Jordan Peterson: Telling Betas They are Alphas

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I have no idea who JP is. What do I win?

 

[Moonbeam]

fskimospy: I don’t really feel like arguing the nuances of my statement. He clearly believes equality movements are part of a conspiracy by Marxists to seize control and that such control will lead to the deaths of millions.

M: I respect your right not to want to argue but I can't accept your statement about what he clearly believes because I don't clearly believe it myself and would require argument to be persuaded of that fact. Could I ask instead then ask you how a true attempt to actualize equality of outcomes would not lead to the death of millions? By what means other than violence and the application of it would keep the most capable half of humanity from achieving their personal exelence. Do you see capable people accepting a life of mediocracy. And how equal would the people be with the power to enforce this equality of outcomes? Do you see them enforcing it on themselves? And Wasn't his point that people who believe in equality of outcome resemble people who went for Soviet and Chinese communism? And didn't that very same thinking lead to the death of millions. I can't see how you jump from equating the push for equality of outcome in the past that did result in the death of millions means he's somehow crazy for pointing out a feature between the two that is similar. When I see an animal with yellow or orange coloration, it gets my attention. And if you watch some of the so called fenimist histerical demonstrations on campuses today and don't think those people could turn on you in a heartbeat you are just crazy in my opinion.

 

[interchange]

Man I should probably actually read something this guy wrote, but I don't think I'd like it at all. My experience in trying to even understand any conversation I've been privy to regarding Peterson is that it quickly exceeds my tolerance for intellectualization. Which is sad because in principle it's engagement in human psychology which I have quite a lot of interest in.

As to whether Peterson has a point in looking at marginalization of men, well I really have no clue because I haven't read his arguments. But I do readily observe that it is quite common for people who have historically experienced privilege to feel intensely marginalized. Whether Peterson has it right or not I don't know, but I think there could be great value in being curious as to what underpins those experiences. And unless that exploration draws comparisons to other groups, I don't really see it being invalidated by blacks or women or trans people, etc., having it worse. It's my principle belief that there is no feeling which is invalid, but because someone validly feels harmed by another, that does not make it automatically so that the other has done something wrong and has any responsibility to those harm feelings.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Just another guy who figured out how to make some bucks of of some disgruntled white guys. Congrats to him I guess.

 

[realibrad]

Man I should probably actually read something this guy wrote, but I don't think I'd like it at all. My experience in trying to even understand any conversation I've been privy to regarding Peterson is that it quickly exceeds my tolerance for intellectualization. Which is sad because in principle it's engagement in human psychology which I have quite a lot of interest in.

As to whether Peterson has a point in looking at marginalization of men, well I really have no clue because I haven't read his arguments. But I do readily observe that it is quite common for people who have historically experienced privilege to feel intensely marginalized. Whether Peterson has it right or not I don't know, but I think there could be great value in being curious as to what underpins those experiences. And unless that exploration draws comparisons to other groups, I don't really see it being invalidated by blacks or women or trans people, etc., having it worse. It's my principle belief that there is no feeling which is invalid, but because someone validly feels harmed by another, that does not make it automatically so that the other has done something wrong and has any responsibility to those harm feelings.

There are some videos on youtube where he has been doing long-form discussions. I think that might interest you.

One of the big things I see him discussing is equality of outcome vs opportunity. His argument is that any problem requires people work on it collectively. Any collective action will push those with the most ability to the top creating a competence hierarchy, which is good. Those who can most productively solve the problem get pushed up. That is in a perfect system, but, systems can become corrupted. So, society has this push and pull where one side wants structures to promote competence, but the other fears large structures because of corruption. The larger the structure the bigger the impact when that structure becomes corrupted. But, you also cannot do without competence hierarchy structures as society needs to promote the most competent forward.

Thus, any system that promotes equality of outcome is not trying to push the most competent forward, as it overvalues the risk of corruption. That defeats the purpose because it does not push ahead the most competent. That creates waste and in modern society that waste has real impacts such as lower standards of living.

Some of his ideas he explains very clearly, but, not all. He seems to want to be very vague on religion, while at the same time talking about it a lot. He likes to ground morality in religious beliefs, but, I get the sense that what he sees as religion is not what most would see it as. Still trying to find more on his religious debates.

