Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What he says is factually true

    The interviewer is an ideologue and wasn’t trying to chat or debate him just show him up.

    I’ve heard about him but this is the first time I actually listened to him.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    The whole interview:

    Peterson: I think that most apples are good to eat
    Newman: So you're saying you hate apples?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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!
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  26804634_2008683185813987_9136000817852998342_n (1).jpg
Views: 159
Size:  70.3 KB

    This is glorious.

    Btw the entire interview was about SJW/post modernist ideology VS reality logic and facts.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LotusFlowerm)
    Name:  26804634_2008683185813987_9136000817852998342_n (1).jpg
Views: 159
Size:  70.3 KB

    This is glorious.
    Oh wow this actually made my day
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Channel 4 should not give transphobes (this man is a rabid transphobe Google it) a platform on which to spread their hatred.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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:biggrin:
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Just because you disagree with Peterson it does not make him an idiot.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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'?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    The alt right are reverting to claiming that anyone who asks questions of them is 'slandering' them.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Peterson came across well for much of it. Then he started comparing trans activists to Mao and showed himself up as a fruitcake.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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"
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 25, 2018
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.