Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman
Discussion
I'm only just catching up with this; surprised it hasn't been shared here already.
Apologies if you're only into bite-sized clips... Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News interviewed Prof. Jordan Peterson and whilst it's half an hour long, I commend you to watch it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
I could wax lyrical about how refreshing it is to hear the likes of Peterson on UK TV. But, having subsequently watched some 'commentators' offering their view of the interview, I found that Paul Weston gave the best summary. (Sorry; it's another 15 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6OBI5JBITM
Amazon order for Peterson's book has been duly placed!
Apologies if you're only into bite-sized clips... Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News interviewed Prof. Jordan Peterson and whilst it's half an hour long, I commend you to watch it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
I could wax lyrical about how refreshing it is to hear the likes of Peterson on UK TV. But, having subsequently watched some 'commentators' offering their view of the interview, I found that Paul Weston gave the best summary. (Sorry; it's another 15 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6OBI5JBITM
Amazon order for Peterson's book has been duly placed!
jsf said:
Saw that last night on YouTube. It was the typical Chanel 4 news interview, but for once the other party could manage the interview and stop the false statements, it showed what a load of crap the usual tactics of Chanel 4 and others of a similar style like Faisal Islam employ is.
Cathy has now gone down the victim path and it's pathetic to see. He discusses this in this video https://youtu.be/E6qBxn_hFDQ
As far as I'm concerned she took one for the team. It's too easy to set the mob on an individual when, in fact, it's the dominance of the whole stinking Marxist media and 'liberal elite' in this country which needs to be addressed.Cathy has now gone down the victim path and it's pathetic to see. He discusses this in this video https://youtu.be/E6qBxn_hFDQ
Aphex said:
Spot how many times she says 'so you're saying'. She may annoy you quite quickly
A lot of commentators have picked up on her following 'so you're saying' with the complete opposite of what he'd said, thereby accusing her of deliberately trying to twist the discussion.Interestingly, Scott Adams (the creator of the Dilbert comic strip) had a different perspective. He maintained (my paraphrasing) that her behaviour was almost a nervous reaction to Peterson providing an unarguable response to her long-held(?) beliefs, and she, unable to provide a response, simply regurgitated her beliefs back to him as his words.
https://youtu.be/ZnyA5Wn1K_Q
Whether deliberate or sub-consciously, it was disastrous for her.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
V8mate said:
As far as I'm concerned she took one for the team. It's too easy to set the mob on an individual when, in fact, it's the dominance of the whole stinking Marxist media and 'liberal elite' in this country which needs to be addressed.
Surely you mean "stinking neo-Marxist post modernist media" 
I'm sure my single tag doesn't even begin properly to describe the broad spectrum of damaging influence on our news.
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 . 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.
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.
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.
covmutley said:
Interesting. Thanks!motco said:
The Independent gives an 'independent' view of the reaction to the Newman-Peterson interview.
Way to go to miss the point, eh?
Not-The-Messiah said:
Greg66 said:
Put it this way. Every F1 pitcrew doing wheel changes during a race I've ever seen has been all male. If you're a woman thinking about getting into that I would think that the chances are you'd conclude that it's probably not going to be for you. Then imagine one Sunday you watched the race and a team had an all female pitcrew (not, not in bikinis, in regular unflattering overalls) who could change a set of wheels at least as fast as the best of the competition. I really do think that the same viewer would have a different view on whether to look further into that as a career. It's a slightly flippant example, but it conveys the point well enough.
But if anyone is being honest it's not going to happen is it? You name me a physical activity where the best group of women will be the best group of men? It's called science and biology. Happy to be proven wrong though.
Anyway - this is well off-topic. I thought twice, and then twice again about whether even to post in N,P&E. So happy when this thread turned out to be civil and intellectually promising. Let's not have a fall-out over hypotheticals, eh?
Janluke said:
Mothersruin said:
Just skimmed that thread and its not too far from some of the comments on this one ie Peterson made some good points, posters agreed with some of what he said but questioned some of it, Newman didnt do a great job Why do feminist think he's wrong on (or misunderstands) feminism?
Or do feminists just feel they have to say that? (hopefully this isn't the case; they seem to be having a reasonably reasonable discussion)
Not-The-Messiah said:
Aphex said:
DeejRC said:
Have any of you actually read the actual book? Or researched it?
Sorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
The emergence of the 'liberal left' and what they stand for. By extension, antifa, militant feminists, blm, trans activists etcSorry, silly questions - of course you haven't.
OK, slightly easier question - who wants to take a shot at explaining what they think Peterson actually means by the Marxist Post-Modernist accusations...?
DeejRC said:
Thats not a strange definition of truth, it is a very real, very finite definition of truth. It is philosophical Darwenism.
A large part of the problem for Peterson here is that he is actually very old fashioned. Its almost refreshing to see/hear actually! His work is nothing new, nothing revelatory, but is based entirely and squarely on a very very large library of existing western philosophical thought. From Homer, Sophocles through Milton, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Kant, Jung et al. This chap is basing his positions on the absolute bedrock of Western political and social philosophy through the ages. He is as classical based as it gets.
Which of course means absolutely sod all to most ppl reading or trying to understand his position because they have never read his source baseline material.
Truth to Peterson stems from his exposition of "the hero" challenging and succeeding against his own darkest forces. By forcing "the hero" to confront and overcome his worst aspects, the hero grows and becomes "stronger". Or a better person. Extrapolate this to wider society and voila you have a society that gets stronger by being more honest with itself.
Why yes, well noticed - you can indeed see the Star Wars/luke and his Daddy issues! Well done! Nooo, of course George Lucas didnt steal any ideas from ancient Greek myths or philosophies involving labyrinths and nasty creatures at their centre...
Its basically just another advocate of "truth makes you stronger". Which has pretty much been a central tenet of western philosophical thought since...well all the above lot I just mentioned.
I DID warn you that studying political theory at Uni was A:f
king dull and B: that anyone who got through all this crap and still had enthusiasm to actually inflict their own political thoughts on mankind was pathologically unsuited to the job!
You're sitting in the corner of the room, banging your 'he's not saying anything new' drum, but making yourself look foolish.A large part of the problem for Peterson here is that he is actually very old fashioned. Its almost refreshing to see/hear actually! His work is nothing new, nothing revelatory, but is based entirely and squarely on a very very large library of existing western philosophical thought. From Homer, Sophocles through Milton, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Kant, Jung et al. This chap is basing his positions on the absolute bedrock of Western political and social philosophy through the ages. He is as classical based as it gets.
Which of course means absolutely sod all to most ppl reading or trying to understand his position because they have never read his source baseline material.
Truth to Peterson stems from his exposition of "the hero" challenging and succeeding against his own darkest forces. By forcing "the hero" to confront and overcome his worst aspects, the hero grows and becomes "stronger". Or a better person. Extrapolate this to wider society and voila you have a society that gets stronger by being more honest with itself.
Why yes, well noticed - you can indeed see the Star Wars/luke and his Daddy issues! Well done! Nooo, of course George Lucas didnt steal any ideas from ancient Greek myths or philosophies involving labyrinths and nasty creatures at their centre...
Its basically just another advocate of "truth makes you stronger". Which has pretty much been a central tenet of western philosophical thought since...well all the above lot I just mentioned.
I DID warn you that studying political theory at Uni was A:f
king dull and B: that anyone who got through all this crap and still had enthusiasm to actually inflict their own political thoughts on mankind was pathologically unsuited to the job!And the slight you are casting on everyone else in this thread isn't helping either. (though you have long-standing form on PH for donning a Walter Mitty cloak)
If Peterson was some self-styled cod philosopher, I might have some sympathy with your argument. But he's not; he's a clinical psychologist. So the value he is adding, is taking established themes, some from hundreds of years ago, and demonstrating their fitness for purpose in a modern age by application of contemporary data and analysis.
That, is what makes him exciting and interesting and pertinent and useful. That he isn't relying on 100% novel treatises couldn't be more irrelevant.
Halb said:
wsurfa said:
I've not seen the Downey interview, but the Ayoade one is great for how uncomfortable KGM look through most of it, and I really like Ayoade
Yeah, I love the Ayoade 'interview', it's a masterclass in how to show up the twaddle of presenters. And see if the presenter is self-ware.I wonder if KGM went to Newman afterwards and said, 'welcome to the club.'
"You're black; shouldn't you be promoting black stuff?"
"Why do I need to? It's much more fun just being so much cleverer than you"
https://youtu.be/jjC3ycS_2js
stevesingo said:
"Just remember: feelings are more important than facts"
Mike_Mac said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
V8mate said:
stevesingo said:
"Just remember: feelings are more important than facts"
When I was growing up, there was 'the truth' and there was 'make believe'. Now, as long as something is 'your truth', anyone who suggests anything to the contrary is right up there with the child killers.
dave_s13 said:
V8mate said:
I'd missed it!
"You're black; shouldn't you be promoting black stuff?"
"Why do I need to? It's much more fun just being so much cleverer than you"
https://youtu.be/jjC3ycS_2js
I'm pretty sure that whole thing was staged."You're black; shouldn't you be promoting black stuff?"
"Why do I need to? It's much more fun just being so much cleverer than you"
https://youtu.be/jjC3ycS_2js
It would be interesting to see KGM interview JP in a similar format though, the guy has a knack for being terrible at his job.
And KGM was clearly unsettled by his inability even to keep up, let alone return a volley.
Murph7355 said:
ash73 said:
Ayoade came across as a pretentious knob in that interview imo, and KGM was being thick.
Totally agree.It's natural for them to round on victims who offer themselves up.
And you can't compare the two interviews; the latter only crept into this thread as another example of a Ch4 journo losing the plot.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
ExPat2B said:
If you have seen the original interview, this has got the be the best remake/supercut/pisstake of the whole debacle. Superb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaaSCU7d7U4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaaSCU7d7U4
Some genuinely funny moments in that little production.
A bit OTT at times, as a critical view, but humorous nonetheless.
Chimune said:
https://youtu.be/_UwK-my_Kmw
A sensible a rational breakdown of the interview by a sensible rational woman.
Much better viewing than some of the echo chambers.
It doesn't go how you think it will!
Very good indeed. Thanks for sharing A sensible a rational breakdown of the interview by a sensible rational woman.
Much better viewing than some of the echo chambers.
It doesn't go how you think it will!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff