Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Options
12357…201

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Icemancometh
    Registered Users Posts: 854 ✭✭✭Icemancometh


    I'm not sure if it was quite as one sided as people here make out. I don't know much about Peterson's background, but Newman continually referenced his book. Without having read his book I didn't quite understand a lot of her points. I think that if I knew more about his background, I might have understood her arguments a little better.

    That said, the lobster comparison and Pinochet as a left-wing totalitarian were pretty nutty.


  • Options
    #123
    koumi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 646 ✭✭✭koumi


    Icemancometh wrote: »
    I'm not sure if it was quite as one sided as people here make out. I don't know much about Peterson's background, but Newman continually referenced his book. Without having read his book I didn't quite understand a lot of her points. I think that if I knew more about his background, I might have understood her arguments a little better.

    That said, the lobster comparison and Pinochet as a left-wing totalitarian were pretty nutty.
    yeah, I was intrigued up until that point and then I started watching his body language and everything got lost on me, was like watching a pua in action. I'm always going to associate ssris with depressed lobsters now though. Hardly a bad thing.


  • Options
    #124
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Icemancometh wrote: »
    I'm not sure if it was quite as one sided as people here make out. I don't know much about Peterson's background, but Newman continually referenced his book. Without having read his book I didn't quite understand a lot of her points. I think that if I knew more about his background, I might have understood her arguments a little better.

    That said, the lobster comparison and Pinochet as a left-wing totalitarian were pretty nutty.

    I broadly agree with this - she floundered badly at times, but she asked a few reasonable questions of Peterson as well, but often failed in addressing what he had to say in response - a better interviewer would have been in on top on some of the somewhat nuttier things he had to say. He was a quietly domineering interviewee and was able to articulate himself well and he made plenty of reasonable points, but I'd be wary of eating up and believing everything he has to say, just because he says certain other things that people deem to be profound truthes. Some of his assertions were arguable at best - not cast iron fact. And there were a few that sounded a little bit crazy.

    And I often feel that there's a touch of intelligently presented bullshit to a proportion of what he has to say - and it's this proportion of his work that tends to garner the most attention and support. Not that I think he frequently isn't on to something - I think he has got worthwhile things to say. But I wouldn't forget that his background is in a science that isn't exactly amongst the most-rock solid of hard and I think when he crosses over into the realms of philosophy I wonder how rigorous and objective his conclusions really are.


  • Options
    #125
    Pac1Man
    Registered Users Posts: 4,394 ✭✭✭Pac1Man


    Arghus wrote: »
    I broadly agree with this - she floundered badly at times, but she asked a few reasonable questions of Peterson as well, but often failed in addressing what he had to say in response - a better interviewer would have been in on top on some of the somewhat nuttier things he had to say.

    I don't think he had a chance to fully clarify. Any time he attempted to, she interjected with a strawman before he could finish.

    I would hardly call his reasoning nutty either.


  • Options
    #126
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,341 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Pac1Man wrote: »
    I don't think he had a chance to fully clarify. Any time he attempted to, she interjected with a strawman before he could finish.

    I would hardly call his reasoning nutty either.

    I don't think his reasoning as a whole is nutty either - I say that in my post. But I think that not everything he has to say is gospel - and he does say a few things that are a bit daft in that interview.

    For instance equating the ideology, or at least the driving motivation, behind trans activists - and notice how he makes no distinction between any varying level of activism - to ideologies that led to the deaths of millions in the twentieth century. That might sound good to some ears, but it's a serious stretch on his part. It's an opinion he has, not an actual factual statement - you can't claim that's a fact: what rigorous research and evidence is he basing that on? But yet he claims it like it's an absolute categorical truth and he makes everything that comes out of his mouth sound like a categorical truth - even if it's far from it, at times.

    I don't think he's a spoofer. He's an intelligent and oftentimes profound man, but he has a tendency to ascribe truth to everything he says; he has biases and blind-spots just like the rest of us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,948 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Yes, there certainly is a difference between men and women in the jobs they choose, and in their levels of "agreeableness". Someone seriously interested in the subject would ask "Why? Where does that come from?", whereas he's perfectly happy to just stop there.

    To be honest, that is up to the interviewer to follow up on.

    The interviewer should have asked more probing questions about say, why are females more argeable and what is the root cause of that? Is it nature and evolution or is it environmental?

    Instead, she asked ridiculous follow up questions again and again, so he had to repeat and reword what he actually said, so that it was clear what he was communicating and not projecting something she thinks he was saying.


