The study investigates the role of Jordan Peterson within the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) using symbolic convergence theory and Q-methodology, analyzing perspectives from 69 participants about Peterson's messages. Four distinct viewpoints emerge from the analysis: the existentialist, the spectator, the exacerbated prophet, and the sober saint, each reflecting different interpretations of Peterson's narrative and its implications on societal discourse. The research suggests that Peterson's popularity indicates a collective search for meaning in an increasingly fragmented world.

1. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
i
Jordan Peterson, the Intellectual Dark Web, and a Converging Rhetorical Vision:
A Q-Method Study
Mark Kelsey
School of Communication and the Arts
Regent University
May 2019

2. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
ii
Abstract
Even as the world becomes intricately connected by the Internet, many sense their symbolic
foundations splintering. This study investigates the role of psychologist and YouTube celebrity
Jordan Peterson in addressing this problem. The framework of symbolic convergence theory is
paired with Q-methodology to proceed with this inquiry. Sixty-nine participants closely
attending the messages of Peterson represent their perspectives through the Q-sorting procedure
in which they produce an arrangement of a sample of 78 statements of opinion circulating
through the conversation surrounding the work of Peterson and the intellectual dark web. Each
sort is subjected to by-person factor analysis. Three factors are extracted and judgmentally
rotated, bipolar factor 1 is split, non-confounding highly-loaded Q-sorts are flagged, composite
factor arrays are produced and interpreted. The four viewpoints are (1a) the existentialist, (1b)
the spectator, (2) the exacerbated prophet, and (3) the sober saint. Each viewpoint is unpacked
and compared. Implications regarding a potentially emerging rhetorical vision and its evolution
are discussed.

3. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Blank Q-Sort 59
Figure 2: Principal Component Analysis Scree Plot 62
Figure 3: Composite Q-Sort for Factor 1a 67
Figure 4: Composite Q-Sort for Factor 1b 76
Figure 5: Composite Q-Sort for Factor 2 85
Figure 6: Composite Q-Sort for Factor 3 92
Figure A1: Factor 1b Alternate Array 123

4. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Distinguishing Statements of Factor 1a 72
Table 2: Distinguishing Statements of Factor 1b 82
Table 3: Distinguishing Statements of Factor 2 89
Table 4: Distinguishing Statements of Factor 3 98
Table 5: Consensus Statements and Z-Score Averages 100
Table 6: Factor Score Calculations 101

5. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
v
Table of Contents
Abstract i
List of Figures ii
List of Tables iii
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
Digital Sensemaking 1
The Intellectual Dark Web 3
Jordan Peterson 5
Going Viral. 7
Bill C-16. 7
Biblical Series. 8
Channel 4 Interview. 9
Book Tour. 10
Informal Pilot Study 11
Sam Harris Debates 13
Contribution to Scholarly Literature 15
Basics of Q-Methodology. 15
Theoretical and Design Considerations 17
Chapter 2 - Literature Review 19
Web 2.0 20
Polarization. 21
Political Correctness and Moral Cultures. 26
Symbolic Convergence Theory 30
Semiotic Configurations. 31
Dramatized Visions 32
SCT Assumptions. 33
Core Concepts. 35
Applications of SCT. 45
Criticisms of SCT. 46
Chapter 3 - Methodology 51
Introduction to Q-Method 51
Concourse 52
Methodological Considerations 54
P-set 55
General Demographics 57

6. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
vi
Procedure 58
Analysis 60
Chapter 4 - Results 66
Factor 1a: The Existentialist 66
Factor 1b: The Spectator 74
Factor 2: The Exasperated Prophet 84
Factor 3: The Sober Saint 90
Consensus Statements 99
Factor Correlations and Interpretations 101
Chapter 5 - Discussion 105
Symbolic Convergence Theory and Other Implications 106
Limitations 109
Conclusion 111
References 112
Appendices 120
Appendix I: Q-Set 120
Appendix II: Factor Comparisons 124
Appendix IIa: Factor Comparison Between Factor 1a and Factor 1b 124
Appendix IIb: Factor Comparison Between Factor 1a and Factor 2 127
Appendix IIc: Factor Comparison Between Factor 1a and Factor 3 130
Appendix IId: Factor Comparison Between Factor 1b and Factor 2 133
Appendix IIe: Factor Comparison Between Factor 1a and Factor 3 136
Appendix IIf: Factor Comparison Between Factor 2 and Factor 3 139
Appendix III: Factor Defining Sorts Flagged 142
Appendix IV: Q-sort Values for Statements Sorted by Consensus vs. Disagreement 145

7. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
1
Introduction
People organize their brains with conversation. If they don't have anyone to tell their
story to, they lose their minds. Like hoarders, they cannot unclutter themselves.
—Jordan Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An antidote to chaos, 2018
The purpose of this study is to apply symbolic convergence theory and Q-methodology to
better understand the phenomenon of one of the intellectual dark web’s most popular
communicators, Dr. Jordan Peterson. The study focuses on him for two reasons: (a) Peterson has
enjoyed enormous success in communicating his ideas in the new and radically different context
of the intellectual dark web (“IDW”), and (b) the symbolic narratives shared collectively by
Peterson’s audience, if true, reveal that Western society continues to grope for symbolic
representations of reality that make sense of an increasingly fractured world. These
communication developments appear to be absent from the present literature, and thus, worth
considering.
Digital Sensemaking
It is safe to assume that the technological marvel of the Internet represents the most
staggering alteration of human communication behaviors. The “how so?” imbedded in this
assertion is not an easy crossing. Perhaps this alteration is more quantitative in nature. That is,
the number of communication acts permitted are greatly enhanced by the Internet, as are the
spatial limitations to such acts severely reduced.
On the other hand, perhaps this new communication technology is more significant for
the qualitative alterations which lay in its wake. The portrait of Katherine Parr requested by King
Henry VIII must be of a different kind, at least in some respect, than that of a snap on Snapchat
or a selfie posted on Instagram. The reasons motivating such acts may be very similar in kind

8. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
2
indeed. Perhaps the king would say that, at least on Snapchat and Instagram, flattering filters are
to be expected more so than the generous touches of an artist’s paintbrush.
We cannot consider how the recent technological revolution affects our communications
without focusing on those who communicate and what they are communicating. We must arrive
at a restaurant, select a table, and start the conversation. I propose our persons-and-content
conversation should take place at the Internet table and begin with the development of the Web
2.0 platforms, which replaced static web pages with a dynamic interface that allowed users to
create as well as receive content.
One peculiarity common to Web 2.0 conversations is the ambiguity of intimacy. People
tend to treat a face to face dialogue as something distinct from, say, a conference call. This is not
the first time a relatively novel means of communication has caused confusion regarding the
private to non-private nature of an interaction. But this observation makes our task no less
challenging. The anonymity of online messengers, not to mention the anonymity of mere content
viewers who do not directly engage in any manner easy to perceive, with the expansion of the
availability of engagement afforded by the Internet, combine to make the objective of selecting a
table and a conversation far from straightforward. There is even a term used to describe an online
domain with additional measures of intentional anonymity: Dark Web. Typically, this term
indicates data encrypted in such a manner that the spiders utilized by the common web-user
cannot access them. The term has also come to be used to describe a hidden community on the
Internet, not due to covert programming, but due, at least partially, to the anonymity inherent to
Web 2.0 communications in general. This usage also implies the content of the conversation to
be different from the content preferred across other means of mediation. This alternative, perhaps

9. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
3
ironic, usage of “Dark Web” is operationalized in what has come to be called the Intellectual
Dark Web.
The Intellectual Dark Web
The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) refers to a group of thinkers, typically academics, who
discuss a broad range of topics. Presently, the term is not a generic one—referring to any
collection of academic discussions principally mediated over Web 2.0 technologies—but refers
to a particular constellation of users on a particular platform. The term was coined by Eric
Weinstein in 2018 during a live event with Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro (which was
subsequently streamed on Harris’ “Waking Up” podcast with the title: “Intellectual Dark Web.”)
(Harris, 2018).
Weinstein (2018) later explained that the term “Intellectual Dark Web” was chosen, in
part, to seem silly in an overly-serious, deadpan manner. One joke imbedded in the title,
explained later by Weinstein, is the word “dark” having the meaning of hidden. It is obvious,
however, that these thinkers are acting as public personas. They are not going dark in this sense.
When that irony is pointed out, however, and treated as a discovery which fundamentally
discredits the group, another layer of irony is added. This is similar to a common use of the
“Pepe the Frog” meme in which creators depict Pepe as an outrageous stereotype in order to jest,
not at the group associated with the stereotype, but at the reaction of those who point it out and
object to the symbolic discrimination. The other irony imbedded in the term “dark” is the
connotation of evil. This too predicts responses to the phenomenon as anathema in one form or
another. In short, a principal aim of the name chosen was to be “highly memetic” (ibid).
There is no shortage of implications to be derived from the term and the intentions behind
its creation. For one, it is obvious that a sense of an objectivated phenomenon has been so

10. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
4
perceived as to deserve a typified designation. That is to say, this collection of thinkers having
online conversations with one another are sufficiently perceived as pertaining to a conversation
in which all members are involved. The other cursory implications of the naming of this
collection of thinkers relate to this conversation and its circumstances. Both the irony intended in
the title “IDW” and oft-shared sentiments forwarded by its members allude to a broader
rhetorical environment sufficiently lacking explanatory power and is blemished by an inclination
toward moral hysteria (e.g., “fake news” and “outrage culture”). The fact it is expected that old-
media professionals will “miss the point” when discussing the IDW only enhances the suspicion,
held by many in the IDW, that there is a commonsensically palpable incapability among those
trusted to investigate and discuss the issues of the day to do just that.
It is difficult to ascribe a common worldview to the preeminent members of the IDW.
One thread which may run through them all, but likely does not constrain them equally, is a high
regard for free and good-faith speech along with a worry that the widespread capacity to enjoy
and implement this faculty in the public square has been eroding. All of this, of course, deserves
elaboration. But for now, and for the justification of this research effort, it is sufficient to note
that this arena presents an opportunity. In particular, this relatively common sensitivity to an
eroding rhetorical vision/style (overtly evident in traditional media infrastructures) with the
concurrent activity of gathering around a project devoted to a better one, indicate fertile territory
for communication scholarship.
The Intellectual Dark Web has become a subject of debate. Some argue that this
phenomenon is “a bunch of smart people find[ing] a way to make money off of niche political
audiences by spewing opinions without doing much new research” (Dreger, 2018). Of the
members of the IDW,

11. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
5
What they all share is not a general commitment to intellectual free exchange but a
specific political hostility to “multiculturalism” and all that it entails. In previous decades,
their views were close to hegemonic in the intellectual center … It would not be
surprising to see many of the people [In the IDW] defect to the forces of darkness over
the next couple of years. Instead, it would be surprising if some did not. (Farrell, 2018)
Regarding the IDW phenomenon, others contend that,
The Intellectual Dark Web is the start of something much bigger than edgy teenagers
looking for unpopular opinions to annoy others with; it is an outlet for truth- seekers to
collaborate on the advancement of society. It is a place where ideas are freely exchanged
as they ought to be. It is a place where great minds can express themselves unfettered
from societal constraints. (Brandt, 2018)
Of the members of the IDW,
One thing the members of the intellectual dark web certainly do not have in common is
ideology, philosophy or politics. The intellectual dark web is an intellectually diverse
group of people and that is what sets this group apart. The most obvious commonality is
that they all are willing and happy to engage with people they disagree with, this is where
the value in the group comes from. (Welty, 2018)
Jordan Peterson
One member of the IDW, Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Bernt Peterson (JBP), has
arrived to such an environment in which he is commonly referred to as ‘our Internet dad’ and
‘top lobster.’ It is difficult to locate any consensus among those discussing Dr. Peterson, his role,
and his ideas. However, even commenters (particularly journalists) who seemingly lament his
emergence as a public figure acknowledge a ubiquitous perception that his emergence is, indeed,
“surprising” and “odd” (Weiss, 2018). In this regard, it is generally uncontested that something
anomalous is afoot; be it the void of rich public and intellectual discourse unsatisfactorily met by

12. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
6
present media institutions (as commonly felt among those of the IDW), an upsurge in nefarious
right-wing/conservative online activity (a proposition common to many editorials regarding the
phenomenon), or whatever else (Welty, 2018; Ferrell, 2018).
It is beyond the scope of the present effort to offer explanations for how this surprise
came to be. Likewise, it is not the aim of this paper to explain what, exactly, the public life of
Jordan Peterson and broader IDW indicate in terms of macro-cultural significance. For now, and
until additional scholarship contributes to the investigation, the proposal of such explanations
must be primarily left to the relevant discourse still unfolding. This paper does intend to
investigate those for whom JBP has proved worthy of attention and to observe such individuals’
subjective constellations of meaning and significance, particularly those related to subjects
commonly discussed/debated within the IDW.
Jordan Peterson has spent most of his life as a clinical psychologist and professor of
psychology. Following his attainment of a doctorate in Psychology from McGill University,
Peterson served as a postdoctoral fellow at McGill, then as a professor at Harvard University,
and now holds the position of tenured professor at the University of Toronto. Dr. Peterson has
authored and coauthored over a hundred published academic papers, which have garnered over
ten thousand citations. His early scholarship primarily investigated genetic predictors for
alcoholism. The subjects of his later work include personality psychology, clinical psychology,
creativity, psychology of religion, and more.
These observations indicate that Peterson is a dedicated academic, but not one inclined to
be exclusively dedicated to any single focus of study. During the earlier phases of his career,
Peterson worked for thirteen years on his first book, Maps of Meaning: The architecture of belief
(1999), a work of an exceptionally broad scope combining Jungian psychology, comparative

13. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
7
religion, comparative mythology, neuropsychology, Continental and Positivist philosophies,
investigations of totalitarian governments, and more. Peterson has put his clinical work, along
with his work teaching at the university, on hold in the aftermath of the explosion of his public
life in 2016.
Going Viral. Jordan Peterson arrived on YouTube in 2013. His earliest uploads were his
interviews and lectures broadcast on public television and recordings of his “Maps of Meaning”
classes at Harvard University. These lectures generated a fair amount of positive attention but his
name did not become commonplace on the Internet until the release of a set of videos titled
“professor against political correctness” (Peterson, 2016)—in which Peterson elaborates on
changes in Western University culture and proposed legislation (Bill C-16) related, in Peterson’s
view, to contemporary assaults on free speech. Although similar to the upsurge of “political
correctness” in the early nineties, this PC resurrection, roughly two decades later, brings with it
the popularity of terms such as “trigger warning,” “microaggression,” and “safe space” (Harvey,
2002; Campbell & Manning, 2014).
Bill C-16. While Peterson was never shy of public appearances before the beginning of
his Internet fame (he had produced content for, and joined discussions and interviews on, public
broadcast television, for example), it is generally agreed that the beginning of Peterson’s
celebrity status can be linked to his video-critique of Canadian legislation, Bill C-16, and the
surprising responses which followed. Protests against Peterson were staged at the University of
Toronto (genuiNEWitty, 2016), McMaster University (Beatty, 2017 & Eggplantfool, 2017), and
elsewhere (Peterson, March 11, 2018). Peterson also joined televised discussions of Bill C-16
and the cultural debates surrounding it, and was invited to elaborate his case in front of
governmental officials.

14. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
8
There seem to be two levels of disagreement converging in the Bill C-16 controversy.
One level is more culturally and socially relevant, the other legal and philosophical. The former
level includes transgendered rights, the latter includes freedoms of speech. The legislation itself
has since passed. The surrounding controversy, however, has not abated.
Amidst the controversy, Peterson’s YouTube channel spiked in its subscription count and
rate of growth. His number of Patreon (a crowdfunding site) supporters swelled. All of his videos
spiked in view-count as well. This makes intuitive sense in one way—national coverage of
polarized controversy will increase traffic—and is intuitively nonsensical in another: many of the
sorts of people curious in the political controversy are apparently the sorts of people to listen to
hours of lectures on various domains of psychology. Peterson also accepted interviews both on
public broadcast television and online YouTube or podcast settings. As his fame steadily
climbed, so too did the view counts on all of his previous videos. Some of the most successful
videos following this turning point include his Patreon question and answer sessions, where
online patrons submit questions in a live video chat, and his series of videos recording the live
lectures he gave on the psychological interpretation of the early biblical stories.
Biblical Series. Peterson’s most-viewed video is from his first installment of this
consistently sold-out live series on “The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories”
(Peterson, 2017). In this series, Peterson sets out to comment on the entire Book of Genesis;
integrating various philosophical, psychological, and religious reflections along the way. He
speaks fast but moves through the text at a very slow pace. Many of the questions in the live
Q&A are political and cultural in nature. The comments on the video, however, are seldom
political: filled more with thoughts on religion and personal confessions. Here are a few
examples:

15. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
9
“If this is what church was like I'd be there every day.”
“The dude is a genius. I’m an atheist but he finally articulated the role of religion in the
way I knew all along, but did not have the level of study to say.”
“I'm a 64 year old man. Why do I weep when I hear this man?”
“If my therapist would have been as smart and eloquent as Jordan Peterson I would have
cured my existential crisis a couple years ago. But at least I am now starting to fully
understand myself”
“I'm becoming religious, its crazy”
“this man is the reason i now believe in God. he is truly inspiring. he is the reason for my
spiritual awakening, i kid you not.”
“Me 5 years ago: religion is for sheep, it's just the opiate of the masses Me now: Finally,
a two and a half hour lecture on God”
“By far the most interesting thing I’ve ever heard in my entire life and I assume for the
rest of it.” (ibid)
The biblical series began soon after the Bill C-16 controversy. It was also around this
time when Peterson could no longer read all of the e—mails being sent to him.
Channel 4 Interview. Following the surge in Peterson’s popularity approximately
catalyzed by Bill C-16 disagreements, Peterson steadily became increasingly popular online and
appeared on traditional media programs with increased frequency. Though peppered with various
spikes and salient developments, Jordan Peterson grew in popular recognition at a steady and
gradual pace. That changed after his interview with Cathy Newman on the BBC’s Channel 4
(2018). While the Bill C-16 event thrusted Peterson’s name into news feeds of many people who
hitherto never heard of him, the interview conducted in Great Britain a little more than a year
later rocketed his name into public discourse at staggering magnitude.
For example, the weighted average of Google searches including the term “Jordan
Peterson” during his initial Bill C-16 spike is 3 (week of October 23-29, 2016). The result
produced by searches during the BBC interview (centered around the week of January 21-27,
2018) yield a rating of 100. These ratings conform to the time frame selected for search statistics,

16. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
10
five years in this case (this is the most precise time frame, which also included the beginning-to-
present of Peterson’s online popularity, allowed using Google trends’ basic functions).
On the face of it, there is nothing profoundly unique about the interview. Milo
Yiannopolous, famous for his provocative style and engagement with contentious political
matters, also had an interview with Cathy Newman a few months prior to Jordan Peterson. The
BBC’s Channel 4 YouTube video (Channel 4 News, 2018) of this interview (which is shorter,
and conducted just weeks following the 2016 U.S. presidential election of Donald Trump) yields
under one million views at this time of writing. Also at this time of writing, the BBC’s Channel 4
YouTube post of Jordan Peterson’s interview with Cathy Newman (which happened two months
later) has attracted over 15 million views. Perhaps the comparison is inapt. But the fifteen-fold
difference is not one easily explained. Thankfully, and unfortunately, that explanation is beyond
the scope of this paper.
A brief scroll through the comments on this video will reveal a very consistent and
probably strong reaction: Jordan Peterson displayed remarkable composure and intellectual
precision while Cathy Newman displayed an impenetrable resolve to misunderstand and/or
misrepresent her guest. The result was the production of many Internet memes using the phrase
“so you’re saying...” (an oft-repeated phrase by Cathy Newman in the interview) followed by an
absurd interpretation and evidence of an acute and ubiquitous need for common sense-making.
Book Tour. During the timeframe of the now-infamous Channel 4 interview, Peterson
was traveling throughout the world doing interviews and giving lectures largely to promote his
upcoming book, 12 Rules for Life: An antidote to chaos (2018). Numerous pre-orders of the
book followed the interview, but the size of that effect is difficult to determine. Upon release,

17. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
11
Peterson’s book made it to the top of many sale indices. On the Amazon.com “Best Sellers of
2018 (So Far)” list (retrieved in October), 12 Rules is ranked in the fifth position.
Jordan Peterson’s schedule in 2018 is filled with lecture events throughout the globe
(primarily in Canada, the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia). These two- to three-hour events are
routinely sold out. During these events, Peterson addresses almost as many topics as attentive
listeners; while generally unpacking concatenated arguments for the meaning of life, individual
responsibility, and an evolutionary basis of morality. The practiced but unscripted lectures are
dense with axiological and ontological reasoning which hold the attention of the audience.
Informal Pilot Study
In June of 2018, I attended a “12 Rules Tour” in Richmond, Va. I had been preparing for
the present project for some time, so I was not expecting to hear many new Petersonian ideas,
and I had not yet developed any hypotheses or precise research questions. But the overall
question, “What is happening?”, was already plaguing my mind. So I hastily devised a short
survey which my father and one of his law clerks helped me administer before people reached
their seat. The survey questions inquired about when and through which form of media people
first heard about Dr. Peterson, frequency of discussions about Dr. Peterson and his ideas,
frequency of Peterson’s ideas spontaneously coming to mind, novelty of Peterson’s ideas,
persuasiveness of Peterson’s ideas, effects on communication patterns, religious orientations of
audience, perception of Peterson’s character, subscription/following Peterson’s social media
accounts, and the frequency of other mediated engagement with Peterson. Most questions were
answered using a five-point Likert scale.
The research design and small sample size (n=30; while a total of 32 surveys were
initially gathered, two surveys were omitted due to the fact the respondents indicated that they

18. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
12
were invited by a friend/family member and do not know anything personally about Jordan
Peterson) do not allow for much confidence in the results, but they are worth mentioning. Keep
in mind, while basic statistical measures were applied to assess the data, a coherent statistical
algorithm is not applied. Neither the validity of item measurements nor the generalizability of the
findings can be asserted.
The strongest item, with the second-least amount of variance (s= .55), was thinking Dr.
Peterson to be an honest person (m= 4.66). More varied responses appear to the questions, “I
consider myself to be a religious person” (s= 1.25; m= 3.40) and “Dr. Peterson has encouraged in
me a renewed interest in the Bible” (s=1; m=3.36). Reports of style-matching (e.g.,
spontaneously using some of Peterson’s expressions and mannerisms) were also indicated (s=
.73; m= 3.86). The sense that Peterson has enlightened people to entirely new concepts was
consistently strong (s= .51; m=4.53), more so than the sense that Peterson “sheds new light on
old topics” (s= .94; m= 3.50). The results indicate regular discussion about Peterson with friends
and family (s= .90; m= 4.13), a stronger feeling that Peterson has helped respondents understand
their own beliefs (s= .73; m= 4.23) than the still-convincing feeling of Peterson’s ideas
challenging personal beliefs (s= .76; m= 3.90), and an effect of Peterson on how respondents
now communicate their personal beliefs (s= .83; m= 4.07).
Most respondents indicate a regular diet of media about “Jordan Peterson and/or his
ideas” (s= .76; m= 4.33). All respondents, except for three, subscribe to Jordan Peterson’s
personal YouTube channel. About one third of respondents follow Jordan Peterson on Facebook.
About half follow him on Twitter. Most discovered Peterson though either an online interview
with him or on his personal YouTube page; a few discovered him via broadcast media or by

19. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
13
other means. Most learned of him within a year or two of the event; a couple had known of him
for less than 6 months, three knew of him for more than 2 years, and one for over 3 years.
The general consensus seems to be that people are attracted to the candid nature of Jordan
Peterson, his ideas, and his rhetorical skill in conveying them. The results, and the fact of the
setting in which they were gathered, indicate sustained attention, personal relevance, and a desire
to discuss Petersonian phenomena. Not particularly groundbreaking insights; but they do, even
modestly, strengthen the case that a sense-making community/framework is emerging.
Sam Harris Debates
In addition to the 12 Rules Tour, Jordan Peterson has appeared on various online
interviews and live debates. One of the most popular of these debates are between Peterson and
Sam Harris—a well-known author, podcast host, and atheist. This signifies another interesting
rhetorical development. Rather than a debate between a believer/scholar of religion and an
atheist scholar, the interest is now between an atheist scholar and one sympathetic to religious
meaning who is ontologically ambivalent or undecided on the typical metaphysical positions on
divinity (Peterson & Harris, 2018).
If the IDW is anything, it is an effort to meet the minds of those who seemingly disagree
and to offer and create scaffolding on which everyone can grow their streams of thought.
Members of the IDW naturally emphasize their own maps of reality but, unnaturally, insist that
each map proposed is considered fairly. This insistence, often embodied in the practice of “steel-
manning” (as opposed to straw-manning) a divergent case, requires that one interacts with and
conceptualizes a foreign point of view in a manner one native to that perspective sees as
accurate. This is not agreement; it is a determination to differentiate between true points of
disagreement from haphazard appearances of conflict. This is most readily seen in the evolution

20. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
14
of the debates between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris. Similarly, this study seeks to represent
perspectives so-construed according to those maintaining them, before comparing those
perspectives, while, as much as one can reasonably expect, leaving axiological discriminations to
the participants in and readers of this study. The balance of intense intellectual competition with
robust cooperation is akin to one of Peterson’s favorite ideas in which one plays a game in such a
way to win the most games in a set of possible games (i.e. Piagetian equilibrated state).
In the pilot results mentioned above, responses to the questions related to religion were
the least consistent. Perhaps the boundaries between those uncommitted to any definitive
acceptance or rejection of the divine, and those more prone to definitive positions, are blurring.
Within the present rhetorical framework, however, atheistic dogmas (remove negative
connotation) represent a relatively traditional configuration which has yet to be transformed by a
parallel order of magnitude in comparison with these religious adherents. The problem is we do
not yet have a rhetorical tradition which can make sense of these worldview categories. And we
may be reaching a point where describing a category—which has been meaningfully
renovated—merely as an heir to an historical predecessor (e.g., neo-x) no longer fulfills the
demands of Weltanschauung-taxonomic-structure. The same sentiment which both drives people
toward the Intellectual Dark Web and provides them a common perspective of the present is the
same sentiment found once the IDW-rabbit hole is followed to the bottom: shared paradigms of
sensemaking are presently inadequate, uncertainty abounds more than seems reasonable, and this
is a problem which needs to be solved and no one seems to be able to solve. Perhaps the best
solution is the sincere, non-cynical search for the solution.
It was fun making up languages when we were kids; we had the safety of sufficiently
knowledgeable adults and the language we learned from them to protect us while we tried to

21. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
15
invent another (by the same rules of the one we knew, no doubt). But now, to put it in
tragicomical fashion, we need a language (e.g., shared representational/meaning structure)
without much of one to reply upon (or none left from our heritage which have not been zealously
defaced) and no metaphysical guides to emulate. At some point one may notice there’s not
obviously anywhere else to go from there. Perhaps the reemergence of the problem of religion is
not so surprising after all.
Contribution to Scholarly Literature
Toward the investigation of Jordan Peterson as a communication phenomenon, the
purpose of this study is to assess construals of reality common to people for whom Peterson’s
work has proven to be personally salient. From there, implications for potentially emerging
rhetorical visions can be traced. The grounding theoretical framework, upon which this
assessment is designed, is Ernest Bormann’s symbolic convergence theory (SCT) (Bormann,
1972). Rather than the more common method of rhetorical analysis used to accompany SCT (i.e.,
fantasy theme analysis), this project will employ Q-methodology.
Basics of Q-Methodology. There are a few methodological orientations common to the
social sciences, but the two most familiar are qualitative and quantitative approaches. In the
qualitative study, depth of insight into subjectively constellated perspectives is the primary
objective. It tends to offer what even some of the most creative quantitative designs cannot
thoroughly ground, but also fails to offer what most quantitative designs are adept at measuring:
statistical validation and generalizability of findings from the sample to population. This does not
mean, of course, that either methodology ensures quality and confidence in any particular study.
The same is true of Q-methodology, which is qualiquantilogical. Its aim is investigation into
subjectively held perspectives, or subjectivity itself, rather than the validation of theoretically-

22. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
16
derived traits, variables, or psychometric dimensions (Brown, 1980). It is at bottom qualitative.
But it approaches such insight by subjecting results to statistical analyses rather than employing
in-depth interviews and the like.
Q-method requires a set of items which will be arranged by participants with respect to
the criteria designated to arrange these items and the sorter’s own psychological-significance/
salience complex. For example, a set of cards, each presenting a different color, could be
presented with the condition of arrangement being “feels most like (and unlike) home.” These
colors could then be arranged according the subjective intuitions of participants and then inter-
subject constellations can be compared, rather than the items themselves, to produce insight into
common patterns of ‘color-hominess’ perspectives. A more thorough explanation of the Q-sort
process is required and will be provided in the section devoted to methodology.
At the time of writing, no scholarly material investigating the IDW or Jordan Peterson’s
new role as a public figure exists. Perhaps it makes sense for a graduate student, who has not yet
specialized in any research sub-field, to be the one to take the first shot at this fairly recent
phenomenon. Given this situation, it will be necessary to rely on relevant theoretical frameworks,
primary sources, and non-scholarly secondary sources. There are many intelligent and
credentialed individuals discussing the IDW, so there is no lack of quality materials to review.
But there is a need for scholarship, particularly communication scholarship. There are many
psychological, religious, philosophical, political, and other experts in on the conversation, but
scholarship dedicated to the investigation of communication phenomena have yet to arrive at the
scene of this new-media anomaly spectacle.
Jordan Peterson is not the only promising candidate to focus on in the contexts of cultural
and academic discourse and the IDW. But he is an obvious contender. For one, Peterson’s case

23. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
17
points to this hazy veil through which one passes and moves as one generally held in esteem, to
one subjected to great admiration, great skepticism, and great derision all at once. It is, after all,
of abundant symbolic interest when one moves from, this moment an elephant, to the next, a tree,
a snake, and a wall. A common thread combining many of the IDW is (a) their being surprisingly
rejected or scrutinized by the institution to which they had hitherto belonged and (b) those who
have not been so dramatically excommunicated from any particular institution (if at all) but were
willing to converse with the excommunicated. Like many associating with the IDW, Peterson is
a philosophically-oriented academic. And like all so-described as members of IDW, Peterson
shares an insistence on the value of freedom of speech that is within the bounds of the law (i.e.,
precluding defamation, slander/libel, and calls to violence or otherwise breaches of law) and
urges people to tell the truth as they see it and accept the discomforts which may come along the
way.
Theoretical and Design Considerations
There are two sets of research questions to consider. The first would utilize the
terminology localized in SCT. The second would inquire into the salience of topics elicited in
Peterson’s communication and the relationships of those concepts. The two sets overlap
theoretically to a large degree but require different starting points. The former set requires
explanations of the fundamental concepts in SCT. For this reason, potential research questions
which are more germane to this approach will be detailed in the literature review.
In the broadest sense, and to varying degrees, this study will contribute by extending
SCT’s ongoing assessment of rhetorical visions (particularly those within the anglosphere),
providing a case study of self-educating people in the context of the world’s most recent
revolution in mediated information production and consumption, reassessing the theoretical

24. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
18
contours of communication scholarship, and by offering a tool for the investigation of
subjectivity in online communities which will be amenable to alteration and reapplication.
At the time of writing, it is widely held that societies across the globe are in a time of
many converging transitions in political, media, economic, educational, and philosophical
landscapes. For researchers, casual observers, and specialized commentators alike, this presents a
recursive “chicken-or-egg” problem (e.g., “is political phenomenon x the consequence of media
phenomenon y, or is y actually a response to x?”) on top of the problems as felt on the ground.
All social institutions produce a set of socially objectivated knowledge that can be taken for
granted as “the way things are” (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). For many people today, the stock
of such knowledge seems to be thinning and poses a problem not only felt by the young. As
distressing as this is, the unique human capacity of communicative sense-making is at the heart
of navigating the waters of confusion which seem to be no less likely, and is perhaps more likely,
during unprecedented times of access to copious amounts of information. It is assumed that the
process of converting information into knowledge is a fundamental operation of symbolic
convergence and is active in the Peterson and IDW phenomenon. In short, the significance of
this study is integrally connected to the aim of watching and describing the dynamic process of
human sense-making in action.

25. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
19
Literature Review
This review of literature will survey Web 2.0 communications, political and social
polarization, and symbolic convergence theory. Digital media are relevant to the present study
because Jordan Peterson’s rise to public prominence is initially linked to his “going viral” online,
which was sustained by the body of work (e.g., college lectures) already available on YouTube
along with subsequent appearances (which are mostly viewed online).
Furthermore, the title of the “Intellectual Dark Web” itself, with which Peterson is often
associated, implies a self-consciousness of the Internet’s role in facilitating the informal group’s
function. Political and social polarization are also worthy of theoretical attention as Peterson’s
emergence as a public figure was forged in the crucible of cultural strife and the clash of points
of view. While it is not the aim of the present study to establish this causal link, it is quite likely
that the conflict sparked mass attention, but Peterson’s body of work (at least some of it)
sustained and rerouted it. Either way, it is worth taking a look at the dynamics of polarization,
particularly on the college campus (where Peterson first met protests against him) and across
digital networks, in search of theoretical tools germane to the present project.
Finally, this review includes a thorough examination of symbolic convergence theory and
its core concepts. SCT serves as the principal theoretical framework from which the study
proceeds. While a general theory, SCT is particularly interested in rhetorical environments and
their capacity to facilitate or mitigate the “chaining-out” of group consciousnesses. Of the
numerous communication theories at our disposal, SCT is exceptionally suited to address the
phenomena under consideration in this study.

26. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
20
Web 2.0
Global Internet usage has been skyrocketing for decades. In 2018, the total number of
Internet users among the global population tipped over the 50% mark, potentially indicating
slower rates of future growth (Meeker, 2018). Around 60% of all payments are now processed
digitally (i.e., not in physical store). Offline connections determined by online networks have
steadily risen as well. Online video content generation and engagement continues to rise.
Google, YouTube, and Facebook have increased efforts to remove some of the content
that those companies mediate (these efforts are commonly referred to as accountability
initiatives), altogether hiring around 17,500 content moderators. Most of the content removed is
flagged by algorithms (roughly 80-90%), save for hate speech violations on Facebook, which are
tagged by algorithms at a comparatively lesser rate of 38% (ibid). While perhaps tangentially
related to Jordan Peterson’s protest against an institutionalization of the compulsion of speech,
speech rights and the concept of hate speech in the digital sphere have become another common
point of contention.
All in all, the truly unique qualities of the Internet are (a) its capacity to render all
communication mediums (e.g., print, audio, video, etc.) digitally into a common interpolation,
making it a “one stop shop” so to speak; (b) it’s speed and reach; (c) its hyperlinked, as opposed
to linear, qualities of engagement; and (d) it’s bidirectionality. The path by which one encounters
one piece of online content and moves to another is a little more complicated and idiosyncratic
than the paths of engagement reading through a newspaper or flipping through channels on a
television. (Those prone to losing themselves in YouTube or Wikipedia can relate.) Also, in
contradistinction to the unidirectional transmission of information in the examples of television,
radio, newspapers, and magazines, the Internet allows many opportunities for back and forth

27. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
21
between communicators and receivers (both playing, more or less, both roles across
engagements).
For example, Twitch streaming, which primarily involves online video gamers live-
broadcasting their games while online viewers watch and comment, represents a very popular
trend in Internet usage (Meeker, 2018). The streamer plays an online game and interacts with
others players in that shared game world. However, the streamer also interacts synchronically
with viewers, who, along with the streamer, comment on the whole process. Even if one views,
as a mere observer, a pre-recorded video of an event-matrix such as that just described, he or she
still experiences the convergence of many layers of communication. All of this is done with
personal devices and without (or with minimal) need for technicians to facilitate the process.
This distinction is, in short, the difference between a hierarchical form of communication and
communication mediated by a distributed network (Ferguson, 2019).
If any phenomenon were to be meaninglessly considered as existing within a vacuum, it
would be the Internet: engulfing, connecting, and hyperlinking human knowledge, its production,
and its transmission, is precisely what the Internet is all about. And with this comes a
maximization of the chances for unintended consequences (good and bad; Carr, 2011). Just as
the printing press can be linked to quite a political, social, and religious storm in Europe a few
centuries ago, the Internet is a game-changing element of the landscape in our present,
unresolved corporate disagreements. The class of such disagreements are commonly referenced
as “the culture war” or political polarization.
Polarization. Intensified political polarization in the United States and in other Western
democracies is a bewildering issue among social pundits. For one, it is difficult to trace the
fundamental causes of this polarization. There are many routes into the topic of political

28. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
22
polarization—e.g., personality and other psychodynamics, economics, case studies, ideology,
etc. With respect to the purpose of this paper, and to the basics, here are three broad areas of
inquiry into the nature and causes of political polarization: (a) Internet use, (b) politicians/politics
proper, and (c) polarization proper. While many technical discrepancies must be left to the side
in this limited survey, political research offers many useful findings.
There is demographic evidence that suggests lesser, rather than greater, Internet and
social media usage positively correlates with increased polarization effects (Boxell, Gentzkow,
& Shapiro, 2017). This of course does not mean that the Internet plays no role in the
phenomenon, but the assumption that online activity itself predicts polarization must be
subjected to scrutiny. After all, there is more than politics to encounter online and there are
plenty of opportunities to engage in political matters offline. The authors of the above study did
not include in their analysis a dimension for traditional media consumption.
Generally, when polarization is sufficiently salient, our decision-making faculties are
primed to rely on faction identification and less on otherwise dispassionate assessments of
information (Druckman, Peterson, & Slothuus, 2013). People assess political propositions with
more sensitivity to the quality of arguments, even despite initial orientations (e.g., political
affiliations), in non-polarized settings—even in settings when political affiliations are explicitly
connected to those propositions. When an issue is drenched with polarization, however, the
effect of argument quality on decisions is overridden by the effect of partisanship. There is a case
to be made that such affiliation coherence is preferable, as a case could be made that this is
alarming(a bit of both depending on the sense). For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that
psychological and social identification have acute effects and are linked to (and may
categorically overlap with) the polarization phenomenon.

29. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
23
A core aim espoused by members of the IDW (and those closely associated) is the good-
faith exchange of ideas and opinions (Leading Members, n.d.). In order for these often deeply-
held ideas to be optimally subjected to maximum scrutiny, the effects of polarization must be
held at bay. This explicit core value suggests (a) the desire to handle complicated and potentially
provocative ideas, and (b) a common recognition that there exist some social forces which pose a
threat to that endeavor. These values reflect what seems to be a Gordian knot bound up in the
problem of polarization as such.
There are two paradoxes inherent to the concept of polarization: attitudinal and social
polarization both seem equally ubiquitous and rare (Baldassarri & Bearman, 2010). Media
pundits tend to exaggerate the presence of polarization and other pundits’ role in amplifying it.
However, even “false perceptions can lead to real outcomes” (Baldassarri & Bearman, 2010; p.
809). People will reorganize when polarization is salient, proselytizing with greater zeal and
policing the collectivity’s borders with increased vigilance. All the while, and as a consequence,
an abundance of heterogeneous beliefs and attitudes within the polarized camps are left
untouched. This is because charged topic X, around which a camp emerges, occupies the
attention which could be spent on relatively-less-charged topic Y, about which many within the
camp may starkly disagree. While polarization does resonate with social grouping instincts, it is
an issue-specific phenomenon as well. This observation has strong implications on the evolution
of rhetorical visions and the particular vision-establishing project of the IDW.
The case of Jordan Peterson and the IDW also points to social divisions that are not
strictly political. Even the idea of “political correctness” is often attributed to topics that are little
more than tangentially related to formal policy. In Peterson’s case—with the takeoff issue of Bill
C-16— the symmetrical pertinence of formal policies and cultural mores is interesting. It is

30. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
24
equally interesting that many people who “follow” Peterson’s work closely first heard of him in
a context of political polarization (e.g., Bill C-16, Cathy Newman Interview, etc.) but generally
look to him for an entirely different sort of content. One would find after a search through
Peterson’s YouTube page, compared to search results pertaining to Jordan Peterson on
Google/YouTube, that content made about him greatly contrasts with content offered by him in
terms of frequency of politically relevant topics.
Web 2.0 media allow for a blurring of media producers and media consumers, along with
other communication transmission roles. This fact alone implies that there will be greater
accuracy of belief representation in this mediated environment compared to traditional media
effect models. This expectation can either succeed or fail depending on how it is used. For
example, there is evidence which suggests that the effects explained by the spiral of silence
theory, which was derived in the context of legacy media, apply to Web 2.0 social media
contexts as well (Gearhart & Zhang, 2015). Put simply, the effect is one where people are
deterred from engaging with political posts with which they disagree, and more inclined to
engage with those with which they do agree. There is, at least, one dimension on which people
vary that mediates the strength of this effect, and one classification of social media users for
whom the deterrent-attractant patterns of behavior are reversed. Respectively, the dimension is
political engagement and the behavior-reversed class is that of the so-called online troll.
Politically engaged individuals are more likely to engage with political content with
which they agree and disagree. Political engagement mediates “speaking out” across the board
(Gearhart & Zhang, 2015; Baldassare & Katz, 1996).
The online troll, however, is more difficult to describe. This is largely because trolling
implies a replacement or additional paradigm. While central to a proper understanding of this

31. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
25
phenomenon, this qualification is often missed in academic and mainstream media appraisals of
online trolling (Fichman & Sanfilippo, 2016). While an online debate about the merits of
feminism can be assumed to take place within a paradigm under which two or more opposing
sub-paradigms compete, the same is not as immediately true in the case of a troll on a feminist
message board. On the face of things, it may seem that the troll is arguing against feminism. But
it is more accurate in many respects to propose that the troll is undermining feminists. Both the
perceived humor and perceived horror of trolling behavior stem from the sleight-of-hand
replacement of one game (e.g., political argument) for another (e.g., rhetorical sabotage).
Without the cues of interpersonal communication, expertly-veiled and intentionally-obvious uses
of irony in Web 2.0 communications are both susceptible to misinterpretation. Trolling seems to
be the art of provoking such misinterpretations by playing with the phenomenon of Poe’s Law
(of online satire) which states that, “unless there are unmistakable cues that one is being ironic or
sarcastic, many parodies are not only likely to be interpreted as earnest contributions, they will,
in fact, be identical to sincere expressions of the view” (Aikin, 2009, p. 1). While it is difficult to
thoroughly explain this rapid proliferation of caricature confusion, a spiral of deconstruction is in
effect which both amplifies and fractures the social and communicative effects of polarization. In
such an environment the safest bet is to not engage, to purposely confuse oneself with a
caricature, or to behave as if you care about nothing. This relates back to the paradoxes of
polarization, the spiral of silence, and concurrent opportunities for latent “silent majorities” to
transform into consciousness-raising projects such as the IDW.
There exists some connection between members of the IDW and a resistance to
ideological orthodoxies, whatever those may be. There exists, as well, a connection between the
IDW and the earnest attempt to debate topics according to each participant’s respective point of

32. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
26
view with the clearest arguments its members can muster. In other words, troll-types and IDW-
types seem to share a distaste for political correctness but differ sharply in their method of
response. This clip from an article describing the IDW illustrates this view:
But [members of the IDW] all share three distinct qualities. First, they are willing to
disagree ferociously, but talk civilly, about nearly every meaningful subject: religion,
abortion, immigration, the nature of consciousness. Second, in an age in which popular
feelings about the way things ought to be often override facts about the way things
actually are, each is determined to resist parroting what’s politically convenient. And
third, some have paid for this commitment by being purged from institutions that have
become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought — and have found receptive
audiences elsewhere. “People are starved for controversial opinions,” said Joe Rogan, an
MMA color commentator and comedian who hosts one of the most popular podcasts in
the country. “And they are starved for an actual conversation.” (Weiss, 2018).
Political Correctness and Moral Cultures. Political correctness is commonly perceived
to be more rampant in certain institutions: namely, media companies and sections of the
Academy. While difficult to define with much precision, political correctness is a moral concept
with cultural/social implications—the explicitly political implications (i.e., related to
propositions of governmental policy) of this concept exist but, in the present context, are further
downstream.
Campbell and Manning (2014) investigate this phenomenon of moral frameworks
exhibited on university campuses in a paper, “Microaggressions and Moral Cultures”, published
in the Journal of Comparative Sociology. Working under a sociological theory of social control,
the authors begin with the observation that a fairly new phenomenon (i.e., sharing testimonies of
the microaggressions one has borne) comes with some form of appeal to, or dependence on, third
parties. What is unique in the case of microaggressions is not the fact that there is just any

33. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
27
reliance on third parties to resolve disputes (the very operation of courts of law) but the
additional appeal to the otherwise unknown and uninvolved to become partisans on behalf of the
aggrieved. This may be where the proliferation of Web 2.0 technologies most readily connects to
this strategy (e.g., microaggression-incident blogs). But if this truly is a matter of social
hegemony, inequality, and marginalization ubiquitous in Western culture, why the unique appeal
of this moral perspective in (some) universities? It is insufficient to note that the concept of
microaggression itself is a product of academe because it did not receive widespread usage until
four decades after its conception. Perhaps, for a variety of reasons, the utility of this idea
required optimized conditions for realization. Campbell and Manning (ibid) introduce some
concepts to help explain what such a context may be.
“Black (2011: 139) proposes that overstratification conflict varies inversely with
stratification. In other words, a morality that privileges equality and condemns
oppression is most likely to arise precisely in settings that already have relatively high
degrees of equality. In rigidly hierarchical settings or relationships, even subordinates
might take dominance and subordination for granted” (ibid, p. 20).
The concurrence of highly diverse and egalitarian settings with an overarching
administrative culture provide the perfect situation in which students can lobby for support from
institutional peers and superiors in matters pertaining to institutionally-irrelevant status disputes.
Campbell and Manning also bring attention to another sociological phenomenon called
“underdiversity,” which is essentially the trend to reduce the diversity within a culture. Both
genocide and verbal slights can fit under this conceptual umbrella (a rather large umbrella).
“Attempts to increase stratification, we saw, are more deviant where stratification is at a
minimum; likewise, attempts to decrease diversity are more deviant where diversity is at
a maximum. In modern Western societies, an ethic of cultural tolerance – and often

34. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
28
incompatibly, intolerance of intolerance – has developed in tandem with increasing
diversity. Since microaggression offenses normally involve overstratification and
underdiversity, intense concern about such offenses occurs at the intersection of the
social conditions conducive to the seriousness of each. It is in egalitarian and diverse
settings – such as at modern American universities – that equality and diversity are most
valued, and it is in these settings that perceived offenses against these values are most
deviant.” (ibid, p. 21)
Campaigns against microaggressions, along with the above theoretical framework used to
understand them, seem to point to some confusion about (or conflation of matters related to)
status and other kinds of social distinction. There is also a conflict between preferred levels of
analysis in moral reasoning which may relate to a parallel conflict between moral systems or
presuppositions—e.g., cultural perceptions which can be related to a case vs. the claims of the
disputing parties themselves. One taken for granted level is sociological and structural, the other
is individual and focused on personal character. Campbell and Manning (ibid) describe a new
form of conflict between ”honor” and “dignity” moral systems. In honor cultures, one is
generally praised for bravery in protecting one’s honor and shamed for failing to confront
offending parties. In dignity cultures, one is generally praised for letting insults slide (a mark of
fortitude), using peaceful negotiations when necessary, and, in rare cases, appealing to an outside
mediator (e.g., the law).
In the “victimhood culture,” described by Campbell and Manning, a different moral
perspective is in operation. Indeed, after the days of the Old West gangs and gunslingers, the last
vestiges of honor cultures in the United States are most easily found among the young urban
poor (e.g., street gangs), who, if it needs pointing out, do not manage their disputes in the manner
of microaggression activists. Strangely enough, it is almost entirely the highly educated and

35. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
29
affluent members of the most diverse and egalitarian sectors of society who brazenly campaign
on behalf of the marginalized and the destitute. The criticism of such activism tends to come
from a purer dignity perspective, which presupposes inherent individual worth, that is not
derived through a publicly conferred status, and so need not be harshly protected. For example,
the colloquial usage of “snowflake” as a derogatory term—likely derived from a quote from the
book Fight Club (Palahniuk, 1996) “you are not special, you are not a beautiful and unique
snowflake”—points to an interesting take within the dignity framework which assumes that
every person has value but perceives cries for custom-tailored social accommodations as
pathetic.
Especially in egalitarian societies in which the suppressive powers of dominant entities
are watched with suspicion rather than merely accepted (e.g., antitrust law, whistle-blower praise
and protection, freedoms of religion, property, pursuit of happiness, speech, and association,
etc.), the drive to climb social ladders is simultaneously praised and policed by vigilant
watchdogs.
Even this activity comes with its unintended consequences. The only (or the only safe)
way to climb to the heights of social acclaim without risking too much attention from the
watchdogs (i.e., to be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease without becoming the risen nail
which is hammered down) is to garner socially-objectivated value in one particular sense without
straying too far from that lane. This is, in part, to play one role at a time and one role only.
Celebrities, for example, may achieve fame for their artistic skill. However, once this
fame achieved by artistic production begins to display diminishing returns, the temptation to
attract notoriety by any means necessary can surface. Acquiescence to such temptations tend to
prove immediately or eventually counter-productive.

36. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
30
Another type of celebrity achievement can be imagined. Such celebrities could initially
achieve their celebrity-status as a result of their transparency, honesty, or some other mark of
character, rather than a particular talent or novel personality traits. Such celebrities may or may
not be so easy to mythologize but would also be less vulnerable to social-standing watchdogs.
Especially in a context of multiple layers of “public” space (such as that afforded by the
burgenoning of Web 2.0 communicative/social concourses), such celebrities would be selected
by a public’s consciousness for a variety of reasons. This partially highlights why Jordan
Peterson, already a successful academic, found himself in the unforeseen spotlight over which so
many commentators are now struggling for control.
In this context of disputes over the status quo of moral disputes, however, Jordan
Peterson’s aim has been the construction/elaboration of a “from below” explanation of morality
which sits in contrast to “from above” sense-making visions focused on macro-structural powers
or the decrees of deities. The aim of this paper is to investigate what seems to be, at least
partially, a counter-vision to whatever the operant vision of political correctness is.
Symbolic Convergence Theory
This paper significantly leans on the theoretical vantage point provided by symbolic
convergence theory (SCT). SCT is a general theory native to the field of communication. The
theory has been used by many scholars for a variety of projects ever since it was conceived by
Ernest G. Bormann (1972). The theory is closely connected to a method of rhetorical analysis
used to assess symbolic convergence, fantasy theme analysis (FTA), also constructed by
Bormann (ibid). A selection of studies utilizing this framework or that method will be addressed
below. Major criticisms of the theory will also be considered. First, an overview of SCT is in
order.

37. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
31
A key catalyst for the emergence of SCT can be located in Bormann’s reading of the
work of Robert Bales. Bales, a psychologist studying the dynamics of small groups, observed a
common event in which participants of his studies would get excited at some breaking point in
his experimental procedures. Essentially, they were extemporaneously generating (or
discovering) a common ground though the use of jokes, personal anecdotes, and the like. If these
initial attempts were “successful,” others would spontaneously join in, raise their voices, laugh,
speak over one another, become animated, and depart from a consciousness of self (Bales, 1950).
We have all seen, and participated in, something of the sort. It happens frequently. It is a
different operation entirely, however, to use such observations as items of analysis. But this is
precisely the sort of evidence a rhetorical analyst operating within SCT is actively attempting to
detect. Such occasions are assumed to be potentially indicative of the spontaneous construction
or manifestation of a shared consciousness or interpretation of reality (Bales, 1969). And from
the observed rhetorical events, it is assumed that a variety of implication can be traced. This
applies in groups of various sizes, with differing inferences drawn accordingly.
Semiotic Configurations. Consider the question, “how is everyone doing tonight?”, as
an example. What vision of the situation (and concurrent responses) would you imagine if you
knew that this question was asked by a businessperson walking into the office, a musician
walking on to a stage, or by a prisoner in solitary confinement?
A decent hint that you possess readymade constellations of symbolic reality related to
most of the contents of the past two sentences is the consequence of mixing these elements in
any way you please. Likewise, a decent hint that these maps of reality are inherited (in every
sense of the word) and/or the product of many iterations of use and manipulation by many people
is the fact that you can imagine your response to a given juxtaposition likely to be very similar to

38. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
32
the response to the same juxtaposition viewed by another person. All in all, when something
elicits hilarity, terror, sadness, confusion, or disbelief, convergences or divergences of
implicit‒meaning blueprints are likely taking place.
Returning to the three contexts for the “how is everyone doing tonight” question, recall
the class of responses plausible in each. (These come with even more information about the
context than explicitly given, but that’s the nature of these highly connected models of reality of
which we are typically unconscious). Now assign each response by imposing it on one of the
other contexts. The musician taking stage asks “How is everyone doing tonight?” and hears
“Good, Karen. How are you?” The solitary prisoner poses the question and hears thunderous
applause and squealing; and the businessperson...well perhaps your imagination can complete the
sequence. This exercise is wonderful for exploring the space of human meaning and is analogous
to experiencing musical space. The comparative weightings of psychological significance as
used in the example above lies at the heart of the methodological approach selected for this
study. This will be further elaborated in the following chapter.
Dramatized Visions. Symbolic convergence theory is not merely a taxonomy or a post-
hoc description of events as critics such as Mohrmann (1982) and Gunn (2003) have suggested.
But it is interested in the processes which organize and label the present and the past. SCT is
akin to Fisher’s narrative paradigm in that it sees symbolic reality arising from stories which are
acted out and which contain certain values, plotlines, heroes/villains, and the mutually formative
interaction of quotidian, phenomenological experience with the broader dramas we inhabit
(Bormann, 1972). This view is also a departure from the assumption that rhetorical activities are
fundamentally exercises in persuasion.

39. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
33
Much of what has commonly been thought of as persuasion can be accounted for on the
basis of group and mass fantasies. The fantasizing is accompanied by emotional arousal;
the dreams embodied in the fantasies drive participants toward actions and efforts to
achieve them; the sharing of fantasies provides a social reality peopled by
anthropomorphic forces and imagined and historical personages in dramatic
confrontations. My study of religious and reform speaking confirmed Robert Frost’s
insight that “society can never think things out: it has to see them acted out by actors.”
(Bormann, 1985; p. 9)
This observation shared by Robert Frost and Ernest Bormann is also emphasized by
Jordan Peterson. Peterson, following Jean Piaget, notes:
A child can be “good,” without being a moral philosopher. This idea echoes the
developmental psychologist Jean Piaget’s notion, with regards to child development, that
adaptation at the sensorimotor level occurs prior to – and lays the groundwork for – the
more abstracted forms of adaptation that characterize adulthood. Piaget regarded
imagistic representation as an intermediary between sensorimotor intelligence and the
(highest or most abstract) stage of “formal operations”; furthermore, he believed that
imitation – the “acting out” of an object – served as a necessary prerequisite to such
imagistic representation (portrayal in image or word, instead of behavior). The process of
play appears as a higher-order, or more abstract form of imitation, from this perspective.
(Peterson, 1999; p. 68)
SCT Assumptions. All theories rest on an array of philosophical assumptions. It is
especially useful for those unfamiliar with a given theory to check under the hood, so to speak,
and acquaint oneself with these assumptions before taking the theory out for a ride. Symbolic
convergence theory can combine a few ontological paradigms but principally rests on humanistic
and phenomenological ontological foundations. SCT acknowledges a variety of logical and
axiological tenants but holds these in abeyance until their partial incorporation at the theory-

40. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
34
specific conceptual juncture. Symbolic convergence theory packs its main philosophical
assumptions under the branch of epistemology. Cragan & Shields (1998), two of Bormann’s
closest collaborators, outline these assumptions as follows:
“(1) the direct content of the message conveys meaning, emotion, and motive for action;
(2) reality is cocreated symbolically; (3) fantasy-sharing results in symbolic convergence;
(4) fantasy themes occur in all forms of discourse; and (5) on any subject, at least three
deep structures—righteous, social, and pragmatic master analogues—compete as
alternative explanations of symbolic reality.” (Cragan & Shields, 1998; p. 96)
The first assumption places the emphasis of communicative power on, or within, the
message itself. The position of SCT is, generally, that the most relevant unit of analysis is the
content of communication rather than the motivations of communicators or the effects of the
medium on the content. While the means by which the messages of Jordan Peterson and the IDW
are transmitted are important, the present study will allocate its focus primarily on the interaction
of message contents.
This relates to the second assumption—the co-creation of symbolic reality—which holds
that rhetorical visions of reality are generated and evolve within a community of participants,
such as the community selected to participate in the present study. A simple example may be the
fictional worlds and even universes created and refined by writers of comic books and their most
involved fans, who will protest when an intuitive boundary within the shared world has been
transgressed. This assumption holds that rhetorical visions do not merely drop out of the sky or
self-perpetuate within an ontologically non-contingent vacuum. This assumption is a helpful
counterpart to the first. It also flows into the third epistemological assumption: fantasy-sharing
leads to symbolic convergence.

41. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
35
Essentially, this contends that various constellations of meaning converge as people share
visions of reality. Such convergence can lead to a superordinate vision of reality and shared
consciousness. As a group of police officers share their stories with one another, a shared
understanding of what it means to be part of their departments will emerge in consequence. The
degree to which those engaging with Jordan Peterson’s messages have constructed such a shared
consciousness remains to be determined.
The fourth assumption holds that there are no forms of discourse in which fantasies (i.e.,
symbolic facts) are not present. In other words, while the ontological grounds for the existence of
electrons and Santa Claus probably differ, neither domain of discourse (i.e., holiday lore and
quantum mechanics) is exempt from these patterns of communication behavior. This
epistemological assumption views all communication, at some level, as representative and
partitions evaluative aims rather than prematurely reducing or rejecting them.
The fifth assumption holds competing explanatory orientations within and between
rhetorical visions of symbolic reality. The explanations tend to align with major motivational
emphases. A single proposition can be explained using the emphasis of moral superiority to other
propositions (i.e., righteous analogue), or the benefits to a particular community (i.e., social
analogue), or with an emphasis on efficiency and efficacy (i.e., pragmatic analogue). A single
rhetorical vision can express a variation of each of these emphases or could rely heavily on one
emphasis and generally omit the others.
Core Concepts. The defining concepts employed by symbolic convergence theory come
with a specialized vocabulary. While these concepts illuminate pertinent rhetorical dynamics in
generic form, the concurrent terminology is not vital to the purposes of this study or the
interpretation of its results. Thus, interested readers are invited to closely consider each concept

42. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
36
in turn, and those preferring fewer detours are invited browse the following section at any pace
desired.
According to Cragan & Shield’s (1998) communication metatheory, initial basic concepts
designate the principal units of communication analyzed within a given theoretical framework.
The fantasy theme is the initial basic concept in SCT. “Fantasy” is a technical term in SCT and
possesses a meaning in this sense different than that of ordinary usage (i.e., something wholly
imaginary, not grounded in reality). The technical meaning for fantasy is the creative and
imaginative interpretation of events that fulfills a psychological or rhetorical need (Bormann,
1985; p. 5). The scholar working to reconstruct the consciousness embodied in the sharing of
rhetorical fantasies of the past must depend heavily upon the traces left in the messages that
created those fantasies. Rhetorical fantasies may include fanciful and fictitious characters, but
they often deal with things that have actually happened to members of the community or that are
reported in authenticated works of history, in the news media, or in the oral history and folklore
of the group. The content of the dramatizing message that sparks the fantasy chain is called a
fantasy theme (Bormann, 1985; p. 5).
A fantasy theme is a heavily weighted, and often central, rhetorical fact. Fantasy themes
can be reused and will, more or less, transmogrify depending on the motivational and perceptual
contexts in which the fantasy theme is reintroduced. Among the Puritan communities comprising
the early sojourners to the new world, for example, a common fantasy theme was a spiritual trek
to the Kingdom of God, a passage rife with many temptations and struggles (Bormann, 1972).
Think of the central ideas in Paul Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678/1878) and its
reification through C. S. Lewis’ The Pilgrim’s Regress (1933/2014). Among scholars of quantum
mechanics, one may often hear of the concept of a “probability field.” From the rhetorical-

43. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
37
analysis perspective of SCT, the probability field is an “excited” fantasy theme salient within the
rhetorical vision of quantum mechanics.
The temptation which commonly comes along with the specious power of categorization
is worth highlighting once again; identifying a crucial fantasy theme is not synonymous with the
legitimization or repudiation of the weltanschauung, or cosmological standpoint, to which the
theme belongs. For the purposes of symbolic convergence, the identification of such themes is
useful for understanding the contours of a rhetorical vision and its relation to the broader
rhetorical context in which it is situated—much like the purpose of ethnography is to describe a
culture according to the terms endemic to that culture while accepting the translational
requirements necessary for such a description.
From the initial basic concept, the fantasy theme, proceeds the first associated basic
concept: the symbolic cue. A symbolic cue is a sort of synecdochical deputy to a given fantasy
theme. In the way “Washington” or “D.C.” can be a shorthand for “the United States
government,” a symbolic cue points to a shared fantasy theme. Some instances of symbolic cues
will contain explicit reference to their role; i.e., “Remember the Alamo!” Symbolic cues indicate
insider understanding because at least some degree of involvement with a rhetorical vision is
necessary to spot such a cue and the vision of reality to which the cue must serve as a portal.
Humor plays on such cues constantly. It is arguable that, at the advent of Web 2.0
communication, the reliance on symbolic cues has become more commonly apparent than ever
thanks to the fact that it is so easy to find oneself “not getting it” when encountering some
apparently obvious shared understanding which is not so obvious to ourselves. The function and
title of the website “know-your-meme” (Literally Media, Ltd., n.d.) is evidence of this. Symbolic

44. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
38
cues in “Petersonian” discourse may include “the West,” “archetypal,” “order/chaos,” “burden-
bearing,” “clean your room,” etc.
A fantasy type is a middle level abstraction, situated between a fantasy theme and a
rhetorical vision. Early into the development of SCT, researchers began to notice the usage of
rhetorical references which pointed to neither the entirety of a rhetorical vision nor any specific
rhetorical fact (i.e., fantasy theme). This gave cause to develop a conceptual middle-ground: the
fantasy type (Bormann, 1982b). The inside joke is an example of a fantasy type. Schools of
thought are often referenced in the manner of fantasy types. For example, pointing to “Freudian
notions” does not necessitate a reference to any specific idea in psychoanalysis or to Freud’s
ultimate philosophy. Fantasy types are stock scenarios or rhetorical archetypes in application.
Such types, in generic form, found in Peterson’s discourse include the relation between the
individual and the collective, a culture in crisis, meaningful living, the encounter with a Faustian
bargain, etc.
A rhetorical saga refers to a collective’s story. A rhetorical saga is exceptionally broad in
scope, compiling various fantasy themes and rhetorical visions into one story. Founding stories
are especially pertinent in the context of sagas. The American Revolution, the story of Abraham,
and the gospels of Jesus are examples of the founding stories common to group sagas. Sagas are
difficult to study in a way, as they are composites of many patterns of belief and perception held
together by the march of time and a selection of key events dotted along that process. However,
reference to rhetorical sagas and ritualistic repetition go hand in hand. Examples include the
performance of the national anthem at the beginning of a sporting event and the retelling of the
last supper before a Christian congregation receives communion: “Do this in remembrance of
me” (Luke 22: 19). Sagas commonly referenced in Peterson’s messages include our common

45. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
39
psychological origins, the genesis of western cultures (e.g., what the West got right), the legacy
of academia, the legacy of common law, etc.
If the fantasy theme is the fundamental unit of analysis in SCT, the rhetorical vision is
the principal goal of that analysis. Rhetorical visions are “composite dramas” comprised of many
fantasy themes that make sense of reality for large populations (Bormann, 1982b). A compelling
fantasy theme is a “take,” a compelling photograph, on a situation which proves salient. A
rhetorical vision is the moving picture in which each fantasy image fits into the next.
The concept of fantasy-theme-identification simply refers to the capacity to notice the
emergence or reemergence of collectively-salient themes and, to some degree, to intuit their
implications. This skill may be the very propensity of Jordan Peterson which garnered him
massive amounts of sustained attention in the first place. Peterson’s opening remarks on the first
part of his videos titled “Professor Against Political Correctness” (2016) suggest as much:
So I've been informed about a couple of things this week that have really been bothering
me. And I thought that – I wasn't sure what to do about it. I've been communicating with
some of my friends and colleagues about it, but that wasn't enough. So I thought I'd try to
write my thoughts down and then talk about them a little bit and see where I got with
that. So I've entitled this talk professor against political correctness. And, the reason for
that is because it's blunt and to the point. I'm very concerned about what's happening in
the universities. It's not so bad in Canada; I've been fortunate, very fortunate, at the
University of Toronto. But there are continually things happening—including in the
administration here and in the broader political world—that make me very nervous. I like
to attribute that to the fact that I know something about the way that totalitarian and
authoritarian political states develop. And, I can't help but think that I'm seeing a fair bit
of that right now. (Peterson, 2016)
As Peterson’s strange story reveals, however, the identification and explosive chaining of
fantasy themes does not take place in a rhetorically neutral vacuum. It was not the contents of

46. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
40
this video alone, but the protests in response to it, along with his response to the protestors, that
marked a clash between what appear to be incommensurate interpretive frameworks. This clash
also marked the beginning of Peterson’s initiation into top-tier public punditry. Interestingly, the
intermingling of the “who” and “what” considerations concerning the Overton window and its
custody (e.g., which fantasy themes are on the table and who has a chair at that table) were
persistently pertinent questions at the heart of these unforeseen “scandals.” Consider, for
example a book review entitled Jordan Peterson is Having a Moment— We Should Ignore it
(Goggin, 2018) summarizing Peterson’s arrival onto the celebrity-pundit scene so: “Peterson's
philosophies spilled into the world of policy when he began to fight against human rights
legislation in Canada aimed at protecting people from discrimination based on gender identity or
expression in September 2016.” On the face of it, the very title of this book review points to a
perceived struggle over the keys to the Overton window. The fact that its writer is a news editor
(i.e., transmissions gatekeeper) reifies this observation.
The dramatis personae of a rhetorical vision are essentially the relevant characters.
During WWII, for example, American troops and citizens would commonly speak of Hitler as
the principal representative villain in their struggle and Uncle Sam as the respective hero.
Stereotypes can also perform the role of dramatis personae in some rhetorical visions; e.g., mean
girls do this, nerds do this, jocks do this, goths do this, and so on. Not only do such categories
serve as observational tools to sort out social landscapes, they also affect participants’ self-
sorting behaviors within social landscapes. It is interesting to note that this concept of message
structuring, like the others in SCT, is ubiquitous in a variety of contexts. The principal dramatis
personae in the Jordan Peterson/IDW phenomenon are perhaps best embodied in his interview
with Cathy Newman; i.e., honest interlocutor vs. ideologically possessed opportunist.

47. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
41
The concept of plot line needs very little explication. Plot lines are the action, the
operative demonstration of the motivational logic inherent to a given vision in a particular
environment.
Scene, as a concept, refers to that environment. It is where the action takes place. The
most salient scenes in a rhetorical vision are seldom arbitrary. If a vision concerns conspiracy, its
principal scene is not likely to be one out in the open. The scenes most ostensibly related to
Jordan Peterson and the IDW are the public sphere itself along with the Academy.
Sanctioning agents serve the rhetorical, sociological, and psychological role of
legitimation. A divinity, the rule of law, or a nuclear threat can be sanctioning agents depending
on the particular vision and the contexts with which they are most concerned. The principles of
liberty, equality, and fraternity were proclaimed as sanctioning agents legitimating the events of
the French Revolution. In the case of Peterson and the IDW, relevant sanctioning agents include
the sovereign individual, empirical evidence, trust, etc. Peterson and others involved with the
IDW may also serve as sanctioning agents.
Bormann and his colleagues found common trends among rhetorical visions in course of
symbolic convergence theory’s development. One of these trends is expressed through the
concept of the master analogue, which asserts that rhetorical visions exhibit, and unevenly stress,
righteous, social, and pragmatic explanatory tendencies. They approximate rhetorical flavors,
attitudes, preferences, tones of voice, or temperamental orientations.
The righteous master analogue tends to explain a vision in terms of moral and
axiological evaluation: “We can’t do that. It would be wrong.” “That type of music is
unbelievably terrible; no one with a modicum of taste would listen to it.” The social master
analogue tends to stress social cohesion, interpersonal relationships, and benevolence: “The most

48. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
42
important thing to remember is kindness and teamwork.” The pragmatic master analogue
emphasizes utility, efficiency, commonsense: “We tried that and it didn’t work and wasted our
time and money. It’s time for a simpler approach.” The specific relations of these master
analogues to the present study are examined in the final chapter.
Given the epistemological presupposition that reality is symbolically constructed, it
follows that people serve the role of configuring, refining, testing, and elaborating their shared
and mutually negotiated symbolic world. Within SCT, anyone who can be identified as a
participant in this process is considered a fantasizer.
The concept of rhetorical community refers to the group of fantasizers negotiating a
common symbolic or rhetorical milieu. This could be a football team, a group of coworkers, a
disciplinary matrix shared by a collection of scientists, an ancient monastery, members of a think
tank, or the House of Representatives. Regarding the present study, the fact that a name was
given to a group of otherwise unconnected professionals and Internet users (i.e., Intellectual Dark
Web), points to the possibility that a rhetorical community is under construction. If this is true,
then the beginnings of a shared group consciousness, or even the development of shared
rhetorical vision, may be present as well.
Communication style refers to “the broad usage of a community of people engaged in
significant discourse for which they understand the rules, customs, and conventions” (Bormann,
1985; p. 19). The degrees of sophistication and rigidity of a communication/rhetorical style often
reveal the maturity of the rhetorical vision in question. If a vision is in the early stages of
development, the rules and norms of (and expectations for) discourse may be inconsistent or
fragile. The reverse is true of long-developed visions. An exception to this trend can be found in
the case of style-specific rhetorical visions; that is, in cases where the content and the style could

49. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
43
not be understood independently of one another. In such cases, most of the vision’s reality-links
are self-referential or nonexistent. Critical autoethnography has been considered an example of
such a style-specific rhetorical arena generating “symbols without substance” (Shields, 2000).
Peterson’s communication style is marked by reflective pauses, spontaneous intermingling and
elaboration of concepts, and recurrent usage of the second person. The communication style
advanced by visible members of the IDW includes the custom of “steel-manning.” Potential
stylistic norms endemic to less-visible participants remain to be determined.
A shared group consciousness is the result of symbolic convergence. As fresh tracks or
stool indicate that some animal had recently been in the area, the patterns of a shared group
consciousness imply the manifestation of symbolic convergence and fantasy chaining (Cragan &
Shields, 1998; p. 110). Markers of a shared group consciousness include the sharing, repetition,
restructuring, and elaboration of common sets of stories and fantasy themes. Indications of a
shared group consciousness among those engaging with Jordan Peterson and the IDW will be
discussed in the results chapter.
The evaluative concept of reality-link refers to components in a rhetorical vision which
ground it to an objective and/or authenticated body of facts and testimonies. This is an especially
difficult area, as narrative coherence can be as compelling as a thorough presentation of facts,
often more so (Bormann, 1982; Kahneman, 2015). The concept of reality-links basically asserts
that a successful rhetorical vision must adequately account for relevant evidence. That is,
explanatory power cannot persist for long in a vacuum of symbolic abstraction. This is not to say
that any set of evidence cannot be explained by a vast array of divergent accounts. But it does
insist that even a powerful rhetorical vision will phase out eventually if, (a) it does not integrate
or address the facts related to the phenomena the vision concerns, and/or (b) if the vision’s

50. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
44
claims are felt to be largely comprised of tautological assertions about the nature of reality. The
term “ideology” is often used by many in the IDW to describe belief systems operating in such
manner.
While worldviews can be somewhere along a continuum of extremely sophisticated to
exceptionally simple, a worldview cannot last long after collapsing the poles into one: effectively
rendering the approach for complete explanation into one. Edwin A. Abbot’s Flatland
(1884/1963) includes a zeroth-dimension character that displays this problem well. Shields
(2000) points to the concept of rhetorical vision reality-links in their paper outlining and
criticizing a rhetorical vision common to a form of scholarship within their field known as
“Critical Autoethnography.” In short, Shields suggests the inevitable failure of purely stylistic
rhetorical visions once exposed to the light of external scrutiny.
If these assumptions hold merit, it is then ironic that an absolute and quixotic cybernetic
meaning structure must collapse. This likely is because a process designed for efficiency, i.e.,
negative feedback, presumes the eternal presence of an ultimately ambiguous external
environment. The observer cannot regard its object as a perspectiveless truth. The drive for
negative feedback needs something not yet calibrated to calibrate. As the environment is treated
as something static, the system becomes a mere closed circuit; the compass becomes the
perimeter, teleological concerns evaporate, and the whole system falls apart at some point on its
exponential course toward singularity.
Reality-links seem to be of special concern to Jordan Peterson (his first book explicitly
aims to harmonize religious and scientific views of reality). Regarding metaphysics, Peterson
often gives unconventional and, to many, unsatisfactory answers. Concerning the more political
side of his public discourse, he is often at odds along different epistemological grounds. For

51. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
45
example, the prototypical intersectional, applied postmodern, is given to standpoint
epistemology (in which one’s identity predisposes them to a sociologically reserved body of
knowledge [via lived experience]; e.g., a female knows what it’s like to be marginalized as a
female, a racial minority knows what it’s like to be marginalized as that minority, a female of
that minority class knows what can be known given both standpoints, and so on), while
simultaneously, if that epistemological scheme is to be emphasized, must in effect speak, as from
an objective perspective. There’s little use asserting special knowledge/lived experience based on
one’s characteristics if one without those characteristics—and presumably without the concurrent
special knowledge—cannot be persuaded of it. Thus, another epistemological framework must
be applied to maintain the coherence of the first: presenting something of a reality-link paradox.
Fantasy theme artistry refers to the simple fact that some rhetoricians are more
competent in the craft than others. “In other words, highly skilled fantasizers turn ordinary
statements into dramatic events” (Cragan & Shields, 1998; p. 109). Provisional data from the
pilot study mentioned previously indicate that Jordan Peterson is perceived to be an honest
person whose work has helped people improve their comprehension of their own beliefs. These
effects likely attest to Peterson’s artistry in conveying salient fantasy themes. This will be
unpacked further through participants’ commentary in the results chapter.
Applications of SCT. Symbolic convergence theory and its concurrent method of
rhetorical criticism (FTA) have been used to study diverse communication phenomena.
Examples include the processes of group communication and creative problem solving
(Armstrong, 2015); the nature and effects of team communication (Kafle, 2014); corporate
strategic communication and risk management (Palenchar & Heath, 2002); market segmentation
(Cragan & Shields, 1992); evolution of rhetorical emphases and devices in the United States

52. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
46
cultural discourse from Puritan preachers to Abraham Lincoln (Bormann, 1985); the Cold War
rhetorical vision (Bormann, Cragan, & Shields, 1996); political, social, and marketing campaigns
(Bormann, 1982); cultural values and fantasies displayed by superhero mythoi (Kilbourn, 2016);
corporate mythologies and branding techniques (Neuman, 2013); rhetorical themes in ISIS
propaganda (Drischell, 2017); C.S. Lewis’s vision of human agency and the afterlife (Jeffress &
Brown, 2017); and more.
Criticisms of SCT. Criticisms of symbolic convergence theory tend to concentrate on
what it leaves out (such as sociological power dynamics) and its humanistic and egalitarian
vantage point (Olufowote, 2006). Other criticisms insist that SCT, being inspired by Bales’
work, mangles the Freudian roots from which the theory grows and that its vocabulary amounts
to little more than jargon (Mohrmann, 1982). Many of the criticisms leveled by Mohrmann, who
is perhaps the most famous critic of SCT, were also leveled a couple decades later (Gunn, 2003).
These critiques, as put in a response to them (Bormann, Cragan, Shields, et al, 2003) are: (a)
SCT is ontologically and paradigmatically inconsistent, (b) SCT’s Freudian fantasies are
deceptive, and (c) SCT is a deficient theory of invention.
Part of the first critique includes the argument that SCT is in decline and that this is due
to its amalgamation of modern (e.g., humanist ontology) and post-modern (e.g., co-construction
of symbolic reality) elements. The authors of the aforementioned response rebut this particular
point, noting the hundreds of studies generated using SCT across various fields. Furthermore, the
charge of ontological inconsistency must be supported by philosophical argument, not historical
argument. The inclusion of this argument into the broader claim that SCT is ontologically and
paradigmatically inconsistent only makes sense if a generational paradigm of philosophical
development is applied, one which grants favor to those most recent advances. This is precisely

53. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
47
what the authors note of Gunn’s “popular imaginary” paradigm: extending from Richard
Kearney and the pre-modern, modern, and post-modern master classifications.
We can ascribe a date of birth and death to a person, but the same sorting mechanism is
not so useful for the lifespan of his ideas, espoused theories, and beliefs. Bormann, Cragan, and
Shields (2003) consider this genealogical framework of philosophy a fine example of a fantasy
type, which is perhaps a reason for this particular mistake in critique of SCT. This mistake is
flavored by a conspicuous tendency for critics of SCT to swap the burden of proof by
exchanging the evaluative rationale endemic to SCT, not with a rationale from the fairly
common arena of philosophy, but with that from another theory. While such criticisms yield
interesting reading, in the end, one will not get far in declaring an apple to be rotten by exposing
it to be something other than an orange. This tendency seems to imply that these critics were
either fiercely enthusiastic about their theoretical “plus ones,” or too apathetic to get acquainted
with much else.
Concerning the deceptive Freudian fantasies claim, Gunn proposes that no predictive
capacity can be derived from SCT since, as Freud and others have argued, fantasies are
intrinsically deceptive and/or subconscious. On this front, the authors note that repeated studies
have predicted individual behavior based on quantitative studies utilizing SCT. SCT adherents
argue that this is evidence of motives, emotions, meaning and more within rhetoric as such (as
opposed to being merely relegated to the psyches of individuals). Further, the authors note that
Freudian fantasies, or dream thoughts, do not denote the same phenomena as the fantasies
studied in SCT, and that the vocabularies are not the same. Even Freud, as evidenced in his
seminal work On the Interpretation of Dreams (1899), did not believe that interpreting dreams
was an impossible endeavor, just a challenging and perplexing one. At bottom, the attempt to

54. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
48
collapse SCT’s rhetorical study of fantasy themes expressed in communication into the
subconscious dream fantasies investigated by Freud does not hold. In a way, like interpreting
dreams, the business of untangling rhetorical visions is difficult; that does not make these visions
intrinsically deceptive. It is worth a moment's pause to acknowledge authors’ defense of SCT at
this stage in which the criticism is not deflected, but flipped. In the attempt to construct a
defeater from Freud, Gunn (2003) quotes On the Interpretation (1899) as follows:
The dream-thoughts and the dream-content are presented to us like two versions of the
same subject matter in two different languages. Or more properly, the dream-content
seems like a [translation] of the dream-thoughts into another mode of expression … The
dream-thoughts are immediately comprehensible, as soon as we have learnt them. The
dream-content, on the other hand, is expressed as it were in a pictographic script, the
characters of which have to be transposed individually into the language of the dream-
thoughts. If we attempted to read these characters according to their pictorial value
instead of according to their symbolic relation, we should clearly be led into error. (p. 51)
As Bormann, Cragan, Shields, et al, (2003) note in their response, Gunn’s (2003)
bracketed item “translation” is used to replace the original “transcript”, and coupled with the
omitted piece (italicized), reads,
Or more properly, the dream-content seems like a transcript of the dream-thoughts into
another mode of expression whose characters and syntactic laws it is our business to
discover by comparing the original and the translation. The dream-thoughts are
immediately comprehensible, as soon as we have learnt them. (Bormann, Cragan,
Shields, et al, 2003; p. 368)
The final criticism contends that SCT is a theory of invention, one of the canons of
classical rhetoric, that fails to adequately cover this cannon, due, once again, to SCT’s neglection
of the collective unconscious. In short, the authors note that the concept of invention is not native

55. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
49
to SCT, that the original domain to which the concept is borrowed is not is a general
communication theory (so it cannot be used to radically augment a general theory such as SCT),
and that the concept of invention has not been adjusted in response to psychoanalysis even on its
own turf . It is an attempted move of reductio ad absurdum. Beyond that technical level, no
evidence to assume unconscious causes for the rhetorical elements studied in SCT has been
encountered in the course of the theory’s development and application.
In truth, the author of the present study is given to surmises regarding psychic influences
originating in the unconscious and their effects on rhetorical developments. The design of the
present study neither anticipates nor resists such influences. However, as far as theoretical
grounding is concerned, a felicitous and testable framework regarding the nature of the effects of
unconscious activity on rhetorical phenomena must be designed before it could be used to induce
theoretical amendments.
SCT has also been criticized for treating rhetorical visions as opaque monoliths
(Olufowote, 2006). Whether or not that criticism is apt, it can be avoided in practice. Evidence
can be mounted to triangulate communications that are beheld by communicators to share a
common concourse. Any researchers wishing to argue that the objects of their studies are unique
and impermeable rhetorical structures (such as secretive or quirky cults, perhaps) are free to do
so. It is, however, as short-sighted to expect all rhetorical analyses to be relegated to insular
cases as it is to presume every analysis (under SCT or otherwise) implies the phenomena studied
are, in every sense, thoroughly wedded to the rhetorical vision so described right up to the
boundaries of the scope of that investigation. Clarity ought to be encouraged, but without a
complete and operative scheme to enhance SCT’s expository capacities, one is left reminded that
one hair split in two remains precisely that.

56. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
50
In fact, one of the striking qualities of the communication phenomenon investigated in
this study is it is so permeable—not least because of the principal medium by which it is
manifesting and the mix of perineal, contemporary, quotidian, and esoteric contents comprising
its topical landscape—yet self-aware, ironically anonymous, and concatenated. This emerging
rhetorical vision, if deserving the description at all, is so rife with commingling it ought to be
either abandoned as an object of study or requires substantial scholarly supplement.

57. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
51
Methodology
The primary rationale for the selection of Q-methodology in this study is its unique
effectiveness in the probing of complex qualitative material in holistic fashion. Q-methodology
provides a way to examine points of view as gestalt wholes. It is apparent that Jordan Peterson
and others in the IDW are bringing many concepts to the table. The present study aims to
understand how people gathering around this activity are perceiving this conceptual landscape
and offer implications concerning the reasons people are gathering around at all.
Note that the above goal does not take the form of a hypothesis. This is precisely because
the aim of this project is more akin to the development of hypotheses than their testing. Q-
method makes possible the representation of one’s own subjective take, imposed onto the
phenomena of interest, rather than the researcher imposing theoretical concepts onto the
participant already covertly baked into the test (Stephenson, 1977). Thus, the present study
presents to those interested in Jordan Peterson a selection of possible hypotheses and invites
them to use their personal interest (i.e., salience fields) as such to arrange them (ibid).
Introduction to Q-Method
Q-method allows researchers to study subjectively-held beliefs, attitudes, perspectives,
and the like. This is typically done by providing participants with some set of statements (a Q-
set). Participants first familiarize themselves with all of the items in that set and then organize
those items according to their own point of view along a guiding condition of instruction
(Brown, 1980). For example, a set of statements describing the president of the United States
could be arranged by the condition of instruction, “most poorly describes my view of the
president” to “most accurately describes my view of the president.” The particular arrangement
of the items would be mostly unique to the individual doing the sorting, as the items are ranked

58. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
52
with respect to other items. The results are analyzed by a form of factor analysis in which
perspective arrays can be viewed.
Concourse
A total of 78 items comprise the primary instrument (i.e. the Q-set) encountered by
participants in this study (see Appendix I). These stimuli take the form of statements of opinion;
each related to some concept or proposition likely to be encountered in discussions among those
engaged with the work of Jordan Peterson.
The concourse construction process used in this study has a few phases. The first phase is
simply the determination of the relevant topical landscape. The researcher initially generated
around four hundred statements through a three-staged process of reviewing articles, online chat
rooms, comments on YouTube videos explicitly related to Jordan Peterson, and by surveying the
books and online lectures by Peterson himself. All of these items were used to survey the regions
of rhetorical significance among Jordan Peterson himself and those listening to him. Each staged
involved a recursive process of statement generation, piloting, and amendment.
This process does not entail the operational predefinition of individual item, as is
common with other methodological operations (Watts & Stenner, 2012). The bulk of the
meaning ascribed to each item is to be assigned by participants according to their own point of
view, which is, of course, the fundamental matter of interest in Q-methodological research.
The process of reducing these to the final set of 78 statements—that is, the procurement
of the Q-set from the concourse—was also executed in three stages. The overall number was
reduced by about one hundred in the first stage in which the researcher reviewed the items and
slowly clumped them into groupings by conceptual-similarity, and then began to discard less
fitting and obviously overlapping statements. The set took its final form after two more stages of

59. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
53
this process in which the researcher supervised two other reviewers and instructed them in the
nature and aim of the study as it relates to the construction of this instrument.
The Q-set includes a variety of statements related to philosophy, religion, politics, culture
and cultural institutions, social dynamics, self-reflective sentiments, and the like. It is, of course,
neither possible nor useful to include every possible idea in a Q-set. The end product should,
however, be a broadly representative and heterogeneous selection of tests (i.e. statements) from
the conceptual territory in question. With such a selection, participants are able to impress their
viewpoint onto the population of tests by way of the Q-sorting procedure.
It is common practice to draw from statements actually generated by individuals
attending to the topics in question (Shinebourne, 2009; Rhodes et. al., 2017). This approach is
not taken in the present study for a few reasons. Most statements online (e.g., articles, videos,
blogs, message boards, etc.) are either (a) highly contextual (such that the selections would be
unintentionally misleading), or (b) concern abstract and perineal topics (e.g., philosophy,
political theory, etc.). Moreover, as stated previously, the semiotic concern in Q-methodology is
primarily found in participants’ interpretation and handling of statements; the statement-
producer’s interpretation is of subordinate consequence.
It is for these and other reasons that extant resources on or by Jordan Peterson, in tandem
with informal reports concerning topical areas germane to the Jordan Peterson conversation,
were used primarily as references for the generation of the concourse. Such an approach is also
common in the literature on Q-method (Brown, 1980). While researcher-generated items can, of
course, be one of many sources of researcher bias, the nature of the Q-sorting task keeps the
participant in control of what he or she does with those items. Post-sort surveys also help

60. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
54
researchers confirm/disconfirm their interpretations of factor arrays. These qualifications, and
others, will be revisited later in the discussion of limitations.
Methodological Considerations
The fundamental aim of Q-Methodology is the study of subjectivity. The concept of
subjective salience, or “Psychological Significance” as William Stephenson often put it, serves
as the standardized phenomenon to be measured in Q (Stenner & Watts, 2012). The (nearly
infinite) population of variables to be studied beyond this (via individuals’ salience gradients) is
simply the topic, or any class of units, of interest (Stephenson, 1986).
While Q-methodology does hail from a tradition which is generally skeptical of, or
rejects undue confidence in, Cartesian/Newtonian reductionism—William Stephenson, the
founder of Q-methodology, was a physicist specialized in quantum theory, as well as a
psychologist, after all—its development was not characterized by the aversion to numbers so
common in qualitative research circles at the time. In fact, using factor analysis, Q aims to
reliably represent common and rarely-disputed assumptions about the nature of human
perspectives (Stephenson, 1986).
Consider the behavior of judges on televised cooking competitions. They taste effectively
the exact same dish. Then the judges announce their reactions to that act of tasting. Their
considerations tend to come from a host of areas beyond the act itself—such as the chef’s ability
to execute the dish in a timely and otherwise impressive manner, various streams of culinary
knowledge, and the like—but in the end, it is left to the individual judge to organize those
considerations from most to least relevant to their task and then to render their judgment.
Occasionally, judges will disagree. Usually this is about a matter of personal liking/disliking
about the quality of dish itself. And, usually, the disagreement is unresolved. You say it’s too

61. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
55
spicy, I think the spice-level is absolutely perfect. Personal reactions are treated as legitimate as
such. Diametric differences in personal reactions are also expected to be common, but as
common exceptions to the rule of otherwise roughly-shared sentiments between the judges. It
also seems to be implied in the very process of judgment that such cases of idiosyncratic
salience-divergence will tend to be canceled out in the voting process.
The amusing difference in the perspective on perspectives between TV cooking
competitions and Q-methodology is that the former usually assumes a right and wrong
perspective while the latter merely aims to represent individuals’ perspectives and patterns in
those perspectives. The actual judgement of those perspectives is held in abeyance as much as
possible. In a strange way, the cooking show aims to act (or appear to act) more as a scientific
enterprise while this scientific enterprise would merely like to track how people report their own
“tastes.” In the end, however, the assumption of the individual’s stratified salience field is
common to both. This field is precisely what Q-methodology aims to measure: nothing more and
nothing less.
P-set
While Q-method requires sufficient representation of available viewpoints for
participants to sort, this methodology requires selective participant sampling rather than random
sampling. The population of concern (from which the P-set in this study will be drawn) in this
study are those actively following the media content of the IDW, particularly those engaging
with Jordan Peterson’s YouTube videos. Various informal, in-person meetup groups have
formed to discuss Peterson’s ideas. Such groups are excellent for deriving a sample for this
study.

62. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
56
The participants in this study were principally gathered in two ways. First, invitations to
participate were extended to three closed, administered, and moderated Jordan Peterson
discussion groups on Facebook. Second, the researcher was hosted and interviewed by the
administrators of two YouTube channels chiefly dedicated to discussing Jordan Peterson and
related phenomena. It should be noted that both of these channels share the unique practice of
having viewers on to exchange ideas, providing further evidence of the operation of rhetorical
communities which are more than superficial. One of these two interviewers also facilitates a
Jordan Peterson meetup group and helps companions set up similar groups in other cities.
The latter strategy proved a novel, innocent, and effective means of finding participants.
This is especially impressive given the generosity required to offer a sizeable amount of time, to
complete a fairly demanding task, at the request of a complete stranger. It seems fair to suspect
that the hospitality conferred upon an unknown researcher through the act of giving him the time
of day on one’s YouTube channel, coupled with a mutual willingness to enjoy one another
through unstructured conversation, enhances the chances that those listening in would like to
extend generosity as well.
In total, 78 Q-sorts were completed, which, opportunistically, is in perfect congruence
with Watts & Stenner’s (2005) recommendation to aim for a Q-set to P-set ratio of 1:1 or under.
Unfortunately, for unknown technical reasons, some of these Q-sorts would not be converted
into CSV or Excel format, leaving the total number of sorts qualified for analysis at 69, still
within optimal range (see limitations).
One Q-sort was completed by the researcher of the present study (as he does fit the single
criterion of one engaged with the work of Jordan Peterson); although his Q-sort ended up

63. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
57
confounded between two significant loadings on two factors and, thus, it did not proceed into
factor interpretation.
General Demographics
Of the 69 individuals comprising the P-set of analysis, 56 participants are male and 13 are
female. The age range varied greatly and are as follows: 11 participants are between the age of
18 and 25 years of age; 16 participants between the age of 26 and 35 years of age; 20 participants
between 36 and 45 years of age; 9 participants between the age of 46 and 55; 9 participants
between the age of 56 and 65 years of age; and 4 participants between the age of 66 and 75 years
of age.
The majority of participants were from the North America (60% United States, 13%
Canada). The remaining participants were from Australia (6%), Europe (12%), and Asia (6%).
Two participants are citizens of the United States and one other county (3%; Canada; Brazil).
The sample included participants from the following countries: the United States of America,
Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Germany, Romania, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Brazil, New
Zealand, India, and South Korea.
The majority of participants have obtained, or are pursuing, higher education (4%
associate’s degree, 42% bachelor’s degree, 22% master’s degree, 9% PhD, and 3% Juris
Doctorate degree). Seventeen percent of participants indicate the completion of high school as
their highest level of education, though many have taken some college courses during their
lifetime. One participant is a trade school graduate (1.5%) and one participant declined to answer
(1.5%).
Concerning the duration participants’ engagement with Jordan Peterson, 72% of
participants indicate following him for the past 1-3 years (45% for 1‒2 years; 20% for 2‒ 3

64. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
58
years). Other participants responded to this question by referring to a specific event such as the
Bill C-16 controversy, the Cathy Newman interview, Jordan Peterson’s interview with Joe
Rogan, the H3H3 podcast, and since Jordan Peterson’s Biblical Series (23%). Three participants
indicate following Jordan Peterson for less than a year (4.5%). Four participants indicate
following Jordan Peterson for over three years; one of these indicate following him for 11 years
(6%). One participant did not submit an answer to the question (1.5%)
Procedure
This study makes use of an online software (Q-sorTouch) expressly tailored for Q-
methodological research. The procedure includes three stages: (a) an initial and straightforward
sort of all 78 items into three categories, (b) a thorough sorting process according to a forced-
distribution, and (c) a follow up survey of open-ended questions.
The initial sort serves to familiarize participants with the items of concern, their
preliminary reaction to each item, and to aid the meticulous task of item-by-item comparisons to
follow. This introductory task entails the encounter with one of the 78 statements at a time
(presented randomly) and the allocation of that item to one of three provisional classifications:
generally disagree; indifferent, unsure, or mixed feelings; and generally agree.
The second stage is where the formal Q-sorting activity takes place. This scrupulous
process requires participants to situate the statements according to the constraint of their own
point of view and that imposed by a forced, quasinormal distribution. In effect, this symmetrical
scale restricts participants’ options for item placement such that statements which can be
indicated as “most agree” and “most disagree” are scarcer than the accumulating opportunities to
place statements toward the center of the distribution. In the present study, a 13-degree scale was
selected in accordance with the suggestion of Brown (1980) concerning Q-sets comprised of

65. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
59
more than 60 items. The selected curve of the quasinormal distribution follows a rather
platykurtic (i.e. flattened) shape, allowing for more nuanced distinctions between item
weightings. This shape is chosen due to the assumption at the outset of this study that those
actively engaging with Peterson’s content possess thoroughly considered views on these topics,
which are presumed to be significantly salient to those so poised to expend much attention on
topics as complex and abstract as those comprising much of the Q-set. A steeper, or near-normal,
distribution would disallow the impression of such particular discrepancies onto the Q-set. See
blank Q-sort below:
Figure 1. Blank Q-Sort Example.
Participants are instructed to start at one pole of the distribution (i.e. most agree or most
disagree) and to systematically fill open slots on approach toward the center of the distribution.
The same process is then repeated, beginning at the other pole. Then, vacant slots nearer the

66. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
60
center are filled by the remaining statements. Participants are encouraged to look over their full
sort and to make adjustments as they see fit.
Having completed the primary stage, participants reach the third and final step in which
they are invited to offer demographic information, open-ended commentary on their sort, what
they may have felt was missing from the Q-set, Jordan Peterson’s work, and their own
intellectual and life pursuits.
Analysis
Q-sort data are analyzed using factor analyses. William Stephenson, the creator of Q-
method, worked closely with a great pioneer of factor analysis Charles Spearman (Stephen,
1985; Stephenson, 1977). In the conception of Q-methodology, Stephenson essentially argued
for the utility of inverting the statistical procedure.
The most common use of factor analysis involves measuring correlative relationships
among m number of variables (e.g., tests, traits, demographics, etc.) across n number of persons
in a sample. That is, a standardized set of theoretically-postulated qualities, i.e., tests, are
compared across a population of people. This use of factor analysis is referred to by Stephenson
as R-methodology. In Q-methodology, however, it is the people (i.e., their subjectivity) who are
treated as the variables and the test items are treated as the population.
Though a subject of decades of debate, it is generally held today that any given set of data
cannot be properly factor-analyzed by both q and r (Stephen, 1982; Brown, 1980). This is mostly
due to problem of standardization. In order for different variables to be properly compared with
one another, each must be measured consistently. In R-methodology, this problem of apples and
oranges is typically solved by the calculation of z-scores to reveal standard deviations with
regard to proportional representation of traits within a population. In the inverted matrix (i.e., q),

67. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
61
however, the standardization requirement must be met by approaching the problem from a
different angle. In Q-methodology, this is done be treating the individual and his/her subjective
perspective as the initial standardized unit. In the end, R-data involves by-variable analysis,
whereas Q-data are compared in by-person factor analysis. Correlations in q concern differences
and similarities in the constellations of psychological significance (as represented by their Q-
sort) between individuals, rather than comparing the relations of variables as manifest across a
population of people. The desire to study one’s psyche in a more unified way is precisely what
motivated Stephenson to adapt his mentor’s method. As Watts and Stenner (2012) report,
[Stephenson] felt, not unreasonably, that defining and understanding each individual
completely, and hence as a whole, was a necessary prerequisite of any full and genuine
comparison of individual differences. The simple problem for R methodology, however,
was that its focus on specific bits of people – variables, traits, abilities and so on –
necessarily invoked a kind of methodological dissection, and once this dissection had
taken place no effective means had been found to ‘put the person together again.’ (p. 15)
The resulting data for analysis are the participants’ finished, forced-distribution Q-sorts.
These sorts are compared with one another to assess similarity and dissimilarity between them.
The resulting factors from analysis represent common trends in individuals’ perspective/salience
distributions. There are no strict rules on how to calculate these results. Using rotation analysis,
researchers can probe the data with respect to theoretical and other considerations.
The 69 Q-sorts were intercorrelated and subjected to factor analysis using KADE: a
desktop application for Q methodology (Banasick, 2019). Using centroid factor analysis, three
factors, which explain a total of 51% of the variance, were extracted and rotated judgmentally.
While six factors with eigenvalues in excess of 1.00 are available and justifiable for extraction,

68. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
62
the scree plot generated using principal components analysis (PCA) indicated that the factors
beyond the first three are likely spurious.
Figure 2. Principal Component Analysis Scree Plot.
There are a few ways to run the statistical analysis. Centroid factor analysis and PCA are
the two extraction options. For rotation, judgmental/by-hand factor rotation and varimax factor
rotation are the two ways to proceed. The present study utilizes centroid factor extraction and
judgmental rotation for a few reasons. First, PCA extracts components, not factors precisely,
which are committed into mathematically best solutions. While attractive on face value, this can
weaken the most unique quality of Q-methodology in the analysis phase: data exploration.
Judgmental rotation over varimax is selected for the same reason in essence. Second, despite the
indeterminacy of centroid analysis and the loss of mathematically supreme solutions, there is
ample room to probe the data to discover attractive compromises. Thanks to the generosity of

69. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
63
participants, the researcher had ample room to rotate factors in such a way to reinforce
distinctions and loadings between factors even at the risk of increasing the number of
confounding sorts. In this way, the automation of pure statistical communality is reserved for as
long as it can be (i.e. until the calculation of factor arrays).
The unrotated factor matrix, coupled with its hazy theoretical implications, meaningfully
guided factor rotation in this analysis. Unrotated factor 1 possesses an eigenvalue of 29.4,
explaining 43% of the variance. In light of this, compromises carried out through rotation
generally were made to enhance the loadings on the other two factors at the expense of factor 1’s
immense gravitational pull. In principle, at least, this bias tends toward two advantages. First,
and most intuitively, by enhancing the relevance of two factors of significant but comparatively
negligible consequence, those factors are granted more of the “common ground” with which
their viewpoints can be expressed. Second, by doling out some of the contested territory to factor
1’s two neighbors, the heartland of factor 1 may be more easily triangulated. From there, the
more trivial alignments between factors 2 and 3 can be administered. In the end, factors 1 and 3
are rotated 50 degrees retrograde, factors 1 and 2 are rotated 40 degrees retrograde, and factors 2
and 3 are rotated 10 degrees prograde.
Following rotation, individual Q-sorts which loaded highly on one particular factor were
automatically flagged using a p-value of < .001 and requiring a majority of common variance.
This auto-flagging procedure included 45 of the 69 Q-sorts and was followed by the manual
addition of 5 non-confounding Q-sorts, flagging a total of 50 sorts used to construct factor
arrays. While a predetermined lower-threshold of at least a loading of .38 was used as a flagging
criterion, the lowest loading of any of the flagged Q-sorts is .45. There is one case in which an
exception to this loading rule is made. Curiously, two sorts loaded in a negative manner on factor

70. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
64
1 (although not at the .38 threshold). Thus, for exploratory reasons, factor 1 is treated as a bipolar
factor and split in two: Factor 1a and factor 1b (important qualification regarding statistical
exceptions granted in the case of factor 1b are addressed in the following chapter). This results in
the final production of four factor arrays.
A factor array is visualized as a single, representative Q-sort that displays the gestalt
point of view characterizing a factor. Factor arrays are the product of the weighted averaging of
all flagged Q-sorts respective to each factor. Essentially, this means that those sorts which are
most representative of a given factor have greater influence on the final average than those which
are also representative of that factor, but to a lesser degree. What defines a factor is a similar
pattern of sorting behavior. Each factor array is defined by the individual Q-sorts which are
significantly consonant with a given factor, and only that one factor, in terms of this pattern of
sorting behavior. Thus, we are at this point safe to assume, for example, that the 13 sorts used to
derive the factor array for factor 1a are distinguished by a shared viewpoint and that the
consequent array provides a representative image of that shared viewpoint. And, with that
assumption, the task of qualitative interpretation can commence.
It should be kept in mind that factor extraction and factor rotation are fundamentally
processes of data reduction. The nature of Q-methodology is specifically suited to invite
participants to impress their personal point of view upon the Q-set in the form of a Q-sort. While
participants do not directly create the items found in the Q-sample, the meaning they impose
upon and interpret them at that time is their own. How they choose to respond to this
interpretation with respect to their interpretations of every other item is their choice as well. Due
not only to the indeterminate number of interpretive possibilities, but also to the freedoms
allowed by Q-sort construction, an abundance of opportunities for perspective-representation and

71. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
65
sort-configuration are available in excess of quantities with which most are accustomed (for
example, Brown [1980] shows that a Q-set of 33 items, to be sorted along nine degrees of
distinction [i.e. -4 to +4], allow for a possible number of combinations exceeding 11,000 times
the human population at that time of writing).
Thus, factor analysis is used to find trends in sorting behavior and to reduce the
specificity of these behaviors to a degree that can be examined and probed. Each factor is
initially and primarily examined on its own terms. This is to ask, what do the resultant patterns of
item-constellation reveal as unique modes of subjective apprehension? It should not be forgotten,
however, that each participant and respective Q-sort are hardly synonymous with the view
indicated by the factor onto which he or she loaded significantly. It would be, in fact, as
surprising to find no significant dispute between at least two Q-sorts significantly-weighted on a
common factor as it would be to find a family whose members have never quarreled. With all of
this in mind, we arrive at the very purpose of this study: the discovery of, and abductive
interaction with, trends among the subjective consciousnesses of at least some of those deeply
engaged with the work of Dr. Jordan Peterson.

72. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
66
Results
Factor 1a: The Existentialist
Factor 1a has 13 significantly loading participants and explains 14% of the variance. Note
that if bipolarity of factor 1 was not split into factor 1a and factor 1b, the explained variance of
factor 1 would be 28%. Eight participants are male and five are female. Two participants have
attained secondary education, four bachelor degrees, six master’s degrees, one doctorate. At the
time of the procedure, one participant had been keeping up with Dr. Peterson’s work for a year,
eight for nearly two years, one for nearly three years, while three participants did not indicate.

73. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
67
Figure 3. Composite Q-Sort for Factor 1a.

74. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
68
The view expressed from the vantage point of factor 1a stresses the importance of the
reconciliation of science and religion. Factor 1a is marked by an insistence that one’s life has
rich personal meaning. Not only that, this view holds that one can discover a strong, vertical
relationship between the meaning to be found in one’s own life and the meaning of truths at the
grandest scale. The salience landscape envisioned in factor 1a does not stress matters of politics,
culture, social relations, and certain theological axioms as much as this vertical communion
between the agent and the cosmos. Interestingly, this appears to be an active engagement with
the relationship between the part and the whole as a gestalt (an engagement built right into the
method employed in this study) in a way viewed primarily in the first person. This view seldom
swears by a clear-cut image of reality, but does assert every individual’s obligation to, or union
with, the state of reality.
Here are a few likely views from the perspective of factor 1a. Each is supplemented with
the ranking of the respective factor array in comparison to that of the others. Each item’s ranking
by the present factor is emboldened; the rankings found on the other arrays are enclosed in
parentheses and follow in sequence (e.g., ranking of 1b, 2, 3).
There is a meaning to life. There is a meaning to my life.
45: Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. 6 (-5, -2, 3)
69: We all possess a spark of divine virtue. 6 (-5, 5, 6)
38: The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which the whole of
reality is accidental. -6 (-1, -2, -4)
To appreciate this meaning is to recognize the weight it brings.
70: Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 6 (4, 6, 4)
1: What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. 6 (-2, 0, 3)
76: In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. 5 (-2, 3, 4)
23: Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure’s absence. 3 (-2, 2, 2)
3: Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the state of the world. 2 (2, 1, 1)
65: The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different pathways in life. 3 (-
2, 1, 0)
31: Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological clarity. 5 (0, 2, 1)

75. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
69
What’s meaningful is what matters, not necessarily what’s useful.
71: Concepts which cannot be omitted in practice are likely true whether or not they are
easily articulated. 3 (2, 1, 0)
25: Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. 5 (-2, -1, 3)
44: The correctness of a given action rests on its benefit or detriment to society. -2 (5, -2,
-3)
Reality, met with humility and curiosity, appears as something which is not necessarily logical or
illogical, but symmetrical.
10: The things which most bother us about others are often precisely what have remained
unexamined in ourselves. 4 (-3, 2, 2)
27: Truth is mostly paradoxical. 3 (-1, -1, -2)
28: Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. -4 (-5, -2, 0)
30: Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive. -6 (-3,-5, -3)
There are ontological, not merely semantic, theological truths.
36: God directly communicates with people. 5 (-6, -3, 1)
35: There is no God. -6 (4,-2, -6)
The ranking of the penultimate statement is intriguing. As will become clear later, factor
1a and factor 3, comparatively, share a fair deal of common sentiment, particularly involving
religious sentiments (e.g. [35] There is no God: Factor 1a: -6; Factor 3: -6). That said, it is
typically the case that factor 3 “leans in” a bit more forcefully when it comes to more
prototypical, religious, conservative conceptions posed with a razor’s edge, and remains
relatively reserved when it comes to vaguer and more mystical statements (e.g. [33] Every
human possesses intrinsic dignity; something which cannot be said of other living creatures:
Factor 1a: 0, Factor 3: 6. [27] Truth is mostly paradoxical: Factor 1a: 3; Factor 3: -2). This trend
is reversed, however, in the case of item 36: God directly communicates with people. To borrow
an analogy from C.S. Lewis, it may be that the view of factor 1a emphasizes religious experience
as one looking along a beam of light, while the view of factor 3 would generally prefer to
maintain a coherent comprehension of religion as one looking at a beam the light.

76. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
70
From the point of view of factor 1a, value and meaning can radiate from everything.
Mere proximal utility does not cover this (24. For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be
useful: -3). This implies the existence and importance of a grand teleology which permeates
reality at all levels (38. The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which the
whole of reality is accidental: -6; 65. The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between
different pathways in life: 3; 45. Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason: 6; etc.). This
also implies a grand morality that permeates existence (42. While context certainly matters, it is
nonetheless true that moral universals exist: 5; 25. Some actions are right/wrong regardless of
their consequences: 5; 1. What is painful about the world can be transformed into good: 6; etc.).
Furthermore, the view from this factor sees science and religion as complements rather than
opponents (31. Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological clarity: 5;
Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive: -6). This is, over all, an optimistic
vision through which one finds oneself at the center of a seemingly Hermetic, “as above so
below,” communion of meaning.
This also translates to a personal level. By taking on responsibility and daring to look life
in the eye, one encounters the ways in which they are naive, weak, unstable, afraid, and so on.
They also encounter their potential by putting it to the test. And it is this participation that results
in dropping some of one’s preoccupation with themselves while simultaneously giving them a
clearer picture of themselves and more attentiveness to others (i.e., humility). This emphasis on
participation may be why factor 1a downplayed the significance of self-restraint (Item 15: -1 [4,
0, 1]) and highlighted the significance of concepts in practice (Item 71: 3 [2, 1, 0]). All in all, this
is another key component of the “wholeness” perspective so vital to factor 1a. It’s difficult to
find a simple word to describe that component. One participant, who loaded second most

77. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
71
significantly on factor 1a, suggested the Q-set was missing items explicitly about love, saying,
“Love (of all its various sorts) is such a significant and meaningful part of most people's lives (in
either its presence or its absence) that it would seem fitting for there to be at least one question
about it.” After spending a fair amount of time with the perspectives exemplified by the factors
in this study, the researcher could not agree more.
Here are some more statements made by participants loading significantly on factor 1a
(in order of higher-to-lesser factor loadings) that will further refine this emphasis.
(Participant 44) “Scientific and religious thought is not fundamentally opposed. This affirms
what thoughts I’ve had about this. It opens my eyes to more of the world as being
connected.”
(Participant 59) “I strongly disagreed with the statement that there is no God. I think that the
hubris of such a statement makes the honest speaker of it rather ridiculous (as if one could
actually know enough about the universe to declare the existence of God impossible, as if
any one human's small mind and experience could comprehend enough of reality to declare
infinite Being an impossibility). I do have a personal belief in God and a lifelong religious
faith in and practice of Christianity. My life and experience would be impossible for me to
understand or describe without referencing my belief in God and experience of Him. I also
strongly disagree with the idea that evolutionary biological theory and religious belief are
incompatible. Atheist materialists and hyper-literal conservative Christians may agree on
this point, but I think both of those opposing camps have a very small and unimaginative
relationship with the Bible. Reading it on a symbolic level with an understanding of the
nature of ancient near eastern texts makes the apparent discordance between Scripture and
evolution vanish. I've actually found my faith in God and love for His creation greatly
enhanced and deepened by an understanding of evolution as the process by which God
formed the universe. The explanatory power of these two "stories" in
tandem/complementarity is immense!... I deeply believe in the reality of the human soul, and
how it manifests itself in moral choices throughout life. I believe each person is made in the

78. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
72
image of God (has a spark of divine virtue in them, however marred it may be), and
possesses inherent dignity because of this. I believe my life is meaningful, that I'm here for a
reason, and that I can transform all my painful experiences into something beautiful (because
that is at the heart of Christianity: the crucifixion becomes the resurrection).”
(Participant 22) “To me God is the harmony and wholeness of being, shared by all and
everything. A cosmic dynamic constant flow open for experience.”
(Participant 63) “Everything you do has cosmic significance. To me, this has encouraged me
to see "smaller" or more "mundane" things in my life as having a permanent impact on the
world, for better or worse, and has made me be more thoughtful in my words, actions, and
thoughts.”
(Participant 54) “To me, the most important aspect of Dr. Peterson's message is that taking
personal responsibility for one's life is not only good, but necessary; and that this
responsibility can bring clarity and meaning to one's existence. Since listening to Dr.
Peterson's lectures and interviews and reading "12 Rules for Life" (and taking his message to
heart), my life has begun to improve in many ways. I am no longer depressed. I am no longer
unemployed. I no longer think of myself as worthless, and I see the worth in other people
more clearly. I believe I can accomplish the things I set out to do. Even on a rough day, I feel
hopeful and profoundly grateful.”
Table 1: Distinguishing Statements of Factor 1a
Statement 1a 1b 2 3
69. We all possess a spark of divine virtue. 6 -5 5 6
45. Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. 6 -5 -2 3

79. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
73
1. What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. 6 -2 0 3
76. In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. 5 -2 3 4
36. God directly communicates with people. 5 -6 -3 1
42. While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist.
5 -4 1 6
31. Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological clarity. 5 0 2 1
25. Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. 5 -2 -1 3
10. The things which most bother us about others are often precisely what
have remained unexamined in ourselves.
4 -3 2 2
27. Truth is mostly paradoxical. 3 -1 -1 -2
65. The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different
pathways in life.
3 -2 1 -1
49. Human life exists after death. 2 -6 -3 5
67. It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 1 6 4 0
16. Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather than
their own.
0 5 4 2
20. Western societies work. 0 6 3 3
51. Compared to other forms of governance, Western democracies are
generally of superior quality.
-1 2 4 3

80. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
74
78. Journalists today are incurious. -2 1 0 0
34. Religion is a product of human evolution. -3 0 2 -5
24. For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. -3 3 0 -2
48. The law serves those who control it. -3 4 -1 -2
38. The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which the
whole of reality is accidental.
-6 -1 -2 -4
Factor 1b: The Spectator
Factor 1b has two loading participants and explains 14% of the variance. One participant
is male and one female. Both hold bachelor’s degrees.
Factor 1b represents the negative pole of factor 1. This is not an indication of value.
Rather, it is an indication that this factor perceives some concepts in an antithetical manner to its
(positive) counterpart. Imagine, for example, what differences there may be between a hammer
in search of a nail and a nail in search of a hammer. Or, to use a less abstract example, the
difference between the ways children may view parents and the ways parents may view children
along some relevant dimensions; e.g., how the child may view their parents’ role as caregiver
may differ greatly with the parents’ view of their role as caregiver.
Note: this factor array is derived using comparatively lenient statistical requirements, a
lower threshold of .1 loading rather than the 3.8 loading threshold required for flagging in the
other three arrays. This choice is made because (a) the principal aim of this study is not
quantitative in nature, and (b) it allows the opportunity to examine a comparatively foreign

81. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
75
viewpoint. While we cannot be as confident in the presence of this distinct perspective as a
shared point of view beyond the idiosyncratic, at the very least, it affords a contrast of not only
kind but magnitude of discrepancy. Therefore, it would be wise to consider factor 1b with a grain
of salt regarding its representativeness as distinct viewpoint in this study. That said, the highest-
loading sort flagged on the factor 1b array was one of the few sorts which negatively correlated
with other Q-sorts, and certainly was the one that most consistently and most extremely
negatively correlated with all other Q-sorts in the initial, unrotated correlation matrix.
Beyond the two Q-sorts used to derive the array used in this formal analysis, three
additional participants loaded onto factor 1b. These, however, were weighted below .1 so the
admittedly arbitrary cutoff prevented their flagging onto the factor here. These participants’
comments will be used, however, to help flesh out the qualitative color expressed by factor 1b.
An alternative factor array in which these sorts are included in the weighted average can be
found under Appendix II. Finally, it should be noted that all five of these sorts loaded negatively
on factor 1a, modestly to sizably on factor 2, and split between weakly and modestly on factor 3
(save for one sort that also loaded negatively on factor 3). Thus, from this estimation, factor 1b
can be construed as a perspectival distant relative of factor 2 that has also been divorced from
factor 1a.

82. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
76
Figure 4. Composite Q-Sort for Factor 1b.

83. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
77
Factor 1b emphasizes intellectual matters, particularly those of political and social nature.
It emphasizes the importance of hearing any viewpoint no matter what. But it does not mince
opinions about topics which are sacred to many. It is difficult to tell, however, if any particular
topics are all that sacred, or felt to be sacred, from the perspective of factor 1b. It is fairly civil
and polite. The perspective is relatively self-assured, holds that individuals ought to exert a fair
deal of effort in life, but does not hold one’s own life to possesses transcendent value or purpose.
The view of factor 1b sees a world that is vulnerable and given to corruption. Overall, factor 1b
possesses a “systems-view” of the world which proffers a pragmatic, unromantic response. The
view is intellectually curious and skeptical, settled and uncertain, socially/politically pessimistic
in some ways and optimistic in others, and personally reliant yet introspectively unenchanted.
The following, as before, are potential views according to factor 1b supplemented by
item rankings of the respective factor array. The comparative rankings of the same item in the
other arrays follow in a like manner, in this case, from that of factor 1a, factor 2, then factor 3.
The metaphysical claims of religions are almost certainly false; and it’s unclear if they are even
particularly useful or detrimental. However, people who hold those views and participate in
religious practice should do so freely.
35: There is no God. 4 (-6, -2, -6)
49: Human life exists after death. -6 (2, -3, 5)
36: God directly communicates with people. -6 (5, -3, 1)
26: Religious belief can be just as logical as any system of thought. -1 (2, -3, 0)
31: Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological clarity. 0 (5, 2, 1)
40: One should be unafraid of being openly religious. 5 (0, 4, 2)
It’s important to carefully contemplate all kinds of views from all sorts of people in as exact and
considerate a manner as possible, keeping still so to speak, while making use of all the available
strategies in the pursuit of knowledge.
32: There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides the best ways to
explain some things but not all things. 6 (4, 3, 4)
5: Few qualities are as important as self-restraint. 4 (-1, 0, -1)
63: It’s more important to be empathetic than to be dominant. 3 (1, 2, -1)

84. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
78
52: Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't comprehend an idea in
pristine form, you've no right to complain about it making no sense to you. 2 (-2, -4, -
2)
47: One cannot expect to understand an opposing view without having similar life
experiences as their opponent. -5 (-4, -5, -4)
22: No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be listened to. -6 (-3, -3, -1)
It’s best to consider the outcome and utility of a given course of action. The notion of
fundamental/eternal moral and axiological facts can get in the way of neutral and rational
thinking.
44: The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or detriment to society.
5 (-2, -2, -3)
24: For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. 3 (-3, 0, -2)
50: Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's baked into the fabric
of reality. -2 (3, 5, 5)
76: In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. -2 (5, 3, 4)
25: Some actions are right or wrong regardless of their consequences. -2 (5, -1, 3)
23: Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure’s absence. -2 (3, 2, 2)
42: While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral universals exist. -4
(5, 1, 6)
It’s either an unnecessary or a false dichotomy to contrast the responsibility of the individual
with that of the collective/government. You can prefer to emphasize one or the other for
whatever purpose at the time, but there’s no need to think as if one is at odds with the other by
necessity. I am, myself, determined to make my own way in life. But this does not detract from
the fact that one’s way in life is cluttered defective social arrangements. People and systems alike
could use some fixing.
19: While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's fundamentally
imperative that I solve my own problems to the best of my ability. 6 (2, 6, 1)
74: Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse 5 (-1, -1, -1)
16: Some people are too invested in other people’s problems rather than their own. 5 (0,
4, 2)
48: The law serves those who control it. 4 (-3, -1, -2)
6: Conflicts about inequality are more numerous in egalitarian societies. 2 (-1, -1, -1)
14: We all have a duty to speak on behalf of marginalized groups. 2 (0, -4, -3)
3: Each person has an intrinsic duty and equal responsibility for the state of the world. 2
(2, 1, 1)
4: Evil can be overcome peacefully. 1 (0, -2, -2)
62: A government should provide for the basic living needs of its citizenry. 0 (-2, -4, -3)
59: A government’s role is to promote equal or near-equal results for all. -6 (-5, -6, -6)
68: It’s an admirable goal to bring children into existence. -1 (2, 3, 6)
1: What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. -1 (6, 0, 3)
13: Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning evaporates, you have
yourself to blame. -3 (1, 2, -1)
20: Western societies work. 6 (0, 3, 3)

85. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
79
56: Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to decide for themselves
what to make of them. 1 (-5, -5, -5)
67: It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 6 (1, 4, 0)
Navel-gazing and an unfounded sense of some divinely-bestowed inherent value are not the most
useful strategies. I believe in my abilities, sure, but not in any intrinsic or divine purpose to fulfil.
72: I trust myself. 3 (0, -1, -1)
29: It’s impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 0 (1, 2, 5)
65: The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different pathways in life. -2
(3, 1, -1)
10: The things which most bother us about others are often precisely what have remained
unexamined in ourselves. -3 (4, 2, 2)
77: We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. -4 (4, 5, 2)
69: We all possess a spark of divine virtue. -5 (6, 5, 6)
45: Deep down at least, I know I am here for a reason. -5 (6, -2, 3)
If we were to view factor 1a as a deeply embodied, existential mode seeing, factor 1b
appears to a more disembodied, detached vision. The principal categories of opposition between
factors 1a and 1b are religious concepts and those concerning personal purpose and the meaning
of life. Factor 1a deeply embraces these ideas in the positive; factor 1b enthusiastically rejects
them.
There appears to be another kind of mutual departure between the positive and negative
poles of factor 1. The former (i.e., factor 1a) emphasizes a reverential dimension eminently
focalized in the soul of oneself and the soul of the world, deemphasizing the world as seen from
the lens of current events. Meanwhile, factor 1b emphasizes a contemplative dimension made of
the people and their ideas, the systems and their implications, to be found in this world as all
people non-mystically encounter it; deemphasizing one’s own significance in light of these
developments along with that of any transcendent overlay. Both of these perspectives could be
regarded as foiled cosmological visions both affected by another. Or they can be regarded
inversely: pre-modern and modern variants of post-modernism. As Cragan, Shields, and

86. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
80
Bormann indicated in their response to Gunn (2003), chronological explanations leave much to
be desired.
Factor 1b has less in common with any of the other three factors than any of those have
with each other. The closest correlation is with factor 2. The principal disagreement seems to be
matters of religion. Factor 2 does not particularly stress items containing theological
implications, but does share sentiments with factor 3 and factor 1b regarding some political and
cultural matters. Even then, factor 1b ranks many political and cultural items in an antithetical
way across all factors. Factor 1a hardly stresses political and cultural matters at all. Thus, it’s
counterpart in factor 1b seems to express an almost inverted salience landscape and attitude. It is
also likely that, given Q-set more densely populated with political and economic minutia, factor
1b would quite differently.
As it stands, however, factor 1b appears to us as a blend of intellectual curiosity (52.
Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't comprehend an idea in pristine form,
you've no right to complain about it making no sense to you: 2), atheism (35. There is no God:
4), and somewhat nihilistic (45. Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason: -5). That
said, this denial of existential or divine purpose does not mean to factor 1b that life is hopeless;
there are still interesting and surprising things to encounter in the course of life (11. The best was
to see life is as an adventure: 3).
Here are some statements made by participants whose Q-sorts loaded on factor 1b.
(Participant 29) “My education is in political science, so broadly speaking I've watched the
trends of steadily mainstreaming socialist ideas and how they are a response to the failures or
misdeeds of capitalism, as well as social media's effect on it all. His personal responsibility
message is especially interesting in this context since it is his most potent message and the
one that adheres to him a label of conservative, practically begging mainstream leftism to

87. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
81
dismiss him, while more independently-minded/liberal/secular/rational people who consider
themselves leftists are very in tune with his work. Of his popular criticisms (lobster stuff,
trans/c16 fiasco, adjacency to alt-right personalities, "he's not a good scientist," grumpy,
videos are too long/soundbites are all i need of him, post-modern cultural neo-Marxism
hysterics), neither really gets to the meat of his valuable messages around individualist work-
ethic, near-Christian spiritualism, political liberalism, personal stories/expertise, rationality of
religion, etc. that set him apart from those that he hangs out with on the internet/in public. All
that coupled with his earnestness and humor is a relatively unique package that most people
don't find in their lives or in the public, like simultaneously positive AND pleasant male
figures in general (save for those used to religious leaders which may help explain why
they're not necessarily his prime audience). He addresses the need for both spiritual and
material meaning in post-industrial modernity with a personality, practicality, AND expertise
that those who need his message appreciate. Not that others don't, but he's evidently better at
it.”
(Participant 52) “His lectures on the Bible have made me rethink religion…The recent
attacks on freedom of speech from the left concern me greatly, especially after dealing with it
from the right in the 80’s. The media being complicit in a fake panic concerning the need to
protect minorities by stripping basic human rights is absolutely mind boggling to me.”
(Participant 14) “At what point do I cave into an interest that other people are better suited
for. At what point should I enjoy life to the maximum possible way versus reading
constantly. Life is an adventure; those adventures may very well be for studious individuals
to discover something that hasn't been agreed on ever. Intellectual interests always should be
read or listened to, but I don't care enough to devote more than 20% of my life pretending I
care. I'm going to die, and there is no agreement in sight, nor am I the best person to study it.
I will continue to listen and understand to the best of my ability, but I am my own person,
and my needs and values are different.”

88. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
82
(Participant 4) “I don't believe in the moral acceptability of any form of rule, so any
statements as to what the government should do/not do make no sense to me (it should not
exist) …that suffering is an unavoidable part of life. it made me accept that some displeasure
will be present im my life which allowed me to focus my energy on other areas… I think he
has some very deep and important things to say to a lot of people and people really should try
to grasp his ideas. On the other hand, those who revere him shouldn't forget that he is flawed
and fallible as any one of us, and that one should thus seek out a large number of sources of
ideas.”
(Participant 20) “I disagree with the statement "Human life exists after death" since life is
defined by the biological processes which make it up; once those processes are stopped via
death, then the life of a given organism, by definition, ceases to be. I also disagree with the
statement that "The human mind is a blank slate". Given that the physical structure which
generates our mind is formed in a certain way by the constraints of biology and natural
selection, it cannot be that the mind is a completely blank slate. While one can say that
humans have the blankest of minds out of any other organism, one cannot say that the mind
"is" a blank slate… I strongly agree with the statement that suffering is a necessary part of
existence. As far as I can tell, suffering is what emerges when consciousness (a seemingly
necessary element of being as we know it) encounters limitation (another seemingly
necessary element of being).”
Table 2: Distinguishing Statements of Factor 1b
Statement 1b 1a 2 3
32. There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides
the best ways to explain some things but not all things.
6 4 3 4
67. It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 6 1 4 0

89. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
83
20. Western societies work. 6 0 3 3
44. The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or
detriment to society.
5 -2 -2 -3
74. Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse. 5 -1 -1 -1
35. There is no God. 4 -6 -2 -6
48. The law serves those who control it. 4 -3 -1 -2
72. I trust myself. 3 0 -1 -1
52. Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't
comprehend an idea in pristine form, you've no right to complain about it
making no sense to you.
2 -2 -4 -2
56. Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to
decide for themselves what to make of them.
1 -5 -5 -5
9. The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other
people on top put barriers in their way.
-1 -4 -5 -4
68. It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. -1 2 3 6
50. Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's
baked into the fabric of reality.
-2 3 5 5
76. In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. -2 5 3 4
23. Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure's absence. -2 3 2 2
1. What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. -2 6 0 3

90. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
84
10. The things which most bother us about others are often precisely
what have remained unexamined in ourselves.
-3 4 2 2
42. While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist.
-4 5 1 6
77. We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. -4 4 5 2
69. We all possess a spark of divine virtue. -5 6 5 6
45. Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. -5 6 -2 3
49. Human life exists after death. -6 2 -3 5
22. No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be listened
to.
-6 -3 -3 -1
36. God directly communicates with people. -6 5 -3 1
Factor 2: The Exasperated Prophet
Factor 2 has thirteen significantly loading participants and explains 15% of the variance.
Eight of the participants are male, five are female. Two participants have attained a secondary
education, eight have a bachelor’s degree, and three have a master’s degree. Two participants
have been engaged with Jordan Peterson’s work for about two years, seven for about three years.
Four participants indicated that they discovered Peterson through the Bill C-16 controversy and
have been keep up with his material since.

91. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
85
Figure 5. Composite Q-Sort for Factor 2.

92. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
86
Overall, factor 2 is deeply concerned with social, cultural, and political forces and what
affects them. It believes that every person should take on responsibility and that life will
probably get better for you and everything else if you do, and worse if you do not. This point of
view knows full well that we can reach dark and cynical places in life. But it also maintains that
this burden may lift once traveled through, and will probably grow heavier if neglected.
Religious matters are unclear from the vantage point of factor 2. Metaphysical realities do not
seem very plausible, but significant matters which need attendance can be easily overlooked if
they are left unconsidered. Stability, sanity, and development are the overall aims of factor 2.
I am a bit fed up with the present state of the media.
54: Social media enhance the effects of confirmation bias amongst its users. 3 (1, 1, 2)
53: Most media professionals do the best they can to understand and convey various
perspectives. -5 (-5, -4, -5)
56: Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to decide for themselves
what to make of them. -5 (-5, 1, -5)
57: The news and entertainment industries need to do a better job of raising awareness
about racial discrimination. -6 ( -4, -4, -5)
This is largely because the media peddle chic, identitarian moral hysteria and reward its
circulation, allowing feigned indignation and panic for the sake of political advantage to produce
actual externalized consequences. One of these consequences is the breakdown of social
cohesion, which is absolutely vital to our long-term health and should not be overlooked in the
quest to discredit your opponents in the short-term. Individually and collectively, we need to be
on the same team, speak honestly, and listen to one another if we are going to figure things out.
70: Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 6 (6, 4, 4)
2: Interpersonal trust is the most foundational natural resource. 6 (2, 5, 2)
46: It's important to understand an idea which you oppose from the perspective of one
who affirms it. 5 (4, 4, 4)
8: It is shameful to take an insight lying down. -4 (-3, -3, -2)
18: Racism is very prevalent in our current society. -4 (-2, -1, -4)
21: White males know that they are privileged and resent the fact that others object to it. -
6 (-5, -5, -5)
Life is rough. That’s for sure. But it goes far deeper than theoretical specters like
microaggressions, white privilege, and other ways of inputting negative qualities onto others
based on their superficial characteristics. The consequence of this is the allowance, if not the
encouragement, of precisely that which those who wield such concepts in the public sphere claim
detect and deter: illegitimate and unjust discrimination. It seems better if we start with the

93. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
87
observation that to be human, to be one who exists aware of one’s own agency and its
limitations, is to be one awake to the suffering fundamentally built into the nature of things.
From there, we can realize that there’s no getting away from the question always in the back of
our minds: am I going to face this forthrightly or am I going to distract myself or find other
things/people to blame for my cowardice? If we take the first response, we may find out that we
will be living a fuller life, one which seems to have a story or purpose hidden within it. But the
only way to find out is as individuals choosing to march on into the fog.
70: Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 6 (6, 4, 4)
75: There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without responsibility. 6 (4, 3, 5)
19: While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's fundamentally
imperative that I solve my own problems to the best of my ability. 6 (2, 6, 1)
50: Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's baked into the fabric
of reality. 5 (3, -2, 5)
64: Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values. 5 (2, 1, 0)
77: We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. 5 (4, -4, 2)
11: The best way to see life is as an adventure. 4 (3, 3, 0)
60: It's important to attain a classical, liberal education no matter what you do as an
occupation. 1 (-1, 0, 0)
13: Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning evaporates, you have
yourself to blame. 2 (1, -3, -1)
39: Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you do not now know.
1 (-1, -1, 0)
9: The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other people on top put
barriers in their way. -5 (-4, -1, -4)
So our own life voyage is one thing, but when it comes to the government and our culture, we in
the West are really blessed. It’s not there to coddle us. But it does a pretty good job at its actual
job.
51: Compared to other forms of governance, western democracies are generally of
superior quality. 4 (-1, 2, 3)
17: One's race/ethnic background does not predetermine their level of success in our
society. 1 (0, 1, 1)
62: A government should provide for the basic living needs of its citizenry. -4 (-2, 0, -3)
59: A government's role is to promote equal or near-equal results for all. -6 (-5, -6, -6)
Concerning religious concepts, it’s hard to tell. They aren’t particularly famous for their
rationality. But they do seem to be valuable for something. It’s hard to deny that our species may
have been evolved to think religiously. Even though one would be tempted to deny this
proposition given the capacity for cultish extremes that comes with such fast-and-loose
imaginative extrapolation (evidenced by present politically correct hysteria). So who knows. I
have my doubts about both the realities out there and whatever it is that I am. But the best I can
do is to keep an open mind and press on.
37: Religious belief can be valuable even if it is untrue. 4 (0, 3, -1)
34: Religion is a product of human evolution. 2 (-3, 0, -5)
26: Religious belief can be just as logical as any other system of thought. -3 (2, -1, 3)

94. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
88
43: Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are considered. 1 (-1, 0, -3)
72: I trust myself. -1 (0, 3, -1)
15: At birth, the human mind is a blank slate. -6 (-6, -4, -5)
33: Every human possesses intrinsic dignity; something which cannot be said of other
living creatures. -1 (0, 1, 6)
Factor 2 is shared especially by both those who have felt forces of cultural chaos
increasingly encroach upon new sectors of society and by individuals who have crawled out of
chaos (personal or otherwise) themselves. From the perspective of factor 2, not much is sure
beyond the simple observation that things seem to be turning upside down and we need to slow
down to catch our breath and press on without unnecessary conflict and distraction. Although a
slight distinction, the perspective of factor 2 is most open to the idea that it does not yet know its
reason for believing things which are probably true nonetheless (39: Most things you believe are
probably true for reasons you do not now know: 1). This view values the importance of finding
one’s way in life without undue interference, but is convinced neither that this needs to be
validated by anyone else nor that any particular way is necessarily required. It’s most important
that sufficient stability can be achieved to move forward.
Here are some comments made by participants whose Q-sorts loaded significantly on
factor 2 (in order of higher-to-lesser factor loadings):
(Participant 60) “Taking responsibility and finding the meaning for one`s life, the question of
evil (why it exists and how we can handle it). It made me more confident in myself and made
me take action to improve my life.”
(Participant 40) “Responsibility provides meaning. Have enjoyed his interpretation of the
bible stories. Gave me a new perspective on stories I had given no value.”

95. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
89
(Participant 61) “As a wannabe artist, I valued his courage for standing up against compelled
speech. I had no idea there was even an issue with such things in this corner of the globe
before he raised a stink…What the hell am I doing here? Apparently there is a large group of
me thinking the same thing. It makes me want to solve that problem so I can be a mysterious
outsider again. John Vervaeke's lectures are also incredibly intriguing to me as I try to learn
my own self objectively and more closely observe what the hell I'm really doing when I'm
doing anything.”
(Participant 65) “Peterson injects a cocktail of ethos that is diametrically opposed to many
current trends. He serves as an important corrective force. It's been negative and positive for
me. I have a fuller range of perspectives but it can be more difficult to talk to people who are
wholly consumed by opposing views.”
(Participant 56) “The importance of the concept of the individual (and the spark of the divine
within) as opposed to the tribe or group and the fact that that concept originated in the Judeo
Christian West. This knowledge has made me more able to defend western civ and speak
against identity politics.”
(Participant 13) “Listening to Peterson pulled me out of a very dark, nihilistic, and resentful
frame of mind I had been sliding into for several years. He has sparked a lot of self-
reflection. The idea of shouldering your load, accepting the suffering voluntarily, and not
complaining and feeling a victim has made all the difference.”
Table 3: Distinguishing Statements of Factor 2
Statement 2 1a 1b 3
75. There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without responsibility. 6 4 3 5
50. Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's baked
into the fabric of reality.
5 3 -2 5

96. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
90
64. Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values. 5 2 1 0
67. It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 4 1 6 0
42. While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist.
1 5 -4 6
65. The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different
pathways in life.
1 3 -2 -1
1. What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. 0 6 -2 3
73. The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. 0 -2 -2 2
48. The law serves those who control it. -1 -3 4 -2
45. Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. -2 6 -5 3
35. There is no God. -2 -6 4 -6
36. God directly communicates with people. -3 5 -6 1
49. Human life exists after death. -3 2 -6 5
52. Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't comprehend
an idea in pristine form, you've no right to complain about it making no
sense to you.
-4 -2 2 -2
Factor 3: The Sober Saint
Factor 3 has 22 significantly loading participants and explains 22% of the variance.
Twenty of the participants are male, two are female. Three of the participants have attained a
secondary education, one an associate’s degree, ten a bachelor’s degree, three a master’s degree,
two a jurisprudential doctorate, and three have attained a doctorate of philosophy. Two

97. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
91
participants indicate about one year of engagement with Jordan Peterson, fourteen about two
years, and two indicate about three years of engagement.

98. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
92
Figure 6. Composite Q-Sort for Factor 3.

99. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
93
Factor 3 expresses a viewpoint that holds eternally sacred things with much esteem. It
reflects a common vision among those who have long-held a fairly traditional religious point of
view and those who have recently come to appreciate such a view themselves. The nature of God
and/or divinity is not a point of perfect consensus, but the existence of God/divinity is held
firmly. Factor 3 is deeply concerned with the reconciliation of science and religion. It is,
however, more suspicious of the materialistic vision of reality and more willing to reject
materialistic explanations for religious and spiritual phenomena than the other factors. Many
theories, whether strictly scientific in nature or not, can be applied to enhance our understanding
of religious truths, not compete with them. Likewise, the popular challenges to other long-
established concepts and values are held in contempt from the perspective of factor 3. From this
viewpoint, it’s not very important to change the world and indulge in various new ideas and
experiences, and it’s far more important to do good in the world. And if we are to do that, one
needs to take the world for what it is. Here is a thought that could be posed from the perspective
of factor 3. Statements will not be imbedded into the imaginary autobiographical take for this
final factor.
There are certain truths which have become and remain subjected to popular doubt; some
within the past few years, others over the past few decades, and others still began to embark on
holiday some centuries ago. And we’re not entirely sure when they will come back to us in the
land of common sense. And of course, it should be asked, “why the departure, and why not the
return?” I cannot give a full answer to the first part of that question; I truly can’t. But I can say
that extensive evidence to the contrary are not why these truths have been cast aside. We’d like
to think so. We’d like to think a lot of things.
But I can answer the second part of the question: “why not the return?” The ideas we
pose to deny or replace exactly those other ideas which have existed from time immemorial are,
by that very fact, exhilarating. The ideas, truths we should say, pushed out of the way by popular
sport, are necessarily boring. They are so obviously true as to be boring. The exhilarating ideas
of new, however, are given one coat of plausibility that inevitably serves as a one-way mirror
facing the inside. But those who can bear boring truths and even treat them as if they’re
interesting (i.e. with respect) can quickly see through that arousing display, those trapped on the
within, and keep seeing right on through the fashionable nonsense that it is. Which is,

100. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
94
interestingly, precisely what one married to ideas en vogue imagines himself to be doing with all
those ancient conceptual trappings that everyone, save for himself and his small band of rogues,
could not be disabused of. It’s a common fate among those adorned with thoughts they’ve never
bothered to think about. Most would be best off having never put them on initially. Life’s
actually much clearer that way.
These truths include: the categories and content of right and wrong, that right is actually
good and wrong is actually evil, the moral burden of will, the divine and specific implications of
that will, the soul, the preponderance of evidence that we are not, in fact, accidents or here by
chance, the distinction between male and female, or the obvious implications of that distinction.
In the perineal situation in which a novel formulation is developed and pitted against one
established, it is common (and convenient) to forget that the burden of proof lies on the one
bringing the charge to bear, not on the position established hitherto. But it’s much easier to
discredit whatever has come to be taken for granted in the domain of popular consciousness and
pretend the fallout is resultant of well-squared opposition in true form.
42: While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral universals exist. 6
(5, -4, 1)
33: Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot be said of other
living creatures. 6 (0, 1 -1)
68: It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. 6 (2, -1, 3)
69: We all possess a spark of divine virtue. 6 (6, -5, 5)
12: Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways. 5 (1, -1, -1)
49: Human life exists after death. 5 (2, -6, -3)
29: It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 5 (1, 0, 2)
73: The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. 2 (-2, -2, 0)
28: Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. 0 (-4, -5, -2)
67: It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 0 (1, 6, 4)
43: Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are considered. -3 (-1, 0, 1)
34: Religion is a product of human evolution. -5 (-3, 0, 2)
41: People of all religions worship the same thing in the end. -6 (-5, -3, -3)
35: There is no God. -6 ( -6, 4, -2)
Factor 3 maintains that there is black, and there is white, and you will not receive much
adulation for trying to pass off mealy mouthed-confusion as subtle insight. This is not to say that
the perspective of factor 3 is incurious, far from it. Rather, the vision of factor 3 refuses to
compromise common sense and, as a consequence, is skeptical by default of popular concepts
which seem to obscure common sense far more than enlighten us to any clearer picture of the
world. Concepts which seem likely to enlighten and clarify are examined with passion.

101. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
95
Five distinguishing statements in particular set factor 3 apart from the others: 33. Every
human possesses intrinsic dignity; something which cannot be said of other living creatures: 6
(0, 1, -1); 68. It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence: 6 (2, -1, 3); 12. Men and
women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways: 5 (1, -1, -1); 49. Human life exists after
death: 5 (2, -6, -3); and 29. It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist: 5 (1, 0, 2). For the
most part, these are classical Christian and Western values and ideas. It is also worthy to note
that, although factor 3 does not see evolution and religion as incommensurate (30: Evolutionary
theory and religion are mutually exclusive: -3), it also does not accept that religion is a product
of evolution: 34. Religion is a product of human evolution: -5). Factor 3 is also worthy of note in
its deemphasis of the construal of life as an adventure (11: 0 [3, 3, 4]).
As mentioned previously, factors 1a and 3 share a fair amount in common regarding
religion, the value of human beings, personal responsibility, and the cohabitation of scientific
and religious truth. Even among these broad agreements, the distinctions between the two factors
indicate that factor 1a tends to emphasize a first-person, from within the world, perspective while
factor 3 makes use of a third-person, about the world, perspective. It is pleasantly serendipitous
that these factors were numbered respectively. This distinction has a variety of interesting
implications, including a tendency for factor 3 to filter matters through the frames of inviolable
categories and categorical imperatives (i.e. duties) as opposed to paradoxes and adventures.
Notice, for example, the ranking of two items related to morality by factor 3: 42. While context
certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral universals exist: 6 and, 25. Some actions are
right/wrong regardless of their consequences: 3. The heighted salience of a deontological moral
axiom compared to that of a rejection of a consequentialist axiom may be explained, in part, by
the weight factor 3 places on universals.

102. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
96
Here are some comments made by participants which load significantly onto factor 3 (in
order of higher-to-lesser factor loadings):
(Participant 11) “People are of intrinsic worth. We do not value people in our modern
materialistic society. Each is a precious soul worthy of the utmost care no matter their
condition. We all are made in God's image and have unlimited value…As a Christian I have
always been exercised to find a way to live out my faith. He has articulated things which are
common sense and are a little like living by a secular Torah. It is a form of discipleship. Too
often my faith tradition is too focused on getting people "saved" and not on the cost of
commitment and discipleship. I think Peterson has found a way to bridge the gulf between
the sacred and material. I love his emphasis on narrative and respect for the OT stories giving
them yet another level of interpretation.”
(Participant 8) “I would say it's impossible to pick just one. Certainly one of the most
important aspects of Peterson's message is his emphasis on pursuing and loving The Good
for its own sake, by pursuing what is truthful, lovely and of good report. This is something I
already strongly believed before encountering Peterson, but it has encouraged me to see that
there is an authoritative cultural voice making it known and making people listen. Another
important aspect is his deep acquaintance with the sorrow and tragedy of life. As someone
who has experienced a certain amount of tragedy, I felt a strange kind of comfort and
companionship from Peterson when I heard him speak with such brutal candor mixed with
love. I thought "Here's a man who's understands." I am also a naturally very anxious person,
afraid of life and afraid to take risks. But Peterson has reminded me that the most valuable
things in life are valuable precisely because they are unsafe and risky. It encourages me to
take the leap. Further, it encourages me specifically as a woman when he touches on
women's unique struggles.”
(Participant 15) “Peterson demonstrates to a skeptical culture that the Bible is to be taken
seriously and that it demonstrates that there are profound realities to Existence that are
beyond the reach of the empirical method. Peterson has challenged me to think deeply about

103. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
97
how I express my Christian faith, particularly in learning to think and speak beyond cliché,
religious terminology.”
(Participant 55) “His unique worldview. The concept of the "forum for action" vs "world of
objects". My own worldview was quite materialist/scientistic despite being a Christian. I
think I had quite a dualist, Platonist worldview where Christian concepts were foreign and
intruded on the world. After learning about Peterson's Phenomenology and his "forum for
action", as well as symbolism and archetypes, I now have a different worldview.
Consciousness is primary and therefore concepts such as love now appear to me as "real" in
my worldview, rather than being awkwardly tacked on as an afterthought and constantly
undermined by empirical methods.”
(Participant 50) “I confess I actually prefer the classroom stuff, but the Biblical Series was
staggeringly good. I loved the Rogan interviews, and his Rubin interviews, and was ecstatic
when he spoke to Sir Roger Scruton (another one of my heroes). I think he is right to speak to
those both in the centre (the Australian Deputy Prime Minister) and those on the margins
(upcoming Milo interview?), plus opponents like Zizek et.al. Centre and margin in the sense
of Pageau. Long may he continue to talk to anybody.
Jesus of Nazareth did! …I studied Physics, then became a software developer. I'm interested
in economics (Austrian School), and a vague libertarianism more broadly. I'm also very
interested in 'political religions' (in the sense of Eric Voegelin), and eschatological
movements more generally. Thanks to Peterson, I'm currently grinding my way through
Jung, who I now believe to be the signal genius of the 20th Century, I'm fascinated by the
Symbolism of Jonathan Pageau (not a Jungian!), and have recently discovered the Idealism
of contemporary Dutch philosopher Bernardo Kastrup, which has truly been one of the great
intellectual thrills of my life. I'm a fan of Paul VanderKlay, and Rachel Fulton Brown (who
fell out of love with JBP, alas), and I can't believe that as a former Dawkinsite, I'm following
Christian intellectuals! Since I discovered Peterson, my whole intellectual furniture has
changed utterly. what a ride! Oh, and I'm a lifelong devotee of JRR Tolkien.”

104. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
98
(Participant 6) “I think the thing I appreciate the most about Dr. Peterson's message is that
he's not necessarily covering new ground, but it is the way that he goes about it: the way he
presents it. He imbues and passion into what he is speaking on, that it is hard not to be moved
and inspired to take action. Dr. Peterson has encouraged me to think more critically and to be
bolder in my beliefs (as well as to clean my room, of course).”
Table 4: Distinguishing Statements of Factor 3
Statement 3 1a 1b 2
42. While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist.
6 5 -4 1
33. Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot be
said of other living creatures.
6 0 1 -1
68. It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. 6 2 -1 3
12. Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways. 5 1 -1 -1
49. Human life exists after death. 5 2 -6 -3
29. It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 5 1 0 2
25. Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. 3 5 -2 -1
1. What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. 3 6 -2 0
45. Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. 3 6 -5 -2
73. The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. 2 -2 -2 0
16. Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather than
their own.
2 0 5 4

105. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
99
36. God directly communicates with people. 1 5 -6 -3
28. Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. 0 -4 -5 -2
67. It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 0 1 6 4
22. No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be listened to. -1 -3 -6 -3
24. For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. -2 -3 3 0
48. The law serves those who control it. -2 -3 4 -1
43. Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are
considered.
-3 -1 0 1
38. The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which the
whole of reality is accidental.
-4 -6 -1 -2
34. Religion is a product of human evolution. -5 -3 0 2
41. People of all religions worship the same thing in the end. -6 -5 -3 -3
Consensus Statements
There are ten consensus statements across all factors. These indicate that all viewpoints
more or less agree in the responsibility of individuals, esteem non-combative discourse, value
good-faith considerations of opposing views, value empathy, reject the requirement of shared
identity/life experience in order to engage new perspectives, reject the premises of identity
politics, and are distrustful of present-day media in most of its forms.

106. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
100
Table 5: Consensus Statements and Z-Score Average
Statement 1a 1b 2 3 AVG z-score
3. Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the
state of the world.
2 2 1 1 0.454
7. People who say they are fighting for the oppressed
probably are.
-4 -3 -3 -4 -1.028
8. It is shameful to take an insult lying down. -3 -3 -4 -2 -0.915
21. White males know that they are privileged and resent the
fact that others object to it.
-5 -5 -6 -6 -1.594
39. Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you
do not now know.
-1 -1 1 0 0.075
46. It's important to understand an idea which you oppose
from the perspective of one who affirms it.
4 4 5 4 1.183
47. One cannot expect to understand an opposing view
without having similar life experiences as their opponent.
-4 -5 -5 -4 -1.372
53. Most media professionals do the best they can to
understand and convey various perspectives.
-5 -4 -5 -5 -1.386
54. Social media sites enhance the effects of confirmation
bias amongst their users.
1 1 3 2 0.439
63. It's more important to be empathetic than to be dominant. 1 3 2 -1 0.420

107. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
101
Factor Correlations and Interpretation
Table 6: Factor Score Correlations
factor 1a factor 1b factor 2 factor 3
factor 1a 1 0.1093 0.6979 0.8225
factor 1b 0.1093 1 0.5026 0.1595
factor 2 0.6979 0.5026 1 0.7029
factor 3 0.8225 0.1595 0.7029 1
As indicated by the z-scores in the factor correlations matrix, the degree to which a given
factor is in general consensus/disagreement with the others varies overall.
From the standpoint of factor 1a, its bipolar cousin is very far away, and each subsequent
factor becomes nearer and more likeminded, at least on face value, which is the only value we
have while looking only along statistical relationships presently. From the standpoint of factor
1b, we essentially see one moderately recognizable settlement in factor 2 some distance away,
and two foreign lands of essentially equal distance much further away. From the standpoint of
factor 2, it shares borders with three territories all of about the same, moderate distance away;
factors 3 and 1a are a bit closer however. And from the standpoint of factor 3, we see a near
neighbor in factor 1a, another that is a bit farther away in factor 2, and its nearest neighbor’s
cousin way off in the distance.

108. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
102
This is part of the fun of Q-methodology. Similar observations can be made when
comparing degrees of consensus and disagreement between pairs of factors and their treatment of
statements.
1a and 1b: the existentialist and the spectator (Appendix IIa). The most obvious
disagreement between factors 1a and 1b are theological. The existence of God, communion with
the divine, the notion of a “divine spark” in every person, the notion of a soul, and even the
utility/immanence of religious thought are all points of contention. It is also apparent that utility
and immanence in general are matters of differing perspective between factors 1a and 1b.
Universal truths, morals, and other metaphysical concepts such as “Being” are asymmetrically
regarded by the two factors. The factors also differ in their view of “themselves” and their
relationship to life. Factor 1a stresses personal responsibility, personal purpose, honesty, belief in
the good and the capacity to transform things into good, and finding meaning even in tough
places while factor 1b stresses self-reliance in the midst of the functions of society even though it
can be difficult to find a home in life; life, being more random and absurd from the perspective
of factor 1b. While factor 1a is most representative of a perspective situated in, or seeking to be
situated in, a phenomenological center, the contrast regarding phenomenology is most intense in
this pairing.
1a and 2: the existentialist and the exasperated prophet (Appendix IIb). Factor 1a is at
odds along theological issues with factor 2 as well, although to a lesser degree. Factor 2 does not
assert the non-existence of God, but is not compelled like factors 1a and 3 to contradict that
claim. Factor 2 does, however, doubt the notion of an afterlife to about the same extent factor 1a
is persuaded of it; which is moderate for both. Factor 2 is not as optimistic or idealistic as factor
1a and is not convinced that all things can be solved peacefully. Factor 2 sees problems in the

109. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
103
modern world with more salience and negative affect than factor 1a and has stronger opinions
about how certain institutions should be operated.
1a and 3: the existentialist and the sober saint (Appendix IIc). Factor 3 does not share
with factor 1a the designation of paradoxical to the nature of truth. Factor 3 prefers more clearly
defined boundaries to things. Factor 1a stresses the direct, communicative nature of God more so
than factor 3. Factor 3 stresses the intrinsic value of human beings as such (the human soul being
intractably imminent ontologically rather than performatively according to this perspective)
more so than factor 1a. Factor 3 is more attentive to and concerned with the state of cultural and
governmental institutions than factor 1a.
1b and 2: the spectator and the exasperated prophet (Appendix IId). Factor 1b shares with
factor 2 a certain watchfulness over current events. They tend to differ in their interpretations of
some of these events. Factor 2 is more suspicious of universities, the media, and their effects
than factor 1b. Factor 1b is more suspicious of corruption in governing institutions. Factor 1b
takes after the political philosophy of early pragmatism while factor 2 would simply prefer less
large-scale intervention and tinkering altogether. Factor 2 does not share with factor 1a the same
degree of skepticism toward religion and life purpose.
1b and 3 the spectator and the sober saint (Appendix IIe). The thematic differences
between factors 1b and 3 are very similar to those between factors 1b and 1a — the primary
contention being theological. With factor 3, this disagreement is most pronounced regarding the
afterlife, the existence of God, universal moral facts, the special value of human beings, and
transcendent teleology. Factor 3 also does not share factor 1b’s preference for utilitarian
rationales. Factor 3 is very consistent in this, even denying that religious belief could be valuable
if untrue when factor 1b is open to that proposition. The factors differ strongly on the value of

110. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
104
child rearing as well. While factors 1a and 1b are statistically the most dissimilar, it can be
argued that the perspective of factor 3 is actually somewhat more opposed to factor 1b than
factor 1a. It could at least be noted that one exercising the perspective of factor 3 would probably
be the first to challenge, or be challenged by, one exercising that of factor 1b.
2 and 3: the exasperated prophet and the sober saint (Appendix IIf). Factors 2 and three
share similar perspectives regarding social issues for the most part. Their primary disagreement
concerns religion and theology, similar to the disagreement between factors 1b and 3 but to a
lesser degree. Apart from this, the dissimilarities between factor 2 and factor 3 are more postures
than postulates — the former emphasizing its own duty to grow in knowledge about the world,
the need for people to form bonds of trust with one another, and to grow a personalized value-
structure to fulfill the journey of life as a consequence; the latter emphasizing the consequent
value-structure built into the created order with the concurrent mandate to grow in obedience to
that order as such.

111. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
105
Discussion
Now, let’s go back. About four decades ago a young Jordan Peterson realized he could
not accept the worldview, as he understood it, which he heard about at church. He left. As he
studied political science, he was more convinced of economic injustice as the root cause of the
world’s ills. Upon reading Orwell’s Road to Wiggen Pier, he was disabused of, not only this
belief, but of ideological explanations to hard problems altogether. Soon he was startled to find
that much of what he is, or what he says, is false. While studying psychology, he began to read
Carl Jung and understand this. He was plagued by incessant nightmares depicting entrapment,
futility, and nuclear fallout. Soon he would come to see the world as, or as made of, beliefs, not
in some capricious sense, but as a tapestry of universal and supreme structure. A structure which
would leave ruined any person that, or organization of persons who, would ignore or dismiss this
structure. Peterson would spend fourteen years probing and elaborating these ideas in the
compilation of his first book, published two decades ago. He had much success teaching these
ideas as a professor and as an occasional guest on Canadian public television. This is very
impressive; many academics hardly dream of such diverse appeal. However, his name, his ideas,
and his concerns were primarily of local renown.
One night he struggled to sleep. His wife was out of town and his mind was perturbed by
a few issues. These included unconscious bias retraining at the university for which he worked,
his clinical clients’ distress over politically-charged disputes in their workplaces, and a then-
proposed bill that would not only forbid but compel certain communication acts in particular
contexts. Instead of writing about what was riling him as he often did, Peterson decided to make
a slideshow and video to organize his thoughts. He posted the videos to YouTube, a technology

112. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
106
with which he was still familiarizing himself. It turns out this would be a more fateful action than
anyone would be likely to predict.
Symbolic Convergence Theory and Other Implications
Dr. Jordan Peterson found himself a subject of global attention in the aftermath of his
videos on Bill C-16 and other subjects. It can be assumed that whatever he was specifically
addressing had implications far deeper than mere political commentary. It can also be assumed
that there were at least two competing interpretations of these events and the contours of their
respective implications. Using the terminology of symbolic convergence theory, we can identify
one fantasy theme that chained out around these events as that of bigoted oppressor. A second
fantasy theme chaining out from the same events is that of politically correct campus hysteria.
These two fantasy themes were carried along with great speed in part due to the nature of Web
2.0 communications and in part because two competing rhetorical visions were seen to be
coming to a head. It could be said just as well that Peterson chose to resist a particular rhetorical
vision and that alone was enough to spark a chain reaction, a salient confrontation either way. As
Bormann (1985) noted, “the sharing of fantasies provides a social reality peopled by
anthropomorphic forces and imagined and historical personages in dramatic confrontations. My
study of religious and reform speaking confirmed Robert Frost’s insight that “society can never
think things out: it has to see them acted out by actors” (p. 9).
Many of those intrigued by this storm of protest that provoked counter-protest found that
the man of interest had quite a few videos on his YouTube channel. Most of these were
recordings of his university lectures from two courses: personality and its transformations and
maps of meaning. So it was that as the sparks of controversy detonated around Peterson,
suddenly, for millions of people around the world, the ideas of his magnum opus caught.

113. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
107
There are two salience-linchpins in the Peterson phenomenon. One is that
aforementioned: political, cultural, identitarian, and factional strife. This conflict concerns the
stories about “us” “here.” The other is the more dynamic linchpin in this study’s data: religion,
philosophy, phenomenology, morality and the like — the essence of the stories above and below
all the stories we know and do and are. This is a fuzzy representation to be sure. But it seems to
be that the concerns of the former pin are taken to heart, but not as much are their proposed
explanatory origins, and these concerns have met the second and more dynamic field of
imagination, combining to reform the rhetorical landscape of religious discourse as such and
renewed as a landscape which matters.
The results of this are varied. Some people found the uppermost layers of their
worldviews transformed overnight. Some people decided to live their lives in a new way. Some
meet to discuss Jordan Peterson’s ideas. Some have enthusiastically taken the fantasy themes
proceeding from Peterson’s work and elaborated on these themselves. For some, he has helped
reveal a symbolic anchor by which they can secure themselves. For some, he serves as a
symbolic anchor himself. And for some, he has served as a model for inquisitive and gracious
intellectual discourse. Bormann (1985) describes a particular communication style that is
interesting in this context.
Proselytizing groups need to develop communication events that will (1) attract potential
converts, (2) shake them loose from any emotional attachment to other rhetorical visions,
and (3) get the potential converts to share the fantasies that comprise the group’s
rhetorical vision. I call such recurring communication events consciousness-raising
communication episodes. (p. 13)

114. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
108
The phenomenon of Jordan Peterson’s rise to celebrity around the world shares similar
characteristics to that of consciousness-raising communication. Much of this is at least somewhat
incidental as Peterson does not seem to be attempting to construct any markedly neoteric or
insular movement/community. Nonetheless people are attracted to his messages, they often do
rethink their understanding of a variety of subjects, and often seek others with whom to discuss
these messages as a result.
Present in these events are all the elements needed to indicate the presence or emergence
of a rhetorical vision. Since there are so many topics addressed, and in so many ways, by
Peterson and those engaging with him, the vision is likely to be elaborated and expressed more in
some areas by some people and in other areas by others. This is part of what makes this case as
interesting as it is. Bringing so many ideas into proximity serves to open an assortment of portals
through which one can enter a distributed vision-constructing and vision-sharing laboratory.
This study does not claim to show all of the clusters of viewpoint convergence among
those participating in this rhetorical community. It does not claim to show the extent to which the
viewpoints located in this study generalize across the entire relevant populace. This study also
does not claim that each viewpoint expressed by the participants in this study is their one and
only viewpoint on the matter, or that their viewpoint will not change over time. It would be
difficult and useless to argue that a person is incapable of viewing any particular topic in more
than one way. If that were so, what would be the point of sharing multiple views in this study?
What this study does argue is that participants did express a viewpoint of theirs, at a time,
in the form of a completed Q-sort. These salience snapshots were correlated with every other to
produce a communality matrix. This matrix was viewed from a few angles, as one could turn
over in their hands a glass orb in which many golden flecks are suspended. From one meaningful

115. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
109
angle, there appeared three clusters of flecks. Upon reference to another angle, it appeared that a
couple of these flecks were in line with, but fairly far away from, most of that cluster. These
were treated as related but unique (factor 1b). What characterizes each cluster is specific to that
cluster. Across all of them there appear differences in the salience of certain topics or concepts
(e.g., religion, culture, philosophy, etc.) and different patterns of interpretation of certain topics
(e.g., embodied religious truth and experientially-detached religious truth).
The data indicate some evidence of the influence of master analogues as well. Bormann
and his colleagues found in their study of rhetorical visions these visions tended to be held
together by, or disproportionately emphasize, one of three overarching analogues: righteous,
social, or pragmatic. Factor 1a is characterized by a mix of righteous and pragmatic, factor 3 by
righteous and social, and factors 1b and 2 by a mix of social and pragmatic. It is common to find
an unstable mixture of these analogues at the decay of a rhetorical vision, but not so much at the
earlier, consciousness raising and sustaining phases of a rhetorical vision (Bormann, 1985). If
these observations hold merit and at all apply in the wider community, this could have a few
implications for the relatively young rhetorical community surrounding Jordan Peterson and
comprising the intellectual dark web. One is that this mixture of analogies is reflective of
destabilizing rhetorical visions in the broader public. Or it is reflective of a lack of common
purpose around which a rhetorical vision can grow in a clear direction. It may also reflect that a
purpose is already built into the logic of this activity but that purpose is simply one of transition.
Limitations
There are limitations by consequence of design and execution in the present study. One
limitation is the Q-set. Some of the most popular concepts relayed by Dr. Peterson are either so
contextual, intricate, or esoteric that converting these into single sentence statements is quite

116. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
110
difficult. Such topics include Jungian psychology, archetypes, personality theory, dreams and
dream symbols, comparative religion and mythology, and so on. These are fascinating and
rewarding topics, but they are probably best studied as narrower concourses. Subsequent
research may wish to focus on one or two of these areas, produce respective Q-sets, and have
participants impress their views on them. This would require more specific qualifications for
participation than those required by the design of the present study.
In a purely statistical sense, factors 1a, 2, and 3 are significantly similar. This is likely
due to the sizeable number of consensus or near-consensus statements (particularly toward the
disagree pole), the possibility that most participants really do share a similar salience landscape
regarding these issues by and large, and the compromises made during by-hand rotation. Since
decisions and compromises such as these are the bread and butter of Q-methodological studies,
this is not limitation as much as it is a qualification. The mathematically-strongest solution
would probably entail the extraction of only two factors (or components using PCA) subjected to
varimax rotation whereby the present factors 1a and 3 would combine as the first and factors 1b
and 2 would merge into the other. Using PCA to extract three factors rotated by varimax yields
arrays similar to factors 1, 3, and an array which displays an amalgam of factors 1b and 2.
Another limitation in this study is due to software used to gather and analyze data. The
online software used to gather data was reported to occasionally malfunction by some
participants. Others became frustrated with the mechanics of the software’s user interface. For
these reasons, some attempts were aborted. Another limitation was errors in the csv file exported
from this online software caused some data corruption. These were corrected by hand. Beyond
this, the exported file was missing seven sorts. Both of these export issues were fixed by the
software developer but, unfortunately, too late. These additional sorts were added at a later time

117. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
111
to see if they would make any significant changes to the dataset overall. They only slightly
altered, but only strengthened, the patterns elicited with the initial matrix of 69 participants. The
software used for data analysis posed unanticipated obstructions as well. The developer of this
software worked with the researcher to locate the coding error, which was promptly resolved.
Another limitation, as mentioned before, is generalizability. The method employed in this
study is not designed to answer questions regarding the representation of characteristics across
human populations. This limitation exists only to the extent such answers are anticipated.
Conclusion
“Are you the next Marshall McLuhan? Are you the next Billy Graham? Are you a
proph—”
“Billy McLuhan.”
(Peterson’s response; CBC, 2018)
Dr. Jordan Peterson’s unexpected rise to celebrity serves as an excellent case study for
communication scholarship. This study aims to add a small piece to that puzzle. There is ample
evidence that highly-salient themes and conversations are receiving enthusiastic attention by
Peterson, those engaged with his work, and by those operating similar projects of their own both
on and off of the Internet. Each person arrives at the table to participate for a variety of reasons
and brings to the table a bit of themselves. The process can be not only entertaining and
enjoyable but formative. Our view of the world can be greatly enhanced by a sincere view as
held by another. This study was conducted with the hopes of exploring such sincerely held
views, finding how they may relate to one another, and discovering more about our own
perspectives through the attempted acquaintance with those of others. This study concludes with
the hopes that its reading provokes nearly as many fun reflections as its creation.

118. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
112
References
Abbott, E. A. (1963). Flatland: A romance of many dimensions. New York City, New York:
Barnes & Noble. (Original work published 1884).
Aikin, S. F. (2009). Poe’s law, group polarization, and the epistemology of online religious
discourse. SSRN. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1332169
Armstrong, E. M. (2015). The use of fantasy theme analysis to describe the group
communication and creative problem-solving skills of university-level students as they
prepare for destination imagination global finals competition (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
2839&context=dissertations
Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1996). Measures of attitude strength as predictors of willingness to
speak to the media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 147–158. doi:
10.1177/107769909607300113
Baldassarri, D., & Bearman, P. (2010). Dynamics of political polarization. American
Sociological Review, 72(5), 784–811. doi 10.1177/000312240707200507
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Press.
Bales, R. F. (1969). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York City, New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Banasick, S. (2019). KADE: A desktop application for Q methodology. The Journal of Open
Source Software, 4(36), 1360. doi. 10.21105/joss.01360

119. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
113
Beatty, D. (2017). McMaster debate with controversial professor Jordan Peterson disrupted by
activists. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/mcmaster-debate-
with-controversial-professor-jordan-peterson-disrupted-by-activists-1.4031843
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. London: Allen Lane
The Penguin Press.
Bormann, E. G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58(4), 396-407. doi: 10.1080/00335637209383138
Bormann, E. G. (1982). The symbolic convergence theory of communication: Applications and
implications for teachers and consultants. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
10(1), 50–61. doi: 10.1080/00909888209365212
Bormann, E. G. (1985). The force of fantasy: Restoring the american dream. Carbondale,
Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bormann, E. G., Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1996). An expansion of the rhetorical vision
component of the symbolic convergence theory: The cold war paradigm case.
Communication Monographs, 63(1),1-28. doi: 10.1080/03637759609376371
Bormann, E. G., Cragan, J. F., Shields, D. C., & Gunn, J. (2003). Defending symbolic
convergence theory from an imaginary gun. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89(4), 366–
373. doi: 10.1080/0033563032000160990
Brandt, T. (2018, June 14). Why the Intellectual Dark Web Had to Go Dark. Retrieved from
https://fee.org/articles/why-the-intellectual-dark-web-had-to-go-dark
Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of q methodology in political science. New
Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

120. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
114
Brown, S., Danielson, S. & Van Exel, J. (2015). Overly ambitious critics and the Medici Effect:
a reply to Kampen and Tamás. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of
Methodology, 49(2), 523-537. doi: 10.1007/s11135-014-0007-x
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2017). Greater internet use is not associated with
faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 114(40), 10612-10617. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706588114
Bunyan, J. (1878). The pilgrim’s progress. As originally published by John Bunyan: Being a
facsimile reproduction of the first edition. New York City, New York: Baker and Taylor.
(Original work published in 1678).
Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2014). Microaggression and moral cultures. Comparative
Sociology,13(6), 692-726. doi:10.1163/15691330-12341332
Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York City, New
York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.
CBC News. (2018, January 28). Jordan Peterson on political polarization & Pepe the Frog
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=0BoOdMx_zDU
Channel 4 News. (2018, January 16). Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus
protests and postmodernism [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=1042s
Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. D. (1981). Applied communication research: A dramatistic
approach. Prospect Press, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

121. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
115
Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1992). The use of symbolic convergence theory in corporate
strategic planning: A case study. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20(2),
199–218. doi: 10.1080/00909889209365329
Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. D. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The
communicative forces for human action. Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson.
Dreger, A. (2018, May 11). Why I Escaped the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’. Retrieved from
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-I-Escaped-the/243399
Drischell, J. G. (2017). Exploring the dramatization in dabiq: A fantasy theme analysis (Master’s
Thesis). Retrieved from https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_
or_dissertations/8049g998k
Druckman, J., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public
opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57-79. doi:
10.1017/S0003055412000500
eggplantfool. (2017). Jordan Peterson at McMaster University (FULL EVENT) [Video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dSjbBmHOOE
Farrell, H. (2018, May 10). The "Intellectual Dark Web," explained: What Jordan Peterson has
in common with the alt-right. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/
10/17338290/intellectual-dark-web-rogan-peterson-harris-times-weiss
Ferguson, N. (2019). The square and the tower: Networks and power, from the freemasons to
facebook. London: Penguin Books.
Fichman, P., & Sanfilippo, M. R. (2016). Online Trolling and Its Perpetrators: Under the
Cyberbridge. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

122. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
116
genuiNEWitty. (2016, October 11). Jordan Peterson's First Protest At The University of Toronto
[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAlPjMiaKdw
Gearhart, S., & Zhang, W. (2015). “Was it something i said?” “No, it was something you
posted!” A study of the spiral of silence theory in social media contexts.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(4), 208–213. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2014.0443
Goggin, B. (2018, January 26). Jordan Peterson is Having Moment - We Should Ignore It.
Retrieved from http://digg.com/2018/jordan-peterson-book-review
Gunn, J. (2003). Refiguring fantasy: Imagination and its decline in U.S. rhetorical studies.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89(1), 41–59. doi: 10.1080/00335630308168
Harris, S. (2018, January 5). Waking Up Podcast #112 -The Intellectual Dark Web [Audio
podcast]. Retrieved from https://samharris.org/podcasts/112-intellectual-dark-web/
Harvey, J. A. (2002). The vicissitudes of political debate: The career of the terms politically
correct and political correctness in the toronto area press in the 1990s (Master’s Thesis).
Retrieved from ProQuest.
Leading Members of the Intellectual Dark Web. (n.d.) Retrieved from
https://intellectualdarkweb.site/vanguards-of-the-intellectual-dark-web/
Jeffress, M., & Brown, W. (2017). Freedom of choice in the great divorce: C. S. Lewis’
rhetorical vision of afterlife. CLS:The Bulletin of the New York C. S. Lewis Society, 48(2),
1-14. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315772153_Freedom
_of_Choice_in_The_Great_Divorce_C_S_Lewis'_Rhetorical_Vision_of_Afterlife
Kafle, H. R. (2014). Symbolic convergence theory. Revisiting its relevance to team
communication. International Journal of Communication, 24(1), 16–29. Retrieved from

123. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
117
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hem_Kafle/publication/275272865_Symbolic_Con
vergence_Theory_Revisiting_Its_Relevance_to_Team_Communication/links/5539ee630
cf2239f4e7db07a/Symbolic-Convergence-Theory-Revisiting-Its-Relevance-to-Team-
Communication.pdf?origin=publication_detail91998?accountid=13479
Kahneman, D. (2015). Thinking, fast and slow. New York City, New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Kilbourn, A. G. (2016). Collective of heroes: Arrows move toward a posthuman superhero
fantasy (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from
https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/73/
Lewis, C. S. (2014). The pilgrim's regress. Downing D.C. (Wade Annotated Ed.). Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company. (Original work published 1933).
Literally Media, Ltd. (n.d.). Know Your Meme. Retrieved from https://knowyourmeme.com/
Meeker, M. (2018, May 30). Internet Trends 2018. Retrieved from https://www.kleinerperkins.
com/files/INTERNET_TRENDS_REPORT_2018.pdf
Mohrmann, G. P. (1982). II. Fantasy theme criticism: A peroration. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
68(3), 306–313. Retrieved from doi.org/10.1080/00335638209383615
Neuman, C. T. (2013). Rhetorical myth in the discourse of apple’s commercial campaigns for the
macintosh (Doctorate Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.
Olufowote, J. O. (2006). Rousing and redirecting a sleeping giant: Symbolic convergence theory
and complexities in the communicative constitution of collective action. Management
Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 451–492. doi: 10.1177/0893318905280326
Palahniuk, C. (1996). Fight club. New York City, New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

124. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
118
Palenchar, M. J., & Heath, R. L. (2002). Another part of the risk communication model: Analysis
of communication processes and message content. Journal of Public Relations Research,
14(2), 127–158. doi: 10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1402_3
Peterson, J. B. (1999). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. London: Routledge.
Peterson, J. B. [Jordan B. Peterson]. (2016, September 27). 2016/09/27: Part 1: Fear and the
Law [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvPgjg201w0&list=
PL22J3VaeABQD8oW-mqWpKumeqglQCe6VZ
Peterson, J. B. [Jordan B. Peterson]. (2017, May 20). Biblical Series I: Introduction to the Idea
of God [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-
wWBGo6a2w&
list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat&index=2&t=2802s
Peterson, J. B. (2018). 12 rules for life: An antidote to chaos. Toronto, Ontario: Random House
Canada.
Peterson, J. B. [Jordan B. Peterson]. (2018, March 11). The Queen's University Talk: The Rising
Tide of Compelled Speech [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=MwdYpMS8s28&vl=en
Peterson, J., & Harris, S. [Pangburn]. (2018, August 31). Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson -
Vancouver - 1 (CC: Arabic & Spanish). [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE
Shields, D. C. (2000). Symbolic convergence and special communication theories: Sensing and
examining dis/enchantment with the theoretical robustness of critical autoethnography.
Communication Monographs. 67(4), 392-421. doi: 10.1080/03637750009376519

125. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
119
Rhoads, J., Thomas, D. B., & Mckeown, B. F. (2017). Operant subjectivity rationality vs.
rationale among Trump voters in 2016: What Were They Thinking?. Operant
Subjectivity. 39(3/4), 60–80. doi: 10.15133/j.os.2017.012
Schmolk, P. (2018). The Q-Method Page. Retrieved from http://schmolck.org/qmethod/
Stephen, T. D. (1985). Q-methodology in communication science: An introduction.
Communication, 33(3), 193–208. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
abs/10.1080/01463378509369598
Stephenson, W. (1977). Factors as operant subjectivity. Operant Subjectivity, 1(1), 3–16. doi
10.15133/j.os.1977.001
Stephenson, W. (2014). General Theory of Communication. Operant Subjectivity, 37(3), 38–56.
doi:10.15133/j.os.2014.011
Weinstein, E. [Eric Weinstein] (2018, June 07). Why the "Intellectual Dark Web" has such a
crazy name [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
cr0OX6ai4Qw
Weiss, B. (2018, May 08). Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html
Welty, D. (2018, September 13). COLUMN: What the intellectual dark web is and why it
matters. Retrieved from http://www.dailytoreador.com/opinion/column-what-the-
intellectual-dark-web-is-and-why-it/article_9d3f9ef0-b6fc-11e8-b5da-dfe1ea4d0462.html

126. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
120
Appendices
I. Q-set
Statement
Number
Statements
1 What is painful about the world can be transformed into good.
2 Interpersonal trust is the most foundational natural resource.
3 Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the state of the world.
4 Evil can be overcome peacefully.
5 Few qualities are as important as self-restraint.
6 Conflicts about inequality are more numerous in egalitarian societies.
7 People who say they are fighting for the oppressed probably are.
8 It is shameful to take an insult lying down.
9
The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other people on top put
barriers in their way.
10
The things which most bother us about others are often precisely what have
remained unexamined in ourselves.
11 The best way to see life is as an adventure.
12 Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways.
13
Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning evaporates, you have
yourself to blame.
14 We all have a duty to speak on behalf of marginalized groups.
15 At birth, the human mind is a blank slate.
16 Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather than their own.
17
One's race/ethnic background does not predetermine their level of success in our
society.
18 Racism is very prevalent in our current society.
19
While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's fundamentally
imperative that I solve my own problems to the best of my ability.
20 Western societies work.
21 White males know that they are privileged and resent the fact that others object to it.
22 No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be listened to.
23 Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure's absence.
24 For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful.
25 Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences.
26 Religious belief can be just as logical as any other system of thought.
27 Truth is mostly paradoxical.
28 Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time.

127. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
121
29 It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist.
30 Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive.
31 Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological clarity.
32
There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides the best ways to
explain some things, but not all things.
33
Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot be said of other
living creatures.
34 Religion is a product of human evolution.
35 There is no God.
36 God directly communicates with people.
37 Religious belief can be valuable even if it is untrue.
38
The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which the whole of
reality is accidental.
39 Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you do not now know.
40 One should be unafraid of being openly religious.
41 People of all religions worship the same thing in the end.
42 While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral universals exist.
43 Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are considered.
44
The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or detriment to
society.
45 Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason.
46
It's important to understand an idea which you oppose from the perspective of one
who affirms it.
47
One cannot expect to understand an opposing view without having similar life
experiences as their opponent.
48 The law serves those who control it.
49 Human life exists after death.
50
Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's baked into the
fabric of reality.
51
Compared to other forms of governance, Western democracies are generally of
superior quality.
52
Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't comprehend an idea in
pristine form, you've no right to complain about it making no sense to you.
53
Most media professionals do the best they can to understand and convey various
perspectives.
54 Social media sites enhance the effects of confirmation bias amongst their users.
55 A government should act more like a police officer than a parent.
56 Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to decide for

128. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
122
themselves what to make of them.
57
The news and entertainment industries need to do a better job of raising awareness
about racial discrimination.
58 A college degree says little about one's acquisition of knowledge.
59 A government's role is to promote equal or near-equal results for all.
60
It's important to attain a classical, liberal education no matter what you do as an
occupation.
61 College professors are generally trustworthy.
62 A government should provide for the basic living needs of its citizenry.
63 It's more important to be empathetic than to be dominant.
64 Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values.
65 The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different pathways in life.
66 For the most part, things are looking up in our culture.
67 It can be quite difficult to find a place in life.
68 It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence.
69 We all possess a spark of divine virtue.
70 Speaking truthfully makes life more profound.
71
Concepts which cannot be omitted in practice are likely true whether or not they are
easily articulated.
72 I trust myself.
73 The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas.
74 Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse.
75 There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without responsibility.
76 In the end, you cannot get away with a lie.
77 We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being.
78 Journalists today are incurious.

129. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
123
Figure A1. Factor 1b alternate array (including participants 4, 14, and 20)

130. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
124
II. Factor Comparisons
Appendix IIa: Factor Difference Between 1a and 1b
# Statement 1a 1b Diff
36 God directly communicates with people. 1.351 -1.985 3.336
69 We all possess a spark of divine virtue. 1.763 -1.288 3.051
45 Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. 1.496 -1.514 3.01
49 Human life exists after death. 0.851 -1.828 2.679
42
While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist. 1.319 -0.992 2.311
1 What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. 1.451 -0.748 2.199
77 We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. 1.027 -1.131 2.158
10
The things which most bother us about others are often precisely
what have remained unexamined in ourselves. 1.135 -0.905 2.04
76 In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. 1.432 -0.521 1.953
25 Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. 1.31 -0.629 1.939
23 Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure's absence. 0.866 -0.748 1.614
50
Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's
baked into the fabric of reality. 0.863 -0.502 1.365
65
The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different
pathways in life. 0.872 -0.471 1.343
31
Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological
clarity. 1.32 0.069 1.251
68 It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. 0.758 -0.383 1.141
13
Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning
evaporates, you have yourself to blame. 0.217 -0.817 1.034
27 Truth is mostly paradoxical. 0.952 -0.069 1.021
26
Religious belief can be just as logical as any other system of
thought. 0.709 -0.295 1.004
22
No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be
listened to. -0.945 -1.847 0.902
59
A government's role is to promote equal or near-equal results for
all. -1.636 -2.299 0.663
12 Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways. 0.3 -0.345 0.645
70 Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 1.604 0.974 0.63
64 Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values. 0.782 0.226 0.556
75
There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without
responsibility. 1.113 0.766 0.347
28 Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. -0.964 -1.307 0.343
46
It's important to understand an idea which you oppose from the
perspective of one who affirms it. 1.258 0.923 0.335

131. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
125
29 It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 0.469 0.138 0.331
47
One cannot expect to understand an opposing view without having
similar life experiences as their opponent. -1.164 -1.464 0.3
71
Concepts which cannot be omitted in practice are likely true
whether or not they are easily articulated. 0.912 0.697 0.215
73 The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. -0.49 -0.678 0.188
58 A college degree says little about one's acquisition of knowledge. 0.263 0.088 0.175
11 The best way to see life is as an adventure. 0.875 0.748 0.127
8 It is shameful to take an insult lying down. -0.828 -0.943 0.115
54
Social media sites enhance the effects of confirmation bias
amongst their users. 0.237 0.157 0.08
39
Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you do not
now know. -0.024 -0.088 0.064
3
Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the state of
the world. 0.595 0.609 -0.014
7 People who say they are fighting for the oppressed probably are. -1.007 -0.923 -0.084
43
Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are
considered. -0.135 -0.049 -0.086
33
Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot
be said of other living creatures. 0.133 0.226 -0.093
57
The news and entertainment industries need to do a better job of
raising awareness about racial discrimination. -1.123 -1.012 -0.111
4 Evil can be overcome peacefully. 0.026 0.157 -0.131
53
Most media professionals do the best they can to understand and
convey various perspectives. -1.418 -1.169 -0.249
17
One's race/ethnic background does not predetermine their level of
success in our society. 0.079 0.334 -0.255
21
White males know that they are privileged and resent the fact that
others object to it. -1.521 -1.238 -0.283
41 People of all religions worship the same thing in the end. -1.303 -0.905 -0.398
55 A government should act more like a police officer than a parent. -0.365 0.088 -0.453
60
It's important to attain a classical, liberal education no matter what
you do as an occupation. -0.36 0.138 -0.498
63 It's more important to be empathetic than to be dominant. 0.291 0.905 -0.614
37 Religious belief can be valuable even if it is untrue. 0.066 0.697 -0.631
2 Interpersonal trust is the most foundational natural resource. 0.785 1.445 -0.66
18 Racism is very prevalent in our current society. -0.753 -0.088 -0.665
14 We all have a duty to speak on behalf of marginalized groups. -0.013 0.659 -0.672
62
A government should provide for the basic living needs of its
citizenry. -0.57 0.119 -0.689
40 One should be unafraid of being openly religious. 0.547 1.307 -0.76
51
Compared to other forms of governance, Western democracies are
generally of superior quality. -0.133 0.629 -0.762

132. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
126
34 Religion is a product of human evolution. -0.784 0.019 -0.803
72 I trust myself. 0.014 0.885 -0.871
61 College professors are generally trustworthy. -0.56 0.364 -0.924
9
The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other
people on top put barriers in their way. -1.263 -0.334 -0.929
32
There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides
the best ways to explain some things but not all things. 1.033 1.985 -0.952
30 Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive. -1.817 -0.855 -0.962
6
Conflicts about inequality are more numerous in egalitarian
societies. -0.287 0.678 -0.965
78 Journalists today are incurious. -0.721 0.245 -0.966
52
Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't
comprehend an idea in pristine form, you've no right to complain
about it making no sense to you. -0.642 0.364 -1.006
15 At birth, the human mind is a blank slate. -2.172 -1.081 -1.091
16
Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather
than their own. 0.214 1.395 -1.181
66 For the most part, things are looking up in our culture. -0.796 0.433 -1.229
5 Few qualities are as important as self-restraint. -0.303 0.992 -1.295
67 It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 0.56 1.916 -1.356
19
While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's
fundamentally imperative that I solve my own problems to the best
of my ability. 0.671 2.073 -1.402
24 For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. -0.895 0.697 -1.592
20 Western societies work. 0.094 1.69 -1.596
38
The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which
the whole of reality is accidental. -1.815 -0.157 -1.658
48 The law serves those who control it. -0.895 0.943 -1.838
56
Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to
decide for themselves what to make of them. -1.556 0.334 -1.89
74 Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse. -0.305 1.621 -1.926
44
The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or
detriment to society. -0.747 1.671 -2.418
35 There is no God. -2.3 1.2 -3.5

133. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
127
Appendix IIb: Factor Difference Between 1a and 2
# Statement 1a 2 Diff
36 God directly communicates with people. 1.351 -0.839 2.19
45 Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. 1.496 -0.507 2.003
49 Human life exists after death. 0.851 -0.968 1.819
25 Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. 1.31 -0.109 1.419
26
Religious belief can be just as logical as any other system of
thought. 0.709 -0.704 1.413
1 What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. 1.451 0.18 1.271
27 Truth is mostly paradoxical. 0.952 -0.279 1.231
14 We all have a duty to speak on behalf of marginalized groups. -0.013 -1.047 1.034
42
While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist. 1.319 0.418 0.901
18 Racism is very prevalent in our current society. -0.753 -1.51 0.757
62
A government should provide for the basic living needs of its
citizenry. -0.57 -1.296 0.726
57
The news and entertainment industries need to do a better job of
raising awareness about racial discrimination. -1.123 -1.831 0.708
4 Evil can be overcome peacefully. 0.026 -0.664 0.69
10
The things which most bother us about others are often precisely
what have remained unexamined in ourselves. 1.135 0.482 0.653
59
A government's role is to promote equal or near-equal results for
all. -1.636 -2.266 0.63
31
Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological
clarity. 1.32 0.699 0.621
12 Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways. 0.3 -0.297 0.597
76 In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. 1.432 0.841 0.591
71
Concepts which cannot be omitted in practice are likely true
whether or not they are easily articulated. 0.912 0.343 0.569
65
The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different
pathways in life. 0.872 0.306 0.566
69 We all possess a spark of divine virtue. 1.763 1.258 0.505
33
Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot
be said of other living creatures. 0.133 -0.316 0.449
52
Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't
comprehend an idea in pristine form, you've no right to complain
about it making no sense to you. -0.642 -1.075 0.433
47
One cannot expect to understand an opposing view without having
similar life experiences as their opponent. -1.164 -1.544 0.38
23 Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure's absence. 0.866 0.548 0.318
3 Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the state of 0.595 0.279 0.316

134. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
128
the world.
9
The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other
people on top put barriers in their way. -1.263 -1.556 0.293
21
White males know that they are privileged and resent the fact that
others object to it. -1.521 -1.811 0.29
8 It is shameful to take an insult lying down. -0.828 -1.118 0.29
58 A college degree says little about one's acquisition of knowledge. 0.263 0.072 0.191
53
Most media professionals do the best they can to understand and
convey various perspectives. -1.418 -1.534 0.116
72 I trust myself. 0.014 -0.092 0.106
56
Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to
decide for themselves what to make of them. -1.556 -1.633 0.077
32
There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides
the best ways to explain some things, but not all things. 1.033 1.029 0.004
15 At birth, the human mind is a blank slate. -2.172 -2.147 -0.025
6
Conflicts about inequality are more numerous in egalitarian
societies. -0.287 -0.184 -0.103
7 People who say they are fighting for the oppressed probably are. -1.007 -0.882 -0.125
29 It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 0.469 0.603 -0.134
63 It's more important to be empathetic than to be dominant. 0.291 0.462 -0.171
74 Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse. -0.305 -0.121 -0.184
46
It's important to understand an idea which you oppose from the
perspective of one who affirms it. 1.258 1.449 -0.191
68 It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. 0.758 0.953 -0.195
77 We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. 1.027 1.227 -0.2
61 College professors are generally trustworthy. -0.56 -0.343 -0.217
22
No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be
listened to. -0.945 -0.703 -0.242
44
The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or
detriment to society. -0.747 -0.504 -0.243
40 One should be unafraid of being openly religious. 0.547 0.815 -0.268
30 Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive. -1.817 -1.538 -0.279
13
Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning
evaporates, you have yourself to blame. 0.217 0.516 -0.299
11 The best way to see life is as an adventure. 0.875 1.204 -0.329
5 Few qualities are as important as self-restraint. -0.303 0.044 -0.347
39
Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you do not
now know. -0.024 0.325 -0.349
28 Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. -0.964 -0.599 -0.365
70 Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 1.604 1.977 -0.373
17
One's race/ethnic background does not predetermine their level of
success in our society. 0.079 0.457 -0.378

135. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
129
54
Social media sites enhance the effects of confirmation bias amongst
their users. 0.237 0.702 -0.465
41 People of all religions worship the same thing in the end. -1.303 -0.783 -0.52
43
Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are
considered. -0.135 0.4 -0.535
75
There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without
responsibility. 1.113 1.67 -0.557
73 The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. -0.49 0.073 -0.563
64 Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values. 0.782 1.354 -0.572
67 It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 0.56 1.134 -0.574
50
Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's
baked into the fabric of reality. 0.863 1.447 -0.584
55 A government should act more like a police officer than a parent. -0.365 0.247 -0.612
60
It's important to attain a classical, liberal education no matter what
you do as an occupation. -0.36 0.299 -0.659
2 Interpersonal trust is the most foundational natural resource. 0.785 1.482 -0.697
19
While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's
fundamentally imperative that I solve my own problems to the best
of my ability. 0.671 1.505 -0.834
78 Journalists today are incurious. -0.721 0.152 -0.873
20 Western societies work. 0.094 0.972 -0.878
16
Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather than
their own. 0.214 1.097 -0.883
48 The law serves those who control it. -0.895 0.029 -0.924
66 For the most part, things are looking up in our culture. -0.796 0.135 -0.931
24 For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. -0.895 0.099 -0.994
37 Religious belief can be valuable even if it is untrue. 0.066 1.06 -0.994
51
Compared to other forms of governance, western democracies are
generally of superior quality. -0.133 1.066 -1.199
34 Religion is a product of human evolution. -0.784 0.501 -1.285
38
The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which
the whole of reality is accidental. -1.815 -0.473 -1.342
35 There is no God. -2.3 -0.639 -1.661

136. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
130
Appendix IIc: Factor Difference Between 1a and 3
# Statement 1a 3 Diff
27 Truth is mostly paradoxical. 0.952 -0.555 1.507
65
The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different
pathways in life. 0.872 -0.23 1.102
36 God directly communicates with people. 1.351 0.441 0.91
43
Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are
considered. -0.135 -1.033 0.898
14 We all have a duty to speak on behalf of marginalized groups. -0.013 -0.789 0.776
31
Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological
clarity. 1.32 0.547 0.773
4 Evil can be overcome peacefully. 0.026 -0.71 0.736
34 Religion is a product of human evolution. -0.784 -1.449 0.665
45 Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. 1.496 0.865 0.631
62
A government should provide for the basic living needs of its
citizenry. -0.57 -1.191 0.621
71
Concepts which cannot be omitted in practice are likely true
whether or not they are easily articulated. 0.912 0.315 0.597
18 Racism is very prevalent in our current society. -0.753 -1.331 0.578
11 The best way to see life is as an adventure. 0.875 0.301 0.574
1 What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. 1.451 0.881 0.57
41 People of all religions worship the same thing in the end. -1.303 -1.865 0.562
70 Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 1.604 1.044 0.56
64 Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values. 0.782 0.231 0.551
13
Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning
evaporates, you have yourself to blame. 0.217 -0.332 0.549
10
The things which most bother us about others are often precisely
what have remained unexamined in ourselves. 1.135 0.623 0.512
59
A government's role is to promote equal or near-equal results for
all. -1.636 -2.136 0.5
67 It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 0.56 0.117 0.443
76 In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. 1.432 1.024 0.408
57
The news and entertainment industries need to do a better job of
raising awareness about racial discrimination. -1.123 -1.526 0.403
69 We all possess a spark of divine virtue. 1.763 1.367 0.396
72 I trust myself. 0.014 -0.335 0.349
25 Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. 1.31 0.962 0.348
37 Religious belief can be valuable even if it is untrue. 0.066 -0.257 0.323
7 People who say they are fighting for the oppressed probably are. -1.007 -1.297 0.29
21
White males know that they are privileged and resent the fact that
others object to it. -1.521 -1.805 0.284

137. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
131
63 It's more important to be empathetic than to be dominant. 0.291 0.018 0.273
3
Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the state of
the world. 0.595 0.333 0.262
77 We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. 1.027 0.863 0.164
23 Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure's absence. 0.866 0.703 0.163
46
It's important to understand an idea which you oppose from the
perspective of one who affirms it. 1.258 1.097 0.161
47
One cannot expect to understand an opposing view without having
similar life experiences as their opponent. -1.164 -1.317 0.153
19
While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's
fundamentally imperative that I solve my own problems to the best
of my ability. 0.671 0.535 0.136
44
The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or
detriment to society. -0.747 -0.864 0.117
66 For the most part, things are looking up in our culture. -0.796 -0.896 0.1
61 College professors are generally trustworthy. -0.56 -0.584 0.024
2 Interpersonal trust is the most foundational natural resource. 0.785 0.765 0.02
53
Most media professionals do the best they can to understand and
convey various perspectives. -1.418 -1.423 0.005
32
There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides
the best ways to explain some things, but not all things. 1.033 1.03 0.003
74 Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse. -0.305 -0.293 -0.012
9
The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other
people on top put barriers in their way. -1.263 -1.245 -0.018
8 It is shameful to take an insult lying down. -0.828 -0.774 -0.054
52
Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't
comprehend an idea in pristine form, you've no right to complain
about it making no sense to you. -0.642 -0.55 -0.092
75
There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without
responsibility. 1.113 1.214 -0.101
39
Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you do not
now know. -0.024 0.088 -0.112
56
Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to
decide for themselves what to make of them. -1.556 -1.411 -0.145
35 There is no God. -2.3 -2.107 -0.193
26
Religious belief can be just as logical as any other system of
thought. 0.709 0.952 -0.243
50
Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's
baked into the fabric of reality. 0.863 1.11 -0.247
58 A college degree says little about one's acquisition of knowledge. 0.263 0.522 -0.259
6
Conflicts about inequality are more numerous in egalitarian
societies. -0.287 0.056 -0.343
48 The law serves those who control it. -0.895 -0.517 -0.378

138. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
132
42
While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist. 1.319 1.702 -0.383
24 For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. -0.895 -0.493 -0.402
49 Human life exists after death. 0.851 1.272 -0.421
54
Social media sites enhance the effects of confirmation bias
amongst their users. 0.237 0.664 -0.427
16
Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather
than their own. 0.214 0.645 -0.431
60
It's important to attain a classical, liberal education no matter what
you do as an occupation. -0.36 0.102 -0.462
40 One should be unafraid of being openly religious. 0.547 1.018 -0.471
17
One's race/ethnic background does not predetermine their level of
success in our society. 0.079 0.552 -0.473
38
The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which
the whole of reality is accidental. -1.815 -1.234 -0.581
15 At birth, the human mind is a blank slate. -2.172 -1.527 -0.645
29 It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 0.469 1.126 -0.657
22
No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be
listened to. -0.945 -0.258 -0.687
68 It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. 0.758 1.456 -0.698
30 Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive. -1.817 -1.085 -0.732
78 Journalists today are incurious. -0.721 0.111 -0.832
55 A government should act more like a police officer than a parent. -0.365 0.506 -0.871
20 Western societies work. 0.094 0.987 -0.893
5 Few qualities are as important as self-restraint. -0.303 0.591 -0.894
12 Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways. 0.3 1.361 -1.061
28 Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. -0.964 0.13 -1.094
51
Compared to other forms of governance, Western democracies are
generally of superior quality. -0.133 1.015 -1.148
73 The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. -0.49 0.66 -1.15
33
Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot
be said of other living creatures. 0.133 1.521 -1.388

139. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
133
Appendix IId: Factor Difference Between 1b and 2
# Statement 1b 2 Diff
44
The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or
detriment to society. 1.671 -0.504 2.175
56
Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to
decide for themselves what to make of them. 0.334 -1.633 1.967
35 There is no God. 1.2 -0.639 1.839
74 Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse. 1.621 -0.121 1.742
14 We all have a duty to speak on behalf of marginalized groups. 0.659 -1.047 1.706
52
Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't
comprehend an idea in pristine form, you've no right to complain
about it making no sense to you. 0.364 -1.075 1.439
18 Racism is very prevalent in our current society. -0.088 -1.51 1.422
62
A government should provide for the basic living needs of its
citizenry. 0.119 -1.296 1.415
9
The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other
people on top put barriers in their way. -0.334 -1.556 1.222
15 At birth, the human mind is a blank slate. -1.081 -2.147 1.066
72 I trust myself. 0.885 -0.092 0.977
32
There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides
the best ways to explain some things, but not all things. 1.985 1.029 0.956
5 Few qualities are as important as self-restraint. 0.992 0.044 0.948
48 The law serves those who control it. 0.943 0.029 0.914
6
Conflicts about inequality are more numerous in egalitarian
societies. 0.678 -0.184 0.862
4 Evil can be overcome peacefully. 0.157 -0.664 0.821
57
The news and entertainment industries need to do a better job of
raising awareness about racial discrimination. -1.012 -1.831 0.819
67 It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 1.916 1.134 0.782
20 Western societies work. 1.69 0.972 0.718
61 College professors are generally trustworthy. 0.364 -0.343 0.707
30 Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive. -0.855 -1.538 0.683
24 For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. 0.697 0.099 0.598
21
White males know that they are privileged and resent the fact that
others object to it. -1.238 -1.811 0.573
19
While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's
fundamentally imperative that I solve my own problems to the best
of my ability. 2.073 1.505 0.568
33
Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot be
said of other living creatures. 0.226 -0.316 0.542
40 One should be unafraid of being openly religious. 1.307 0.815 0.492

140. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
134
63 It's more important to be empathetic than to be dominant. 0.905 0.462 0.443
26 Religious belief can be just as logical as any other system of thought. -0.295 -0.704 0.409
53
Most media professionals do the best they can to understand and
convey various perspectives. -1.169 -1.534 0.365
71
Concepts which cannot be omitted in practice are likely true whether
or not they are easily articulated. 0.697 0.343 0.354
3
Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the state of the
world. 0.609 0.279 0.33
38
The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which
the whole of reality is accidental. -0.157 -0.473 0.316
16
Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather than
their own. 1.395 1.097 0.298
66 For the most part, things are looking up in our culture. 0.433 0.135 0.298
27 Truth is mostly paradoxical. -0.069 -0.279 0.21
8 It is shameful to take an insult lying down. -0.943 -1.118 0.175
78 Journalists today are incurious. 0.245 0.152 0.093
47
One cannot expect to understand an opposing view without having
similar life experiences as their opponent. -1.464 -1.544 0.08
58 A college degree says little about one's acquisition of knowledge. 0.088 0.072 0.016
59 A government's role is to promote equal or near-equal results for all. -2.299 -2.266 -0.033
2 Interpersonal trust is the most foundational natural resource. 1.445 1.482 -0.037
7 People who say they are fighting for the oppressed probably are. -0.923 -0.882 -0.041
12 Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways. -0.345 -0.297 -0.048
41 People of all religions worship the same thing in the end. -0.905 -0.783 -0.122
17
One's race/ethnic background does not predetermine their level of
success in our society. 0.334 0.457 -0.123
55 A government should act more like a police officer than a parent. 0.088 0.247 -0.159
60
It's important to attain a classical, liberal education no matter what
you do as an occupation. 0.138 0.299 -0.161
37 Religious belief can be valuable even if it is untrue. 0.697 1.06 -0.363
39
Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you do not
now know. -0.088 0.325 -0.413
51
Compared to other forms of governance, Western democracies are
generally of superior quality. 0.629 1.066 -0.437
43
Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are
considered. -0.049 0.4 -0.449
11 The best way to see life is as an adventure. 0.748 1.204 -0.456
29 It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 0.138 0.603 -0.465
34 Religion is a product of human evolution. 0.019 0.501 -0.482
25 Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. -0.629 -0.109 -0.52
46
It's important to understand an idea which you oppose from the
perspective of one who affirms it. 0.923 1.449 -0.526

141. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
135
54
Social media sites enhance the effects of confirmation bias amongst
their users. 0.157 0.702 -0.545
31 Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological clarity. 0.069 0.699 -0.63
28 Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. -1.307 -0.599 -0.708
73 The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. -0.678 0.073 -0.751
65
The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different
pathways in life. -0.471 0.306 -0.777
49 Human life exists after death. -1.828 -0.968 -0.86
75
There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without
responsibility. 0.766 1.67 -0.904
1 What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. -0.748 0.18 -0.928
70 Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 0.974 1.977 -1.003
45 Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. -1.514 -0.507 -1.007
64 Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values. 0.226 1.354 -1.128
22
No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be listened
to. -1.847 -0.703 -1.144
36 God directly communicates with people. -1.985 -0.839 -1.146
23 Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure's absence. -0.748 0.548 -1.296
13
Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning
evaporates, you have yourself to blame. -0.817 0.516 -1.333
68 It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. -0.383 0.953 -1.336
76 In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. -0.521 0.841 -1.362
10
The things which most bother us about others are often precisely
what have remained unexamined in ourselves. -0.905 0.482 -1.387
42
While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist. -0.992 0.418 -1.41
50
Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's
baked into the fabric of reality. -0.502 1.447 -1.949
77 We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. -1.131 1.227 -2.358
69 We all possess a spark of divine virtue. -1.288 1.258 -2.546

142. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
136
Appendix IIe: Factor Difference Between 1b and 3
# Statement 1b 3 Diff
35 There is no God. 1.2 -2.107 3.307
44
The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or
detriment to society. 1.671 -0.864 2.535
74 Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse. 1.621 -0.293 1.914
67 It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 1.916 0.117 1.799
56
Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to
decide for themselves what to make of them. 0.334 -1.411 1.745
19
While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's
fundamentally imperative that I solve my own problems to the best of
my ability. 2.073 0.535 1.538
34 Religion is a product of human evolution. 0.019 -1.449 1.468
48 The law serves those who control it. 0.943 -0.517 1.46
14 We all have a duty to speak on behalf of marginalized groups. 0.659 -0.789 1.448
66 For the most part, things are looking up in our culture. 0.433 -0.896 1.329
62
A government should provide for the basic living needs of its
citizenry. 0.119 -1.191 1.31
18 Racism is very prevalent in our current society. -0.088 -1.331 1.243
72 I trust myself. 0.885 -0.335 1.22
24 For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. 0.697 -0.493 1.19
38
The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which
the whole of reality is accidental. -0.157 -1.234 1.077
43
Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are
considered. -0.049 -1.033 0.984
41 People of all religions worship the same thing in the end. -0.905 -1.865 0.96
32
There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides
the best ways to explain some things, but not all things. 1.985 1.03 0.955
37 Religious belief can be valuable even if it is untrue. 0.697 -0.257 0.954
61 College professors are generally trustworthy. 0.364 -0.584 0.948
52
Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't
comprehend an idea in pristine form, you've no right to complain
about it making no sense to you. 0.364 -0.55 0.914
9
The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other
people on top put barriers in their way. -0.334 -1.245 0.911
63 It's more important to be empathetic than to be dominant. 0.905 0.018 0.887
4 Evil can be overcome peacefully. 0.157 -0.71 0.867
16
Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather than
their own. 1.395 0.645 0.75
20 Western societies work. 1.69 0.987 0.703

143. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
137
2 Interpersonal trust is the most foundational natural resource. 1.445 0.765 0.68
6 Conflicts about inequality are more numerous in egalitarian societies. 0.678 0.056 0.622
21
White males know that they are privileged and resent the fact that
others object to it. -1.238 -1.805 0.567
57
The news and entertainment industries need to do a better job of
raising awareness about racial discrimination. -1.012 -1.526 0.514
27 Truth is mostly paradoxical. -0.069 -0.555 0.486
11 The best way to see life is as an adventure. 0.748 0.301 0.447
15 At birth, the human mind is a blank slate. -1.081 -1.527 0.446
5 Few qualities are as important as self-restraint. 0.992 0.591 0.401
71
Concepts which cannot be omitted in practice are likely true whether
or not they are easily articulated. 0.697 0.315 0.382
7 People who say they are fighting for the oppressed probably are. -0.923 -1.297 0.374
40 One should be unafraid of being openly religious. 1.307 1.018 0.289
3
Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the state of the
world. 0.609 0.333 0.276
53
Most media professionals do the best they can to understand and
convey various perspectives. -1.169 -1.423 0.254
30 Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive. -0.855 -1.085 0.23
78 Journalists today are incurious. 0.245 0.111 0.134
60
It's important to attain a classical, liberal education no matter what
you do as an occupation. 0.138 0.102 0.036
64 Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values. 0.226 0.231 -0.005
70 Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 0.974 1.044 -0.07
47
One cannot expect to understand an opposing view without having
similar life experiences as their opponent. -1.464 -1.317 -0.147
59 A government's role is to promote equal or near-equal results for all. -2.299 -2.136 -0.163
8 It is shameful to take an insult lying down. -0.943 -0.774 -0.169
46
It's important to understand an idea which you oppose from the
perspective of one who affirms it. 0.923 1.097 -0.174
39
Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you do not now
know. -0.088 0.088 -0.176
17
One's race/ethnic background does not predetermine their level of
success in our society. 0.334 0.552 -0.218
65
The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different
pathways in life. -0.471 -0.23 -0.241
51
Compared to other forms of governance, western democracies are
generally of superior quality. 0.629 1.015 -0.386
55 A government should act more like a police officer than a parent. 0.088 0.506 -0.418
58 A college degree says little about one's acquisition of knowledge. 0.088 0.522 -0.434
75
There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without
responsibility. 0.766 1.214 -0.448

144. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
138
31 Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological clarity. 0.069 0.547 -0.478
13
Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning
evaporates, you have yourself to blame. -0.817 -0.332 -0.485
54
Social media sites enhance the effects of confirmation bias amongst
their users. 0.157 0.664 -0.507
29 It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 0.138 1.126 -0.988
26 Religious belief can be just as logical as any other system of thought. -0.295 0.952 -1.247
33
Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot be
said of other living creatures. 0.226 1.521 -1.295
73 The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. -0.678 0.66 -1.338
28 Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. -1.307 0.13 -1.437
23 Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure's absence. -0.748 0.703 -1.451
10
The things which most bother us about others are often precisely
what have remained unexamined in ourselves. -0.905 0.623 -1.528
76 In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. -0.521 1.024 -1.545
22
No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be listened
to. -1.847 -0.258 -1.589
25 Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. -0.629 0.962 -1.591
50
Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's
baked into the fabric of reality. -0.502 1.11 -1.612
1 What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. -0.748 0.881 -1.629
12 Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways. -0.345 1.361 -1.706
68 It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. -0.383 1.456 -1.839
77 We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. -1.131 0.863 -1.994
45 Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. -1.514 0.865 -2.379
36 God directly communicates with people. -1.985 0.441 -2.426
69 We all possess a spark of divine virtue. -1.288 1.367 -2.655
42
While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist. -0.992 1.702 -2.694
49 Human life exists after death. -1.828 1.272 -3.1

145. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
139
Appendix IIf: Factor Difference Between 2 and 3
# Statement 2 3 Diff
34 Religion is a product of human evolution. 0.501 -1.449 1.95
35 There is no God. -0.639 -2.107 1.468
43
Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are
considered. 0.4 -1.033 1.433
37 Religious belief can be valuable even if it is untrue. 1.06 -0.257 1.317
64 Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values. 1.354 0.231 1.123
41 People of all religions worship the same thing in the end. -0.783 -1.865 1.082
66 For the most part, things are looking up in our culture. 0.135 -0.896 1.031
67 It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 1.134 0.117 1.017
19
While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's
fundamentally imperative that I solve my own problems to the best
of my ability. 1.505 0.535 0.97
70 Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 1.977 1.044 0.933
11 The best way to see life is as an adventure. 1.204 0.301 0.903
13
Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning
evaporates, you have yourself to blame. 0.516 -0.332 0.848
38
The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which
the whole of reality is accidental. -0.473 -1.234 0.761
2 Interpersonal trust is the most foundational natural resource. 1.482 0.765 0.717
24 For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. 0.099 -0.493 0.592
48 The law serves those who control it. 0.029 -0.517 0.546
65
The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different
pathways in life. 0.306 -0.23 0.536
75
There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without
responsibility. 1.67 1.214 0.456
16
Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather than
their own. 1.097 0.645 0.452
63 It's more important to be empathetic than to be dominant. 0.462 0.018 0.444
7 People who say they are fighting for the oppressed probably are. -0.882 -1.297 0.415
77 We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. 1.227 0.863 0.364
44
The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or
detriment to society. -0.504 -0.864 0.36
46
It's important to understand an idea which you oppose from the
perspective of one who affirms it. 1.449 1.097 0.352
50
Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's
baked into the fabric of reality. 1.447 1.11 0.337
27 Truth is mostly paradoxical. -0.279 -0.555 0.276
72 I trust myself. -0.092 -0.335 0.243

146. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
140
61 College professors are generally trustworthy. -0.343 -0.584 0.241
39
Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you do not
now know. 0.325 0.088 0.237
60
It's important to attain a classical, liberal education no matter what
you do as an occupation. 0.299 0.102 0.197
74 Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse. -0.121 -0.293 0.172
31 Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological clarity. 0.699 0.547 0.152
51
Compared to other forms of governance, Western democracies are
generally of superior quality. 1.066 1.015 0.051
4 Evil can be overcome peacefully. -0.664 -0.71 0.046
78 Journalists today are incurious. 0.152 0.111 0.041
54
Social media sites enhance the effects of confirmation bias amongst
their users. 0.702 0.664 0.038
71
Concepts which cannot be omitted in practice are likely true whether
or not they are easily articulated. 0.343 0.315 0.028
32
There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides
the best ways to explain some things, but not all things. 1.029 1.03 -0.001
21
White males know that they are privileged and resent the fact that
others object to it. -1.811 -1.805 -0.006
20 Western societies work. 0.972 0.987 -0.015
3
Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the state of the
world. 0.279 0.333 -0.054
17
One's race/ethnic background does not predetermine their level of
success in our society. 0.457 0.552 -0.095
62
A government should provide for the basic living needs of its
citizenry. -1.296 -1.191 -0.105
69 We all possess a spark of divine virtue. 1.258 1.367 -0.109
53
Most media professionals do the best they can to understand and
convey various perspectives. -1.534 -1.423 -0.111
59 A government's role is to promote equal or near-equal results for all. -2.266 -2.136 -0.13
10
The things which most bother us about others are often precisely
what have remained unexamined in ourselves. 0.482 0.623 -0.141
23 Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure's absence. 0.548 0.703 -0.155
18 Racism is very prevalent in our current society. -1.51 -1.331 -0.179
76 In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. 0.841 1.024 -0.183
40 One should be unafraid of being openly religious. 0.815 1.018 -0.203
56
Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to
decide for themselves what to make of them. -1.633 -1.411 -0.222
47
One cannot expect to understand an opposing view without having
similar life experiences as their opponent. -1.544 -1.317 -0.227
6
Conflicts about inequality are more numerous in egalitarian
societies. -0.184 0.056 -0.24
14 We all have a duty to speak on behalf of marginalized groups. -1.047 -0.789 -0.258

147. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
141
55 A government should act more like a police officer than a parent. 0.247 0.506 -0.259
57
The news and entertainment industries need to do a better job of
raising awareness about racial discrimination. -1.831 -1.526 -0.305
9
The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other
people on top put barriers in their way. -1.556 -1.245 -0.311
8 It is shameful to take an insult lying down. -1.118 -0.774 -0.344
22
No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be listened
to. -0.703 -0.258 -0.445
58 A college degree says little about one's acquisition of knowledge. 0.072 0.522 -0.45
30 Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive. -1.538 -1.085 -0.453
68 It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. 0.953 1.456 -0.503
29 It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 0.603 1.126 -0.523
52
Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't
comprehend an idea in pristine form, you've no right to complain
about it making no sense to you. -1.075 -0.55 -0.525
5 Few qualities are as important as self-restraint. 0.044 0.591 -0.547
73 The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. 0.073 0.66 -0.587
15 At birth, the human mind is a blank slate. -2.147 -1.527 -0.62
1 What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. 0.18 0.881 -0.701
28 Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. -0.599 0.13 -0.729
25 Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. -0.109 0.962 -1.071
36 God directly communicates with people. -0.839 0.441 -1.28
42
While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist. 0.418 1.702 -1.284
45 Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. -0.507 0.865 -1.372
26
Religious belief can be just as logical as any other system of
thought. -0.704 0.952 -1.656
12 Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways. -0.297 1.361 -1.658
33
Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot be
said of other living creatures. -0.316 1.521 -1.837
49 Human life exists after death. -0.968 1.272 -2.24

148. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
142
III. Factor Loadings
Factor Defining Sorts Flagged
Part. #.Q-sort Factor 1a Factor 1b Factor 2 Factor 3
1 Participant 1 0.3375 -0.3375 -0.0367 0.5708 flagged
2 Participant 2 0.5689 flagged -0.5689 0.3397 0.1847
3 Participant 3 0.3699 -0.3699 0.5346 0.4722
4 Participant 4 -0.1057 0.1057 0.543 flagged 0.3648
5 Participant 5 0.4427 -0.4427 0.3726 0.5605
6 Participant 6 0.3423 -0.3423 0.2813 0.5858 flagged
7 Participant 7 0.3402 -0.3402 0.3272 0.1085
8 Participant 8 0.3955 -0.3955 -0.0224 0.7523 flagged
9 Participant 9 0.5057 -0.5057 0.1588 0.5273
10 Participant 10 0.1531 -0.1531 0.4613 0.4982
11 Participant 11 0.364 -0.364 0.2471 0.7534 flagged
12 Participant 12 0.2749 -0.2749 0.5632 flagged 0.2945
13 Participant 13 0.1159 -0.1159 0.5764 flagged 0.354
14 Participant 14 -0.0801 0.0801 0.3175 0.0951
15 Participant 15 0.4367 -0.4367 0.1442 0.6881 flagged
16 Participant 16 0.3816 -0.3816 0.1809 0.6318 flagged
17 Participant 17 0.5951 flagged -0.5951 0.4272 0.39
18 Participant 18 0.5057 flagged -0.5057 0.3607 0.2
19 Participant 19 0.1296 -0.1296 0.4961 0.5355
20 Participant 20 -0.0528 0.0528 0.4844 flagged 0.1923
21 Participant 21 0.4746 flagged -0.4746 0.1312 0.4037
22 Participant 22 0.5846 flagged -0.5846 0.3698 0.2153
23 Participant 23 0.3079 -0.3079 0.301 0.6142 flagged
24 Participant 24 0.4455 flagged -0.4455 0.3832 0.3223
25 Participant 25 0.3371 -0.3371 0.3703 0.4506

149. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
143
26 Participant 26 0.4542 -0.4542 0.1669 0.6971 flagged
27 Participant 27 0.2466 -0.2466 0.4846 flagged 0.0765
28 Participant 28 0.5759 -0.5759 0.0094 0.564
29 Participant 29 -0.1697 0.1697 flagged 0.3338 -0.0496
30 Participant 30 0.1621 -0.1621 0.5331 flagged 0.444
31 Participant 31 0.3466 -0.3466 0.0246 0.4226 flagged
32 Participant 32 0.1635 -0.1635 0.5177 0.4855
33 Participant 33 0.3419 -0.3419 0.3294 0.4942
34 Participant 34 0.4315 -0.4315 0.2473 0.6012 flagged
35 Participant 35 0.2545 -0.2545 0.1444 0.6117 flagged
36 Participant 36 0.2778 -0.2778 0.5825 flagged 0.3857
37 Participant 37 0.4134 -0.4134 0.118 0.0726
38 Participant 38 0.3004 -0.3004 0.5242 0.5767
39 Participant 39 0.3694 -0.3694 0.5146 0.4788
40 Participant 40 0.2002 -0.2002 0.6352 flagged 0.3827
41 Participant 41 0.4778 -0.4778 0.1742 0.589 flagged
42 Participant 42 0.1436 -0.1436 0.3563 0.5429 flagged
43 Participant 43 0.4676 flagged -0.4676 0.3664 0.3576
44 Participant 44 0.708 flagged -0.708 0.0253 0.3876
45 Participant 45 0.3053 -0.3053 0.0947 0.5972 flagged
46 Participant 46 0.1265 -0.1265 0.3835 0.7242 flagged
47 Participant 47 0.1842 -0.1842 0.4246 0.5367 flagged
48 Participant 48 0.4133 -0.4133 0.557 flagged 0.2473
49 Participant 49 0.5136 flagged -0.5136 0.4042 0.3187
50 Participant 50 0.2955 -0.2955 0.3398 0.5944 flagged
51 Participant 51 0.3796 -0.3796 0.2671 0.5905 flagged
52 Participant 52 -0.1197 0.1197 flagged 0.5054 0.3854
53 Participant 53 0.0184 -0.0184 0.5169 0.525
54 Participant 54 0.5396 flagged -0.5396 0.2656 0.4394

150. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
144
55 Participant 55 0.482 -0.482 0.1168 0.6347 flagged
56 Participant 56 0.1312 -0.1312 0.6015 flagged 0.5466
57 Participant 57 0.3082 -0.3082 0.4962 0.5255
58 Participant 58 0.0968 -0.0968 0.2617 0.4509 flagged
59 Participant 59 0.65 flagged -0.65 0.2231 0.5709
60 Participant 60 0.2439 -0.2439 0.6544 flagged 0.2887
61 Participant 61 0.0838 -0.0838 0.6108 flagged 0.332
62 Participant 62 0.1662 -0.1662 0.0374 0.3087
63 Participant 63 0.5688 flagged -0.5688 0.3576 0.3489
64 Participant 64 0.1416 -0.1416 0.3717 0.5524 flagged
65 Participant 65 0.0735 -0.0735 0.6024 flagged 0.234
66 Participant 66 0.4763 -0.4763 0.4037 0.0073
67 Participant 67 0.514 flagged -0.514 -0.0158 0.3911
68 Participant 68 0.312 -0.312 0.4872 0.3238
69 Participant 69 0.3697 -0.3697 0.3313 0.5738 flagged
%Explained Variance 14 14 15 22

151. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
145
IV. Statement Weights
Factor Q-sort Values for Statements sorted by Consensus vs. Disagreement
# Statement 1a 1b 2 3
Z-Score
variance
8 It is shameful to take an insult lying down. -3 -3 -4 -2 0.017
53
Most media professionals do the best they can to understand and
convey various perspectives. -5 -4 -5 -5 0.018
47
One cannot expect to understand an opposing view without having
similar life experiences as their opponent. -4 -5 -5 -4 0.021
3
Each person has intrinsic and equal responsibility for the state of the
world. 2 2 1 1 0.022
39
Most things you believe are probably true for reasons you do not now
know. -1 -1 1 0 0.025
7 People who say they are fighting for the oppressed probably are. -4 -3 -3 -4 0.026
17
One's race/ethnic background does not predetermine their level of
success in our society. 0 1 1 1 0.031
58 A college degree says little about one's acquisition of knowledge. 1 0 0 1 0.033
46
It's important to understand an idea which you oppose from the
perspective of one who affirms it. 4 4 5 4 0.038
21
White males know that they are privileged and resent the fact that
others object to it. -5 -5 -6 -6 0.056
60
It's important to attain a classical, liberal education no matter what
you do as an occupation. -1 0 1 0 0.06
54
Social media sites enhance the effects of confirmation bias amongst
their users. 1 1 3 2 0.06
71
Concepts which cannot be omitted in practice are likely true whether
or not they are easily articulated. 3 2 1 0 0.062
59 A government's role is to promote equal or near-equal results for all. -5 -6 -6 -6 0.071
40 One should be unafraid of being openly religious. 1 5 3 4 0.077
55 A government should act more like a police officer than a parent. -1 0 0 1 0.1
63 It's more important to be empathetic than to be dominant. 1 3 2 -1 0.104
75
There's no sustaining and deep meaning in a life without
responsibility. 4 3 6 5 0.104
11 The best way to see life is as an adventure. 3 3 4 0 0.105
57
The news and entertainment industries need to do a better job of
raising awareness about racial discrimination. -4 -4 -6 -5 0.106
2 Interpersonal trust is the most foundational natural resource. 2 5 6 2 0.119
29 It is impossible to act as if free will does not exist. 1 0 2 5 0.127
6 Conflicts about inequality are more numerous in egalitarian societies. -1 2 -1 -1 0.14
30 Evolutionary theory and religion are mutually exclusive. -6 -3 -5 -3 0.141
61 College professors are generally trustworthy. -2 1 -2 -2 0.147
78 Journalists today are incurious. -2 1 0 0 0.151

152. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
146
4 Evil can be overcome peacefully. 0 1 -2 -2 0.154
32
There are many ways of knowing: The Scientific Method provides
the best ways to explain some things, but not all things. 4 6 3 4 0.171
70 Speaking truthfully makes life more profound. 6 4 6 4 0.171
41 People of all religions worship the same thing in the end. -5 -3 -3 -6 0.178
31 Religious belief is natural and can bring about psychological clarity. 5 0 2 1 0.2
16
Some people are too invested in other people's problems rather than
their own. 0 5 4 2 0.201
15 At birth, the human mind is a blank slate. -6 -4 -6 -5 0.208
9
The main reason so many people don't attain their dreams is other
people on top put barriers in their way. -4 -1 -5 -4 0.211
72 I trust myself. 0 3 -1 -1 0.212
64 Each of us must attempt to articulate our own hierarchy of values. 2 1 5 0 0.217
51
Compared to other forms of governance, Western democracies are
generally of superior quality. -1 2 4 3 0.23
5 Few qualities are as important as self-restraint. -1 4 0 1 0.247
13
Aside from rare exceptions, when your sense of life's meaning
evaporates, you have yourself to blame. 1 -3 2 -1 0.262
37 Religious belief can be valuable even if it is untrue. 0 3 4 -1 0.267
65
The soul is what manifests itself in the choice between different
pathways in life. 3 -2 1 -1 0.268
43
Truth and value are relative to the contexts in which they are
considered. -1 0 1 -3 0.27
73 The arts have been largely subverted by political agendas. -2 -2 0 2 0.273
52
Precision is more important than intelligibility. If you can't
comprehend an idea in pristine form, you've no right to complain
about it making no sense to you. -2 2 -4 -2 0.274
28 Ideas cannot be true and false at the same time. -4 -5 -2 0 0.284
18 Racism is very prevalent in our current society. -2 -1 -4 -4 0.309
20 Western societies work. 0 6 3 3 0.32
62
A government should provide for the basic living needs of its
citizenry. -2 0 -4 -3 0.32
27 Truth is mostly paradoxical. 3 -1 -1 -2 0.324
66 For the most part, things are looking up in our culture. -3 2 0 -3 0.332
22
No one is perfect, but serious moral offenders should not be listened
to. -3 -6 -3 -1 0.336
24 For a thing or idea to be valuable, it must be useful. -3 3 0 -2 0.363
19
While it's nice to receive a helping hand from time to time, it's
fundamentally imperative that I solve my own problems to the best of
my ability. 2 6 6 1 0.394
23 Value can be found (and often is found) amidst pleasure's absence. 3 -2 2 2 0.409

153. A CONVERGING RHETORICAL VISION
147
38
The only sense in which we are not accidents is the sense in which
the whole of reality is accidental. -6 -1 -2 -4 0.42
14 We all have a duty to speak on behalf of marginalized groups. 0 2 -4 -3 0.45
67 It can be quite difficult to find a place in life. 1 6 4 0 0.453
68 It's an admirable goal to bring children into existence. 2 -1 3 6 0.453
33
Every human possesses intrinsic dignity, something which cannot be
said of other living creatures. 0 1 -1 6 0.468
26 Religious belief can be just as logical as any other system of thought. 2 -1 -3 3 0.471
12 Men and women are opposites in many real, unalterable ways. 1 -1 -1 5 0.472
48 The law serves those who control it. -3 4 -1 -2 0.478
76 In the end, you cannot get away with a lie. 5 -2 3 4 0.538
50
Suffering is not merely a result of human cravings and fears; it's
baked into the fabric of reality. 3 -2 5 5 0.549
34 Religion is a product of human evolution. -3 0 2 -5 0.558
10
The things which most bother us about others are often precisely
what have remained unexamined in ourselves. 4 -3 2 2 0.571
25 Some actions are right/wrong regardless of their consequences. 5 -2 -1 3 0.615
74 Overall, corruption drives poverty rather than the reverse. -1 5 -1 -1 0.654
56
Traditional sources of news report facts and leave the public to
decide for themselves what to make of them. -5 1 -5 -5 0.66
1 What is painful about the world can be transformed into good. 6 -2 0 3 0.674
77 We are all involved in the struggle to improve Being. 4 -4 5 2 0.9
42
While context certainly matters, it is nonetheless true that moral
universals exist. 5 -4 1 6 1.075
44
The correctness of a given course of action rests on its benefit or
detriment to society. -2 5 -2 -3 1.075
45 Deep down, at least, I know I am here for a reason. 6 -5 -2 3 1.377
69 We all possess a spark of divine virtue. 6 -5 5 6 1.454
36 God directly communicates with people. 5 -6 -3 1 1.599
49 Human life exists after death. 2 -6 -3 5 1.627
35 There is no God. -6 4 -2 -6 1.97