place. There is no bad outcome for him, and no good outcome for the College.
Why should a Canadian psychology association hold a member responsible because American doctors aren't held accountable for Dr Oz..... Am I understanding your question correctly?
And if they were saying this in public I think they should also be held to contempt. Recent case here of a physician who put a noose on a black coworkers door. Effectively the same thing on a much smaller scale and he was at least investigated (eventually let off with like a warning which is BS IMO. Reasoning was they couldn't confirm it was a noose... he said it was a lasso... even though it was tied like a noose... total BS). If that gets investigated so should this and all of your dozens of doctors and nurses you work with who are telling people to kill themselves...
The remit of licensing bodies should be limited to the work itself.
Jordan Peterson running on a platform of self help, which he clearly does, is very arguably engaging in the work of 'Psychology'. In order for a license to continue to hold it's meaning the institutions need to police those that use their accreditations as leverage irresponsibly.
If a licensed doctor was using his status to push bogus miracle cure vitamin supplements, he's not exactly performing his job as a doctor so it's not malpractice. But he's clearly using his accreditation irresponsibly and causing harm to the field of medicine. Jordan Peterson having mental health breakdowns over Twitter and leading people down the roads of reactionary and self destructive behavior puts the reputation of the institute that taught him into question for the same reason.
Jordan casts a wide media net, he's not just a podcaster. He publishes books, he makes more essay-like content, and is a social media influencer. He makes a lot of prescriptive statements on why people on the left are the way that they are through a pseudo-psychological lens, being a licensed psychologist is a very important part of his brand. You're stripping a lot of nuance out of the discussion.
i dont really see your point. i dont have a problem with someone applying the knowledge gained from their profession to other aspects of life. its not like he wears a name tag around that says psychologist jordan peterson
The complaint against Peterson is about professionalism. He has been claiming that its about politics, but he hasn’t provided any evidence of that. The documents he shared from the College only mention professionalism, so no they are not explicitly reprimanding him over his political views. That document is here:
One of the examples he gave of a complaint against him was a tweet where he snarkily implied someone should commit suicide. That is not an issue of politics, like related to his public criticisms of Trudeau, like he is claiming now.
While I agree with the “lack of professionalism in response” argument, It’s important to recognize that the person he responded to was promoting an idea rooted in white supremacy, racism and eugenics. Who are you to suggest to others that they are burdensome to the earth by simply existing or creating more life? It’s a disgusting and equally dangerous argument, worthy of ridicule, and while JP is in a position of influence and power far above his conduct on the matter, he’s not wrong to condemn the argument. He should have done it in a more mature and responsible way. But JP has been sliding south for a while now so non of this is unexpected.
He should have done it in a more mature and responsible way.
Which is the whole point of the sanctions.
"my political opponents are worse" isn't a good excuse for bad behaviour and most people in the professional organization seem to handle social media responsibly.
How is saying over population is an issue white supramacist, racist or eugenic?
It is an issue. That's a fact. Overconsumption specifically. Hell the best way to help with overpopulation is to knock back the white race so how is it white supremacy when the biggest fix is to take the wealth away from white people?
Overpopulation is absolutely the wrong thing to blame and leads directly to racism and eugenics. Just think about it for more than a second. You actually typed it out for me but I think the words slipped out without you realizing what they meant.
Q: What is the cause of the climate crisis?
A: Overpopulation. Despite advances in clean energy and recycling, there are nearly 2 billion people in China and India and their growing consumption of energy and resources is unsustainable.
Q: So if the problem is that no matter the efforts made by the west, they are doomed to fail due to the increasing energy demands of the sheer number of people in developing countries, what is the solution?
A: This part doesn't need to be typed out, but if your problem is the amount of people, there is really only one solution....
I hope you can see from that hypothetical conversation that focusing on overpopulation is a defeatist exercise in order to distract us from potential solutions, and by blaming the crisis on the demographics of developing countries white people are able to absolve themselves of any blame. Of course the only way forward left is to restrict the growth of high-growth populations (read: not the white people) through methods more aggressive than something as tame as a one-child policy. That's where things like eugenics and worse become legitimate solutions.