  • Options
    #128
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    markodaly wrote: »
    why are females more arguable and what is the root cause of that?

    That would have been some Freudian slip..


  • Options
    #129
    dayslikethis
    Site Banned Posts: 2 ✭dayslikethis


    lol neumann v peterstein
    its like watching 2 bums fighting over a shekel

    but in fairness to peterstein she was literally dripping after 20;29
    wetter than a cup of tea


  • Options
    #130
    take everything
    Registered Users Posts: 9,800 ✭✭✭take everything


    Love Jordan Peterson.

    She was utterly embarrassing.
    Useless at her job.


  • Options
    #131
    take everything
    Registered Users Posts: 9,800 ✭✭✭take everything


    It's terrible watching guy's like Peterson, a truly deep thinker, having to put up with a fool like this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    kneemos wrote: »
    Primary school teachers (mostly women) average thirty thousand for a basically part time job.
    30k isn't high.

    Have you ever done teaching? I have, at third level. It's exhausting and stressful. I even did a few weeks where the format was similar to primary teaching - teaching the same class continuously all day. Really draining.

    Personally I'd prefer wages for teaching to be high, and for the selection process to be rigorous and appropriate. It's in everyone's interest for teachers to be very good at what they do...

    Anyway men are generally sought after for primary teaching. I understand there is consensus that a better balance of sexes would be preferable. I don't think men are physically well suited to being NICU nurses though. The main reason is that the male response to stress is not appropriate.

    Men experience much higher cortisol levels from stress and from anticipation of stress. The fight or flight instinct is in fact fairly specific to males. Does an emergency require kicking doors in or shouting? Then you want males.

    Women experience no cortisol increase from anticipation apparently. The increased cortisol in an emergency is lower, and accompanied by greatly increased oxytocin - the nurturing hormone. So women's emergency response is better described as tend or befriend.

    https://www.webmd.com/women/features/stress-women-men-cope#1

    Neither response is innately better - it's entirely contextual. The same is true for men and women in general. We've evolved complementary skills. Generally we work best together, some situations enter suit one or the other.

    I do think it's true that feminine skills are frequently undervalued though. I think NICU nurses are a good example of this. Routinely heroic, yet not celebrated or compensated well enough.

    I don't think it's just sexism behind it though. I think people just get rewarded better if they're able to be judiciously aggressive when it comes to getting rewarded, an approach that suits men better. But I think that it would be better for society and institutions if we were better at rewarding people for their value instead of their leverage.


  • Options
    #133
    Bob Harris
    Registered Users Posts: 3,462 ✭✭✭Bob Harris


    She wilfully ignored well articulated and reasoned points throughout the interview to the point that it seemed that she was doing so just to be artificially obstinate rather than really disagreeing with what he said.


  • Options
    #134
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,124 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Arghus wrote: »
    I don't think his reasoning as a whole is nutty either - I say that in my post. But I think that not everything he has to say is gospel - and he does say a few things that are a bit daft in that interview.

    For instance equating the ideology, or at least the driving motivation, behind trans activists - and notice how he makes no distinction between any varying level of activism - to ideologies that led to the deaths of millions in the twentieth century. That might sound good to some ears, but it's a serious stretch on his part. It's an opinion he has, not an actual factual statement - you can't claim that's a fact: what rigorous research and evidence is he basing that on? But yet he claims it like it's an absolute categorical truth and he makes everything that comes out of his mouth sound like a categorical truth - even if it's far from it, at times.

    I don't think he's a spoofer. He's an intelligent and oftentimes profound man, but he has a tendency to ascribe truth to everything he says; he has biases and blind-spots just like the rest of us.

    Fully reasonable criticism I’d say. I don’t think equating trans activists with Mao or Stalin is a productive line of argument at all.


  • Options
    #135
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »
    30k isn't high.


    Anyway men are generally sought after for primary teaching. I understand there is consensus that a better balance of sexes would be preferable. I don't think men are physically well suited to being NICU nurses though. The main reason is that the male response to stress is not appropriate.

    Men experience much higher cortisol levels from stress and from anticipation of stress. The fight or flight instinct is in fact fairly specific to males. Does an emergency require kicking doors in or shouting? Then you want males.


    So you're saying men don't make good NICU nurses because in a stressful situation they'll just kick in a door?


  • Options
    #136
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,957 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I haven't listened to this interview - don't think I need to after reading this thread - but I have seen a few of Peterson's videos and listened to his discussions with Sam Harris (here and here).