 

[OCGuy]

On a side note, anyone who describes themselves or others as either "alpha" or "beta" males, is most certainly the latter.

 

[Jaskalas]

Excuse me, but where did Spy, or anyone else in thread, claim they wanted equality of outcome?

Oh, I believe I have a related topic. Forgiveness if I remember and/or assume the wrong position of anyone here.

One of the great fallacies of our day is all the hullabaloo over the pay gap. In that, people see a difference in outcomes between two groups, and seek ways to force an equal outcome, seemingly regardless of factors outside toxic masculinity and patriarchal oppression. The issue is framed in destructive ways. Because what is true for some people, is not true for everyone as a whole.

Furthermore, what is a true statistical difference between two groups is not always a difference, or empirical truth, between two individual people. And those individuals whose coworkers DO make equal hourly wages are going to see the issue quite differently. Would you hate them for it, deride them as "other" for not agreeing? For having a life experience that tells them your pretense on this issue is false?

It is taken as a moral crusade, a wrong to right, but others think it is not the issue it is made out to be. Others would suggest that, just because an outcome is different does not inherently mean foul play, oppression, or wrong doing. Therefore, it may not be an issue that "needs" fixing or a forced solution. Where as we'd agree in principle that people must be treated equally, in practice that can result in differences in policy. Particularly when there is disagreement on interpreting underlying facts.

 

[whm1974]

There are some videos on youtube where he has been doing long-form discussions. I think that might interest you.

One of the big things I see him discussing is equality of outcome vs opportunity. His argument is that any problem requires people work on it collectively. Any collective action will push those with the most ability to the top creating a competence hierarchy, which is good. Those who can most productively solve the problem get pushed up. That is in a perfect system, but, systems can become corrupted. So, society has this push and pull where one side wants structures to promote competence, but the other fears large structures because of corruption. The larger the structure the bigger the impact when that structure becomes corrupted. But, you also cannot do without competence hierarchy structures as society needs to promote the most competent forward.

Thus, any system that promotes equality of outcome is not trying to push the most competent forward, as it overvalues the risk of corruption. That defeats the purpose because it does not push ahead the most competent. That creates waste and in modern society that waste has real impacts such as lower standards of living.

Some of his ideas he explains very clearly, but, not all. He seems to want to be very vague on religion, while at the same time talking about it a lot. He likes to ground morality in religious beliefs, but, I get the sense that what he sees as religion is not what most would see it as. Still trying to find more on his religious debates.

I have to ask, but whom is trying to get equal outcomes or is actually arguing for such?

 

[realibrad]

I have to ask, but whom is trying to get equal outcomes or is actually arguing for such?

I would say most actually. Its why so many see women not at equal representation in multiple sectors is seen as a problem. The fact that a group disproportionately represents something is seen as a sign of a problem, which is not always inherently so.

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity

Any gap between representation is proof of a problem, and the remedy is equal representation, or, equality of outcome.

 

[woolfe9998]

woolfe: I find it odd that you admit to limited exposure to Peterson and his ideas, and you of course know nothing of Dixiecrat's exposure to same, yet you take issue with his characterization. Your point that he should provide examples would be a good one if he hadn't provided a link which contains a discussion of Peterson and several passages quoted from his book. I'll agree with you here only to the extent that he should probably have added more commentary in his initial post.

M: My taking issue with his characterization has nothing to do with how well he knows Peterson or how little I know him. I object to being told flat out what the facts are about a person in the first sentence DC provided. "JP is clearly anti femininity" Imagine me starting this reply to you by saying you're clearly full of bull shit. Had I been the one wishing to provide the same opinion of Peterson I would have suggested what my opinion was and if you agreed. I would have backed up that opinion by presenting Peterson's arguments in his own words and they why I felt them to be wrong. I did read the link he gave and found it to be a bunch of interpretations of Peterson filtered through two people's opinions of him. I saw one example where I had heard Peterson in the original and disagreed completely with the interpretation of the two in the link. I saw a bunch of hearsay.

