January 20th, 2018

All hail Jordan Peterson: not just a debater

There’s been a lot of delighted buzz on the right about a new video of Jordan Peterson being interviewed by a British journalist named Cathy Newman. The gist of that buzz is that he demolished her in spectacular fashion—in the rhetorical and ideological sense, that is.

I’m a pretty good arguer myself. But I sure wouldn’t want to be on the other side of a Peterson debate (or maybe I would like it—just to get close, because I admit to a bit of a crush on the guy). But I think that most people are simplifying what happened in the Newman interview. I believe that what Peterson did vis a vis Newman was much more than just win the argument or make his points or embarrass or “crush” or demolish her, or whatever destructive verb you want to use to describe it.

If you’d like to watch the interview now, here it is. But you might want to read the rest of what I say about it first, and then watch it:

What Peterson does in that interview isn’t just on the order of what someone like Thomas Sowell (whom I also admire greatly) habitually does in argument, which is to counter the adversary on the cognitive and logical points, and to apply the results of research to the discussion. Peterson certainly does do that, and that’s what most people see when they watch that interview. But he adds certain techniques of the therapist and particularly of the family therapist (although I really don’t know if he’s done any family therapy; Peterson’s a psychologist and used to have a private practice as a therapist, however).

If you’re mostly familiar with the supportive touchy-feely type of therapy, that’s not what I’m talking about here. I can’t give you a crash course in therapeutic techniques or in particular in the way family therapists work, but I can tell you that it’s complicated, thoughtful, and strategic.

At least, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Whether most therapists live up to that description is a very different question, and I suspect the answer is “no.” But we’re talking about an ideal here.

Note that quite early on Peterson says to Newman, “I’m very very very careful with my words.” During training to be a family therapist (or an individual therapist, for that matter), students learn to be ultra-careful with words—so careful that it can lead to a headache every session, which is what I often experienced when I was in training and worked in a clinical program. Every word has meaning and every word can affect clients, because therapists often have a great deal of power over clients whether they (therapists or clients) want it or not.

In the Newman interview, Peterson is highly aware that each word shapes the argument and that a misstep on his part can and will give grist to the mill of his opponents. He’s also interested in communicating clearly so that his thoughts can be more easily understood. So you can feel the intensity of his effort to be 100% careful with his words, and I think he succeeds in that endeavor to an extraordinary extent.

He also listens hyper-intently, another hallmark of a good therapist. His interviewer Newman is not only inferior to him in that regard, she barely listens at all but just barrels ahead with questions that for the most part are hostile (and perhaps prepared in advance rather than made up on the spot). So this ability to listen gives him an enormous advantage—one that the best therapists generally have, as well.

Peterson is highly aware of the problem Newman has with listening. In fact, it would be hard for him not to be aware, because her failure to listen is so blatant. He must correct her again and again and again on her misinterpretation of what he’s said. But another thing he does in response to her is very therapist-like (although it may not sound that way to most people)—he calls her on it by saying at one point, “That’s because you’re actually not listening.” This is a case of going from content to process, another favorite technique of the therapist. And it’s done in an observational manner rather than a purely combative one.

The interview also reveals Peterson’s extreme patience. He must be annoyed with Newman—wouldn’t anyone in his position be? But he remains polite and explains himself to her time and again.

I’m not familiar with Newman’s previous work, but she’s a very experienced journalist, so we’re not talking about a tyro here. My guess is that, until now, Newman has displayed the trappings of being articulate and hard-hitting and relentless despite the fact that she’s approaching the topic (this one, anyway) with an appeal to emotion. That doesn’t mean she’s dumb (even if she may seem so here); it means that the appeal to emotion usually works. It’s probably usually rattled her subjects, if she’s trying to rattle them.

She’s certainly trying to rattle Peterson. But she’s chosen the wrong guy, because Peterson is not a person who gets rattled (in public, anyway, which is all we see of him). He can get firm, assertive, and/or almost angry, but only when he decides for strategic reasons to display those particular emotions. And yet he also seems—and I believe actually is—sincere even in anger. It’s an interesting and unusual juggling act. Like Peterson or hate him (and I like him very much), there’s no mistaking the fact that he comes across as speaking from the heart and the mind combined, and weighing his words about as carefully as words can be weighed.

Peterson has the ability to do two highly unusual things simultaneously: continue mostly unruffled in the face of a verbal onslaught, while intently tracking the conversation and hacking through the weeds of the back-and-forth exchange in order to remember and to clearly restate what he actually said (and what the other person said) rather than what the other person claims either of them said. These two things are exactly what therapists are trained to do, and something good therapists are able to do. Peterson is astoundingly good at both.

But that’s not all. Yes, Peterson is trying to state the factual and cognitive case in a clear manner. Yes, he’s also trying to remain calm and yet show appropriate assertiveness. Yes, he’s trying to track the conversation and not get caught in the interviewer’s misstatements about his statements. But he’s also trying (I believe) to encourage a transformation within his interviewer, and not just a cognitive transformation, either.

Again, that’s what good therapists do. And I believe a lot of people missed that part of it when watching this interview.

Peterson does this in a number of ways, but one of them is by surprising Newman and behaving in a way that runs counter to her expectations, not just about what he’s saying and what he stands for (basically, liberty and responsible adulthood are what he stands for), but about who he is as a human being. Peterson’s sincerity and brilliance are part of this—no ideology-spouting boilerplate demagogue is he—and so is his calmness. But he just might be at his most effective when he disarms Newman with statements such as, “I suspect you’re not very agreeable”—which on paper might look like an angry insult, but in person is said not in hostile criticism but as amiable praise for her assertiveness in her climb to the top and for her tenaciousness in the interview.

These are traits about which Peterson is pretty sure Newman takes pride: her assertiveness and tenaciousness as a reporter and interviewer. These are also traits some of her interviewees (and other people) might have found off-putting, or even unfeminine. So Peterson has accomplished a kind of verbal jujutsu. He has turned what starts out sounding like criticism into praise for qualities in herself that Newman values. And it’s a type of criticism she is likely to have heard before and thinks is a sexist sort of criticism. But here, Peterson (someone she’s thought might be an anti-woman troglodyte) is saying she’s to be praised for it!

That accomplishes two things. The first is that it probably creates a bit of doubt in her mind about the idea that Peterson has a disempowering attitude towards women. The second is that praising her for something she values is an example of something that has a name in the therapy business: it’s called joining. Joining helps to get a previously hostile person on your side, if only for a moment and hopefully even longer.

But the more striking turning point is Peterson’s response when Newman asks him what gives him the right to be offensive to a transgender person (I’m doing this from memory and my original notes on first listening, because the video is so long I haven’t taken the time to listen to it again). He turns the tables on her and observes that she has been offending him during the interview—but with the goal of getting at the truth. Again we have the same method of saying something that initially sounds like it will be an insult, but then praising and joining her for it. Both exchanges are also examples of something known in therapy as a reframe, in this case reframing “offensive speech” as “truth-seeking speech.”

It’s another powerful moment. Peterson’s observation is completely unexpected and takes Newman by surprise. Newman is so taken aback that she becomes virtually speechless for a while. She now knows (on both the cognitive and the emotional level) several things she didn’t know before—about herself and about liberty and about Peterson. It’s a lot for her to take in. In response, at one point I thought I could see a fleeting little smile of respect and enjoyment on her face.

