If you haven’t seen this then you oughta.
This girl needed a lesson – he taught her.
She stumbles – just watch her.
The coup de grâce – “Gotcha!”
Poor Cathy – a lamb to the slaughter.
Jordan Peterson – Cathy Newman interview
Why exactly are so many smart men people coming out of Canada? Is there something in the water? The latest (well the latest to hit the headlines) is Jordan B. Peterson, the Toronto University professor and Clinical Psychologist. Sure, Peterson has had his lectures on Youtube for some time, but it was his refusal to use the new enforced gender pronouns (they are now enshrined in Canadian law) that shot him to Youtube stardom. Peterson would simply not give in to this State-imposed tyranny and was consequently pilloried by the media and the intelligentsia. And of course, because the conclusions that Peterson comes to after his exhaustive and unbiased analysis do not fit the leftist view, then he is labelled with the usual far right, alt right etc. tags, despite the fact that any reasonable person, having watched a number of his videos, interviews etc., would have to come to the conclusion that he has no axe to grind, he is no ideologue, no right-wing looney – just a very intelligent guy searching for the truth; but then postmodernists don’t think truth exists – do they?
But let me get to the point of this essay: Peterson was recently interviewed by Cathy Newman of the UK’s Channel 4. I include a link to the video below. The video has “gone viral” – here is my take on what happened:
Ms Newman must have gone into this interview thinking she held all the cards (the ones with her probing questions written on them) and that this so-called expert on Psychology would soon fall victim to her cunning. She had prepared well, had read his latest book, (well at least the bits she wanted to attack him on) and had the big advantage – she was asking the questions. Well you can’t blame her for that – we’ve all seen it before: the expert with his head crammed full of facts and figures, results of exhaustive studies etc., you know, scientific stuff, who comes on TV to be crucified – ah sorry, interviewed, and is subsequently hacked to pieces by a merciless left-wing journalist with nothing inside his or her skull apart from a passionate agenda; an agenda best served by the annihilation and reduction to a weeping hopeless mess of the above mentioned expert. Needless to say, and much to Cathy’s horror, this didn’t happen with Peterson.
Peterson’s handling of the interview was a master class in how to handle a feminist, emotion and feelings driven, left-indoctrinated, illogical and unreasonable interviewer. Time and again Cathy would fire one of her carefully prepared explosive questions at Jordan; Jordan would think for a second (no kneejerk responses from this guy) and then answer her with his usual clarity and calmness. After all, why shouldn’t he be calm and confident? – His answer was based on scientific study, his many years of experience in the field of psychoanalytical research, and universally accepted conclusions of studies based on empirical data. Cathy’s response, over and over again (for this usually works) was to come back at Peterson with “So you are saying” or variations on this theme. (I lost count of how many times she did this.) Of course Peterson woke to her tactics in a millisecond and would respond with “No, I’m not saying that” or “What I am saying is” etc. and Cathy’s already somewhat crumpled expression would crumple a little more.
Of course the usual subjects were covered: The gender pay gap, which Peterson demolished with his usual tools of reason and logic – Cathy stuck to her heartfelt “feeling” that it was “unfair!”; the pronouns of course, and the difference between the sexes; which Cathy seems to think are non-existent (Perhaps she should look in the mirror.) and others. Cathy puts forward her points with impassioned feeling and heartfelt empathy. Peterson demolishes these one by one with logic and reason. She of course expresses the opinion that one should not offend – that one does not have that right, particularly where the offence may be felt by minorities etc.. Peterson points out that in order to arrive at the truth through discussion and logical argument, offence to either or both parties is almost inevitable. He invites her to offend him as much as she likes. Cathy appears nonplussed.
As the interview wore on Peterson appeared to start to treat Ms Newman as an interesting subject for Psychoanalysis. One got the impression that he was really starting to enjoy the interview. Cathy looked more and more uncomfortable. Much earlier Cathy should have smelled the sickly scent of impending disaster in the air and switched to plan B, but there was no plan B, after all, plan A had always worked before.
Anyways, (as Jordan would say) from there on things just got worse (for Cathy that is). Time was nearly up and Cathy by this time was desperate – her score was still nil and Peterson was looking relaxed and extremely pleased with himself – Cathy blurted out: “What about lobsters? Tell us about the lobsters.” Peterson looked even more pleased and he even laughed in that Kermit the frog’s way that he has. “Well…” said Peterson, and he then proceeded to lay out the various conclusions of the lobster experiment, including how lobsters get depressed or elated and how serotonin influences their behaviour just as it does humans; how lobsters respond positively to antidepressants. Cathy listened quietly right until the end. Then – “So you think we should all live like lobsters then?” said Cathy. (Or something similar.) Peterson patiently explained to Cathy how her brain worked,(more or less) and that despite us humans and the lobsters going our separate ways some 350 million years ago, how in many ways her thinking was similar to a lobster’s. At last Cathy, looking defeated, and with an expression that hinted that perhaps she now rather fancied Peterson, nodded in servile agreement and thanked Jordan for the interview.
Peterson is an extremely rare animal. He is certainly highly intelligent, and he is extremely knowledgeable in his field, but it is his ability to verbalize what is in his head – to articulate his argument in a clear and concise way without becoming confused or flustered when under pressure, that seems to me to set him apart from most. He is also very believable, in that he appears to have no agenda apart from seeking out the truth. This makes him difficult to smear or tarnish. This also makes him very dangerous to the various forces of the left. They will no doubt seek to assassinate his character. But I somehow doubt that Cathy Newman will be the hired assassin.
Jordan Peterson – Cathy Newman interview