    I don't get the impression that he set out to be any kind of celebrity, online or offline, but rather that it started with his academic work spilling out in to the world. So now he has a new book to promote, one aimed at the general public (unlike his previous books), and that means going on a book tour and engaging in these sorts of interviews. He's got some interesting ideas, and I agree with some of them, but I doubt he's looking for a "following", which is fine by me.

    But if some folks see Dr. Peterson as some kind of leader, that in itself is an interesting topic, and it says far more about them than it does about him. At the risk of stating the obvious, it looks to me like there is a demographic - angry men - who are in need of a leader, or at least some kind of mission or direction. This is a problem, and insulting or denigrating them will not help. (Look at the last US Presidential election, with Hillary's "basket of deplorables", for an example of how well that works.) But that's a bigger topic beyond the scope of this thread.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #137
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    bnt wrote: »
    But if some folks see Dr. Peterson as some kind of leader, that in itself is an interesting topic, and it says far more about them than it does about him.

    Is it kind of a consequence of the whole identity politics thing that this is happening..it's textbook Freudian identification anyway..the t shirts are funny..and as for lads finding god because they watched a few youtube videos..
    But it's surely because there's a need for what he's saying at the minute..


  • Options
    #138
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,983 ✭✭✭conorhal


    bnt wrote: »
    I haven't listened to this interview - don't think I need to after reading this thread - but I have seen a few of Peterson's videos and listened to his discussions with Sam Harris (here and here).

    I don't get the impression that he set out to be any kind of celebrity, online or offline, but rather that it started with his academic work spilling out in to the world. So now he has a new book to promote, one aimed at the general public (unlike his previous books), and that means going on a book tour and engaging in these sorts of interviews. He's got some interesting ideas, and I agree with some of them, but I doubt he's looking for a "following", which is fine by me.

    But if some folks see Dr. Peterson as some kind of leader, that in itself is an interesting topic, and it says far more about them than it does about him. At the risk of stating the obvious, it looks to me like there is a demographic - angry men - who are in need of a leader, or at least some kind of mission or direction. This is a problem, and insulting or denigrating them will not help. (Look at the last US Presidential election, with Hillary's "basket of deplorables", for an example of how well that works.) But that's a bigger topic beyond the scope of this thread.

    I saw this clip of Peterson addressing the subject of alienated young men during a radio interview.
    He actually broke down and cried in the interview while discussing the response he recieved from young men after a talk he gave as many approched him just to say what a difference he had made in their lives.

    Cathy Newman's suggestion that Peterson's audience is mostly male comes with an implicit critisism. Oh you're just running a 'boys club for angry young men'.

    What's clear from this clip is just how badly young men today need a figure that speaks, not for them, but to them, who offers them advice and guidance and Peterson's work is clearly fulfilling that role for many young men in a very positive way.

    Why is it OK for the likes of Newman to praise Meryl Streep or Emma Watson for 'giving young women a voice' and 'speaking to their worth in society', but if a man does the same for young men, there's a negative spin to it? A spin that comes from a place of inherrent distate and distrust of men and masculinity IMO.



  • Options
    #139
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,124 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    conorhal wrote: »
    I saw this clip of Peterson addressing the subject of alienated young men during a radio interview.
    He actually broke down and cried in the interview while discussing the response he recieved from young men after a talk he gave as many approched him just to say what a difference he had made in their lives.

    Cathy Newman's suggestion that Peterson's audience is mostly male comes with an implicit critisism. You're running a 'boys club for angry young men'.

    What's clear from this clip is how badly young today men need a figure that speaks to them, who offers advice and guidance and how Peterson's work is clearly fulfilling that role for many young men in a very positive way.
    Why is it OK for the likes of Newman to praise the likes of Streep or Emma Watson for 'giving young women a voice' and speaking to their worth, but if a man does the same for young men, there's a negative spin to it? A spin that comes from a place of inherrent distate and distrust of men IMO.


    It's simpler than that. If you've convinced yourself that Western Society is an oppressive patriarchy then you simply won't / can't appreciate that men are in need of role models or help. Your answer for everything will be feminism.


  • Options
    #140
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    He's filling a void.

    Men have been told that their essential masculinity is the root cause of all the evil in the world for the last 50 years. From the the oppression and brutalisation of women to war and capitalism. Patriachy and toxic masculinity. The world would be better if men were more like women.

    Someone who provides an alternative narrative is going to be popular with a group who don't recognise their part in the feminist doctrine and who are dropping out of eduction and society at large in ever increasing numbers.


  • Options
    #141
    Pac1Man
    Registered Users Posts: 4,394 ✭✭✭Pac1Man


    Quote from the Guardian. :D

    "It is much to Newman’s credit that, 23 minutes in, she drew breath, paused and considered her position."

