Peterson x Dawkins
90 Minutes of Wasted Potential
Last week, Dr. Jordan Peterson, a Jungian psychoanalyst and prominent public intellectual, sat down with the esteemed Darwinian evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, Dr. Richard Dawkins. The theme of the debate as headlined aimed to explore the nature of memes, and look at the ways that they can be used to understand psychological archetypes. Underneath the surface, though, The debate had a more fundamental and ambitious aim; to bridge the gap between Jungian archetypical psychology and Darwinian biological imperatives. Such a link would be a groundbreaking step toward a synthesis of disciplines that could potentially pave the way to an array of fascinating discoveries. So, when Dr. Peterson and Dr. Dawkins sat down together, I considered it to be an excellent opportunity for two great minds, so unlike each other, yet both so intelligent, perceptive, and passionate about their convictions, to exchange ideas and come up with some penetrating insights.
A Clash of Unlike Minds
It was much to my disappointment, then, that the discussion itself was stifled in so many ways. Dr. Peterson, ever the high-strung individual, launched into almost histrionic ramblings about abstract symbols like dragons and mothers and sacred infants and societal death in response to Dr. Dawkins’s clear and direct inquiries. He often drifted from subject to subject, venturing into psychoanalytical rabbit holes that ended with only tenuous relevance to the original point of departure, if that. His reluctance to give clear answers to Dr. Dawkins’s attempts at reaching clarifications on key points, most notably concerning Dr. Peterson’s views on the literal truth of the Bible, frustrated both Dr. Dawkins and overall progress. Dr. Peterson gave the impression that he doubted the durability of his ideas against Dr. Dawkins’s sober scrutiny, and chose to dodge direct debate rather than risk being pinned down to a definite position.
Dr. Dawkins, for his part, stubbornly resisted leaving his scientific positivist comfort zone to converse with Dr. Peterson on an abstract or conceptual level. Specifically, his refusal to even consider the possibility of the merits of the Bible from any angle other than a strictly literalist one came across as obnoxiously obtuse. In fact, he wouldn’t entertain Dr. Peterson’s explanation of the psychological significance of symbolic representations and allegories as learning devices at all. This was particularly vexing for me as a listener, especially considering that those very concepts are mastered by grade school English students. To witness such a brilliant mind seem so hopelessly incapable of understanding where Dr. Peterson was coming from was beyond belief. It was to the point that I question whether Dr. Dawkins was genuinely unable to wrap his head around the concepts, or if he was intentionally stonewalling Peterson in bad faith.
In any case, if there was ever any illustration of the limits of logical positivism or evidentialism, this was certainly it.
A Final Payoff: An Evolutionary Root of Archetypes?
When the debate reached its final ten minutes, the mediator, YouTuber Alex O’Connor, reminded the two that their time was wrapping up and moved to direct Dawkins and Peterson toward a shared point of interest, the Baldwin Effect. At that moment, they must have realized that they had wasted over an hour of their viewers’ time splitting hairs, and had accomplished nothing except show the world that even two eminent intellectuals can squabble like pig-headed buffoons — because at that point, they actually made an attempt at a productive discussion. This last leg of the debate was, by far, the most productive. Perhaps the only part really worth watching. By the end, Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Peterson leave their viewers with an interesting hypothesis: They consider the possibility that the Baldwin Effect —the theoretical ability for learned behaviors to be etched into an organism’s genetic code — to be the origin of archetypes, along with other aspects of human psychology. It made for an excellent opening to a fascinating discussion. Jungian psychology was finally synthesizing with Darwinian evolutionary biology. However, the conversation didn’t get far before time ran out and the remaining thirty minutes of the debate was turned over to the paying subscribers of The Daily Wire+.
In short, the “Peterson x Dawkins” debate amounted to almost 90 minutes of pointless nit-picking and pontification. It offered only a glimpse of enlightening insights just before the curtain call. I hope Dr. Peterson and Dr. Dawkins salvaged their discussion so that DailyWire+ members could get their money’s worth in the final stretch. Ultimately, this underwhelming encounter between a Darwinian atheist and a Jungian public intellectual demonstrates that certain speed bumps and sticking points should be ironed out before any time-limited public debate is held.