Thank God for Jordan Peterson!

If you have 29:55 I highly recommend watching this video. I intend to watch it many times, to learn his techniques and work towards mastering them. He is so good at staying calm. Andrew Klavan has been podcasting and writing recently about how elements of the Left are trying to silence debate with epithets. She throws them all at him and he never flinches once. He never gets upset. He just waits for her to stop speaking and responds with truth.

There are some great moments throughout, but at just about 22:30 he does an amazing bit of jujitsu, forcing her to all but admit the evidence of her being there is proof of everything he’s been saying that she spends the entire interview refuting. It’s brilliant!

16 comments to Thank God for Jordan Peterson!

  • Rufus

    The interviewer, Cathy Newman, is a fascinating study here.

    Surely she has some biographical information on Peterson prior to the interview. Even if she was busy leading up to the program and hadn’t had time to research him or his book herself, someone did, and the most cursory research into Dr. Peterson would reveal that he is extremely well-versed in a variety of subjects and a talented debater.

    But, even if she did not know this prior to the interview, or was not forewarned, his ability and intelligence are almost immediately obvious moments into her questioning.

    If I were a TV interviewer and I had a chance to interview someone who was an expert in a field I am not (in other words, almost any human on the planet), my goal would be to tease out information that my audience may find educational, inspirational or otherwise useful.

    It appears she was given a list of his “radical views” as culled by some researcher who didn’t do his or her homework, but rather than recognizing that the man in front of her is not the cliche someone put on the paper in front of her, she refuses to see what is directly before her. I would not be surprised to learn she did her own research and made her own notes from what others have written about him and his new book. Her cognitive dissonance is so impermeable it likely comes from a personally acquired impression on her part.

    • Rufus

      Most all television news programs have become either “Hardball” or “The View.” That’s understandable; those formats get huge ratings. Many people apparently like to watch people argue (in the first instance) and discuss their emotional reactions to current events (in the second instance).

      Cathy Newman and Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow and Brian Stelter and George Stephenopolous and Chuck Todd and Jake Tapper (and nearly every print journalist and blogger) refuse to realize we know this now. As a matter of fact; their cognitive dissonance is so strong they refuse to see it in themselves.

      Wolf should have figured it out when his panels grew from three people to a Brady Bunch or Hollywood Squares’ sized matrix of squawking heads, all shouting at one another, but he, and the rest, will not admit this to themselves. They are the 21st century equivalent of the Phil Donahue show or the WWE; all fake rage, feelings and almost no information.

      Cathy Newman is all emotion here, but she thinks she’s all data. Even when she’s seated across from a man who is all cold, hard, unemotional data she continues to believe she has the knowledge and the facts. Even as she becomes emotional, often mis-attributing slanderous things to Dr. Peterson, and even as he continues to be calm, she still believes, must believe, that she is a vessel through which all facts flow. An incorruptible vessel of fact assimilation and dissemination.

      No wonder they cannot learn.

      • Rufus

        From Aristotle in, “Rhetoric.”

        Hubris consists in doing and saying things that cause shame to the victim…simply for the pleasure of it. Retaliation is not hubris, but revenge.…Young men and the rich are hubristic because they think they are better than other people.

      • It’s ironic that these people probably consider themselves very caring and empathetic. In fact, they are constitutionally incapable of actual empathy with anyone who fails to conform to their stereotypes. To them, people are not wonderful mysteries, but cards to be cataloged.

        • Rufus

          I am encouraged that more and more people seem to be having a “sticks and stones” moment. If I say I am glad the Federal government is taxing less of my income this year and someone says, “There will be less money for black and brown-skinned people! You are a racist!”

          Their slander does not mean I have to spend 5 minutes trying to explain Economics to them. Economics they should have learned themselves, years ago. Or 5 minutes listing personal reasons I am not a racist. Reasons that will never be sufficient for them.

          If I don’t view the words, “racist” or “homophobe” or “misogynist” or “science denier” as personal attacks when they are used in a meaningless context, my mind is then free to reply with something like, “You don’t understand how Federal income taxation and the Federal budget work, do you?”

          If they start attempting to explain that they do by using taxation and budget data we can now have a serious conversation on the facts. Which they will lose because the facts are not on their side.

          If they hurl another epithet I can follow up with, “People commonly resort to ad hominem when they lack the basic knowledge required for intelligent discussion.” If this were a game of Chess they would now be in check.

          They can now either hurl another insult, or simply walk away, the equivalent of forfeiting, or they can try to show they do have facts, or that their statements were not ad hominem. As stated above, a discussion of facts results in a debate I will win and they cannot prove clear, ad hominem statements are not ad hominem statements. I win again.

          Using this technique likely won’t change your accuser’s mind, but people who witness the exchange will often start to wise up to what is going on, just as millions of people who have watched Newman’s attempt to slander Peterson.

  • Rufus

    Epitaph, epithet, epaulet?
    All I know is he wins it by a half over Paul Revere and Valentine.

  • Magnus Caseus Formatis

    I’ve been watching Jordan Peterson on the the web for some months. He’s as cool as they come. As for the interviewer, and the rest of the like-minded media, there’s a saying that goes thusly: “If you have the facts, pound the facts; if you have the truth, pound the truth; if you have neither the facts or the truth, pound the table.” The media excels in pounding the table.

  • Jordan Peterson is the man, as always, but this interviewer is terrible. It would be great if she would let him finish a sentence once in a while, rather than constantly badgering him and cutting him off every time he tries to answer one of her questions.

  • Dr. Schplatt

    I felt my IQ dripping out of the side of my head the more she spoke…

  • kishke

    That was great! I’ve never heard of Peterson, but he’s impressive. The interviewer seemed to be deliberately trying to twist what he was saying to mean something else. Or perhaps she’s just incapable for followed a chain of thought.

  • I can’t find the exact quote, but somewhere in the YT comments there is a great summary of this interview: it’s like a toddler trying to argue her way out of bedtime, and a parent who won’t budge.

    Also, I wanted to jump out of my skin when she said that his freedom of speech shouldn’t trump someone else’s “freedom to not be offended”. Are you @#$%ing kidding me?! This right here is why we have the First Amendment, people. Because the world is crawling with little wannabe dictators who would do anything to take away our rights if they had the chance.