Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian? · 22-01-2018 4:50pm

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can you name one who would be able to beat Peterson in a debate arguing about patriarchy, gender pay gap and other such nonsense?

No I can’t name the winner of a debate before the debate occurs. I’m not clairvoyant.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 4:53pm

markodaly wrote: »

Are you Cathy Newman by any chance? He said it was one of the ways to combat gender disparity, not the only way. Did you miss the segment on where in his sessions he worked with women and their negotiating skills and training them in assertiveness?

You fall into the same trap that many feminists do, you project what you think he is saying but not actually listening to what he actually says.

Yes. He said it was one of the ways. But it was the only way he offered. The irony of your last point is hilarious. I said it was the only solution he offered, I did not say he said it was the only solution. Go back and read what I said.

I have repeatedly said I listened with interest and agreed with a lot of his points. So keep up.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 4:56pm

Ush1 wrote: »

"Report the story, don't become the story."

I’d agree if she did a investigative piece on Peterson. But she didn’t. She interviewed him and allowed him to speak for himself with no edits.

Wombatman · 22-01-2018 4:57pm

Brian? wrote: »

She did a job because of the answers she got. Simples. She did a very good job of having Peterson explain his opinions. Do I like how she did it? Not really. But that’s not the point. She didn’t engage in a debate with him, she got him speaking in depth. Job done.

Totally disagree. She didn't let him explain in any depth. She kept interrupting him every few seconds. He never got to finish this point on childish men because she moved him off on a tangent or two.

She misquoted him a few times and paraphrased him incorrectly often. Kept saying "So you are saying......." as if she was having trouble understanding his analysis or trying to dumb it down.

This guy can expend and talk at length on his hypotheses. He is interesting even if you don't agree with him. If it was a case of not giving him a platform or allowing his ideas to propagate, well just don't invite him on.

A Little Pony · 22-01-2018 4:57pm

Brian? wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Can you name one who would be able to beat Peterson in a debate arguing about patriarchy, gender pay gap and other such nonsense?

No I can’t name the winner of a debate before the debate occurs. I’m not clairvoyant.

You still can't give a name of any feminists who could stand with Dr Peterson in any debate. This is literally Dr Peterson's life work. He is a clinical psychologist. His dismantling of opportunity of outcome as one such example in the interview.

If I was feminist I would look to avoid at all costs, they don't need that work as they would say in boxing.

cantdecide · 22-01-2018 5:01pm

This is like that scene in Oh Brother Where Art Thou

Start at 0:50 (I can't get the delay thing to work)

markodaly · 22-01-2018 5:04pm

Brian? wrote: »

Yes. He said it was one of the ways. But it was the only way he offered..

So you admit he said women being less agreeable is one of many ways to combat the gender pay gap, but because he did not give a blow by blow peer reviewed account on all the other ways, while may I add, being interrupted by the interviewer, you said that "It’s the only actual solution to any problem he suggests" and you "find this hilarious"?

Sounds to me the interviewer did a bad job then of not probing more deeply this topic but instead want to try and get him in a 'Gotcha' moment which backfired completely leaving her professionally discredited as a professional journalist.

Max Prophet · 22-01-2018 5:04pm

silverharp wrote: »

family photo, I think I know who wears the pants in that family, the comment about women wanting men they can dominate takes on a new meaning now :pac:

Wow she's snagged herself a nice girly-man anyway !

xckjoo · 22-01-2018 5:04pm

Brian? wrote: »

An interviewer doesn’t debate an interviewee. That’s not their job. Their job is to extract the maximum amount from the subject. She actually does an extremely good job of it, as acknowledged by Peterson around 27 mins before the pause.

This game s a consistent issue I find with fanboys and of right wing speakers. They often crow about how their heros “crush” or “destroy” their interviewers. Everything is adversarial, for no apparent reason. Milo fanboys are the worst for it.

I was quite impressed with Peterson as a speaker until the mask slips towards the end. I agree with a large part of what he says, yet I would consider myself a feminist. His bias is clear at points though. He’s made his mind up and is falling into the trap of arguing from the position of “eminence” towards the end, hence the “I’m a clinical psychologist “ line. His title gives him no right to judge, it’s at odds with the rest of the interview.

