As usual these days, comments on Jordan Peterson seem to polarize into caricaturish extremes.

"Down with the patriarchy! Silence him!"

"Down with the feminazis! Prof. Jordan is God!"

Part of this is, well, just how things are today on social media. Thinking is hard; most people apparently prefer not to do too much of it.

Part of it is driven by Peterson himself, I think. Let's face it: He's not a deep or original thinker. He wrote a little self-help book for young men that repackaged a simplistic reading of the Stoics with practical "Dad advice" like: Get a job, go to the gym, take a damn shower, have some self-respect and confidence. Pretty good advice, it seems to me, for most young men. (And young women). But nothing that merits either the deification or demonization that follow him everywhere.

He built that modest success into internet fame mostly by constantly whining about how oppressed he is by "the woke mobs". And, predictably, the woke mobs oblige him with over-the-top hysterical reactions to this mediocre, tired old grifter.

Finally, a big part of the polarization derives, I think, from a common inability (or unwillingness) to separate the descriptive from the prescriptive; the empirical from the normative.

I mean, long story short:

It is possible to observe, as Peterson basically does — that most people are heterosexual, most men have more testosterone than most women and act accordingly, and so on — and yet still allow for and respect those people and events that DON’T conform to broad sociobiological trends. In other words, gay and trans people are fine, and have rights. A woman can be an excellent Marine Corps officer. A man can be a nurturing stay-at-home dad. And so on. Right?

Why not observe and respect both the rules AND the exceptions? The trends AND the outliers? The legacy of history AND the possibility of change?

In other words, why not be intelligent and kind?