When Professor Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist was interviewed by Cathy Newman, an ideologically-driven journalist, sparks flew, and then there was an awkward silence.
The premise for the interview was the Pay Gap between men and women, but it ended up being much more.
Newman, a British TV journalist was speaking to Peterson, a high IQ clinical psychologist. I was looking forward to hearing an interesting discussion. I got much more than I bargained for.
What I learned almost immediately was that she wasn’t trying to draw out anything interesting. Instead, she was trying to force him into a defined box that she and her producers decided he was in.
It seemed they wanted to force him into an “alt right” box. And once they had him in the box, they would slam the lid shut and dispose of him.
Newman immediately treated him as though he was a mysogynist and right-wing ideologue. It quickly became obvious he was neither. That didn’t stop her trying to mischaracterize everything he said.
Journalists can be combative when they are trying to draw out information. Cathy Newman was more than combative, she was outright offensive. The very definition of a “nasty woman.”
Newman started off like a gladiator with a chip on her shoulder. She continued her attack all the way through to the end, except for one point. There was an amazing Gotcha moment that silenced her for five seconds.
This smart lady is such a hard ideologue. I don’t know if she finally realised her continued attacks were bouncing off, killing her argument, or if she just ran out of ideas. She twisted everything he said, and he was good-naturedly being the interviewee, while not allowing her to box him into the corner that she defined.
She continually tried to restate what he actually said, turning his elegant words into extreme positions. It didn’t work.
This is absolutely reminiscent of what the Australian National Broadcaster’s interviewers do to the interviewees they hate.
I don’t like this style of interviewing, because the interviewer takes on the mantle of gladiator who gives no quarter. They don’t even allow the interviewee to answer the questions. They want to force the interviewee to say only what they want them to say. This is not just bad journalism, it isn’t journalism at all.
I would be no match for this interviewer – she would crush me in a minute. But Peterson wasn’t at all phased by her.
What I really liked about this interchange is that although she twisted his words, and tried to crush him, he didn’t allow it. Jordan Peterson was Mr. Cool. By doing this for almost half an hour, the ideologue crushed herself. She boxed herself into a corner, not because he did anything to her, but because her false line of argument failed.
One of Peterson’s points is that we are all being pushed into seeing ourselves as victims. Everyone must resist that, because that means other people are defining us.
Some people may see this as a man vs. woman battle. It wasn’t that at all. I saw it as a battle between an ideologue and a free-thinker.
Of particular interest were the exchanges about male strength and what women want; and the free speech discussion.
Ideologues only like free speech when they are free to say whatever they like, but their opponents are not. This is a big problem. When people are frozen out from participating in a free exchange of ideas, resentment results. That can lead to shouting, or even violence. Putting false limits on discussion does not resolve problems. It bottles them up until they explode.
What I think Jordan Peterson wants is for men to be better men and women to be better women. This interview might slow down some of the victimhood garbage foisted upon us these days, but I doubt it. It may result in some people changing themselves, hopefully for the better.
The interview has now had more than 4 million views and I believe it is well worth 30 minutes of your time. The Gotcha moment comes after a short interchange that starts at 21:38.