Compilation of the best reactions to Jordan Peterson/Cathy Newman interview

The first is a compilation of reactions to the Jordan Peterson v Cathy Newman interview on BBC4. The one below is Peterson being interviewed on Fox.

Quotes from the Fox interviews.

His single most important piece of advice: “Stop saying things that make you weak.”

Dealing with critics: “They are not just trying to shut you down but to discredit you. If you are very careful in what you say AND YOU DON’T BACK DOWN ultimately things turn around for you.”

On the question, are you dangerous: “Yeah!” . . . “You should be able to be a monster and then not be one.”

On one form of censorship now very common: “If you are a conservative it is highly probable that your youtube content will be de-monitised. . . . It will not be associated with advertising content” and therefore not be promoted and viewed.

LET ME ALSO NOW ADD THIS: Why Can’t People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?. An example provided in the article.

Peterson begins the interview by explaining why he tells young men to grow up and take responsibility for getting their lives together and becoming good partners. He notes he isn’t talking exclusively to men, and that he has lots of female fans.

“What’s in it for the women, though?” Newman asks.

“Well, what sort of partner do you want?” Peterson says. “Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with who is going to help you?”

“So you’re saying,” Newman retorts, “that women have some sort of duty to help fix the crisis of masculinity.” But that’s not what he said. He posited a vested interest, not a duty.

“Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful,” Peterson goes on to assert. “And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. Power is competence. And why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why, actually, you can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination—”

The interviewer interrupts, “So you’re saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?”

And then there is the discussion on the pay gap between men and women, which of course refers to the difference in the averages. An old old story among economists for which the answers are all well known except to those who prefer not to know. But Peterson is a psychologist so takes a very different tack.

The next section of the interview concerns the pay gap between men and women, and whether it is rooted in gender itself or other nondiscriminatory factors:

Newman: … that 9 percent pay gap, that’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.

Peterson: Yes. But there’s multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender, but that’s not the only reason. If you’re a social scientist worth your salt, you never do a univariate analysis. You say women in aggregate are paid less than men. Okay. Well then we break its down by age; we break it down by occupation; we break it down by interest; we break it down by personality.

Newman: But you’re saying, basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what is skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying that’s just a fact of life, women aren’t necessarily going to get to the top.

Peterson: No, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying there are multiple reasons for it.

Newman: Yeah, but why should women put up with those reasons?

Peterson: I’m not saying that they should put up with it! I’m saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong. And it is wrong. There’s no doubt about that. The multivariate analysis have been done. So let me give you an example––

The interviewer seemed eager to impute to Peterson a belief that a large, extant wage gap between men and women is a “fact of life” that women should just “put up with,” though all those assertions are contrary to his real positions on the matter.

Throughout this next section, the interviewer repeatedly tries to oversimplify Peterson’s view, as if he believes one factor he discusses is all-important, and then she seems to assume that because Peterson believes that given factor helps to explain a pay gap between men and women, he doesn’t support any actions that would bring about a more equal outcome.

Her surprised question near the end suggests earnest confusion:

Peterson: There’s a personality trait known as agreeableness. Agreeable people are compassionate and polite. And agreeable people get paid less than disagreeable people for the same job. Women are more agreeable than men.

Newman: Again, a vast generalization. Some women are not more agreeable than men.

Peterson: That’s true. And some women get paid more than men.

Newman: So you’re saying by and large women are too agreeable to get the pay raises that they deserve.

Peterson: No, I’m saying that is one component of a multivariate equation that predicts salary. It accounts for maybe 5 percent of the variance. So you need another 18 factors, one of which is gender. And there is prejudice. There’s no doubt about that. But it accounts for a much smaller portion of the variance in the pay gap than the radical feminists claim.

Newman: Okay, so rather than denying that the pay gap exists, which is what you did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t you say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go ask for a pay raise. Make yourself disagreeable with your boss.

Peterson: But I didn’t deny it existed, I denied that it existed because of gender. See, because I’m very, very, very careful with my words.

Newman: So the pay gap exists. You accept that. I mean the pay gap between men and women exists—but you’re saying it’s not because of gender, it’s because women are too agreeable to ask for pay raises.

Peterson: That’s one of the reasons.

Newman: Okay, so why not get them to ask for a pay raise? Wouldn’t that be fairer?

Peterson: I’ve done that many, many, many times in my career. So one of the things you do as a clinical psychologist is assertiveness training. So you might say––often you treat people for anxiety, you treat them for depression, and maybe the next most common category after that would be assertiveness training. So I’ve had many, many women, extraordinarily competent women, in my clinical and consulting practice, and we’ve put together strategies for their career development that involved continual pushing, competing, for higher wages. And often tripled their wages within a five-year period.

Newman: And you celebrate that?

Peterson: Of course! Of course!

And so on and so forth.

AND THEN THERE’S THIS:

More comment on that interview

Karen Straughan’s Take on Jordan Peterson’s Channel 4 Interview. It lasts 38 minutes but never wavered for a moment. So much to get and she gets it very well. Interesting first comment by Karen Straughan in the youtube comments:

Within ten minutes of this video going up, Channel 4 had hit me with a copyright takedown. I filed a dispute based on fair use and it’s now viewable again, but have lost my monetization privileges on this video for up to 30 days, the fuckers.

The beeb didn’t want to see their shame spread any farther, but too late for that. Good to know that the BBC is embarrassed by the interview, and so they should be.

Via Small Dead Animals

FACEBOOK RESPONSE: A mate of mine put this post up on Facebook and this is the note I just received from him:

Facebook just marked as spam my post of your post

I’m not on Facebook so I don’t know how any of it works, but the response time had to have been less than an hour. These people are evil, genuinely evil.

Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman interview reactions

These are reactions to the Cathy Newman interview of Jordan Peterson. His own reaction, as discussed in the final video below, is that the interview is an example of “the instability of the times we are in.” It is a forewarning of the dark times ahead for us all.

These are a series of quotes from the last interview with Peterson not necessarily perfectly transcribed [and now for some reason no longer available]:

“She laid out two sets of ideological presuppositions, two sets actually, her set and my set. The set of ideological position she laid out from my side bore very little relation to what I think or say.”

“She would ask me a question that wasn’t really a question but a barb with bait on the end of it. She would say what I said which had nothing to do with what I had said. She was fabricating on the sly the person – the villain – that she hoped I would be and insisting that was me and denying that it was a lie. That is what the interview was.”

“I was watching her after the first minute like a clinician and watching what she was doing. And I truly don’t believe that anything she said in that entire interview was true on its own.”

The form of conversation was not one designed to further our knowledge of the truth which is the highest form of conversation. Indeed, there is quite a fascinating discussion of the nature of her approach to the discussion. “Playing the devil’s advocate and asking difficult questions are not the same thing.”

“Her claims became so preposterous and self-contradictory that it was difficult to remain completely detached. And this was the crux of the interview . . . she had asked me in her self-righteous manner just what gave me the right to offend someone and hurt their feelings, and I thought about six things at the same time, but the first thing I thought was, you’re a journalist, that’s the last question in the world you should ever ask someone, if you have any genuine integrity as a journalist because that’s all you have as a journalist. You have the right to offend people and hurt their feelings. So I called her out on that.”

“There was a three-fold ideological battle going on. There was a battle between her position which was radically neo-Marxist post-modernist. She was arguing against who she thought I was. And then there was the position I was trying to put forward which had virtually nothing to do with what she was discussing.”

“I was able to keep reasonably detatched during the interview because whoever she thought she was talking to bore very little resemblance to me.”

“But she couldn’t make her reputation and her living that way using those tactics – those were not tactics of seeking the truth but they were almost tactics of domination.”

But the outcome should not be seen as a win since “virtually everyone watching it online . . . are not happy with the way the interview went. . . . That should be crushing for her. . . . If we are forestalling a correction and we keep putting it off, then when it comes it will be much worse.”

Newman was driven by “ideologically motivated lies”.

In regard to his life’s work: “My conscious goal was the hope it would make people immune to ideological possession” an ambition which he himself notes he has not been successful at.

Anyway, don’t ignore the last of the videos the first half hour of which are Peterson’s own reflections. That is the most disturbing part of this entire episode and is worth your close attention. You should also listen to the last hour and a quarter as well but the analysis of the conversation is quite profound and something you will rarely encounter. He is a very dark prophet of our time. These are his own words about the kinds of outcome Cathy Newman, and indeed the entire post-modernist world of the neo-Marxist left, are leading us towards.

“We are playing with fire. Polarisation can only go on for so long before we start acting it out.”

I don’t think when we start acting these things out that the outcomes will be in any way positive at all. Meanwhile, here are the various videos but don’t forget the one that comes last.

And if you haven’t seen it yet, this is the original interview. And what makes this so remarkable is that the BBC was so certain of the outcome that they scheduled a half hour interview that went very very wrong, for them.

And the following provides some commentary about Cathy Newman and the entire outcome by Peterson. The first 33 minutes and then the rest is his discussing his philosophy and work.

And now that the above has disappeared, here is part of that video.