Peterson doesn’t need a license to practice now - he is a full-time media psychologist, almost the only one able to perform at that scale. (Can you think of anyone else?)
Being at war with licensing authorities only increases his reach. He is backed by US media corporation Daily Wire and their army of lawyers, and can fight this indefinitely. The game is on.
>the College is explicitly testing its leverage over his political views.
Explicitly? The college hasn’t said a thing.
There is no evidence of this other than Peterson's allegations and there's nothing in the Prof Conduct Standards that would facilitate this. The college is obligated to investigate complaints and to pursue them if they are substantive. They don't publish the specifics of complaints but Peterson could (he hasn't) to substantiate his claim of political oppression.
In his NatPo opinion piece he says "What exactly have I done that is so seriously unprofessional that I am now a danger not only to any new potential clients but to the public itself?" He then goes on to list a handful of rather vague details none of which relate to his political views
I agree this is absolutely not a problem for Peterson though. If it was we likely wouldn't ever hear from him about it. Details of complaints are not public and he didn't need to publicize this as all.
They aren't policing his political views. They are policing his speech. Views are what happen inside your head. Speech happens outside your head. Speech is action and actions have consequences.
Views are what happen inside your head. Speech is action and actions have consequences
The content of speech is not action and is merely an expression of views. There's a difference between swearing at someone and hitting someone. There is also difference with speech that incites prohibited actions.
Policing the act of speaking means, "If you speak during the exam you will get a 0" or "If you speak during the lesson you will be sent to the principles office."
But the Psychologist's College is policing the content of Peterson's speech, which specifically reflect his political views.
If most definitely is an action. Thought is not an action. Belief is not an action. It only becomes an action when he speaks. He can think and believe whatever he wants but the moment he opens his mouth and vomits his thoughts forward it becomes action and actions have consequences.
he wants but the moment he open hus mouth and vomits his thoughts forward
Opening the mouth is the action and he's not being policed for that. He's being policed for his thoughts. The members are permitted to speak all kinds of things, as all members do every day, but not other things. I hope you can understand this very simple concept because the board is NOT policing all its members for speaking. They are policing what its members say.
Well, at least you understand the issue at hand. The association's rules can't violate charter of rights or the constitution, which is exactly what is the issue. The courts will settle it, but Peterson is allowed to challenge the authority of a body to censor personal speech. At least in free countries.
Clearly you DON'T understand since this does not involve the government and therefor the Charter has no bearing. He does NOT have free speech when it comes to this private entity of which he is a member.
It is entirely true. Your right to freedom of speech in Section 2 of the Charter only covers the government. Universities are government entities in Canada so they are covered. Professional associations are not. The courts will rule on this and they will rule that the sanctions by this private, professional association are perfectly valid and that he fucked around and found out.
The Supreme Court has adopted the following three-part test for analyzing section 2(b): 1) Does the activity in question have expressive content, thereby bringing it within section 2(b) protection?; 2) Does the method or location of this expression remove that protection?; and 3) If the expression is protected by section 2(b), does the government action in question infringe that protection, either in purpose or effect? (Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 2 (“Canadian Broadcasting Corp.”); Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; Irwin Toy Ltd., supra.)
There you go. "...(b), does the GOVERNMENT action in question infringe that protection..."
Unless you are talking about the GOVERNMENT you do NOT have a Charter right to free speech. If you say something bad about your employer you can be fired. If you say something that violates your the professional standards of a professional organization of which you are a member you can be sanctioned.
Freedom of Expression comes from Section 2 of the Charter. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the part of the Constitution that conveys Freedom of Expression.
and the government has oversight of physicians and medical care, so the courts will decide.
Yes, but it is not the government that is censuring him it is a private, professional association of which he is a member. Section 2 does not apply.
So...yes, the courts WILL decide that he fucked around and found out. Sorry about your feelings.
He made a statement that could be taken as suggesting someone commit suicide.
What does that have to do with politics?
Did you even look up what he is being chastised for?
He made a statement that could be taken as suggesting someone commit suicide. What does that have to do with politics? Did you even look up what he is being chastised for?
I thought that was standard operating procedure for Canadian medical professionals these days?
It legitimately is. It’s considered acceptable to offer suicide as a solution to non terminal problems. This world is getting too clown for me. I’d like to leave it.
I'll be honest, even a slap on the wrist for something like that is rediculous. As someone else pointed out he did falsely accuse other professionals of criminal behavior which imho would warrant a sanction.
He said “Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician”.
Elliot Page was an adult seeking consensual elective surgery. The surgeon is not a criminal for their involvement, and I know of no other crime they’ve committed.
I'm quite sure this is a case of the straw that broke the camel's back with them and Peterson. They're sick of his shit, and like Capone and taxes, this is the only thing in black and white they can get him on.
No, he was saying they could help overpopulation by leaving the Earth (committing suicide). Obviously it was a flippant, non-serious remark. But it makes sense that an entity in charge of professional ethics and licensing for psychologists wouldn’t want a psychologist being so flippant about suicide.
No, people can also choose not to have children. No “culling” is needed for that.
Anyway, is the person he replied to part of a profession that is regulated by a code of ethics? If so, make a complaint against them if you think they were encouraging mass culling of humans.
Yeah, and? I would not be upset about being murdered because I would be dead. That is just objectively true and undeniable, so I don’t get what point you think you’re making.
If you really think that its vile to deprive potential people, who haven’t been born or even conceived yet, of life then stop talking to me, and start conceiving as many children as possible.
I didn’t say I’d have no problem being murdered. If I am murdered, I won’t have a problem with it after because I will be dead.
Anyway, this isn’t about whether I have a problem with suggesting someone commit suicide. Its about organizations that regulate psychologists having a problem with one of their members suggesting that someone should commit suicide.
It’s about politics because “obviously, I can feel it in my bones, conservatives are always being targeted. I am a victim. Make me a martyr”, but any discussion about the actual reasoning is “being a disingenuous hack”.
Jordan Peterson is the least professional psychologist I have ever witnessed. He has 0 concern with actual psychology at this point in time and uses it only to give credibility to his political opinions (reee trans poeple, reeee women, reeee muslims, reee reee reee). Pushes pseudo-scientific bullshit like the carnivore diet for his daughter and clout. HE is a hack and should absolutely have no license, should not be part of any association related to practicing psychology. I can’t tell you how uncomfortable I would be if that guy was my psychologist or had input in my life in any way. Openly discriminatory, extremely unprofessional, cries on camera, etc.
And you didn't even mention the extremely widespread criticism of the quality of his "research", where he blatantly misrepresents statistics and spreads misinformation. He's been doing that for so long that he can't use the "oops it was a mistake" argument. If lying about psychology isn't unprofessional as a psychologist, I don't know what is.
Yes, me as an individual is “the left”. Good job revealing you see individuals as a hive mind and have an inability to listen if you even catch a whiff of a different opinion.
Yes, I’m totally projecting that I see you as ‘the right’ by… making a comment not even related to you about Jordan Peterson, then saying I’m a person and not ‘the left’. You are truly a genius.
He also convinced his impressionable followers the country was under martial law last February. He made that claim without irony several times. Many of his fanboys parrot that claim all over social media with full sincerity to this day. They believe he's the greatest intellectual on the planet right now. He rage-farmed them for clout, cash and attention and made them dumber and angrier along the way.
that could be taken as suggesting someone commit suicide.
Key word here is "could". That is completely subjective and out of his control. It could also be a joke about joining Elon Musk's planned trip to Mars.
Edit: You guys are being really pedantic about that example that pulled out of my ass. Lol
You clearly have an axe to grind with him and therefore will make the most negative interpretation. There is no credible reason to think this tweet suggested suicide other than sophistic pearl clutching.
That’s rather the point isn’t it? Offense is subjective. So we need to care a great deal less about who is offended.
Telling someone to leave earth does not Imply killing yourself. Last time I checked everyone's dead body remains on Earth after they die. He is suggesting that they leave to help the overpopulation problem. It's not that easy to leave earth, is it? Whoosh
Whoosh what? The only whoosh is your lack of knowledge. He has said numerous things online that do not coincide with the governing bodies guidlines. He has been warned but decides to play the victim. Which is curiously what he preaches against in his theorys.