His attack on “cultural Marxism” and conflating feminism with it is tiresome.

Ironically his only solution for any gender disparity is for women to be less agreeable. I find this hilarious. If you listen it’s the only actual solution to any problem he suggests. Everything else he says is exposition on the problems.

His point was that the pay-gap (I assume this is the gender disparity you're talking about) is not due to gender alone but is a multifaceted issue. One of the issues is that women are generally more agreeable, which makes them less likely to fight for pay rises, etc. He also mentions that women are more likely to chose a career that pays less, which contributes to the overall income gap between men and women. So you're looking for him to provide a solution to a problem that he doesn't think exists.

Ush1 · 22-01-2018 5:05pm

Brian? wrote: »

I’d agree if she did a investigative piece on Peterson. But she didn’t. She interviewed him and allowed him to speak for himself with no edits.

That's exactly how it played out. As an interview, it was awful. Speaking over the guest, constantly misquoting or misrepresenting points, long awkward pauses while she needed to think, etc....

I mean, how you think she did a good job is beyond me. If a viewer knew nothing of the subject matter they would still be pretty clueless after. This is in no way cheerleading Peterson either as all he could do was respond to what was being asked.

MagicIRL · 22-01-2018 5:05pm

Brian? wrote: »

When making a report yes. When interviewing, no. She’s challenging someone sitting in front of her for answers. Why is impartiality needed? They can defend themselves, as Peterson did very well.

But she didn't challenge him at all. This was Jordan Peterson's facts against her opinion. If she had remained objective then she could've challenged him with actual statistics and facts herself. Instead, she harped on about a 9% pay gap based on gender, which was her opinion and misinformed, and when that was dismantled, she had nothing else to go to so went digging in the same well time and time again. She resorted to trying to put words into his mouth to preface all of her statements.

Why do I believe impartiality is needed? I'm not watching this interview for a Man vs Woman slugfest. If Jordan Peterson is claiming some extraordinary things relating to gender and pay discrepancies then I would like a decent journalist to be well researched and to challenge his facts and claims with evidence. You know, do a little journalistic research beforehand instead of going with what they themselves believe and trying to force it to be right, despite everything pointing to the contrary.

But no. All we got was a woman with an ill-informed opinion getting progressively louder and louder until she eventually got completely tongue tied. I'm none the wiser as to whether Jordan Peterson's claims are correct or not or if they have any gravitas at all.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 5:08pm

A Little Pony wrote: »

You still can't give a name of any feminists who could stand with Dr Peterson in any debate. This is literally Dr Peterson's life work. He is a clinical psychologist. His dismantling of opportunity of outcome as one such example in the interview.

If I was feminist I would look to avoid at all costs, they don't need that work as they would say in boxing.

You asked me if I could name a feminist who beat him in a debate. What are you asking me now, if you're asking me anything?

markodaly · 22-01-2018 5:09pm

Brain, who would you classify as an Intelligent Feminist?

xckjoo · 22-01-2018 5:14pm

20Cent wrote: »

I didn't comment on the video just him from other stuff I've seen. Media is so dumbed down anyone can state obvious things throw in some scientific words or facts and be hailed as an intellectual. That's what he is doing and also selling buzzfeed style self help. Not impressed by him at all but he is telling the alt right what they want to hear so cashing in on it.

Can you give some kind of explanation on what you found that made you form the opinion? He seemed well put together here so I'd like to see an alternative point-of-view.

razorblunt · 22-01-2018 5:15pm

I've just watched the video, my word she was completely out of her depth, quite quickly. I don't doubt she's bright but she went into this with an agenda and was just torn apart. Torn apart politely which is probably the worst part of it for her. He just brushed her aside.

This can be added to the time Downey Jr sent Guru-Murthy packing, though I don't think any cards were played that time other then "congrats, you've embarrassed yourself".

Also the smugness when he said he was "uncomfortable", she thought he had him there, but his whole point snookered her.

Zulu · 22-01-2018 5:31pm

Max Prophet wrote: »

Wow she's snagged herself a nice girly-man anyway !

Seriously - wtf. :rolleyes: Your slating a guy because of a photo.
I know this is afterhours, but come on.
Sweet suffering jesus.

valoren · 22-01-2018 5:32pm

Instead of attempting to deflect using the angle of her getting attacked in the aftermath, perhaps it would be wiser for Channel 4 to simply not draw attention to this interview where the lack of professional competence of their News team is very politely exposed.