And then to top it all off, Paterson says “Ha! Gotcha!” in the most playful way. It’s another table-turning moment, because it’s done with good humor and charm rather than nastiness. “Gotcha” can be said in a hostile and nasty tone, but here Peterson’s tone is anything but. This in effect becomes another process observation on Peterson’s part, drawing attention to the game-playing aspect of the entire interview. It’s an element of interviews that’s usually ignored and not talked about during the interview itself, in which both people usually stick to content rather than process.

Peterson’s also correct with that playful “Gotcha!”—he has stumped her, and she knows it. And although she must feel somewhat humiliated, I think Newman also perceives the spirit in which Peterson said it. We’re in this game together, he seems to be saying. We’re sometimes willing to offend and not always be greeable, but we’re truth-seekers, playing for high stakes in the world of ideas but bobbing and weaving in a gamelike fashion as we spar about them.

I don’t know for sure whether that’s what she sees, but that’s what I see happening there.

It’s a tour de force on Peterson’s part. I don’t know whether I’m interpreting Newman’s reaction correctly, and I’m certainly not saying that even if she had that reaction that it would last very long. But man, he’s impressive—as thinker, debater, therapist, and human being. Newman got to experience all four of those things during that interview.

116 Responses to “All hail Jordan Peterson: not just a debater”

  1. Ann Says:

    I admit to a bit of a crush on the guy

    He is definitely attractive, and I think that does explain at least some of his appeal. This tweet of his about the interview with Newman tells me he’s also aware of that:

    @Jordan B Peterson:

    I think she may have been, in her way, flirting with me : )

    –This is quite the goddamn interview…. Channel 4 UK: Cathy Newman takes me to task…..

  2. Dave Says:

    Liberals are the most narcissistic , self centred and selfish people in the world, they only care about their rights but not the rights of the others. Why should their rights not to be offended Trump my right to not be offered? Their whole strategy to get what they wanted is to offend people with different ideas 24/7 by calling them horrible names that end with ist or phobic. why should women’s rights to choose trump babies rights to live? Why should potential sexual victims’ rights to be heard trump the accused their rights to a fair trial?

    Every right the left champion is built in the expense of someone else giving up their rights in some way.

  3. T Says:

    Saw part of the interview and I agree. Peterson is masterful. This is what I admired about Newt Gingrich in his debates. He refused to get lost in the content of an adversarial question and often reframed the question, or even questioned its authenticity. Gingrich was good at this, but IMO Peterson has raised it to a form of high forensic art.

  4. Dave Says:

    In america there is no law preventing women from choosing any subjects they want to major in college, unlike communist countries, why are they complaining about not receiving the opportunities as men? My impression with the whole feminism bs is Women have all the advantages in the world over men and they continue to ask more and more favourites by playing victims when they clearly ain’t

  5. physicsguy Says:

    I watched this interview yesterday. A half hour of my time well-spent. I now have Perterson’s web page bookmarked, and visit it at least once a week to see if anything new is up.

  6. Tanager Says:

    Newman’s out of her league, she appears to be superficially knowledgeable of these issues and probably good only at usual low grade journalistic ambush argumentation.

    Peterson is smart, and knows that to win a debate you first control the terms of the debate, and Newman can never pin him down to her definitions. It’s really a textbook example of how to pwn someone.

  7. om Says:

    neo:

    Very good summation of the interview and thank your for your explanation of the therapeutic methods applied by Jordon. His patience and wisdom trumped her assertiveness and borderline hostility. She just wasn’t listening to what he clearly said so many times.

  8. Stu Says:

    I saw this the other day and it was clear from the outset that she was overmatched by a well trained mind supported by the data. It must be frustrating for leftists whenever they are confronted with the immutability of human nature despite their best efforts to remake us, or as the European philosopher Eric Veogelin said their efforts toward immanetization of the eschaton

  9. CapnRusty Says:

    Newman constantly said “You’re saying . . .” and then proceeded to misquote Peterson. That is a trick which Leftists frequently use when I attempt to debate them. I admire Peterson’s ability to remain calm in that situation and hope that I could somehow emulate him.

    Early on, and throughout the rest of the video, it was clear that Peterson was “toying” with her. Only when he rendered her speechless was there a glimmer of recognition on her part that she was attempting to punch way, way above her weight. I would add that Newman was at least intelligent enough to realize that she had been check-mated, unlike the typical Progressive.

    p.s. Good comments, Dave.

  10. Richard Says:

    Enjoyed both your insights to the interview and the interview itself.
    Have forwarded both to a friend who is a clinical psy. guy and am anxious to hear his response, since he’s a liberal.

  11. Ray Says:

    Newman is a typical lefty. In a debate they change the subject, go off on a tangent whack some straw men and call you names.

  12. M J R Says:

    This dame already knows everything so she had no reason to take the trouble to listen to and *digest* what Peterson was putting out there. Reminds me of that ridiculous press conference where the journalists (so-called) were peppering the president’s physician with their hostile inanities.

    Tanager (5:17 pm) puts it very well: “Newman’s out of her league, she appears to be superficially knowledgeable of these issues and probably good only at usual low grade journalistic ambush argumentation.”

    She was not emotionally prepared to tackle viewpoints so different from her own, so she constantly tried to translate most of his thoughts into her frame of reference — but his thoughts just plain didn’t map into that frame. I doubt whether she realizes still that that’s what was often going on.

    — — — — —

    neo writes, “Peterson is highly aware that each word shapes the argument and that a misstep on his part can and will give grist to the mill of his opponents. He’s also interested in communicating clearly so that his thoughts can be more easily understood.”

    Peterson the rhetorical anti-Trump.

    Oh how fervently I wish Trump had Peterson’s ability to think (calmly!) on his feet and lay bare his critics’ inanities, rather than hurl juvenile insults like a gorilla hurls gorilla poo.

  13. Steve57 Says:

    I liked how they touched on the whole “transpobia” thing. Recently on Big Brother UK (now, there’s an appropriate name) a singer named Ginuwine got accused of “transphobia” because a “trans woman” named India Willaughby demanded to know if Ginuwine would date him. And he said no because Willaughby isn’t an actual woman. He’s a man who only thinks he’s a woman. The guy still is physically intact male. When Ginuwine rubuffed his verbal advances Wilaughby tried to get all Harvey Weinstein on him and inflict himself on him physically.

    And Ginuwine was condemned in the press for being a transphobe. Think about that. The L and G crowd who are “born that way” condemn straight people for being straight. And liking being straight. This is where it’s going, folks. They’re “born this way” and can’t be changed. But we’re bigots for not sleeping with people we don’t want to sleep with because of physical biology.

    Never, ever give them an inch. Especially not on the language. Once you concede the language you’ve lost the argument. There aren’t a billion genders. There are only two sexes. And no matter how much grotesque plastic surgery you can’t turn a man into a woman, or a woman into a man. Refuse to even entertain the thought. You won’t be liked, but it’s better than getting pressured into sleeping with a “woman” with male junk.

  14. Steve57 Says:

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/britain-doctors-can-no-longer-call-women-mothers-not-inclusive/

    Doctors working for the United Kingdom’s government-run National Health Service are being told to stop calling pregnant women “expectant mothers” because it is not “inclusive” to biological women who identify as men.

    The trade union representing NHS doctors claims a “large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women,” but said a change to remove the word “mother” is necessary because biological women who think they are men can get pregnant…

    This is insane. Can you really blame Muslims for thinking we’re ripe for invasion?