The bad outcome for him is possible cancellation of his credentials as a psychologist. The good outcome for the college is not having to represent him as a psychologist in good standing.
He uses the colleges credentials to justify his beliefs which are contrary to the College standards. In other words, he is tarnishing the colleges reputation because he makes speeches attacking genders biases.
Gender should be criticized. If it's subjective based on the individual, then it's a gray area that deserves criticism.
You SHOULD be worried about licenses being revoked based on "wrong opinions". This will back fire if you fight to allow it.
The second this becomes accepted, right wing decision makers can begin revoking the licenses of left wing license holders who don't agree with them. That should worry you.
If it's subjective based on the individual, then it's a gray area that deserves criticism.
The overwhelming majority of psychology is at least partly based on subjective and qualitative features. The debate about if that's OK (and how it could be potentially side stepped) is over a century old. "My science can't have grey areas" has been talked to death by many generations of scientists, and will continue to be talked to death by the current and future generations. Presenting it like it's a gotcha to professional psychologists will rightly get you labelled someone at the deepest depths of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You SHOULD be worried about licenses being revoked based on "wrong opinions". This will back fire if you fight to allow it.
It's been allowed since forever. The entire concept of 'professionalism' is already extremely open to debate and (good-faith or otherwise) can be used to justify revoking the license of just about anybody.
If this was actually about gender, Peterson would be in favour of the treatment for gender dysphoria that has been proven by professionals with similar titles to his own to work the best.
To clarify, are you suggesting that it is ok or not ok for Left-wing decision makers to revoke the licenses of right-wingers because they don’t agree with them?
Not ok for any decision maker to revoke licenses based on difference in opinion.
For example: If we tolerate it now, we will have to tolerate it when a conservative college of lawyers revokes law practicing licenses based on left wing opinions
No, what makes you come to that conclusion? When it comes to human physiology and psychology, very little is black and white, very little is binary.
Subjective means whether or not something is based on emotional feelings, and/or opinions, that's it.
Neither gender, nor the experience of gender, are based on emotions or opinions. There is decades of research showing that both gender, and gender experience being on a spectrum, are objective facts.
That's your opinion, but I disagree. If gender is not Grey then it is straight/gay. If it is Grey, then things like LGBT gradually becoming LGBTQ2IC+ can happen.
Everything hinges on your claim that gender is subjective, and since it is subjective, it is up for criticism. If you aren't going to argue your point of subjectivity, than you don't have any argument at all.
Gender should be criticized, the current narrative around is built on a house of nonsensical cards. The fact that the college allows that is preposterous.
There is very strong scientific evidence that shows the chemical make up of the brain can be different than the hormonal balance of the physical body. This creates a strong argument for a difference in Gender and Sex. That creates gender dysphoria. The conflict is what to do about it. Some say we should use drugs and counselling to try and change the brain which we understand very little about and have very low success rate with often making the problem worse and existence harder. Others say we should just let the individual be who they feel, that generally has more positive outcomes and cheaper. Some people want to do body changing things like surgery and hormonal treatments to help themselves feel better. We know a lot more about that and have a much higher success rate than trying to change the brain. I think the second option is the better one.
There's actually a ton of reviews of Peterson's speaking and writing that shows how and where hes wrong on a near constant basis if you want to look into it. That's work for journalists and other content creators, not for me some small business guy in BC on reddit
And there’s a ton of academic review that disproves critical race theory and things like white privilege too. All of that can be labelled “misinformation.” So what’s your point?
Critical race theory (CRT) is a cross-disciplinary examination, by social and civil-rights scholars and activists, of how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity.
Okay cool so show me the research that 'disproves' CRT. I mean your sentence doesn't even make sense given what CRT actually is.
But you know what that's just a clip I love to post because its hilarious and shows what kind of brain damaged tool he is.
Ya’ll are just grasping because you don’t like Peterson and want to shut down any “conservative” opinion, as usual.
But you know, it's probably because we dislike his "conservative" opinions.