Omackeral · 22-01-2018 5:32pm

Brian? wrote: »

This carry on of “Let’s all cheer Dr Peterson for winning a one sided debate, because we already love him.” Is a nonsense.

Nah, that's just an assumption you're making. Many readers on here haven't seen or heard Jordan Peterson's videos until this thread. This is the first time I've seen a full segment with him so had no pre-existing fan boy love for him and I most certainly would cheer, for want of a better word, him now if he's consistently like this. He comes across as articulate, truthful and reasonable.

cantdecide · 22-01-2018 5:37pm

Omackeral wrote: »

This is the first time I've seen a full segment with him so had no pre-existing fan boy love for him and I most certainly would cheer, for want of a better word, him now if he's consistently like this. He comes across as articulate, truthful and reasonable.

This wasn't even his best work!!

Herb Powell · 22-01-2018 5:38pm

silverharp wrote: »

family photo, I think I know who wears the pants in that family, the comment about women wanting men they can dominate takes on a new meaning now :pac:

Max Prophet wrote: »

Wow she's snagged herself a nice girly-man anyway !

That's fairly pathetic from ye now I'd have to say.

Omackeral · 22-01-2018 5:40pm

20Cent wrote: »

I didn't comment on the video just him from other stuff I've seen. Media is so dumbed down anyone can state obvious things throw in some scientific words or facts and be hailed as an intellectual. That's what he is doing and also selling buzzfeed style self help. Not impressed by him at all but he is telling the alt right what they want to hear so cashing in on it.

Well he is a literal professor like...

Max Prophet · 22-01-2018 5:47pm

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously - wtf. :rolleyes: Your slating a guy because of a photo.
I know this is afterhours, but come on.
Sweet suffering jesus.

Not slating anyone. But I think it might explain her aggressive and looney behaviour when he pointed out about women with weak partners usually ending up unhappy. It was inadvertently too close to home for the lass.

silverharp · 22-01-2018 5:50pm

Herb Powell wrote: »

That's fairly pathetic from ye now I'd have to say.

it explains her motives somewhat, she doesn't have any sons and her husband looks pretty subservient in the whole scene. If she had 2 boys I bet she would have approached Peterson differently or her views would be a bit more mellow

Max Prophet · 22-01-2018 5:53pm

silverharp wrote: »

it explains her motives somewhat, she doesn't have any sons and her husband looks pretty subservient in the whole scene. If she had 2 boys I bet she would have approached Peterson differently or her views would be a bit more mellow

Beta males tend to produce girls.

silverharp · 22-01-2018 5:56pm

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

I draw the line at that unless you have some evidence.

Sonics2k · 22-01-2018 5:58pm

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

What the hell?

Please, please please tell me you're trolling and not this stupid.

benjamin d · 22-01-2018 6:02pm

Guys this thread is proving to be seriously interesting and respectful for the most part. PLEASE drop the photo talk and related discussion as it's completely beyond the pale and exactly what some people would probably like this thread to descend to.

Zulu · 22-01-2018 6:03pm

Max Prophet wrote: »

It was inadvertently too close to home for the lass.

And you are seriously asserting this from a single photo you've looked at? Seriously??

silverharp wrote: »

...her husband looks pretty subservient in the whole scene.

To you too: you are seriously asserting this from a single photo you've looked at? Seriously??

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

Ahh ok, its a wind-up? Right?? I mean, right??? Please...

Brian? · 22-01-2018 6:04pm

markodaly wrote: »

Brain, who would you classify as an Intelligent Feminist?

Who’s this “Brain” character?

