The Illusion of Depth: Why Jordan Peterson is More Dangerous Than You Think

Oye, mira.

Yesterday, I shared a post on affinity bias—the unconscious tendency to elevate Western, Eurocentric scholars over Black, Brown, and Indigenous experts who actively dismantle systemic oppression through their work. In response, I was asked to specifically break down why Jordan Peterson is problematic, particularly in shaping the perspectives of young men. Let’s talk about it.

Imagine a man standing on a stage, draped in authority, lacing his words with the grandeur of intellectualism. He speaks with conviction, leans on mythology, and paints himself as a reluctant prophet. Young men listen, captivated, because here is someone who offers clarity in a world that feels uncertain. But dig deeper—beneath the polished rhetoric, the biblical metaphors, the Jungian archetypes—and you find not wisdom, but a carefully constructed mask of respectability hiding something older, uglier, and far more dangerous.

Jordan Peterson is not just a psychologist. He is not just a professor. He is a cultural architect shaping the minds of disillusioned young men. And he is leading them down a path paved with colonial nostalgia, white male victimhood, and a carefully disguised contempt for anything that challenges the status quo.

Affinity Bias and the Appeal to Young Men

Social psychology tells us that people gravitate toward those who validate their existing beliefs. This is called affinity bias—a cognitive shortcut that leads us to favor those who look, think, and act like us. Peterson weaponizes this phenomenon by positioning himself as a father figure for young men who feel lost in a rapidly changing world.

When he speaks about "order and chaos," he is not merely talking about abstract concepts. "Order" is the patriarchal, Eurocentric status quo where men dominate leadership roles, women know their place, and Western civilization remains supreme. "Chaos" is the disruption of this order: feminism, decolonization, gender fluidity, and the dismantling of white male privilege.

His audience, many of whom feel alienated by the dismantling of traditional power structures, see in him a beacon of stability. But stability for whom? And at what cost?

The Mask of Rationality: White Fragility in Disguise

Peterson’s brand of white masculinity is one of fragility masquerading as strength. He insists he is not political, that he is merely defending free speech and objective truth. But what is this "truth"? His lectures and books, dripping with evolutionary psychology, often reinforce the idea that men are biologically predisposed to leadership while women are naturally inclined toward domesticity.

This is scientific racism and sexism repackaged for the 21st century—a way to justify oppression without ever having to name it as such. It’s the same tactic used by colonial apologists: claim objectivity while systematically upholding white patriarchal dominance.

The key to maintaining this illusion is what Robin DiAngelo describes as white fragility—the defensive moves white people make when their racial comfort is challenged. Peterson embodies this when he rails against "social justice warriors," when he calls efforts toward racial and gender equity "cultural Marxism" (a dog-whistle term with anti-Semitic origins), and when he paints himself as a victim of an imagined leftist cabal. This is not intellectual rigor; this is fear wrapped in academic language.

However, it is also necessary to acknowledge that DiAngelo’s framing of whiteness can itself be limited by affinity bias—a dynamic where white scholars analyzing racism still center themselves, reinforcing the same structures they seek to critique. While her work on white fragility is useful for understanding defensive reactions to racial discourse, it must be read critically, ensuring that decolonial perspectives and BIPOC voices remain at the forefront of discussions on racial justice.

The Exploitation of Misogyny: A Gateway to Radicalization

Let’s be blunt: Jordan Peterson exploits misogyny.

When he tells young men to "clean their room," he is not just advocating for self-improvement. He is reinforcing the traditional nuclear family—a structure that has historically kept women economically dependent and socially submissive. He speaks of "enforced monogamy" as a necessary social structure to prevent men from becoming violent, as if women exist as a stabilizing force for male rage rather than autonomous beings with their own desires.

This is why incels (involuntary celibates) and alt-right groups reference him. This is why his videos are recommended in online spaces where men are radicalized. His words provide an intellectual veneer for their violence. His influence is not incidental—it is structural. He serves as the on-ramp to more overt misogyny and white nationalism, normalizing the very grievances that drive men toward extremism.

Colonial Nostalgia and the Fear of a Decolonized Future

Peterson speaks reverently of Western civilization, framing it as the pinnacle of human achievement. He downplays colonial atrocities, dismissing them as historical inevitabilities or necessary evils. This is not just historical inaccuracy; it is ideological warfare.

To decolonize is to challenge the notion that Western knowledge, power, and social structures are inherently superior. It is to recognize that Indigenous, African, Asian, and Latin American knowledge systems have been systematically erased. Peterson cannot allow this, because his entire framework is built on the assumption that the West is not just a civilization, but the civilization.

His fear is not that history will be rewritten unfairly. His fear is that history will be told truthfully. And in that truth, the illusion of Western superiority crumbles.

Decolonizing the Mind: How We Fight Back

1. Interrogate the Intellectual Facade – Peterson presents his views as "rational" and "objective," but they crumble under scrutiny. Read actual feminist theory. Engage with decolonial scholarship. Expose the rhetorical tricks.
2. Disrupt the Recruitment Pipeline – Young men searching for meaning should not be left to fall into the arms of reactionary figures. Create spaces for healthy masculinity—ones that do not rely on dominance and exclusion.
3. Challenge White Nostalgia – History does not belong to the victors alone. We must push back against sanitized colonial narratives and demand a fuller, decolonized truth.
4. Support Decolonial Thought Leaders – For every Jordan Peterson, there is a bell hooks, an Angela Davis, a Frantz Fanon, a Christian Ortiz. Uplift voices that challenge, not uphold, oppressive structures.

Conclusion: The Power of Unmasking

Jordan Peterson’s greatest weapon is the illusion of depth. He dresses up old prejudices in new language, making them palatable to a new generation. But he is not a prophet. He is not a sage. He is a reactionary defending a world that is already dying.

And we? We are the architects of what comes next.