    To be fair the article was basically sitting on the fence championing free speech from both sides without the vitriol but the above quote is hilarious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    brevity
    Registered Users Posts: 8,477 ✭✭✭brevity


    Building up men doesn't mean you are tearing down women and building up women doesn't mean you are tearing down men.

    Why more people don't realise this is puzzling.

    Both camps have their concerns and they should try to cooperate to help each other where they can.


  • Options
    #143
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭tritium


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Fully reasonable criticism I’d say. I don’t think equating trans activists with Mao or Stalin is a productive line of argument at all.

    Except that’s not really what he’s doing. Or rather he’s not saying that trans activists are as bad in their deeds as Stalin- this is another example of the need to be very precise with words. He’s saying that the ideology that led Mao or Stalin to where they ended up is essentially the same ideology that activists in these groups follow. Peterson appears to be a strong advocate of the individual and individual responsibility over the collectivism that many left wing (and some right wing ) ideologies espouse. I had a look at some of his other work over the weekend where he explains the point far better, possibly because he’s not being harangued in an effort to discredit him. Peterson sees Mao or Stalin as just ordinary people who embraced a monster that exists within all of us, and indeed that is a necessary part of us.


  • Options
    #144
    Jay Pentatonic
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Jay Pentatonic


    Pac1Man wrote: »
    Powerful Jordan Peterson.

    He must be taking some of that Alpha Brain!


  • Options
    #145
    cantdecide
    Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭cantdecide


    brevity wrote: »
    Building up men doesn't mean you are tearing down women and building up women doesn't mean you are tearing down men.

    Why more people don't realise this is puzzling.

    A fair-minded, empathetic egalitarian attitude doesn't put bums on seats, sell newspapers or get blog hits. Activism sells and the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

    JP is one of the few voices out there telling men that they're not walking around like cocked guns just for existing.


  • Options
    #146
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,703 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Very enjoyable interview.

    It's just a shame it wasn't that pompous windbag Jon Snow getting his arse handed to him.

    That would have been the icing on the cake.


  • Options
    #147
    Pac1Man
    Registered Users Posts: 4,394 ✭✭✭Pac1Man


    Jay1989 wrote: »
    He must be taking some of that Alpha Brain!

    He's definitely Onnit. :)


  • Options
    #148
    donaghs
    Registered Users Posts: 2,692 ✭✭✭donaghs


    Great thread, regardless of your views on the topic. A sign of the times that discussion of very topical stuff ends in up in After Hours.


  • Options
    #149
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,948 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    brevity wrote: »
    Building up men doesn't mean you are tearing down women and building up women doesn't mean you are tearing down men.

    Why more people don't realise this is puzzling.

    Both camps have their concerns and they should try to cooperate to help each other where they can.

    100% this but how many of today high profiles feminists do this? Third wave feminist thinking is pretty much mainstream especially in University and Media circles, so it tends to dominate the debate.

    We often hear the remark that men are free to advocate for their own causes, like a fair go in the family courts. Yet, their is natural hostility to them when they organise in anyway a suspicion that they somehow want to dominate women and send them back to the dark ages.

    A great example is this interview, when the interviewer questioned Peterson about helping men, 'Whats in it for women?' As if helping men alone was not a good thing? It always have to be framed that women need help first and foremost.

    I hope Peterson and others like him take this further but he will have to battle as feminists hate competition.


  • Options
    #150
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    amcalester wrote: »
    So you're saying men don't make good NICU nurses because in a stressful situation they'll just kick in a door?

    bb8.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Arne_Saknussem
    Registered Users Posts: 2,723 ✭✭✭Arne_Saknussem


    markodaly wrote: »
    100% this but how many of today high profiles feminists do this? Third wave feminist thinking is pretty much mainstream especially in University and Media circles, so it tends to dominate the debate.

    We often hear the remark that men are free to advocate for their own causes, like a fair go in the family courts. Yet, their is natural hostility to them when they organise in anyway a suspicion that they somehow want to dominate women and send them back to the dark ages.

    A great example is this interview, when the interviewer questioned Peterson about helping men, 'Whats in it for women?' As if helping men alone was not a good thing? It always have to be framed that women need help first and foremost.

    I hope Peterson and others like him take this further but he will have to battle as feminists hate competition.


    Can't see the likes of C4 or BBC giving him a platform again, he's pretty good at dodging the mud they fling and as such they won't be wanting to broadcast his WrongThink over the air.


Advertisement