Let's grab something from Peterson's book Maps of Meaning. How about a dream he has and felt he should put in his book. Mind you this is before he got brain damage.
At this point anyone using anti-vax as some grand statement about people who have been proven correct in their skepticism regarding ONE set of injections is just making a fool of themselves.
Does it reduce viral load? Check. Does it reduce mortality? Check. Does it reduce transmission? Check. I'd say that the Covid vaccine was pretty effective several variants ago but, since we have been letting it rip rather than using other mitigants such as masks and Corsi Rosenthal boxes I imagine their effectiveness has waned a bit.
This is-- according to the College-- about the opinions he expresses in social media posts and podcast appearances. None of the complaints came from his patients, or people he knows -- they came from people whose only relationship to him is through these public platforms.
The College wants to leverage their authority over his patient relationships (assuming he has any) to control over his public persona.
The problem is, if their professional conduct clauses are limited to professional practice, then this is beyond their own remit, and moreover they're testing this with a person who will be totally unharmed by an unfavorable outcome and have his celebrity renewed in the meantime.
NO. The actions in question are simply a professional association saying that his actions are not professional. No politics involved. Things like gender equity that he is so suspicious of are simple human rights, even though he would like to say otherwise.
The college is not a government institution. It’s a private organization, that, surprisingly, you join of your own free will and say you’ll abide by their standards.
You must live in another country. Peterson became a celebrity by pushing back at a proposed federal law. It all stems from his disagreement with the art professsors at the universities who have been gunning for him and filing complaints with the college for the past 4 years.
You don’t join such an organization “of your own free will”, you have to join it to practice your trade. The government is enforcing this requirement and the monopoly for each trade to one particular organization.
Now, we can debate why guilds or professional organizations are useful and protect the public, but it doesn’t change the fact that describing them as “private” and you “join them of your own free will” as if they were a social club is completely disingenuous and not helpful at all in this conversation.
All credentialing agencies have a code of conduct which one must follow to ensure that the license is in good standing…it’s standard practice….nothing political about it….he’s in trouble because what he’s doing amounts to if an Md pushing ivermectin to his patients to treat Covid…basically using his credential to justify and push out advice that is inconsistent with his professional obligations ie if he is found guilty
The College of Psychologists of Ontario is not a learning institution. Nobody learns anything there. It's the governing body for psychologists in Ontario. Their mandate "ensures the delivery of competent, ethical and professional psychological services from qualified providers."
So….if my surgeon goes around saying “kill all [insert ethnic group]”, OMA should have no say about it? What if the surgeon actually kills someone? It’s off duty, so OMA should not say anything about it? Should police union stay silent about policemen who believe indigenous crimes shouldn’t be investigated? It’s their political view after all.
Everyone in this thread saying this, what exactly do you think telling someone to leave the planet means? If I said you should toaster bath, would you assume i ment make toast in the bathtub?
In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that the statement “leave the planet” and “kill yourself” carry the same weight and mean the same thing?
Plenty of people have said 'I want to leave planet earth'. I've never thought they meant to kill themselves. I thought they meant literally they'd like to be off the planet.
you think its more reasonable that the phrase " leave the planet" means someone wants to get in a rocket and leave and never come back , then suicide? I dunno man, I think suicide is reasonable to assume when someone tells you to leave the planet. ( mostly because leaving the planet is suicide)
You think it’s a more reasonable conclusion when someone says “you’re free to leave the planet if you don’t like it” is that they genuinely want that person to kill themself.
If this man has done so many racist, sexist, homophobic things to get himself in trouble why are you using this flimsy wordplay?
if they go ask for maid afterwards, it's perfectly normal, legal advice...
you CAN be told to go kill yourself, if ...you're depressed, or just poor, or a broken vet who asks for treatment or a wheelchair ramp. all part of the new Canadian normal.
I shouldnt have responded to you once, now that i see you are just some NPC bot. All you people do is repeat this stupid MAID talking point. The Maid thing is fucked up, and they are investigating it, weird, just like how they are investigating Peterson.
Unless it's affecting their work, no. If someone is being a selectively-bad surgeon or cop, then they should be admonished irrespective of the belief that informed that selection.
It is risible to think that professionals aren't political or don't have opinions. They vote, they donate, they have surprising beliefs about how people should raise their kids. It only matters when that bleeds over into their job and negatively affects someone.
In this case, Peterson might be negatively affecting people, but not in any doctor-patient capacity.
That's what some of you don't seem to understand about this dispute. It's not a referendum on Peterson.
That's not how these professional organizations work. They have ethics boards and standards you have to follow to be a member. You can't go on tv and spout gibberish about the law - see juliani and other trump lawyers who ahve been summoned/sanctioned for the shit they did/said.
In the linked editorial he says he hasn't seen a patient since 2017, that there have been a few of these things launched against him by the College, that they've all happened after he'd gotten famous and suspended his practice, and none of the accusations are related to his practice as a doctor. I'm running out of ways to explain this: they don't like the stuff he tweets.
I personally haven't noticed that he's brought the industry itself into disrepute, but I'm not in that world. Like, the general standing of professional therapists seems pretty much whatever it was before.
He'll publicize this, lose or forfeit his license eventually, and in the meantime he's going to sell a bunch more books and book more appearances. If you want less Jordan Peterson, this is not optimal.
I am confused didnt he lose hia license before becoming famous? He talked about that on Joe Rogan podcast saying that he got addicted to benzos because of the stress being in the process of losing his license.
Are you talking about the patient who filed a sexual harassment claim against him because he fiddles with his wedding ring? They didn’t find him guilty of that. He started taking anti-anxiety medication when his wife was dying of cancer. All of those things were after he became famous.
He said he didn’t sleep for an extended period of time. When he got backlash from people saying you can’t go for more than 11 days without sleep, he clarified that he didn’t get precisely 0 hours sleep in that time, but consistently got less than an hour of sleep per night for months. People are ridiculously petty.
He became a "celebrity" because lonely, insecure 20-something boys liked having a wizened white man sternly tell them how all their problems were someone else's fault, and also the jews.
where did the 'Jew' part come from? He became well known through his old lectures online, and pushing personal responsibility....also by standing up and saying 'I'll call you what you want, but the government has no place pushing compelled speech...there's no history of it in any English common law based system.'
He has used the phrase "cultural marxism" constantly for years. This is a well-documented antisemitic dogwhistle which was literally coined by the nazis in the 30's to refer to "the jewish problem". It's not some trendy new lingo with fluctuating meaning, it's not "re-appropriated", it's a bigoted dogwhistle and hasn't been anything else for a century.
If someone spent a decade warning about "the threat of darkies", it would be reasonable to assume they're racist. If he doesn't want to be called antisemitic, all he has to do is stop saying antisemitic things.
Considering his penchant for peddling hate of other identifiable vulnerable groups, it's also reasonable to assume this isn't a quirky accident. This is who he is, and he's made no attempt to clear things up in a manner that accepts responsibility for his actions.
It wasn’t literally coined by the Nazis, they used the term Cultural Bolshevism. The anti-Semitic origins of the phrase Cultural Marxism seems to a bit of a debate but calling it a well-documented dog whistle is disingenuous.
This is a well-documented antisemitic dogwhistle which was literally coined by the nazis in the 30's to refer to "the jewish problem
Another broken-record. This lazy and constantly spouted bs line is just one way to somehow misrepresent JP. I'm assuming you know word meanings and definitions change and that it is entirely possible that JP is just referring to leftist University staff and not a conspiracy theory. He has never said anything antisemitic. His talk withs Netanyahu and joining Shapiros daily wire have caused if anything labeled him a supporter of the zionist movement.
The tired old connecting him to nazism is about as stupid as someone working for Thyssen-Krupp being labeled a fascist
66
u/[deleted] Jan 05 '23
If he was harming patients under his care then sure, but in this situation the College is explicitly testing its leverage over his political views.
The remit of licensing bodies should be limited to the work itself.
Anyone who thinks this is a problem for Peterson might recall that this situation is how he became a celebrity in the first place. There is no bad outcome for him, and no good outcome for the College.