What do you want, an annotated essay which proves, with extensive examples, why Peterson is "anti-feminity?" This is a discussion board, not an academic forum. People state their opinions. They may support them with limited evidence, the more the better. What he did was state an opinion and provide a link to support it. His effort was perhaps nominal by academic standards but rather median by social media standards. If you don't think his link supports his view, then say that. Better yet, refute his argument with your own examples from Peterson's writings and statements.

w: This perception persisted for awhile as I continued to listen to him, but eventually it dawned on me that he wasn't an actual liberal who objected to political correctness, like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, or Brett Weinstein. He is, instead, a classic reactionary who dresses up his arguments with academic lingo. Peterson thinks that men, not women, are today the primary victims of sexism. Just like American conservatives think that white people are now the primary victims of racism.

M: Sorry, I have the same objection here. You are telling me as a fact what he is 'instead of something' as if it were a fact and not a change of impression about him that you came to based on your understanding of what you were hearing. You underwent a change in your opinion. You can share that with me but I'm going to rest taking it as a fact. I have to experience that same conclusion via my own realization.

I do more than the vast majority here to provide examples and evidence to support my opinions. But we're discussing a public intellectual whose views are well publicized and well known, and I'm not going to do your homework for you. You can google and quickly discover whether I've given an accurate and fair opinion of Peterson.

I suppose you could also call out Eskimospy for saying that Peterson is a climate change denier, or, hmm, you could just google "Jordan Peterson climate change" and see what you find.

w: I guess women joking about "mansplaining" and feminists kvetching about "old white men" is equivalent to being denied the right to vote for 130 years, and treated like sexual chattle in the work place and elsewhere, all of which seems to be of no concern to Peterson.

M: I find this kind of statement to be largely hallucinatory. You are again trying to frame how you want me to see what is happening. I am not pursuaded and see alternative ways to look at what you, in my opinion, possibly improperly characterize.

w: I suggest you try reading one of his books, then read some articles written by his critics, then get back to us.

M: Shame isn't going to work either.

I don't give a rats ass about Peterson other than what my own curiosity in learning what he may have to teach me that I may find of personal value. I am not, however, going to have others tell me how to see him and in their own words, word that provide evidence for opinions, not opinions as facts.

Take this for example: "I guess women joking about "mansplaining" and feminists kvetching about "old white men" is equivalent to being denied the right to vote for 130 years, and treated like sexual chattle in the work place and elsewhere, all of which seems to be of no concern to Peterson." This reminds me of my thread where I suggest we need to move to a new world view that can integrate the divisiveness that is tearing apart our political system and you saying we should complain about the anger liberals have conservatives at a time when Trump will any day now become Hitler?

That is not an accurate description of what I said in that thread. What I said, which I will restate in the most succinct manner possible, is that conservatives are simply not listening to anyone outside their bubble. And by that, no, I don't mean they are "hearing us but not really listening." I mean they (i.e. the vast majority) are physically not listening to a word we say or reading a word we write. Which strikes me as an entirely valid concern in relation to any attempt, no matter how well intended or theoretically sound, to change their minds about anything or anyone.

I suggest reading my recent response to you in that other thread before replying to this one. You might be surprised.

 

[zinfamous]

I find Mr. Peterson a bit fascinating because he's from my hometown of Toronto and teaches at our biggest university here. By all accounts he's always had an enormous ego and has held his peculiar beliefs for quite some time.

As a public intellectual - I don't really know how to say this in a non-mean way - I feel like the people who think he's brilliant are the type who also say "Harry Potter was my favourite book series!" and when you ask what else they've read that they like you find out it's also the only book series they've ever read. Mr. Peterson is an uneducated person's idea of an intellectual; enormous amounts of nonsense flows from his mouth, but enough of it "feels" right and the fact that he has the title of Professor makes his nonsense sound like something. It's not, though. It's mostly just actual nonsense.

Oddly enough I also am a subscriber to Current Affairs, which has the most comprehensive critical review of Mr. Peterson's work I've seen to date. I recommend giving it a read; it's quite long.

Current Affairs - the Intellectual We Deserve

dear god sir, you are correct. I fucking HATE Harry Potter fans. They are the most illiterate, uneducated, motherfucking morons anywhere. It isn't even close.

You've hammered that nail 10 planks thick.

The only thing worse are Tolkien fans...don't get me started.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Do you not believe equality of outcome is wrong? I think there is a big difference between saying you are for equality in terms of equality of opportunity, vs equality meaning outcome.

