“He Has an Advanced Degree, So He Must Know All About Immigration!”: How Intellectualism Functions to Bring Far-Right Ideology to the General Public

On paper, Dr. Jordan Peterson (a Canadian) has an impressive academic track record. He is a Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Toronto, holds a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Alberta, a PhD in Clinical Psychology from McGill University,  and has contributed to and published more than 100 scientific papers.  In 2017, Peterson argued that the Holocaust was a “logical progression” from Adolf Hitler’s “sensitivity to disgust” and the use of Zyklon (a form of the gas deployed in the death camp chambers to execute Holocaust victims) to dispose of rats from German factories. Such an assertion is not only ahistorical (several authors and historians concur that several factors, some of which existed before Hitler was born, led to the Holocaust) it also expresses a form of Holocaust distortion, a right-wing extremist (note) ideology that minimizes the severity of the crimes of the Nazi Germany regime and its collaborators during World War II.  

This lecture is one notable instance of Peterson’s spread of what I call intellectualized disinformation, or what Nisbet calls being “gatekeepers of ideas and fountainheads of ideologies” who purposely share false information to cause harm. With Peterson, extensive credentials in a field are not a sign that he is, more often than not, a source of credible information. Instead, he and other gatekeepers weaponize their expertise to impart misogynistic, anti-Semetic, racist, and additional extremist views upon general audiences who look to these individuals for answers in a specific discipline.   

Drs.Steven Pinker and Amy Wax are two other notable promoters of intellectualized disinformation. Dr. Pinker, like Peterson, has extensive experience in the field of psychology, having earned a PhD from Harvard and been employed as a teacher at Harvard, MIT, and Stanford.  He is most (in)famous for the central thesis of his 2011 pop-science novel The Better Angels of Our Nature (see Figure 1): because of the establishment of markets and states, violence has “declined across human history.”   The controversy surrounding Pinker, however, does not end there.  Several of his other statements have been linked to right-wing extremist views, particularly those of misogyny and racism.  His other, earlier, pop-science novel, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, argues that individual behaviors (e.g., intelligence, violent tendencies) are based on our genes and not just our environments. Critics have claimed that this book is “less a defense of the underlying idea than an expression of irritation at the [racist and sexist] ways Pinker believes, accurately or not, it has been perceived.”   One such “expression of irritation” within Blank State is Pinker’s charge that the ideas of the writers of The Bell Curve (a book that asserts that black and white people may have IQ differences that are rooted in genetics) have been wrongfully denounced by political and media figures.

Figure 1.  Cover of Steven Pinker’s (in)famous 2011 novel. Wikimedia.

Dr. Pinker has frequently espoused misogynistic theories without empirical research to support them.  He claims that feminism is “‘an academic clique committed to eccentric doctrines’” and that “women are born with fundamentally different minds [note minds, not brains] to men.” In an effort to expand upon this initial argument, Dr. Pinker also states that differences in innate abilities, not discrimination, are the driving forces behind women’s failure to advance in scientific careers. On the subject of racism,  Dr. Pinker has written that the the Tuskegee study (note) was a “one-time failure to prevent harm to a few dozen people” and has used data from Steve Sailer, who has expressed the belief that white people are intellectually superior to black people. Dr. Peterson has disseminated evidence-free misogynistic theories concerning women’s cognitive abilities as well. He states that “women are genetically programmed to be have lower intellectual capacity than men (Peterson, 2017), that patriarchy is a beneficial epiphenomena of this ‘reality’, and ‘politically correct’ intellectual opposition to patriarchal structures can only end in social catastrophe “   

At present, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that men have, on average, greater cognitive ability than women. A meta-synthesis of three decades of studies of possible differences in the structures of men’s and women’s brains from a team of researchers at Rosalind Franklin University concluded that any differences between them were not due to sex or gender.  Rather, they are related to the size of their heads and do not appear to influence cognition and behavior. Concerning Pinker’s theory that women’s allegedly inferior cognitive ability results in their comparative lack of scientific career progression, neuroscientist Ben A. Barres cited past gender-blinded studies to refute this theory.  One such study concluded that “women applying for a research grant needed to be 2.5 times more productive than men in order to be considered equally competent.”  Regarding race, the Tuskegee study was no “one-time failure” (and, even if it could be classified as a singular incident, “one-time” is arguably a misnomer for an experiment that lasted 40-years) and is part of a long history of American medical exploitation of black people. 

In contrast to Drs. Pinker and Peterson,  Dr. Amy Wax’s academic credentials include an M.D. in neuroscience from Harvard Medical School and a J.D. at Columbia Law.  Currently, she is law professor at the University of Pennsylvania (subject to a one-year suspension for the 2025-2026 academic year due to controversial asides concerning race and immigration). These remarks are not limited to misconduct within the classroom. She has also, alongside University of San Diego Law Professor Larry Alexander, published a contentious op-ed that maintains “all cultures are not created equal,” implying that “multiculturalism is a deadly threat to Western society.” These “lesser” cultures consist of working-class Caucasians, African Americans, Plains Native Americans, and Hispanic immigrants. 

The lack of empirical support for Drs. Peterson, Pinker, and Wax’s controversial ideas is a feature of their writings, speeches, and/or other publications, not a bug. Their goal is not to disseminate empirically-verified data to the public. Instead, it is to impart specific far-right views  and, in doing so, introduce right-wing extremist policy preferences to their audiences in a bid to shift the “Overton Window” to the right. The Overton Window is a model for understanding how ideas in society change over time and influence politics. Socially acceptable political ideas are situated within this window, with radical ideas on either side falling outside of political “view” - those views outside the window are “extreme” on the right or the left. The “shift” in the Overton window occurs when the previously ‘unacceptable’ is “given consideration in the mainstream;”  thereby normalizing the extreme. For example, in the U.S. during the 1970’s, polls demonstrated that 70% of the public opposed the idea of homosexuality.  Since then, public support for non-hetero sexual identities has steadily increased (in 2023, 71% expressed support). This change in public endorsement has allowed for, among other things, the enactment of federal LGBTQ+ protections, and demonstrates the process of the introduction of the “radical” acceptance of the 1970s in the political mainstream.

In an age of media fragmentation, especially regarding online platforms, this window may be best conceptualized as multiple, overlapping windows in which general political perspectives dramatically vary.  The “mainstream” differs across communities and subcultures within various countries.  For almost two months, the news coverage leading up to and throughout the Canadian “Freedom Convoy” in early 2022 generally promoted the narrative that a “large and vocal sub-set of Canadians wanted (and needed) COVID-related health protections to end”  because “these things were an affront to their freedom.”  Polls conducted during the height of the Convoy indicated that almost 70% of Canadians opposed or strongly opposed  the actions of those involved.  Despite this opposition, this coverage “moved the general perception of public appetite for health protections, and the policy window, towards “‘more freedom.’”     Therefore, the “mainstream” policy preferences within a fraction, not the majority, of the population ultimately won out.  

Current and former academics use their published research, bestselling books, and public debates to shift the window of acceptable sociopolitical discourse.  Peterson is especially prolific in this regard, having YouTube videos with over 100 million views, the bestseller 12 Rules for Life, and hundreds of podcast appearances on a wide variety of shows.  Coverage of these books, research, and/or filmed debates among mainstream media outlets and specific social circles allows these academics’ ideas to filter into public discussion. As a consequence, values that were once unthinkable in public life appear more rational or necessary and a wide range of policymakers may even endorse them.

Figure 2.  Cover of Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life.

In the midst of this spread of “intellectualized” disinformation, finding data that is not, at best, distorted to promote a specific narrative is a seemingly impossible trial.  Individuals can, however, take numerous steps to counter it. 

1. Look up the track record of the person making the argument

   Although publications from figures with an advanced degree and an extensive publication history in a specific discipline may seem credible, it is always advisable to compare their statements to others from multiple sources (if available). If additional sources are not available, that says something important as well. Moreover, individuals with extensive academic records in a given field have sometimes made headlines for advancing disinformation (note). Thus, if the author(s) of these publications are the subject of numerous news articles, it may be best, before citing them, to investigate why. 

   
   

2. Familiarize oneself with common strategies spreaders of disinformation use to “hook” viewers.

   These strategies include appeals to mental heuristics, emotionally charged subjects, and political alignments. Heuristics are cognitive shortcuts individuals use to make a snap decision with limited mental effort. Although heuristics can be helpful in emergencies that require rapid judgements, they can also lead these individuals to act on unjust biases.  For instance, Dr. Peterson’s assertion that women are genetically predisposed to have a lower intellectual capacity than men attracts audience members who exhibit prejudice towards women.       

Intellectuals who engage in the dissemination of disinformation often discuss emotionally charged matters, capitalizing on research that has demonstrated social media consumers in certain mindsets (especially regarding feelings of anger and anxiety) were significantly more likely to share falsehoods than those in a more rational state of mind.  Dr. Wax’s disparaging remarks concerning working-class white, Hispanic immigrants, inner-city African Americans, and Plains Native Americans are more likely to be upsetting to readers who are part of these categories. Consequently, individuals should refrain from browsing online news feeds, articles from other academic journals, and other information sources while in a highly emotional condition or take a break upon viewing distressing content. Sharing disinformation, even with the sharer’s caveat that he or she finds it personally objectionable, still promotes these ideas and the figures who initially discuss them.

Today, discussion of the partisan media bias of various North American news outlets (e.g., The Tyee, Fox News) remains a significant concern among media experts. This issue, however, is not limited to these outlets. Academics who advance right-wing extremist beliefs are cultivating a specific audience that tends to endorse candidates and policy positions on the far-right side of the political spectrum. In Canadian federal politics, these candidates and positions would likely be a part of either the Conservative or People’s Party. In the U.S., they would likely be a part of the Republican Party. Individuals should therefore keep note of whether or not a public intellectual’s ideas consistently align with the known platform of a party and/or candidate. If so, this may not be mere coincidence.             

On occasion, an individual with numerous achievements can make intentionally inaccurate statements that convey right-wing extremist beliefs, relying upon the general public’s lack of knowledge in a certain subject or subjects and/or internal biases to avoid major criticism. While it may be difficult for the general public to discern fact from fiction in these circumstances, there are measures that can be taken to inoculate oneself from this “intellectualized” disinformation. It is always imperative to check multiple sources and consistently appraise a figure’s words for the presence of partisan inclination, emotionally charged remarks, and mental heuristics. An understanding of the fundamental “tricks” of an intellectual’s disinformation trade can serve as the best defense against its onslaught.

Notes:

1) I refer to the ideology of the figures discussed in this article as “right-wing extremism” because it broadly signifies “anti-democratic opposition towards equality” that acts in defense of social hierarchies (in Western nations, such hierarchies place men, Christians, the wealthy, racial/ethnic majorities, and the non-disabled towards the top).

2) The Tuskegee study was a U.S. government experiment in which researchers deliberately allowed over a hundred poor African American men to die of syphilis and related complications. 

3) See: the Canadian Broadcasting Company’s coverage of Michel Chossudovsky’s (a University of Ottawa professor emeritus of economics) creation of a website that featured various conspiracy theories.  These theories included the claims that the 9/11 attacks and COVID-19 pandemic were intentional acts of population control.

---

Diana Wallens is a first-year Justice, Law, and Criminology PhD student at American University.  She is specializing in the study of right-wing radicalization, the spread of technofascist philosophy in the sociopolitical mainstream, and transnational extremist networks.

---