Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman

Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman

Author
Discussion

DeejRC

5,712 posts

81 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
Interesting thread.

The interview was very well done, contrary to what most posters seem to contend. Newman had her positions and angles to come at the Prof and gave him rebuttal space. That IS how an interview should be and he actually commended her on it, indeed, he used both the situation and the interviewer to highlight and evidence his arguments. To her credit the interviewer accepted those and engaged with his responses. I have no issue with the "So you are saying..." approach as she was using a fairly standard linguistic technique to draw a narrative. Far from being derogatory in fact, the Prof then used those lines to build his arguments back, either in rebuttal or in presenting evidence for his own contentions. Again, the interview gave him the space to build those points. In this respect I found her vastly superior to the other muppet on C4, the ex-newround bloke. Ive always thought Paxman was also quite guilty of such things.

On the subject of the Prof himself - he is certainly an interesting chap.

Most of you haven't done a political theory degree, because, presumably you had more sense. Alas I didnt, but fear not, by Xmas in the first Semester I came to realise that absolutely nobody on a course to study politics should ever be let near political power!
Very alas, however, is that back in the 90s, it was the in-vogue political theory thing to discuss, teach, lecture and inform those eager young political minds about such new fangled ideas as Post-modernism, Constructionalism and neo-liberalism! Gosh, my, how the hours did fly by!

Not to mention that Godforsaken moron Francis Fukuyama.

Anyway, throw all this crap into the pot 20 yrs ago, mix, bake for x number of yrs and et voila! Twenty yrs later, those eager young nutters have soaked up all that drivel and we now find these things the political philosophies de jour and depressingly de rigeur.

Its rather refreshing to hear someone debunk the twaddle at last. Twenty yrs later than some of us realised it, but better late than never. On the plus side it lead me to becoming an engineer instead.

Patrick Bateman

12,143 posts

173 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
She misconstrued pretty much every point he was making on very complex topics into simplistic drivel to try and discredit him.

Is that really a good interviewing technique?

Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?

A fking journalist asked that. It was evident from her being absolutely speechless after the reply that the whole thing wasn't just an attempt to play devil's advocate.

Goaty Bill 2

3,393 posts

118 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
covmutley said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Got a link or specific interview/talk?

I'm curious because I don't think I've found solid ground for disagreeing with him on the Holocaust.

'Ordinary Men' by Christopher Browning, which he often references, is a very powerful read.
It very much clarified, and confirmed, for me some thoughts I had already had.
No sorry. It was a classroom lecture on YouTube .

He wasnt really giving a strong view, more questioning why Hitler diverted his attention from the war. Saying he could have won the war, then done the murdering after. Suggested his main focus/psychological state may have been that he was intent on causing mayhem.
Ahh yes.
I recall that quite well.

In the literal sense, I would say not so much "causing mayhem" as completing the job of 'the final solution', but in the more general purpose of the lecture "causing mayhem" for ideological reasons would fit.


Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
Patrick Bateman said:
Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?

A fking journalist asked that. It was evident from her being absolutely speechless after the reply that the whole thing wasn't just an attempt to play devil's advocate.
Her best line was the lobster one:

He said:

"I'm saying that it's inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organizing organize their structures it's it's absolutely inevitable and there is one third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that right that's that's so long that a third of the billion years ago there weren't even trees it's a long time you have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin that's similar to the lobster mechanism that tracks your status and the higher your status the better your emotions are regulated so as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive the emotion and less negative emotion."

And in direct response (and in all seriousness) she said:

"let me just get it straight you're saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?"


Goaty Bill 2

3,393 posts

118 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
DeejRC said:
Interesting thread.

The interview was very well done, contrary to what most posters seem to contend. Newman had her positions and angles to come at the Prof and gave him rebuttal space. That IS how an interview should be and he actually commended her on it, indeed, he used both the situation and the interviewer to highlight and evidence his arguments. To her credit the interviewer accepted those and engaged with his responses. I have no issue with the "So you are saying..." approach as she was using a fairly standard linguistic technique to draw a narrative. Far from being derogatory in fact, the Prof then used those lines to build his arguments back, either in rebuttal or in presenting evidence for his own contentions. Again, the interview gave him the space to build those points. In this respect I found her vastly superior to the other muppet on C4, the ex-newround bloke. Ive always thought Paxman was also quite guilty of such things.

On the subject of the Prof himself - he is certainly an interesting chap.

Most of you haven't done a political theory degree, because, presumably you had more sense. Alas I didnt, but fear not, by Xmas in the first Semester I came to realise that absolutely nobody on a course to study politics should ever be let near political power!
Very alas, however, is that back in the 90s, it was the in-vogue political theory thing to discuss, teach, lecture and inform those eager young political minds about such new fangled ideas as Post-modernism, Constructionalism and neo-liberalism! Gosh, my, how the hours did fly by!

Not to mention that Godforsaken moron Francis Fukuyama.

Anyway, throw all this crap into the pot 20 yrs ago, mix, bake for x number of yrs and et voila! Twenty yrs later, those eager young nutters have soaked up all that drivel and we now find these things the political philosophies de jour and depressingly de rigeur.

Its rather refreshing to hear someone debunk the twaddle at last. Twenty yrs later than some of us realised it, but better late than never. On the plus side it lead me to becoming an engineer instead.
hehe

Without the [dubious] benefit of the 'political theory degree' (no offence, I respect anyone who makes a serious effort) I find myself agreeing with you.
I have listened to and read so much crap over the last 30 years, at least I now understand better where much of it came from.
Stephen Hicks is quite informative on post-modernism, and his discussion with Peterson is remarkably good.

Some post-modernist was belittling Peterson in comparison to Noam Chomsky in a comments section over the last couple of days, and it was quite obvious he had never read or heard Chomsky's opinion of post-modernists biggrin


oilbethere

908 posts

80 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
DeejRC said:
Interesting thread.

The interview was very well done, contrary to what most posters seem to contend. Newman had her positions and angles to come at the Prof and gave him rebuttal space. That IS how an interview should be and he actually commended her on it, indeed, he used both the situation and the interviewer to highlight and evidence his arguments. To her credit the interviewer accepted those and engaged with his responses. I have no issue with the "So you are saying..." approach as she was using a fairly standard linguistic technique to draw a narrative. Far from being derogatory in fact, the Prof then used those lines to build his arguments back, either in rebuttal or in presenting evidence for his own contentions. Again, the interview gave him the space to build those points. In this respect I found her vastly superior to the other muppet on C4, the ex-newround bloke. Ive always thought Paxman was also quite guilty of such things.

On the subject of the Prof himself - he is certainly an interesting chap.

Most of you haven't done a political theory degree, because, presumably you had more sense. Alas I didnt, but fear not, by Xmas in the first Semester I came to realise that absolutely nobody on a course to study politics should ever be let near political power!
Very alas, however, is that back in the 90s, it was the in-vogue political theory thing to discuss, teach, lecture and inform those eager young political minds about such new fangled ideas as Post-modernism, Constructionalism and neo-liberalism! Gosh, my, how the hours did fly by!

Not to mention that Godforsaken moron Francis Fukuyama.

Anyway, throw all this crap into the pot 20 yrs ago, mix, bake for x number of yrs and et voila! Twenty yrs later, those eager young nutters have soaked up all that drivel and we now find these things the political philosophies de jour and depressingly de rigeur.

Its rather refreshing to hear someone debunk the twaddle at last. Twenty yrs later than some of us realised it, but better late than never. On the plus side it lead me to becoming an engineer instead.
Ha ha. The interview was very well done? Seriously?

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
DeejRC said:
Interesting thread.

The interview was very well done, contrary to what most posters seem to contend. Newman had her positions and angles to come at the Prof and gave him rebuttal space. That IS how an interview should be and he actually commended her on it, indeed, he used both the situation and the interviewer to highlight and evidence his arguments. To her credit the interviewer accepted those and engaged with his responses. I have no issue with the "So you are saying..." approach as she was using a fairly standard linguistic technique to draw a narrative. Far from being derogatory in fact, the Prof then used those lines to build his arguments back, either in rebuttal or in presenting evidence for his own contentions. Again, the interview gave him the space to build those points. In this respect I found her vastly superior to the other muppet on C4, the ex-newround bloke. Ive always thought Paxman was also quite guilty of such things.

On the subject of the Prof himself - he is certainly an interesting chap.

Most of you haven't done a political theory degree, because, presumably you had more sense. Alas I didnt, but fear not, by Xmas in the first Semester I came to realise that absolutely nobody on a course to study politics should ever be let near political power!
Very alas, however, is that back in the 90s, it was the in-vogue political theory thing to discuss, teach, lecture and inform those eager young political minds about such new fangled ideas as Post-modernism, Constructionalism and neo-liberalism! Gosh, my, how the hours did fly by!

Not to mention that Godforsaken moron Francis Fukuyama.

Anyway, throw all this crap into the pot 20 yrs ago, mix, bake for x number of yrs and et voila! Twenty yrs later, those eager young nutters have soaked up all that drivel and we now find these things the political philosophies de jour and depressingly de rigeur.

Its rather refreshing to hear someone debunk the twaddle at last. Twenty yrs later than some of us realised it, but better late than never. On the plus side it lead me to becoming an engineer instead.
Have no fear, they're coming for the engineers as well, - the new head of Engineering Education at Purdue (a decent engineering uni I think) has specialised in 'applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women's studies and ethnic studies' and 'understanding how students conceptualize their identities as engineers', whilst 'as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges'

I think you would have loved to have transferred into engineering and then sat in her lectures wink

DeejRC

5,712 posts

81 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
Patrick Bateman said:
She misconstrued pretty much every point he was making on very complex topics into simplistic drivel to try and discredit him.

Is that really a good interviewing technique?

Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?

A fking journalist asked that. It was evident from her being absolutely speechless after the reply that the whole thing wasn't just an attempt to play devil's advocate.
Actually it isn't a bad technique at all. The antagonistic approach of the interviewer is a well known position. So the technique or methodology is viable, whether you like it or not. She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line. The issue is whether you give space for your interviewee to rebut and to build a rebuttal case - which C4 and the interviewer fully did in this case.

This is how arguments are supposed to be won. They are not supposed to be easy, they are not supposed to be fair. They are supposed to be won by the quality of the points on offer, that is in fact the very point that the Prof was trying and succeeded in making. He even commended her on doing her job - to make him uncomfortable and to push him to elucidate his points with an increasing quality, so that he couldnt provide lazy, or incomplete or illogical answers.

My only issue is that probably his most important and interesting message for modern society - namely white boys needing to grow the fk up - as glossed over at the beginning to go down the pre-imposed editorial line. Because is/was the subjet de jour. An exposition of his original point I think would be fascinating, esp when subject to a forensic and critical interview from an antagonistic position.
Put him before a male quality interviewer - Andrew Neil - and let go on that!

bazza white

3,551 posts

127 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
I wonder after after having her opinions quashed/opposed has she changed any of her opinions of sex discrimination in the workplace now she has had time to reflect.

V8mate

Original Poster:

45,899 posts

188 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
Goaty Bill 2 said:
covmutley said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Got a link or specific interview/talk?

I'm curious because I don't think I've found solid ground for disagreeing with him on the Holocaust.

'Ordinary Men' by Christopher Browning, which he often references, is a very powerful read.
It very much clarified, and confirmed, for me some thoughts I had already had.
No sorry. It was a classroom lecture on YouTube .

He wasnt really giving a strong view, more questioning why Hitler diverted his attention from the war. Saying he could have won the war, then done the murdering after. Suggested his main focus/psychological state may have been that he was intent on causing mayhem.
Ahh yes.
I recall that quite well.

In the literal sense, I would say not so much "causing mayhem" as completing the job of 'the final solution', but in the more general purpose of the lecture "causing mayhem" for ideological reasons would fit.
Can either of you share a link to it?

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all

i recall reading Francis Fukayama's book
idiot

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
DeejRC said:
She also didnt misconstrue
Erm - yes she did. Just one example is the following exchange:

CN: "why shouldn't women have the right to choose not to have children or the right to choose those demanding roles "

JP: "they can yeah that's fine"

CN: but you're saying that makes them unhappy

JP: no I'm not saying that I'm I and I actually haven't said that so far

CN: you're saying it makes them miserable

His reference to women being miserable ("very unhappy" were I believe his actual words) was in relation to an earlier point he made about some women dominating a weak partner - nothing to do with choosing not to have children or choosing to pursue demanding roles.

She is basically picking up on particular keywords - then shoehorning them into a completely different context later in the conversation.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 23 January 21:45

DeejRC

5,712 posts

81 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
wsurfa said:
DeejRC said:
Interesting thread.

The interview was very well done, contrary to what most posters seem to contend. Newman had her positions and angles to come at the Prof and gave him rebuttal space. That IS how an interview should be and he actually commended her on it, indeed, he used both the situation and the interviewer to highlight and evidence his arguments. To her credit the interviewer accepted those and engaged with his responses. I have no issue with the "So you are saying..." approach as she was using a fairly standard linguistic technique to draw a narrative. Far from being derogatory in fact, the Prof then used those lines to build his arguments back, either in rebuttal or in presenting evidence for his own contentions. Again, the interview gave him the space to build those points. In this respect I found her vastly superior to the other muppet on C4, the ex-newround bloke. Ive always thought Paxman was also quite guilty of such things.

On the subject of the Prof himself - he is certainly an interesting chap.

Most of you haven't done a political theory degree, because, presumably you had more sense. Alas I didnt, but fear not, by Xmas in the first Semester I came to realise that absolutely nobody on a course to study politics should ever be let near political power!
Very alas, however, is that back in the 90s, it was the in-vogue political theory thing to discuss, teach, lecture and inform those eager young political minds about such new fangled ideas as Post-modernism, Constructionalism and neo-liberalism! Gosh, my, how the hours did fly by!

Not to mention that Godforsaken moron Francis Fukuyama.

Anyway, throw all this crap into the pot 20 yrs ago, mix, bake for x number of yrs and et voila! Twenty yrs later, those eager young nutters have soaked up all that drivel and we now find these things the political philosophies de jour and depressingly de rigeur.

Its rather refreshing to hear someone debunk the twaddle at last. Twenty yrs later than some of us realised it, but better late than never. On the plus side it lead me to becoming an engineer instead.
Have no fear, they're coming for the engineers as well, - the new head of Engineering Education at Purdue (a decent engineering uni I think) has specialised in 'applying liberative pedagogies in engineering education, leveraging best practices from women's studies and ethnic studies' and 'understanding how students conceptualize their identities as engineers', whilst 'as an engineering educator to be part of a paradigm shift that these pedagogies demand, repositioning concerns about diversity in science and engineering from superficial measures of equity as headcounts, to addressing justice and the genuine engagement of all students as core educational challenges'

I think you would have loved to have transferred into engineering and then sat in her lectures wink
I have absolutely no idea what you just said. I think Im glad of that.

oilbethere

908 posts

80 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
DeejRC said:
She also didnt misconstrue
Erm - yes she did. Just one example is the following exchange:

CN: "why shouldn't women have the right to choose not to have children or the right to choose those demanding roles "

JP: "they can yeah that's fine"

CN: but you're saying that makes them unhappy

JP: no I'm not saying that I'm I and I actually haven't said that so far

CN: you're saying it makes them miserable

His reference to women being miserable ("very unhappy" were I believe his actual words) was in relation to an earlier point he made about some women dominating a weak partner - nothing to do with choosing not to have children or choosing to pursue demanding roles.

She is basically picking up on particular keywords - then shoehorning them into a completely different context later in the conversation.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 23 January 21:45
Deej must have watched a different interview.

technodup

7,576 posts

129 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
DeejRC said:
So the technique or methodology is viable, whether you like it or not. She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.
She misconstrued virtually every answer he gave. And as for skill in fitting the editorial line- the internet wouldn't be discussing it if she had the skill and had achieved that.

We're discussing it because she didn't. So much so at one stage she was literally lost for words because his answer was too smart for her to twist into her narrow editorial line at all.

Logic>emotion. Which was kind of one of the points he was making. Male character traits tend to achieve more than female. She ended up proving the point better than he ever could.

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

218 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
oilbethere said:
Deej must have watched a different interview.
Indeed - if she didn't misconstrue, why did he have to correct her in almost every instance of "so you're saying"...........

Patrick Bateman

12,143 posts

173 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
Misconstrue- interpret (a person's words or actions) wrongly.

That's exactly what she did.

covmutley

3,012 posts

189 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
V8mate said:
Can either of you share a link to it?
Found it:
https://youtu.be/jMqQBLZwRIE

Goaty Bill 2

3,393 posts

118 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
V8mate said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
covmutley said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Got a link or specific interview/talk?

I'm curious because I don't think I've found solid ground for disagreeing with him on the Holocaust.

'Ordinary Men' by Christopher Browning, which he often references, is a very powerful read.
It very much clarified, and confirmed, for me some thoughts I had already had.
No sorry. It was a classroom lecture on YouTube .

He wasnt really giving a strong view, more questioning why Hitler diverted his attention from the war. Saying he could have won the war, then done the murdering after. Suggested his main focus/psychological state may have been that he was intent on causing mayhem.
Ahh yes.
I recall that quite well.

In the literal sense, I would say not so much "causing mayhem" as completing the job of 'the final solution', but in the more general purpose of the lecture "causing mayhem" for ideological reasons would fit.
Can either of you share a link to it?
2015 Personality Lectures - It should be in the first of these. (didn't have time to preview to be certain)
The second concentrates on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago and the USSR

https://youtu.be/XY7a1RXMbHI
and
https://youtu.be/wZnqLvLbLV0



DeejRC

5,712 posts

81 months

Tuesday 23rd January 2018
quotequote all
Lets try this again:

She also didnt misconstrue , she took what he said and tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning. Again, thats fine, you can do that. Part of the skill IS making the responses of an interviewee fit your editorial line.


...tried to make it fit the editorial line of questioning.


C4 have an editorial line. The interviewer is there to enact the editorial line. Its the job. End of. The ideological pov is almost irrelevant, its simply the editorial line. Create a point of difference, etc, etc. Her job was to grab his words and make them fit the angle they wanted the interview to take. Its the standard game.

Witness the kerfuffle afterwards, C4 hiring "security" experts, publicising the anti-Cathy stuff, etc, etc. This is straight from the "all publicity is good publicity" playbook and C4 are jumping over the moon. Cathy Newman is jumping over the moon. Job absolutely jobbed as far as they are concerned. What the ideology is, they dont give a crap about! Do you really think her editor Ben de Pear gives a rat fk about any feminist Marxist Post-Modernist ideology? Does he buggery.

Peterson comes at a position from a perspective of all conversations should be a mutual transactional dialogue that furthers progression to the/a truth. Newman/C4 came at it as the standard C4 methodology to create a differential with the editorial line so they can present an angle and perspective that they can sell to the viewing public/advertisers.

Actually its funny, as Im writing this I have the Dutch interview in on the background and around about 17mins in or so for the next 10mins, Peterson is actually voicing thoughts out loud very much similar to the above.

Oh and the Dutch interview isn't a patch on the C4 interview. Its not an interview, its just a monologue/lecture. Nothing is gained.