This is why you see countries where they have tried to give equal opportunity have seen gender differences grow larger. Differences maximize when all other needs are met. So the societies where outcome are closer tend to have either social barriers forcing people, and or extreme situations where people are simply fighting to survive.

Of course it is, but it can also be an indicator that something isn’t working equitably within the system!

So just because the medical doctor deserves more than the 1/2 time stoner; if 90% of doctors are Asian and 90% of 1/2 time stoners are white - that’s a flag that system change is needed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course it is, but it can also be an indicator that something isn’t working equitably within the system!

So just because the medical doctor deserves more than the 1/2 time stoner; if 90% of doctors are Asian and 90% of 1/2 time stoners are white - that’s a flag that system change is needed.

There is a 10 to one ratio of women to men going into the nursing profession. What flag do you see that raising other than the obvious conclusion that men don't much seem to give a fuck about helping people.

Clearly, when you address a hard problem like income inequality you are going to bring to solving it all the assumptions you have acquired and absorbed at an unconscious level and all the lenses of perspective you have acquired academically and the differences in what those are between one individual and another is going to produce different outcomes. One universal I notice in life is that everybody sees things according to whose ox gets gored. In a politically correct setting, we also have the problem that any solutions that might hurt some tender person's feelings, if those feelings are shared extensively enough, will bring retribution from those so offended. In the Hero's journey mythologically speaking, requires a decent into hell, the door to which is usually guarded by barking savage dogs. When you say inequalities may imply systemic problems, that makes perfect sense, but teasing out what is what and why I think there needs to be a broad range of perspectives at the table. Ah, but a broad range of perspective, isn't that from a feminists extremist position, exactly the problem? We see in a link I provided above, the absolute insistence by one feminist that the inequality of pay issue "HAD TO BE" the result of gender bias and could only be solved by gender pay equality as measured statistically. That is equality of outcome and it's crazy if other factors than gender are involved.

 

[ecogen]

There is a 10 to one ratio of women to men going into the nursing profession. What flag do you see that raising other than the obvious conclusion that men don't much seem to give a fuck about helping people.

I don't think the conclusion you got from this is correct. You could flip that and say most firefighters are men, I guess women don't give a fuck about saving people from fires, which is also false. These are just more examples of traditional gender roles exerting their influence in our society.

 

[realibrad]

Of course it is, but it can also be an indicator that something isn’t working equitably within the system!

So just because the medical doctor deserves more than the 1/2 time stoner; if 90% of doctors are Asian and 90% of 1/2 time stoners are white - that’s a flag that system change is needed.

That's a flag that we might want to look into it.

Take the gender pay gap. Even thought the research says the vast majority is not sexism, most still say it is.

People firmly believe all things should be equal. Well, almost everything. Many are perfectly fine with over representation when the group is seen as advantaged if the thing is bad.

 

[fskimospy]

I would say most actually. Its why so many see women not at equal representation in multiple sectors is seen as a problem. The fact that a group disproportionately represents something is seen as a sign of a problem, which is not always inherently so.

The answer is not most, it is basically zero.

People do not see the simple fact that women are not represented equally in all jobs as an inherent problem, they see the fact that women are under-represented in most of the highest paying professions without a particularly compelling non-discriminatory explanation.

By the way the most common explanation is that women don’t get those high paying jobs because they leave the workforce to have and raise children. That seems like a problem.

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity

Any gap between representation is proof of a problem, and the remedy is equal representation, or, equality of outcome.

It appears you did not actually read this piece. To quote:

We shouldn't want a better underclass. We should want no underclass, a world in which there might be some inequality but deep poverty is a thing of the past. A decent society shouldn't try to build a better aristocracy. It should try to achieve a reasonable and rising standard of living for all.

The author is not arguing for equality of outcomes. He is instead arguing that equality of opportunity is an impossible goal and so we should focus on alleviating suffering instead. The author expressly states they are not arguing for equality of outcomes so it seems strange to use that as evidence that most or all are arguing for that. I would read more closely in the future.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think the conclusion you got from this is correct. You could flip that and say most firefighters are men, I guess women don't give a fuck about saving people from fires, which is also false. These are just more examples of traditional gender roles exerting their influence in our society.

Hahahahaha Then you can fix the fire department inequality problem by getting women to care about saving people from fires, which they clearly don't because it's not a part of their tradition. Personal question....... if you have collapsed in a burning building who do you want to carry you out, a 100 lb woman or a 250 lb man? Just curious, not saying I would refuse anybody's help.

 

[realibrad]

The answer is not most, it is basically zero.

People do not see the simple fact that women are not represented equally in all jobs as an inherent problem, they see the fact that women are under-represented in most of the highest paying professions without a particularly compelling non-discriminatory explanation.

There are plenty of compelling non-discriminatory reasons. The vast majority of reason have nothing to do with discrimination.

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/publi...es/Documents/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf

Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

By the way the most common explanation is that women don’t get those high paying jobs because they leave the workforce to have and raise children. That seems like a problem.

No, its not that its because they have raised children. Its that they took time off to raise children at the prime working age and thus have a gap in experience.

If the discussion was about trying to find ways to reduce the burdens women face because of biology then fine. Even you are trying to argue its about discrimination even though the data says otherwise.

It appears you did not actually read this piece. To quote:



The author is not arguing for equality of outcomes. He is instead arguing that equality of opportunity is an impossible goal and so we should focus on alleviating suffering instead. The author expressly states they are not arguing for equality of outcomes so it seems strange to use that as evidence that most or all are arguing for that. I would read more closely in the future.

The argument is that because opportunity is not possible, that we should focus on outcomes as a metric for an equal society. That is inherently flawed as we should not only not expect equal outcomes, but, equal outcomes could harm society.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Hahahahaha Then you can fix the fire department inequality problem by getting women to care about saving people from fires, which they clearly don't because it's not a part of their tradition. Personal question....... if you have collapsed in a burning building who do you want to carry you out, a 100 lb woman or a 250 lb man? Just curious, not saying I would refuse anybody's help.

Would I want a professional male football player, or a female crackhead to try and pull me out of a burning building? Honestly, probably the crackhead because she'd likely be in the building helping me, while the football player would be off training. Or maybe you're saying a typical modern obese male American or a bulemic/anorexic (or possibly just very small) woman? Probably the woman, because while the latter would likely lack the strength to carry me, the former would be out of breath and probably dying from smoke inhalation, so at least the latter could run out and tell people that I'm inside while the fat bastard would probably need me to carry his fatass.

I hope you realize that an average healthy individual, male or female, the weight difference would be closer to 50lbs.

You know, based on you choosing to just distort everything, I'm not sure why you're not getting the quality of discourse on this topic that you seem to desire...🙄

 

[fskimospy]

There are plenty of compelling non-discriminatory reasons. The vast majority of reason have nothing to do with discrimination.

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/publi...es/Documents/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf

No, its not that its because they have raised children. Its that they took time off to raise children at the prime working age and thus have a gap in experience.

If the discussion was about trying to find ways to reduce the burdens women face because of biology then fine. Even you are trying to argue its about discrimination even though the data says otherwise.

So you are agreeing with me, great.

The argument is that because opportunity is not possible, that we should focus on outcomes as a metric for an equal society. That is inherently flawed as we should not only not expect equal outcomes, but, equal outcomes could harm society.

Using outcomes as a metric for success instead of opportunities is not the same as arguing for equal outcomes. The author explicitly states as much. Will you acknowledge that the piece you quoted exactly describes its favored outcome as a society with unequal outcomes? If so, can you explain why you thought this was a good example of people arguing for equality of outcomes? Honestly if the answer is ‘I didn’t read it’ that’s fine.

It’s possible that Peterson is similarly ignorant and so he made the same mistake as you but if that’s the case that also renders his opinions meaningless because he doesn’t know even the basics of what he’s talking about.

 

[realibrad]

So you are agreeing with me, great.

How do you see that as agreeing? I literally said something that is mutually exclusive to what you just said.

Using outcomes as a metric for success instead of opportunities is not the same as arguing for equal outcomes. The author explicitly states as much. Will you acknowledge that the piece you quoted exactly describes its favored outcome as a society with unequal outcomes? If so, can you explain why you thought this was a good example of people arguing for equality of outcomes? Honestly if the answer is ‘I didn’t read it’ that’s fine.