JMNolan · 22-01-2018 6:04pm

There will always be people that will personalize these topics but what I don't like is the narrative that these people are Petersons "followers" which implies that he condones this activity and therefore his arguments can be disregarded.

silverharp · 22-01-2018 6:05pm

Zulu wrote: »

To you too: you are seriously asserting this from a single photo you've looked at? Seriously??

combined with her statement that women might like their relationships where they dominate men.

cantdecide · 22-01-2018 6:06pm

Brian? wrote: »

Who’s this “Brain” character?

brevity · 22-01-2018 6:06pm

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

Well that's ****ing stupid.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 6:06pm

MagicIRL wrote: »

But she didn't challenge him at all. This was Jordan Peterson's facts against her opinion. If she had remained objective then she could've challenged him with actual statistics and facts herself. Instead, she harped on about a 9% pay gap based on gender, which was her opinion and misinformed, and when that was dismantled, she had nothing else to go to so went digging in the same well time and time again. She resorted to trying to put words into his mouth to preface all of her statements.

Why do I believe impartiality is needed? I'm not watching this interview for a Man vs Woman slugfest. If Jordan Peterson is claiming some extraordinary things relating to gender and pay discrepancies then I would like a decent journalist to be well researched and to challenge his facts and claims with evidence. You know, do a little journalistic research beforehand instead of going with what they themselves believe and trying to force it to be right, despite everything pointing to the contrary.

But no. All we got was a woman with an ill-informed opinion getting progressively louder and louder until she eventually got completely tongue tied. I'm none the wiser as to whether Jordan Peterson's claims are correct or not or if they have any gravitas at all.

There are too many posts to reply to in detail.

What “ill informed opinion” did she express? I’ll need to rewatch the video, but I don’t recall her ever actually expressing an opinion on any of it.

Zulu · 22-01-2018 6:07pm

silverharp wrote: »

combined with her statement that women might like their relationships where they dominate men.

Oh well thats a solid argument so!

...you're pulling it out of your ass, and ironically appear to be doing exactly what she appeared to be doing - projecting - dealing in vague wishy-washy assumptions as opposed to established facts.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 6:07pm

Omackeral wrote: »

Nah, that's just an assumption you're making. Many readers on here haven't seen or heard Jordan Peterson's videos until this thread. This is the first time I've seen a full segment with him so had no pre-existing fan boy love for him and I most certainly would cheer, for want of a better word, him now if he's consistently like this. He comes across as articulate, truthful and reasonable.

I didn’t mean just here.

ligerdub · 22-01-2018 6:09pm

It must be nice to have the sort of job Cathy Newman has. She can just make up the rules as she goes along, depending on the result of course.

If it goes well she is the "pull no punches" "tough" journalist who cuts right to the facts. If she doesn't do so well she's playing devil's advocate, and played her role of getting him to bring his opinions forward like a pro. It's nonsense! The fact is she went in for him and completely failed. Not only that she seemed to have absolutely no willingness to consider or listen to his viewpoint. I thought that was a thing that men were stereotypically viewed upon negatively for, funny that.

When that didn't work then it's time to go to the tried and tested victim status. Once this is done of course the seed has been planted and all of the negative stuff that she was on the end of (apparently) can be attributed to Petersen. It's pathetic, and bordering on the juvenile.

She didn't have to be in that role either. It would have been no problem if Petersen was debating with an invited panelist, in fact it would have looked quite normal.

It doesn't surprise me that she completely bombed on this one, she was up against a vastly superior intellect and temperament than herself, and on the subject matter that is his forte. I dare say most people didn't really know who she was to begin with, I'm just surprised this sort of clanger hasn't come to public prominence before. I recall an interview she did with Milo Y about a year or so ago. He was describing something or other and she kept on twisting his words to insist on that making him a feminist. That was merely the starting point to it.

It's so unbelievably disingenuous that it's almost at the point of being sad that this is seen as acceptable/encouraged within the media (of which Channel 4 is definitely a suitable example of).

As for JP, I find some of the criticisms of him hilarious. I'm particularly tickled by the claims that he's:

1. some sort of pied piper for the alt-right. He has quite clearly distanced himself from them. I'm not even at all sure they like him either!

2. Doing this as a way to cash in - this is a guy who was virtually unknown outside of his university and decided to resist the compulsion of him to speak in a certain way......and did so at the risk of entirely losing his livelihood.

In fact were it not for the fact that he was able to garner a degree of support, a support he could never envisage, he would almost certainly have been fired from the university. He makes a few quid from various different things.......so what! He has something to offer, and there are plenty of people in similar jobs to him who have done exactly that for decades.

You also have to consider the fact that he's protecting his future. He could still find himself forced out of his job.

I have no issue with those who criticise the man for specific views that he holds (as some on this thread have done). There's a bit of ammunition there for sure. However, much of the criticism of him seems to be wildly generic and clearly just on the basis that he's an inconvenience to "the cause". It smacks of hollow trashtalk and without a deep understanding of him or his views.

I like Petersen, I think he's a crucial voice in a world which had decided to forget principles of how to properly support your argument. There seems to be this mindset that you win the debate in the sort of Question Time type format where you're looking for the biggest claps from the audience, rather than through proper reasoning. Petersen takes the debates on head-on and with confidence, and so he should.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 6:09pm

Omackeral wrote: »

Well he is a literal professor like...

This goes back to the point I made earlier, that no one had addressed. This is arguing from a position of eminence not evidence. You can simply point to someone’s qualifications as a reason they’re right.

brevity · 22-01-2018 6:10pm

She seems to have picked some headlines and used them as her argument. Which in one way is great as it allowed Peterson to pick them apart.

Saruhashi · 22-01-2018 6:10pm

20Cent wrote: »

I didn't comment on the video just him from other stuff I've seen. Media is so dumbed down anyone can state obvious things throw in some scientific words or facts and be hailed as an intellectual. That's what he is doing and also selling buzzfeed style self help. Not impressed by him at all but he is telling the alt right what they want to hear so cashing in on it.

"So you're saying you agree with the Alt-Right?"

Oh noes! The Alt-Right? Whatever shall we do?

Haha. So he is stating obvious things and the alt right are happy because they like to hear obvious things...

Are we supposed to deny the blatantly obvious because it's what the alt right want to hear?

I heard the Alt-Right are drinking water and breathing air these days too.

brevity · 22-01-2018 6:11pm

Also, where is all the playing the victim stuff coming from? She seems to enjoy the debate as much as anyone.

Saruhashi · 22-01-2018 6:13pm

Brian? wrote: »

I’ll call it what it is. A journalist interviewing a man.

So you're saying journalists can't interview women?

Brian? · 22-01-2018 6:16pm

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

Go on. I’d like to hear more.

Ipso · 22-01-2018 6:17pm

Is this another instance of the crime, speaking while male?

Brian? · 22-01-2018 6:17pm

Saruhashi wrote: »

So you're saying journalists can't interview women?

Don’t be facetious.

20Cent · 22-01-2018 6:17pm

xckjoo wrote: »

Can you give some kind of explanation on what you found that made you form the opinion? He seemed well put together here so I'd like to see an alternative point-of-view.

His idea that "radical leftists" or "Postmodern neo-Marxists are trying to destroy society. Bit of a conspiracy theory. Most of what he says is totally rational and not controversial at all. But he does come out with the odd mad bit.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 6:18pm

Ipso wrote: »

Is this another instance of the crime, speaking while male?

Has anyone said a crime was committed? Genuinely curious. I know the police were called in to review comments.

Maximus Alexander · 22-01-2018 6:18pm

markodaly wrote: »

Seems to be a bit of kerfuffle about this interview, mostly on how Jordan Peterson schooled Cathy Newman on almost every point and her own personal philosophy about feminism and the patriarchy. There is a 5 second WTF silence in the middle of it when she releases, that she is losing, losing badly and tries to rescue her efforts anyway but how.

Now, the news is not about the disgraceful and unprofessional way the interview was handled but about mean people on the internet acting up and being dicks.

I suppose after such a car crash, they have to change the narrative. Will 2018 be the beginning of the end of these sacred feminist myths?

Count the amount of times she says "You're saying..." followed by something that he absolutely did not say. I amazed at his ability to keep calm and composed.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 6:20pm

20Cent wrote: »

His idea that "radical leftists" or "Postmodern neo-Marxists are trying to destroy society. Bit of a conspiracy theory. Most of what he says is totally rational and not controversial at all. But he does come out with the odd mad bit.

Agree 100%. He had me mostly onboard until that point. His comment about “the market decides” was a bit out there as well. As if employment was a free market.

Brian? · 22-01-2018 6:20pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Count the amount of times she says "You're saying..." followed by something that he absolutely did not say. I amazed at his ability to keep calm and composed.

I suspect she was attempting to irk him. He handled it well.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments