Like virtually all phony "public intellectuals" in the modern English speaking people, they all seem eventually to try to hitch their wagons to Darwin's star. As I pointed out last week with Karl Pearson, when they do they inevitably do so to promote existing economic and social inequality, racial, ethnic, class, and gender inequality in support of the traditional and existing inequality. In Pearson's case, to pervert the meaning of socialism into its opposite.
I don't pay a lot of attention to someone who is as big a boob as Jordan Peterson but among his ephemeral and fleeting lines of crap which he sells to his ignorant angry boy fan base is complaining about that most Darwinian of all ideas, that there will be males who have more sex than other males, leading to an inequality in the number of offspring by those males. FOR FUCKSAKE, PETERSON, THAT'S WHAT DARWINISM IS ALL ABOUT. His fan base contains a large number of angry boys who are either involuntarily celibate because they're so unattractive that women won't have sex with them or who are so busy playing online, listening to their guru, Jordan, or grousing to their fellow celibates that women are unfair to them and how attractive guys are getting all the sex.
What's a phony like Jordan to do? He goes right ahead and depends on the ignorance and laziness of his fan base to not notice that and all of the other lapses of knowledge and logic that his act consists of.
So many examples of that are on display here.
I Am kind of surprised that Sam Seder and his crew didn't pick up more on the fact that with his performance on the Joe Rogan show, Peterson exposed himself as an ignorant and totally clownish phony who has never really read Darwin - something he shares with most of those who are neo-Darwinists, today and that his shtick is based in a pseudo-scientific melange of contradictions and lies geared to appeal to the ignorance, anger and stupidity of his fan boys.
I will go so far as to say, I don't think what he does is different in kind from what people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett have made careers in "science" and philosophy through doing. But, from his base in the pseudo-science of University based psychology, he gets away with a lot more than Dawkins and Dennett have.