It’s possible that Peterson is similarly ignorant and so he made the same mistake as you but if that’s the case that also renders his opinions meaningless because he doesn’t know even the basics of what he’s talking about.

You should measure outcomes, but, those outcomes should come from the understanding of the situation. The data explains why you would not see equal representation at top earning positions, so pushing for it will create waste. The idea that working hard is a privilege is popular and that is a very flawed way of seeing the world. If you work hard, you have a massive chance of moving up in the world, and that is exactly what we want. Trying to paint the world in a way that hard work is a privilege will only hurt society.

 

[fskimospy]

How do you see that as agreeing? I literally said something that is mutually exclusive to what you just said.

No, it's just relying on a different definition of discrimination and it's not worth talking about as it will inevitably descend into pedantry.

You should measure outcomes, but, those outcomes should come from the understanding of the situation. The data explains why you would not see equal representation at top earning positions, so pushing for it will create waste. The idea that working hard is a privilege is popular and that is a very flawed way of seeing the world. If you work hard, you have a massive chance of moving up in the world, and that is exactly what we want. Trying to paint the world in a way that hard work is a privilege will only hurt society.

This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Your original statement was that Peterson was condemning those arguing for equality of outcomes. When you were informed that was not the case you said that was actually the majority opinion and quoted that piece as evidence. The piece you quoted showed the exact opposite, however, further reinforcing how no one is actually arguing that position.

So my question to you is do you think the reason for Peterson's mistake was simple ignorance or do you believe he was purposefully and dishonestly distorting the opinions of those he was arguing against? There doesn't seem to be any other option.

 

[Moonbeam]

Would I want a professional male football player, or a female crackhead to try and pull me out of a burning building? Honestly, probably the crackhead because she'd likely be in the building helping me, while the football player would be off training. Or maybe you're saying a typical modern obese male American or a bulemic/anorexic (or possibly just very small) woman? Probably the woman, because while the latter would likely lack the strength to carry me, the former would be out of breath and probably dying from smoke inhalation, so at least the latter could run out and tell people that I'm inside while the fat bastard would probably need me to carry his fatass.

I hope you realize that an average healthy individual, male or female, the weight difference would be closer to 50lbs.

You know, based on you choosing to just distort everything, I'm not sure why you're not getting the quality of discourse on this topic that you seem to desire...🙄

I am distorting things and byintention because, while I believe that gender stereotyping and racial stereotyping have been and continue to be valid issues that require address, I am not buying into this new phenomenon appearing on the mostly advanced examples of race and gender equality expressed institutions in the country, liberal universities, that shout down any attempts to rationally analyze data that would lead to conclusions that there are other factors for wage difference as one example are 100% caused by some privileged majority that has its foot on the neck of those poor poor victims.

A life lived in the hallucination we are victims is not optimal for happiness.

 

[cytg111]

He is just a guy who gets off listening to his own high lix bigoted paraphrasing and marvels at his own reflection in whomever turns up to listen to his crap.

 

[realibrad]

No, it's just relying on a different definition of discrimination and it's not worth talking about as it will inevitably descend into pedantry.

Should be an easy explanation you apparently already know what the problem is.

This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Your original statement was that Peterson was condemning those arguing for equality of outcomes. When you were informed that was not the case you said that was actually the majority opinion and quoted that piece as evidence. The piece you quoted showed the exact opposite, however, further reinforcing how no one is actually arguing that position.

What part does not have to do with this discussion? You were the one that came in on the discussion of the majority of people arguing for outcomes, as that discussion was between me, interchange, and whm1974. That was not a continuation of what you and I had been discussing until you put yourself in it. Don't blame me for a branch that you made by combining two different discussions.

Or, are you trying to say that hard work being a privilege is the thing nobody is trying to argue about?

So my question to you is do you think the reason for Peterson's mistake was simple ignorance or do you believe he was purposefully and dishonestly distorting the opinions of those he was arguing against? There doesn't seem to be any other option.

First, I'm not making the assumption he was wrong in taking the tweet to mean outcomes for the reasons I explained before. I can't say much beyond that I think Peterson was likely taking the tweet to mean outcomes. If just that tweet alone was enough to make him think outcomes, then I think that is wrong as it could mean just about anything. If there was context beyond the tweet, then that would change things.