  15. Baklava Says:

    Hi Neo,

    I happened to watch this interview yesterday and was at first take shocked to see Cathy become speechless because during the interview she almost 50+ times ran forward without listening.

    But, alas, she listened enough in that one instant but then she FELT like she had one on Jordan when she went forward saying something about these transgender people are coming into your classroom – it wasn’t just a person on person debate in her mind but a classroom setting where the transgender person must not be offended but treated with respect.

    I listened to that particular spot 3 times and he then again had to defend himself saying he doesn’t disrespect transgender in his classroom.

    You are right – he was playing with 10 decks of cards and a chessboard while she played checkers – he has a remarkable ability to listen and then bring the best argument forward even with a non-listener.

    I watched him in front of the Canadian parliament and he handled them with ease but like so many leftists can’t come to grips with the tyrannical left that would hold them accountable if they budge.

  16. Baklava Says:

    At the 8:05-8:10 mark she lied about what Jordan Peterson said on the pay gap.

  17. Dave Says:

    Funny none of these new doublespeak terms with the purpose of protecting the feelings of people proposed by leftists ever benefits certain type of people who the left deems as right wing

    Slave owner – cheap labour seeking entrepreneur
    Uncle Tom – harmony maintainers
    Racist – racial difference admitter
    White supremacist – European culture preservers

  18. Baklava Says:

    It was at 23:10 when she said he voluntarily came to be interviewed and so she didn’t actually budge a bit. She went on in the next sentence to someone who comes into the classroom as a transgender.

  19. Baklava Says:

    One final comment – I’m used to seeing him give long lectures and answer with a complete thought.

    Dealing with a half wit- interrupting person like Cathy where she keeps saying, “so you’re saying” and he keeps having to say, “No I didn’t say that at all” is kind of irritating but I wonder if Cathy went back to re-watch this and fine tune her style.

    My guess is no. My guess is that she will go forward not improving.

    As for Jordan, he controls himself and seems to give up doing more and saying more because he knows what he as in front of him.

  20. MollyNH Says:

    Kudos to Peterson for meticulously sticking it out. I recall
    Rush Limbaugh mentioning how he declines all these invitations to speak with Lefties.he said they do not want to
    Discuss Conservatism or see it explained to the audience.
    They only want to try for “gotcha” moments as illustrated by
    Stephenoupolous absurd birth control question a few years back. & the Repubs fell right into the Lefts trap.
    Limbaugh declined to go on Brian Williams, former weekly show 30 Rock. to discuss “hate speech “, naturally Rush would have been accused as the Godfather of that radio genre, just for telling “Truth” the Left can’t handle it.

  21. Baklava Says:

    And on the transgender argument Tucker continually has Cathy Areu on and these arguments go like this usually
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CYC1L1ckt0

    He even brings up the issue of government set asides for women owned businesses and Cathy just has her script and sticks to it.

  22. steve walsh Says:

    I watched that video yesterday or the day before. At first I was struck by Ms. Newman’s constant misrepresentation of Perterson’s responses, clearly designed to put him in an ideological box which she had already decided he belonged.

    Equally obvious was Peterson’s refusal to be so put – he immediately refuted her characterizations, “I didn’t say that”, and deployed the techniques Neo mentions. Amazing to me was his ability to maintain his composure, even chuckling a bit and never getting angry, at least not obviously so. I, of course, was getting pretty perturbed at her shenanigans!

    Around the time of his, “Hm, gotcha” comment I had what I think is the explanation for his patience and lack of anger: for him this was a professor:student exchange, he was simply trying to teach her why her assumptions and thinking were all wrong. So like any good teacher he had a deep reservoir of patience to guide her to the correct way of seeing and thinking about the issues she raised. The clinical experience and techniques helped him with this confrontational situation.

    Great stuff.

  23. Ray Says:

    “this was a professor:student exchange”
    Are you sure it wasn’t a doctor patient exchange? After Neo’s comment it looked like therapy to me.

  24. Baklava Says:

    Debate in parliament
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfgf2GRk3Q

    He was able to provide a full thought.

  25. JanMN Says:

    All I can say: Peterson is a joy to behold.

  26. AesopFan Says:

    Neo, that was an excellent analysis. I love that video and have dropped a link to it on the few blogs on which I comment. Would that all of us could summon Dr. Peterson’s knowledge and patience when jousting with the Left, or even the confused on the Right.

    “His interviewer Newman is not only inferior to him in that regard, she barely listens at all but just barrels ahead with questions that for the most part are hostile (and perhaps prepared in advance rather than made up on the spot). ” – Neo.

    I think definitely she was reading from her talking points memo, especially since she went right back to it everytime Peterson rebuffed her with the observation that he had not said what she claimed he did, and that therefore (implied) her question made no sense — and she would just slightly juggle the verbiage and do it again.

  27. AesopFan Says:

    CapnRusty Says:
    January 20th, 2018 at 5:38 pm
    Newman constantly said “You’re saying . . .” and then proceeded to misquote Peterson. That is a trick which Leftists frequently use when I attempt to debate them. I admire Peterson’s ability to remain calm in that situation and hope that I could somehow emulate him.
    * * *
    Indeed.
    Obviously, Dr. Peterson is wise to this ploy, as it is probably used by his patients as well.
    My favorite line in the interview is when Newman asks about some of his comments, “What gives you the authority to say these things?” and he just gives her the straight face and replies, “I’m a clinical psychologist.”

    IMO, her talking points memo didn’t allow for the possibility that her target actually knows what he is doing, and she is used to having people get flustered by her charge.

  28. The Other Chuck Says:

    The process and method of argumentation that Neo refers to doesn’t interest me as much as Peterson’s philosophical underpinnings. Without a detailed study of his many online videos, reading his book, or taking a class from the man, the impression is that he is Herbert Spencer reincarnate. That’s a simplistic comparison but I believe a fairly accurate one. Strangely enough I’m less impressed with the man after seeing this than I was after his encounter with Paglia.

    The nut of it is the almost Nietchean determinism – he would say observable fact of the wired in nature of aggressiveness in men. While he talks a good game about free will he seems to believe that morality is derived from the biological nature of man. You can see the Randian influence here. On the other hand, I know from reading about him that he’s studied religions and has a very broad view concerning the commonality inherent in the great religions. From on high he looks down.

    He’s a very good abstract thinker and an exceptional communicator and debater. He’s about the best the right has to offer. I’ll leave it at that.

  29. Baklava Says:

    The Other Chuck,

    Most videos I have to speed up to 1.25 or 1.5 speed as they are extremely slow in making their points.

    The Peterson and Paglia video was one I had to watch, slow down, go back – she speaks fast and they both think and speak fast and man are they on a level I can’t comprehend but I saw magic happening in front of me. I know it.

    Here is one where he goes on for 10 minutes straight making many tangential points just to come back to the central theme of picking yourself up and bettering yourself.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XvI6Y5Yq8o

    I understand what you are saying in the second paragraph but I disagree that he is saying that you cannot change or have free will. Our disposition does not mean that we can’t make different decisions. Just like he teaches women and men not to be just agreeable and go for those raises and stand up and have a backbone – he appeals to people with spirituality and without.

    I like him more than a Dennis Prager because with logic he can bring someone to understand his argument without just having “faith”.

  30. DJMoore Says:

    “I gotcha!”

    [stunned expression, rueful smile]

    This may be the most transcendent moment in any interview I have ever watched.

    So many commenters have used language like, “He destroyed her,” “shredded” “beast mode”, etc. But that is exactly what he did NOT do.

    Very much against her will, Peterson has brought Newman to a moment of true insight, almost a healing. (Whether she builds on that, or rationalizes it away, remains to be seen.)

    “Love your enemies,” sayeth the Lord. That’s what Peterson demonstrates here. He is not a beast, out to savagely destroy her; he is not mansplaining, he’s not even, I think, out to “win”. He is in therapist mode, he wants her to break free of her delusional anger, and for a moment, he succeeds.

    With the love and respect due to any human being, any fallen sinner, Peterson leads Newman to see the truth, and for a moment, he makes her free.

    “You got me,” she confirms, with a laugh, and for that one shining moment, they both win the argument.

  31. AesopFan Says:

    I just found this interesting POV on the Peterson v. Newman match via Sarah Hoyt’s blog post “Shiny! Let’s Be Bad!” — itself worth reading:

    http://quillette.com/2018/01/17/jordan-b-peterson-critical-theory-new-bourgeoisie/

    “It was as though she had never heard arguments like Peterson’s before, and was taken aback to discover they existed. As a presumably well-read person, why had she not been exposed to arguments like this before? The answer, I think, is that these arguments have largely been banished from contemporary mainstream news media and entertainment. Only because of Peterson’s immense grassroots success has he forced his way into the conversation, which makes it all the more awkward when an interviewer looking to put him in place ends up bewildered.

    But why have these arguments been banished? The immediate answer is social pressure.”

  32. Lorenz Gude Says:

    Great article, great discussion. I would add that there is another aspect Peterson that is key to his strength. There is short snippet in his BBC interview where he says he is NOT and intellectual!! Ay, caramba – Peterson not an intellectual? Then he says he is not an intellectual be cause he is embodied. What? Then I realised that when I get embroiled with someone like the interviewer, I DISEMBODY. Panic and fail to stay centred in my body, my feelings and my mind. I don’t come together – ie integrate – I disintegrate. Less than I did when I was younger, but it is still there. Yet I am a therapist too and know how to do the things Neo talks about – like joining and reframing. So to those in the comments who admire Peterson’s ability to stay unruffled, part of his strength is being able to stay centred is his physical being which keeps him connected to his values and which he then skilfully uses his wits to serve.

  33. Gordon Says:

    Something else is going on in that “Gotcha!” moment. Newman came in not having watched any videos of him, with a clutch of questions that some producer wrote for her. She was expecting a neanderthal–one she could box in, intimidate, and ultimately dismiss. He must be a neanderthal, right? She keeps harping on how his philosophy appeals more to young men.

    Look at Peterson’s body language. He’s well-dressed, but a little casual. He sits in a sort of relaxed position, but he never moves. He’s eerily still. He’s displaying amused superiority, but he never rubs her nose in it.

    He’s doing what the Pick Up Artists call Game: he’s triggering her sexual attraction by being the most understated Alpha male he can be. And it works. She keeps throwing what PUAs call Shit Tests–verbal challenges to his authority and masculinity. And he never, ever conceedes the rhetorical ground in response. He holds his position and reframes, and never gets upset. In that interview she goes from hostile to unsure–and then with the charming Gotcha! moment he seals the deal, and she’s delighted. Her hamster is spinning that wheel and she’s now crushing, and begins to flirt, continuing for the rest of the interview.

  34. Jakhny Says:

    Comments were particularly insightful and helpful in appreciating the interview. I do think the “I gotcha” moment comments somewhat (this is not a left-handed compliment –
    as I do not intend the word “somewhat” to mean “a lot”) miss the mark for three reasons: 1) The point that Newman was had on was not a major one; 2) Newman deserves praise for the charm she displayed in acknowledging she had been had, and 3) from that point on Newman knew that tens of thousands of people were intruding into a psychotherapy session in which she was the patient.

  35. Ymar Sakar Says:

    https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/peterson-vs-cathy-newman/

    Reply comment is there.

    For some reason the wordpress filters are deleting now. Different comments show up to be edited, but after the edit, it will disappear. This is different from the “In moderation” view.

  36. kevino Says:

    neo:

    This is a good analysis. Thanks. I missed the deeper psycho-therapy connection, but I’m not a professional.

    RE: “She barely listens at all but just barrels ahead with questions that for the most part are hostile (and perhaps prepared in advance rather than made up on the spot).”
    I don’t formally argue with progressives much anymore. It’s not intellectually satisfying nor productive. Many are trapped in a moral matrix and can’t learn. As the Left slides downhill more and more, it’s like debating a four year old.

    However, back in the day, most progressives got their talking points and marched out to do battle. Their “questions” came from what I called their Little Red Book. The trouble is, I used to read it, too, and I knew their questions and arguments better than they did.

    Newman’s questions here are pretty standard stuff from the Little Red Book.

    RE: Turning the tables on her by using her as an example of women being strong.
    I agree with your analysis. That was delightful. What is Newman going to do? She can’t deny that she’s a strong, successful person.

    RE: “Gotcha!”
    Another delightful moment. The goal of interrogators like Newman is not to enlighten their audience about people and ideas; their goal is to score “gotcha” points. For her intended victim to clearly get the better of her — consistently — will probably be tough for her. I hope she takes it as a learning experience.

  37. Cornflour Says:

    For those curious about Jordan Peterson, “The Chronicle of Higher Education” has just published an article about him (https://tinyurl.com/y7an4njh).

    Since “The Chronicle” is pitched to university faculty and administrators, the slant is usually to the left. Even so, this article isn’t too biased, and I thought it was interesting.

  38. Baklava Says:

    An astonishing level of reaction that leaves a pit in my stomach.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=Cathy%20Newman%20&src=typd

  39. Esther Says:

    So she clearly ‘lost’ the debate, though appears to have ‘won’ a moment of understanding and agreement with Peterson. The exchange also displayed a male/female courtship type dynamic—but then she has to call security because she’s receiving online death threats from right wing trolls. What?

  40. Baklava Says:

    I do not see evidence of death threats.

  41. The Other Chuck Says:

    Baklava:

    The people who have glommed onto Peterson and are spewing venom at Newman are what I’d expect given his determinist views. The alt-right on steroids. He should really distance himself from them by clarifying and explaining his philosophy. Saying they are merely words is a big cop out. He could end up being tarred and disgraced through association.

  42. Esther Says:

    According to this, which describes, or tars, Dr. Peterson as having a following on the ‘far right.’

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jordan-peterson-cathy-newman-interview-channel-4-news-security-consultant-university-of-toronto-a8169401.html

  43. Baklava Says:

    TOC,
    He has. Review the search link i provided. It is on the top area

  44. Baklava Says:

    Esther,
    He is a classic liberal and very moderate.

    Be careful about others painting brushes. Read his own works.

  45. Baklava Says:

    For the lazy
    https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/954476195709628417?s=17

  46. DNW Says:

    “Dave Says:
    January 20th, 2018 at 4:57 pm

    Liberals are the most narcissistic , self centred and selfish people in the world, they only care about their rights but not the rights of the others. Why should their rights not to be offended Trump my right to not be offered? …”

    This is an astute observation regarding the dynamic that is put into play as one transitions from the traditional form of the [leave me alone] “negative liberty” derided by Obama and the like; to a paradigm of so-called “positive liberty” [tolerance is not enough] praised by the progressive kind. That is to say, their program of self-actualization for privileged victims via mandatory audience participation

    But of course, the logical reciprocal of the mere “positive liberty” equation is always ignored by the left, as it must be ignored … because otherwise it would constitute a self-cancelling proposition.

    Fair is “equal”, right? Uhhh as long as you remember that ” “Equal”, only means “equal” if it is something you like, and get for yourself”; as a determined child once explained to me.

  47. n.n Says:

    Fair is “equal”, right? Uhhh as long as you remember that ” “Equal”, only means “equal” if it is something you like, and get for yourself”

    Political congruence (“=”) is the central doctrine of the Pro-Choice philosophy.

  48. om Says:

    The Other Chuck:

    Jordon Peterson is very careful in the words he says and the context.

    The alt-right tries to make him his poster boy but he has made it clear that he is not one of them.

    Take the time to read, listen (podcasts), or watch (Youtube) before making assumptions about what Peterson’s views are. He is very clear that biology and evolution have strong undeniable influences on human behavior (good and bad) and society.

  49. Frog Says:

    The Other Chuck:
    You should heed your own recommendation re Peterson, and distance yourself from the “alt-Left”. You too could end up being “tarred and disgraced”.

  50. Dave Says:

    Men have one advantage over women, physical strength, and for that they were able to gain domination over women in a time when physical strength is a more valuable commodity In the work place and therefore society in general. Feminists never gave white men and capitalism their due for creating an environment that women having the same opportunities as men is a possibility by eliminating reliance of physical labours in the workplace with invention of machines and technologies. In today’s environment where most jobs especially the highest paying jobs requiring minimum physical activities saying men still hold some sort of advantage over women is absurd. Besides our laws were written intentionally favouring women as a way to compensate the physical strength difference between the two genders, ignoring these facts and continue to lie with rhetoric like “the laws are discriminative to women because they were written by mostly men” makes feminists tyrants

  51. Esther Says:

    I thought Dr. Peterson was amazing, I’ve seen some of his videos and I agree with his point of view. It seems like true old school liberal to me– rather than the loopy, new style progressive, left wing dingbats that Liberals have become.

    Maybe I’m being paranoid but I’m wondering if this ‘far right wing’ ‘death threat’ thing is a hoax of some kind? Or magnifying the internet wide troll problem for effect?

    Since Newman lost the verbal debate, is calling security about emboldened internet trolls a narrative for the network, the presenter and ideological leftists to save face?

    Are they trying to minimize the strength of Peterson’s argument so they can justify silencing anyone who challenges good thinking ‘progressives’ because eek look! violent far right trolls! So shut up with rational logic?

  52. Dave Says:

    Many seemingly right wing troll posts were actually written by liberals as a way to prove how they are right about society are full of violence racists.

  53. Esther Says:

    Or Russians!

  54. CapnRusty Says:

    Other Chuck,

    You advise Dr Peterson to distance himself from the alt-right.

    Do you also think he should stop beating his wife?

  55. Dave Says:

    Capnrusty

    Do you think Oprah should also stop introducing young aspiring actresses to Harvey Weinstein?

  56. Dave Says:

    The left sure are busy trying to character assassin peterson like Stalin did to his political opponents, and again they are saying modern liberals and Stalin are nothing alike, yeah right.

  57. The Other Chuck Says:

    CapnRusty & Dr. Trog:

    I’m a Peterson fan, thought his give and take with Paglia was over the top. This little exchange with a British reporter exposed him to exactly what happened. As to distancing himself from the alt-right, he’s in another league completely. If the left wants to paint him into that group they are wasting their time, but it wouldn’t hurt if he said something that puts them in their place beside this:

    If you’re threatening her, stop. Try to be civilized in your criticism. It was words. Words, people, words. Remember those?

    Appealing for civilized dialogue with the alt-right is as much a waste of time as it is with the far left. Call the little bastards out. He’s not shy about naming and condemning identity politics on the left, and he shouldn’t be any less harsh with their mirror image on the right.

    As Trump found out re Bannon, with friends like these who needs enemies?

  58. Dave Says:

    I would like to see obama and feminists illustrate a situation for me where a man can ever be exonerated under their guidelines for sexual assault convictions. How can a guy ever be able to prove his innocence if even flirty or even invitations for sex text messages from the woman cannot be accepted as evidence of consent since the woman can change her mind and revert the consent right in the middle of the act? All men will be at the mercy of women under the obama guidelines because you are guilty of sexual assault whenever a woman accuse you of anything because her words is always the truth and no evidence can ever refute. Feminists ultimately just want to enslave straight men.

    Why is there a need for a court if no indicted can ever be exonerated, why not just adopt the judge dredd justice system instead?

  59. M J R Says:

    Scott Adams on the Cognitive Dissonance of Cathy Newman

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnyA5Wn1K_Q

  60. Ann Says:

    A very different side of Peterson shown here while being interviewed with his daughter, Mikhaila, as they both talk about their clinical depression. Interesting that his daughter is named after Mikhail Gorbachev.

  61. AesopFan Says:

    Lorenz Gude Says:
    January 21st, 2018 at 7:56 am
    Great article, great discussion. I would add that there is another aspect Peterson that is key to his strength. …So to those in the comments who admire Peterson’s ability to stay unruffled, part of his strength is being able to stay centred is his physical being which keeps him connected to his values and which he then skilfully uses his wits to serve.
    * * *
    Interesting insight. Easier to describe than to do, I suspect.

  62. Mark30339 Says:

    Absolutely superlative take Neo. Dr. Jordan B. Peterson likes to talk about Friedrich Nietzsche as being a one in a billion intellect. But JBP is so remarkable in his words and manner that experiencing him is an absolute necessity. Attempts to summarize or label him won’t do. His approach to truth seeking and dialogue is an inspirational marvel that doesn’t just impress, it powerfully instructs and motivates.

  63. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    One advantage that Peterson has here is that he is the interviewee. He gets to answer (and correct) the question.
    The disadvantage that Tucker Carlson has is that he can’t get anyone to answer his questions.

  64. Patrick Says:

    I watched it a few days ago and quickly caught on to her interviewing style, which is to rephrase what he says (so you’re saying), except she distorts it in the rephrasing. Someone cut a clip of her “So you’re saying” statements, there are a lot of them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68flntBeKoY

  65. Deep Cover Says:

    He so outclassed her. Peterson is wonderful. I love him. What a mind. And so charming! I’m so glad and grateful he is speaking out. He showed Newman how it’s done. She seemed so amateur next to him. Like a college student. he was so patient with her.

  66. AesopFan Says:

    Patrick Says:
    January 21st, 2018 at 11:14 pm
    I watched it a few days ago and quickly caught on to her interviewing style, which is to rephrase what he says (so you’re saying), except she distorts it in the rephrasing. Someone cut a clip of her “So you’re saying” statements, there are a lot of them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68flntBeKoY
    * *
    Her MO was so obvious that I wondered if she had become used to using it in her other interviews, with greater success. I liked this commenter at your link:

    “How about letting him tell you what he’s saying, instead of trying to tell him what he’s saying. HE is the one saying it. Stop trying to interpret what he’s saying and twisting it to mean something different than what he’s actually saying.”

  67. AesopFan Says:

    M J R Says:
    January 21st, 2018 at 9:41 pm
    Scott Adams on the Cognitive Dissonance of Cathy Newman

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnyA5Wn1K_Q
    * * *
    Adams did a very good analysis of the interview.

    I agree with him that Newman is not restating Peterson with evil intentions, but he says she is literally hallucinating (that is, on the spot), and I think she isn’t listening because she already has her narrative set in stone (as Neo said: perhaps prepared in advance rather than made up on the spot), and Peterson is just chipping away at it until it crumbles .

    I liked what Adams said here (he is Peterson): He’s “disemboweling her psychology without anesthesia” and that he has “an argument that she can’t refute, but also can’t except – that’s the trigger for cognitive dissonance”

    One commenter at the link said this:
    “Cassie Jay did a TED talk where she explained her reactions as a feminist listening to MRAs [note: men’s rights activists, I presume], that she anticipated what they were going to say and heard things completely different to what they were saying, until she stopped and actually listened. Scott is correct. It is the truth as they see it.”

    Adams also gives his view of DACA-gate, concluding that it is not only normal but expected that the participants in the immigration huddle with Trump would sincerely believe that they heard or didn’t hear him say the S-word, regardless of what he actually did or didn’t say.

  68. AesopFan Says:

    Esther Says:
    January 21st, 2018 at 5:53 pm
    I thought Dr. Peterson was amazing, I’ve seen some of his videos and I agree with his point of view. It seems like true old school liberal to me– rather than the loopy, new style progressive, left wing dingbats that Liberals have become.
    * * *
    He calls himself a liberal, according to the article linked above at
    Cornflour Says:
    January 21st, 2018 at 12:36 pm
    For those curious about Jordan Peterson, “The Chronicle of Higher Education” has just published an article about him (https://tinyurl.com/y7an4njh).

  69. obinna Says:

    Watching this video i don’t actually know what am suppose to be thinking. At first I was struck by Ms. Newman’s constant misrepresentation of Perterson’s responses, clearly designed to put him in an ideological box which she had already decided he belonged.

    Equally obvious was Peterson’s refusal to be so put – he immediately refuted her characterizations, “I didn’t say that”, and deployed the techniques Neo mentions. Amazing to me was his ability to maintain his composure, even chuckling a bit and never getting angry, at least not obviously so. I, of course, was getting pretty perturbed at her shenanigans!

  70. Micheal W. Perry Says:

    Those who enjoy what Jordan Peterson had to say in that interview might want to subscribe to his YouTube channel.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos

  71. Klaar Says:

    “Oh how fervently I wish Trump had Peterson’s ability to think (calmly!) on his feet and lay bare his critics’ inanities, rather than hurl juvenile insults ”

    I’ve had that feeling too, though fleetingly. I suspect that this talent is so rare that someone who possesses it might be unable to ascend to public office. It would mark him or her too far from the Ordinary Joe.

    Why that is, well now I have to think. I have a theory.

  72. Bob Says:

    I thought as you did, that he gave her due respect. It was her ideas that caused her humiliation (if she was even capable of that feeling, see pic of her laughing off twitter comments).

  73. JohnTyler Says:

    No matter how well Peterson verbally disemboweled the incredibly stupid and ignorant Cathy Newman, the fact remains that there is really nothing that Peterson or anyone else could say that would convince Newman that some of her opinions and ideas are off base or totally wrong.

    Newman is the typical liberal/socialist progressive moron. Facts and logic have zero bearing on what they believe or think. Their belief system is purely religious. That’s it.

    Imagine trying to converse rationally with a member of the KKK, Nazi Party, communist party or ISIS.
    You would be wasting your time.

  74. Insufficiently Sensitive Says:

    …on her misinterpretation of what he’s said.

    That’s a very charitable view. From this listener’s position, it was deliberate misrepresentation of what he said, and is the interviewer’s major hostile tactic.

  75. David in Cal Says:

    Anyone remember Bob and Ray? They did hilarious radio skits. This interview reminded me of one of them.

    An expert on the Kyoto Dragon is being interviewed. The interviewer is clearly paying no attention to the the answers, because each question is about something that was just answered.

  76. Jamie Irons Says:

    Neo,

    Absolutely terrific analysis of Mr. Peterson’s “work” with the newsperson.

    David in Cal — Bob and Ray were spectacular. Remember their “reporter” Wally Balou? (I think that, or something like it, was the spelling, and it was pronounced Waleep Alou, or something close to that.)

    Jamie Irons

  77. arfldgrs Says:

    he only had to waid how many decades before the arguments were mostly written but unheard… THEN…

  78. arfldgrs Says:

    next we can go over the reports of replacements, and extinctions from simulations that are dead on good… and available now.. in fact, they predict wiht high accuracy what the weather programs have never done… get it right….

    abort & replace

    sweden is failing with bombings on a daily basis that are not reported… ie. against police stations…

    do note that he was the idiot that turned around after belittling the men and apologized..

    old hat
    he jumped in way after everyone else did the gorund work and made organizaitons and such…

  79. arfldgrs Says:

    By the way, he got them all wrong
    you should read the guys of MGTOW and such
    he did apologise for this video.

    Jordan Peterson – Apology to MGTOW
    Jordan Peterson – I Regret Calling MGTOW Pathetic Weasels
    Jordan Peterson: Don’t Apologize, Don’t Back Down, Defund Academia, Recruit Youth
    Dissecting Jordan Peterson’s Apology to the MGTOW Community

    Jordan Peterson responds to MGTOW backlash
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHgaUnw5xDU

    he gets a lto of it wrong..
    and he puts it ot the men, but no one hears the men
    its not the men wont mature… they dont want to lose their lives work, lifes effort.. and he and psychology today and so on.

    but he mostly farts crap that he finds makes him money and that other college people like… but he is very WRONG.. VERYU VERY wrong.

    but whno gives a shit.

    he says crappy styff about men
    and gets in good with women by saying this
    he is a shill for money

    he is worng.. i have had over 30 girlfriends, live in, an am now married… many of us are..

    but he is so wrong is not funny
    sad..
    very sad
    he is promoting the line that was wrong from psyhchology today

    and not one of you arses want to talk to the guys that actually started the organization..

    not one person wants to hear the actual guys!!!
    peterson talks for them
    women talk for them
    they are not allows to talk fo rthemsevles

  80. arfldgrs Says:

    Topic: Karen destroys J. Peterson’s MGTOW BS
    https://www.mgtow.com/forums/topic/karen-destroys-j-petersons-mgtow-bs/

    by the way, karen straughan is married to one of those weasels that are unmarried, jerking off to porn and just dont want to grow up and fund womens bs..

    no. she had a bad husband… met this great one
    he nearly didnt want her cause of this stuff
    then she decidd to fight

    here is her response to peterson..

    Karen Straughan responds to Jordan Peterson’s comments on MGTOW:
    https://steemit.com/mgtow/@bobbyc249/karen-straughan-responds-to-jordan-peterson-s-comments-on-mgtow.
    To those that want to know MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way and it is a life style and personal choice. They used to be called Bachelors long ago but the meaning of that word has changed thanks to Feminist and definition changers. In her response Karen shines some light on the reality of western society and how it treats men. If your a man or woman I think you might want to watch it and really listen to what she has to say.

    your not going to hear it because you like peterson and want him and you dont want her or the history or stuff you dont… so you jsut filter out (and expect what world from that?)

    Response to Jordan Peterson’s comments on MGTOW
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faeT4fIFAcg

    and what about HONEY BADGER?
    Honey Badger Radio 79: Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcDhcGdepIk

    Response to Jordan Peterson’s comments on MGTOW – A Voice for Men
    https://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/m-g-t-o-w/response-to-jordan-petersons-comments-on-mgtow/

  81. Jordan Peterson | Transterrestrial Musings Says:

    […] He didn’t just crush Cathy Newman in debate; he provided her with some much-needed therapy. […]

  82. neo-neocon Says:

    Jamie Irons:

    Thanks!!!

  83. neo-neocon Says:

    Artflgr:

    It’s always best to make your points without being so insulting. And in your insults, you make unwarranted assumptions.

    I have no need to ignore anything Peterson has done or said that is incorrect, or any mistakes he’s made. Why would he? I don’t worship him. I’ve watched many of his videos and I like what he has to say for the most part (not always, but for the most part). The particular fray you’re talking about is something that wasn’t contained in those videos or this one.

    The subject matter of this video is this video and what Peterson does in it. The secondary subject is the fact that I admire what he does here and elsewhere in the videos I’ve watched. It is not some sort of blanket worship of Peterson.

    As I’ve said to you many times, make your points here without the insults. I “unapproved” one of your comments here already because of the blanket insults and incorrect assumptions in it about readers here.

  84. Esther Says:

    In the past we didn’t know what other people thought, unless we had a conversation, or they wrote cranky letters to the editor. Now, the truth is out, social media reveals we are all lunatic cranks!

    I find it disturbing and don’t know if Peterson covers this phenomenon in his videos. But I will watch to see if I can learn to emulate his calm while facing the absurd.

  85. om Says:

    Art:

    Go your own way. Jordon Peterson has said he regretted characterizing the MGTOW as a “bunch of pathetic weasels” who mislead or misdirect younger males. Get over it for a change.

  86. Baklava Says:

    you were instalaunched. 🌻

  87. Baklava Says:

    I learned 10 years ago to scroll past art.

  88. BrianE Says:

    If we ever needed instant replay, it was during this interview.

    Maybe somebody on Youtube will make a video and insert his statements everytime she misquoted or mischaracterized him.

    I was a little put off with his response when she realized her argument had been completely dismantled. Tucker Carlson has the same response when he’s interview people.

    It come across has a debating society. These are serious issues that will affect male-female interactions and societal structure for generations.

    He did demolish her argument and once she realized it, it was pretty satisfying (I say gleefully).

    And has been stated before, it was to her credit she even recognized it– though she would have to have an IQ of a mollusk not to.

  89. Robert Fortuno Says:

    Your analysis is a tour de force in itself. Kudos!

  90. carl in atlanta Says:

    Neo:
    Congratulations on this morning’s link at Instapundit. (With Sarah Hoyt’s frequent links to your stuff it’s becoming a regular thing!)

  91. neo-neocon Says:

    carl in atlanta:

    Thanks!

  92. Amadeus 48 Says:

    Cathy Newman has the pretty standard BBC approach to adversarial interviewing. Watch some old Jeremy Paxman interviews from Newsnight or listen to Radio 4’s old interviews of cabinet ministers (particularly Tories). This is what Brian Redhead, James Naughty, John Humphreys and Sue MacGregor used to do to Margaret Thatcher’s and John Major’s ministers every day. Their subjects jolly well learned to correct and counter-punch. Margaret Thatcher used to figuratively bash her opponents over the head with the facts, counter-arguments and examples (they called it handbagging) when they tried to catch her out. Radio 4 still practices aggressive interviewing that misstates or overstates their subject’s positions. It is a great way to get at the truth.
    Jordan Peterson did a masterful job of marshalling his resources and making his points. Neo’s analysis of his technique is fascinating.

  93. Clive Says:

    Thank you!
    An excellent take on the interview here.
    Focusing on “demolish” etc misses the entire point. That’s just a tribal, emotional assessment and your post is what I find so refreshingly different. Thanks for the clinical tidbits as well!

    Peterson did an amazing job of keeping his cool, listening and not allowing himself to be trapped down semantic rabbit holes.

    People who accuse Newman of being stupid are missing the point. She does have a brain (a first in English at Oxford) and she is a sharp, canny operator. There were two professionals in that interview and they each had different motivations and goals.

    Sure, she was a terrible listener and is undoubtedly a polemicist working to her own narrative… but that is the nature of so much media. She knew full well what she was doing and was attempting to frame or bait Peterson into defending against her strawman arguments; because that is “good TV” and no doubt that’s what has worked on so many hostile interviews previously.

    So well done Peterson for recognising it and not rising to the bait.. over and over again. The potential for the interview to devolve into an emotionally based shout fest was huge and kudos to him in avoiding that entirely. The restraint, professionalism and sharpness he demonstrated was masterful.

  94. AesopFan Says:

    Amadeus 48 Says:
    January 22nd, 2018 at 4:38 pm
    Cathy Newman has the pretty standard BBC approach to adversarial interviewing.

    Clive Says:
    January 22nd, 2018 at 7:22 pm
    She knew full well what she was doing and was attempting to frame or bait Peterson into defending against her strawman arguments; because that is “good TV” and no doubt that’s what has worked on so many hostile interviews previously.

    So well done Peterson for recognising it and not rising to the bait.. over and over again. The potential for the interview to devolve into an emotionally based shout fest was huge and kudos to him in avoiding that entirely. The restraint, professionalism and sharpness he demonstrated was masterful.
    * *
    Good insights into the interview.
    I usually won’t listen to news interviewers, because of the yelling and bashing, but this one was actually watchable because of Peterson’s demeanor and expertise.

  95. AesopFan Says:

    JohnTyler Says:
    January 22nd, 2018 at 10:43 am
    No matter how well Peterson verbally disemboweled the incredibly stupid and ignorant Cathy Newman, the fact remains that there is really nothing that Peterson or anyone else could say that would convince Newman that some of her opinions and ideas are off base or totally wrong.
    * * *
    I do have to agree with John, but as people have pointed out in other contexts, the goal is to convince the undecided listeners, and in that case, Peterson probably succeeded with a fair number.
    Wish there were some way to quantify the converts.

  96. AesopFan Says:

    Klaar Says:
    January 22nd, 2018 at 10:21 am
    I suspect that this talent is so rare that someone who possesses it might be unable to ascend to public office.
    * * *
    I’n not really sure I want a clinical psychologist as POTUS…

  97. Tom G Says:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/550859/?__twitter_impression=true

    Conner F at the Atlantic picks up on the issue of “Why can’t people understand Jordan Peterson?” — with the Left, the goal is to make the listener be against the Conservative, or often the Truth.

    That’s also what I picked up on; Neo’s insights were additional.

    One final point — Multi-Variate Analysis. This is so very very important to conservatives, because life really IS complex, if you want to make it better; or even to understand how it is.

    Gender is an issue, so is agreeableness. Peterson doesn’t mention that tall men (he’s tall) make more money than shorter men — that’s another factor.

    The Dem/Left “putting words in your mouth” takes advantage of complexity by dishonestly simplifying.

  98. Thales Says:

    So what you’re saying is that women can’t be good journalists?!

  99. Baklava Says:

    Tom G,
    That Atlantic article was amazing in how little it really said. He specifically stated that he isn’t endorsing Jordan Peterson’s views but why not?

    He admitted never hearing of Jordan Peterson up front until this interview.

    The best thing about this event is that it will certainly give name recognition to Jordan and more people will be inclined to go down the rabbit hole of watching him speak. What used to irk me about Rush is that he was purposefully offensive and therefore sometimes not persuasive to those who would be offended.

    Jordan has a unique and persuasive style that I have been longing for. More persuasive than Ben Shapiro and more than Dennis Prager.

    I wasn’t longing for it to be converted. I was converted back in 1991 – the year I heard an alternative point of view and then visited the library 3 times a week to find out what was true.

    I was longing for it because I don’t want conservatism to be counter culture or the under-dog or relegated to second class citizenship constantly by bullying celebrities or The View.

    Conservatism is highly nuanced, non-reflexive, principled world view that requires education or deep thought. Don’t misunderstand! There are those who are conservatives who are reflexive and who tarnish us badly.

    What I’m saying is that without education one can be a conservative by listening and taking the time to think. Equal opportunity doesn’t take more than 2 minutes to get and through experience you can see how men and women may choose different paths in life and earn more or less. And then when presented information about young women in the largest 20 cities in the US are actually paid 8% more you are finally presented data differently than the bullying feminists who only present one way of thinking.

    Principle of civility, equal opportunity and now the biggest principle of all lately in the free market of ideas being allowed to flourish online (while tech companies shadow ban), and working hard to hear each other (liberals can’t do this for some reason – yes I’m generalizing) will lead us to a better world.

    I was very impressed to see Blaire White actually talk and listen with Ben Shapiro. I was very disappointed to see Blaire destroy any sense of civility with Candace Owens on Dave Rubins’s set. It wasn’t bridge building and was excruciating to watch – but I forced myself to. To me – this isn’t just about winning for a team like Republicans versus Democrats. It’s about what I’ll be leaving to my college aged daughters and then the kids they have.

  100. Brendan Smith Says:

    I think your insights are spot on. You may be interested in a the following youtube video in which Dr. Peterson offers his own analysis of the Newman interview:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK2-xYyNpYk

  101. GRA Says:

    You’re too generous on Newman. She wasn’t a truth seeker during her segment with Peterson. She was a tool for the left and she herself was acting like a leftist tool.

  102. Sergey Says:

    Neo, there is an excellent and wise analysis of the Peterson interview here with deep insights into the nature of culture wars at large: theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/

  103. Sergey Says:

    This Cathy Newman is a textbook example of mindless fanaticism, according the best definition of the term I got from a wise old Jew in a synagogue. I asked him what is distinction between a devout religious person and a fanatic. He answered: “A normal person can listen and talk. A fanatic can only talk, he cannot listen.” We all have our preconceived ideas and concepts, they are necessary tools of understanding anything. But than we must test these ideas against reality to see if they are adequate and to elaborate them accordingly. This is thinking and learning. If this step is omitted we do not really think, we just project our preconceived ideas on reality, and in the result learn nothing.

  104. Nate Whilk Says:

    Brendan Smith Says:
    January 23rd, 2018 at 3:35 pm

    “I think your insights are spot on. You may be interested in a the following youtube video in which Dr. Peterson offers his own analysis of the Newman interview:”

    Do not use that link. That channel pirated the entire video after removing the identifying info. The original video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6qBxn_hFDQ

    Yes, JBP confirms *everything* neo has said. I didn’t know about “joining”. From the bits of JPB’s other videos I’ve watched I gather that in his case it’s kind of a Jungian thing that he really believes, which is what made his response more than ordinarily effective: You have to embrace your dark side (the aggressiveness of her interview tactics) to control it (and use it for good) and become a complete person. (I’m sure I garbled it and neo will correct me.)

    JPB even says he thinks Newman was in “animus possession” but doesn’t explain it because it’s too complicated. Of course I’ve looked it up online, but I accept it’s more complicated than what I’ve found.

    JBP describes how charming she was before the interview but was surprised when she became a completely different person on camera. I guess he never saw a certain episode of “The Bob Newhart Show”: “Who Is Mr. X?” https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x57huvd 😀

    The interviewer uses a similar technique!

  105. Nate Whilk Says:

    And Bob’s a psychologist!

  106. Clarity – Site Title Says:

    […] discovered the public persona of Jordan Peterson, who is a living masterclass in the art of being a thinker, debater, therapist and a human being. It was this particular interview that recently went viral that caught my eye, and I am reaffirmed […]

  107. Baklava Says:

    http://quillette.com/2018/01/17/jordan-b-peterson-critical-theory-new-bourgeoisie/

    Key line – it was as if Cathy never heard these arguments before.

  108. neo-neocon Says:

    To GRA:

    You misunderstand my point. I am talking about ways of talking to people by using reframes and joining them. Knowing that you never know what’s actually in someone’s mind and heart, it’s a way to address them in order to maximize their positive potential.

    It’s what Peterson said, not what I said [emphasis mine]: “Because in order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive. Look at the conversation we’re having right now. You know that you’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth…You get my point…You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do.”

    Start around 22:20 for the beginning of that little segment, and keep going.

    Peterson is saying it, not me.

  109. Simon Says:

    I went to the book launch in New York last night, watched him talk for an hour and half, then lined up and shook his hand. That’s all I have to say.

  110. David Says:

    Thank you for your this. You and your readers will appreciate this interview held in Holland a few days after the Channel 4 event. The first 30 minutes or so is a wonderful analysis of the Channel 4 one. I love the interviewer too..What a contrast with Cathy Newman.JPB’s self-reflection is amazing.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6qBxn_hFDQ

  111. Clive Says:

    Much better quality link of Bob Newhart’s TV ambush here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DlPpi0yuqI

  112. Baklava Says:

    Jordan Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life at this moment has 80 reviews with a 4.9 star rating on Amazon

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345816021/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0345816021&linkCode=as2&tag=violentkids1-20&linkId=4ebd6072a79bcf1333c5ab0840a1902f

    The lone person who gave 3 stars wrote that the book came in poor build quality but that they are excited to get to the content. Essentially this means it would be a 5 star rating.

    I wonder how long it will take for this to change (liberal tampering / deceit).

    That is the correct link btw – for some reason the link has the word “violentkids” in it (a tag I see)

  113. Baklava Says:

    Jordan Peterson was on Tucker Carlson tonight (1/24/2018). Skip to the 35 minute mark.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f31loGm3kkE

    GOod to see him in a red power tie. 🙂

  114. Bookworm Beat 1/28/18 -- the Jordan Peterson illustrated edition Says:

    […] video generated lots of posts, but my two favorite come from Neo-Neocon and (of all people) the Atlantic’s Connor Friedersdorf. In the former, Neo-Neocon carefully […]

  115. Bookworm Beat 1/29/18 -- the Jordan Peterson illustrated edition Says:

    […] video generated lots of posts, but my two favorite come from Neo-Neocon and (of all people) the Atlantic’s Connor Friedersdorf. In the former, Neo-Neocon carefully […]

  116. Ymar Sakar Says:

    experiencing him is an absolute necessity.

    Personality cults are not an absolute necessity.

    When humans find someone above them in ability, they tend to label them as “masterclass” or leadership quality. It’s probably like Peterson’s lobster serotonin hierarchy.

    Don’t think I ever saw any data linking OC to the Alt Left…

    What Neo calls joining, I just call negotiation and interrogation tactics: ones I’ve already used on blacks in subways that think I have no idea what institutional racism is. Injecting Kennedy killing people and getting away with it, solved that issue, while also implanting in their heads that Democrats are white evil slave lords. Two for one.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge