Channel 4: Jordan Peterson and gender
So, I couldn't find anyone talking about this on TSR (please send me a link if this thread has already been started!) and I was wondering on people's opinions.
Is what Peterson is saying true? What do you think of the interviewer and how the actual interview was handled?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=3s
Personally, I think that the interview itself was bad, the questions asked were not good, and most of them didn't allow Peterson to properly convey what his actual opinions were. He was constantly interrupted and his words were constantly not being properly listened to in my opinion.
Also btw, I do not know a massive amount about Peterson, but from the speeches that I've listened to and from this interview, I can say that I agree with him on a lot of things, so obviously I am bias in this
But I was also wondering what people thought of it in general!
Is what Peterson is saying true? What do you think of the interviewer and how the actual interview was handled?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54&t=3s
Personally, I think that the interview itself was bad, the questions asked were not good, and most of them didn't allow Peterson to properly convey what his actual opinions were. He was constantly interrupted and his words were constantly not being properly listened to in my opinion.
Also btw, I do not know a massive amount about Peterson, but from the speeches that I've listened to and from this interview, I can say that I agree with him on a lot of things, so obviously I am bias in this
But I was also wondering what people thought of it in general!
(edited 6 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
There was but it's dead.
I thought the interview went really well, the interviewer kept trying to slip him up which made Professor Peterson look all the better for it especially when he stumped her on the right to be offended. It was also helpful how Peterson explained his lobster point despite the interviewer's trying to make him sound like a quack for bringing it up. I thought it was a fun interview, and props to channel 4 for uploading and keeping it on youtube despite the interviewer getting shown up online. I've been watching Peterson's lectures and videos for about a year now, what a gem.
I thought the interview went really well, the interviewer kept trying to slip him up which made Professor Peterson look all the better for it especially when he stumped her on the right to be offended. It was also helpful how Peterson explained his lobster point despite the interviewer's trying to make him sound like a quack for bringing it up. I thought it was a fun interview, and props to channel 4 for uploading and keeping it on youtube despite the interviewer getting shown up online. I've been watching Peterson's lectures and videos for about a year now, what a gem.
The whole interview:
Peterson: I think that most apples are good to eat
Newman: So you're saying you hate apples?
Peterson: I think that most apples are good to eat
Newman: So you're saying you hate apples?
Original post by Nil Admirari
There was but it's dead.
I thought the interview went really well, the interviewer kept trying to slip him up which made Professor Peterson look all the better for it especially when he stumped her on the right to be offended. It was also helpful how Peterson explained his lobster point despite the interviewer's trying to make him sound like a quack for bringing it up. I thought it was a fun interview, and props to channel 4 for uploading and keeping it on youtube despite the interviewer getting shown up online. I've been watching Peterson's lectures and videos for about a year now, what a gem.
I thought the interview went really well, the interviewer kept trying to slip him up which made Professor Peterson look all the better for it especially when he stumped her on the right to be offended. It was also helpful how Peterson explained his lobster point despite the interviewer's trying to make him sound like a quack for bringing it up. I thought it was a fun interview, and props to channel 4 for uploading and keeping it on youtube despite the interviewer getting shown up online. I've been watching Peterson's lectures and videos for about a year now, what a gem.
Yep! I'm definitely glad that it's still on youtube! I wanted to dislike it because of the actual interviewer and how bad the questions were and how irrelevant they seemed to be, but Peterson really handled it so well in my opinion!
This is glorious.
Btw the entire interview was about SJW/post modernist ideology VS reality logic and facts.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by LotusFlowerm
This is glorious.
This is glorious.
Oh wow this actually made my day
It was a good interview for a multitude of reasons.
Firstly, it demonstrated how little people in some circles (particularly in the media bubble) question their own assumptions. Indeed, the frequency with which media outlets such as the BBC feature stories on identity politics has led one of my friends to believe that it is an "establishment conspiracy" to distract people from real issues. In actual fact, as I keep trying to stress, there's a much simpler explanation: people at the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian and other outlets are surrounded by like-minded people, and they never question their presuppositions. In a word, they've succumbed to groupthink. It was as if Newman had never even bothered to try to find arguments against her position.
Secondly, in terms of specifics, I think Peterson did very well when it came to explaining why the absence of equal outcomes does not necessarily mean that there is an absence of fairness. For example, he rightly pointed out that in some professions, such as the medical profession, females dominate. In other professions, they may not. But there are so many explanations for why this might be that to deploy extreme measures to get a precisely 50-50 split is futile and downright harmful.
The interview is a big win for common sense, but has been marred by the appalling abuse directed towards Cathy Newman. And, if these people really want to stop the madness of identity politics, that's only going to cause people to become more entrenched in their views.
Firstly, it demonstrated how little people in some circles (particularly in the media bubble) question their own assumptions. Indeed, the frequency with which media outlets such as the BBC feature stories on identity politics has led one of my friends to believe that it is an "establishment conspiracy" to distract people from real issues. In actual fact, as I keep trying to stress, there's a much simpler explanation: people at the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian and other outlets are surrounded by like-minded people, and they never question their presuppositions. In a word, they've succumbed to groupthink. It was as if Newman had never even bothered to try to find arguments against her position.
Secondly, in terms of specifics, I think Peterson did very well when it came to explaining why the absence of equal outcomes does not necessarily mean that there is an absence of fairness. For example, he rightly pointed out that in some professions, such as the medical profession, females dominate. In other professions, they may not. But there are so many explanations for why this might be that to deploy extreme measures to get a precisely 50-50 split is futile and downright harmful.
The interview is a big win for common sense, but has been marred by the appalling abuse directed towards Cathy Newman. And, if these people really want to stop the madness of identity politics, that's only going to cause people to become more entrenched in their views.
(edited 6 years ago)
Peterson handled the situation beautifully. The interviewer kept putting words in his mouth and trying to trip him up. But Peterson obviously wasn't having it. He made very careful, collected responses to some rather hostile questions and fallacious reasoning on her (Newman's) part. She was so desperate to make him sound like a sexist, it was truly remarkable.
Well done to Channel 4 for showing the interview mostly uncut when it obviously didn't go the way they were expecting it would.
Jordan Peterson is a true Canadian treasure and doesn't deserve the amount of slander he gets from the media.
Well done to Channel 4 for showing the interview mostly uncut when it obviously didn't go the way they were expecting it would.
Jordan Peterson is a true Canadian treasure and doesn't deserve the amount of slander he gets from the media.
Crappy interview but Peterson is still an idiot.
Seethe end of the interview where he asserts that hierarchical societal structures are the natural default (never mind that is a fallacious argument) because humans and lobsters had a common ancestor 350 million years ago.
Interviewer would have been better served dropping the liberal feminism and take him up on that dumb as **** idea.
Seethe end of the interview where he asserts that hierarchical societal structures are the natural default (never mind that is a fallacious argument) because humans and lobsters had a common ancestor 350 million years ago.
Interviewer would have been better served dropping the liberal feminism and take him up on that dumb as **** idea.
Channel 4 should not give transphobes (this man is a rabid transphobe Google it) a platform on which to spread their hatred.
Original post by FriendlyPenguin
Channel 4 should not give transphobes (this man is a rabid transphobe Google it) a platform on which to spread their hatred.
Good SJW trolling
Original post by mojojojo101
Crappy interview but Peterson is still an idiot.
Seethe end of the interview where he asserts that hierarchical societal structures are the natural default (never mind that is a fallacious argument) because humans and lobsters had a common ancestor 350 million years ago.
Interviewer would have been better served dropping the liberal feminism and take him up on that dumb as **** idea.
Seethe end of the interview where he asserts that hierarchical societal structures are the natural default (never mind that is a fallacious argument) because humans and lobsters had a common ancestor 350 million years ago.
Interviewer would have been better served dropping the liberal feminism and take him up on that dumb as **** idea.
Just because you disagree with Peterson it does not make him an idiot.
Original post by mojojojo101
Crappy interview but Peterson is still an idiot.
Seethe end of the interview where he asserts that hierarchical societal structures are the natural default (never mind that is a fallacious argument) because humans and lobsters had a common ancestor 350 million years ago.
Interviewer would have been better served dropping the liberal feminism and take him up on that dumb as **** idea.
Seethe end of the interview where he asserts that hierarchical societal structures are the natural default (never mind that is a fallacious argument) because humans and lobsters had a common ancestor 350 million years ago.
Interviewer would have been better served dropping the liberal feminism and take him up on that dumb as **** idea.
You've not represented his argument accurately. His claim was that serotonin release is linked to movement up and down dominance hierarchies in humans.
He only brought up lobsters to show how long this feature of animals has existed, since we diverged from lobersters so long ago evolutionarily yet they also have a similar serotonin system.
How do you know that dominance hierarchies aren't the 'natural default'?
Original post by Dandaman1
Peterson handled the situation beautifully. The interviewer kept putting words in his mouth and trying to trip him up. But Peterson obviously wasn't having it. He made very careful, collected responses to some rather hostile questions and fallacious reasoning on her (Newman's) part. She was so desperate to make him sound like a sexist, it was truly remarkable.
Well done to Channel 4 for showing the interview mostly uncut when it obviously didn't go the way they were expecting it would.
Jordan Peterson is a true Canadian treasure and doesn't deserve the amount of slander he gets from the media.
Well done to Channel 4 for showing the interview mostly uncut when it obviously didn't go the way they were expecting it would.
Jordan Peterson is a true Canadian treasure and doesn't deserve the amount of slander he gets from the media.
The alt right are reverting to claiming that anyone who asks questions of them is 'slandering' them.
Peterson came across well for much of it. Then he started comparing trans activists to Mao and showed himself up as a fruitcake.
Original post by DeBruyne18
The alt right are reverting to claiming that anyone who asks questions of them is 'slandering' them.
Bar the fact that the "alt-right" is just a bogeyman to try and push everyone on the right into one catagory of "nazi" the left do the exact same "he is a Xphobe or a Yist"
Original post by DeBruyne18
The alt right are reverting to claiming that anyone who asks questions of them is 'slandering' them.
Original post by DeBruyne18
Peterson came across well for much of it. Then he started comparing trans activists to Mao and showed himself up as a fruitcake.
Except Peterson isn't part of the alt right. The media have produced hit piece after hit piece trying to associate him with them and make him out to be some sort of right wing quack and a transphobe, which simply isn't true.
He wasn't equating trans activists to Mao or implying they are anything on the same level. He was simply saying they have been motivated by similar toxic ideologies of collectivism and cultural Marxism (which are bad things).
This is what I mean. His critics just can't seem to get anything about what he says right.
I have lots of time for Jordan Peterson - very logical and well spoken man.
The interviewer did both a good and bad job in the interview.. her line of questioning was frustrating.. constantly trying to trap him and expose some awful view she inferred he had.. but as others pointed out, it did push him into explaining things fully and in greater detail, so in that regards it was quite good.
The interviewer did both a good and bad job in the interview.. her line of questioning was frustrating.. constantly trying to trap him and expose some awful view she inferred he had.. but as others pointed out, it did push him into explaining things fully and in greater detail, so in that regards it was quite good.
Original post by Dandaman1
Except Peterson isn't part of the alt right. The media have produced hit piece after hit piece trying to associate him with them and make him out to be some sort of right wing quack and a transphobe, which simply isn't true.
He wasn't equating trans activists to Mao or implying they are anything on the same level. He was simply saying they have been motivated by similar toxic ideologies of collectivism and cultural Marxism (which are bad things).
This is what I mean. His critics just can't seem to get anything about what he says right.
He wasn't equating trans activists to Mao or implying they are anything on the same level. He was simply saying they have been motivated by similar toxic ideologies of collectivism and cultural Marxism (which are bad things).
This is what I mean. His critics just can't seem to get anything about what he says right.
I mean the point about Mao and trans activists he makes is just sheer BS. He does makes some decent points on other topics but when he says stuff like that, he lets out that he is a fruitcake.
If you compare someone or a group to Mao/ a murderous tyrant then you do so knowing the implications. It would be like people comparing Trump to Hitler and justifying it on the basis that they were both opposed to immigration etc. (I called out people on the left who made such a stupid comparison).
If you want to oppose people's arguments then fine but accusing people of being like Mao is sheer idiocy. I'm sure 'trans activists' aren't motivated by 'marxism' nor do they want to kill millions of people.
I'm not a 'critic' of his. This is the first time I've even heard him speak. It would just be good if he didn't feed into the alt right victim mentality and harped on about 'cultural marxism'. His argument about the free market was also pretty weak. Simply because something is the product of the 'free market' does not make it just or fair, nor does it mean we shouldn't seek to change it.
(edited 6 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Does carbohydrates cause acne?
- What’s meant by this
- Depressed that I am not in a relationship
- Psychology memory
- What YouTube tutorial channels do you watch?
- My good friend has invited everyone except me to his baby shower. How do I respond?
- Who will win the EFL Cup?
- Please answer this short questionnaire!
- is it actually useful
- Big 4 or Civil Service Graduate Programme?
- im nearly 17 and still afraid of talking to girls
- A Level English Language Investigation ideas
- English language paper 2
- What is your claim to fame?
- Advice for writing an essay
- Marketing Level 4 Apprenticeships
- Can I learn Alevel bio and chem AS/A2 content in 5 months in prep for 2024 exams?
- Switching from university to a journalism apprenticeship!
- EPQ Question Ideas?
- Nottingham veterinary medicine (D100) September 2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
