Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

Identity politics is the home of the lazy. I grew up in Belfast with soldiers on the streets. Lots of black soldiers, big men with guns. Yet im an oppressor of black people. It's an absurdity.

It's the kind of thinking that gave us Brexit and Trump. Constant sneering attacks on the white working poor of Britain and America. They have been and continue to be dehuminised. Rich black people at top universities telling them they have 'privelage' while they don't know how they're going to heat their house. If they're lucky enough to have a house of course.

Identity politics has crippled the left.

@CoopGiraffe what is it with people telling me what I'm doing/saying. No, I'm not discrediting him. No I'm not saying he isn't a proper scientist. No I'm not saying he's wrong based on anecdotal evidence. Not I'm not "not listening".

I specifically said I'd liked to have heard a better interview so that I could understand what his points were. I'm also saying that plenty of anti-women/anti-feminists will use his ideas to promote discriminating against women or to justify it. I'm also saying that plenty of anti-women/anti-feminists will use any discussion about this as a means to berate women/feminists and tell them how awful and stupid they are.

I understand that I'm not a scientist or researcher. I understand that my personal opinion is not sufficient to use to prove/disprove many years of research and thought.

I'd like to discuss this further, but I'm beginning to feel like I shouldn't bother. Perhaps that's the aim.

AssassnatedBeauty : “I would have liked a more thorough explanation of his views rather than the sparring kind of approach that was taken. So I can understand them better and understand his point of view to see if I agree or disagree. “

Good idea. And where better to get a more thorough explanation of Dr Peterson’s views than from….Dr Peterson.

Here’s one of his university lectures on Personality. It’s about Agreeableness which is one of the things he mentioned in his interview with Cathy Newman. And it goes into some of his views on sex differences, which may interest you. Or enrage you. The only way to find out is to invest 50 minutes of your time. I reckon that’d be long enough to decide whether you think he has anything useful to say :

Obviously it’s just part of his course of lectures and you’re diving in half way through, but I imagine you’ll still be able to follow it.

Assassinated

It's not a simple thing to do.

A contextual analysis of all the factors involved for each individual scenario would be a good start, probably a better start than "it's the patriarchy" I'd suggest.

AssassinatedBeauty It appears you're trying to discredit Dr. Peterson's work by saying it's not "proper" science. His work as of November 2017 had a total of 8928 citations, he also has a H-Index of 50 which to put into perspective for you it is estimated that after 20 years a "successful scientist" will have an h-index of 20, an "outstanding scientist" an h-index of 40, and a "truly unique" individual an h-index of 60. His work is indeed proper science and has influenced the lives of many individuals.

He also says in the interview that people watching will fall victim to not listening and using it to just project their own opinions which you've precisely done. He says on multiple occasions that the pay gap is a multi-variable equation and that gender discrimination has a far lesser impact than being claimed by extreme feminists and mainstream media. He doesn't say there isn't any active or unconscious discrimination.

Finally, you're using anecdotal evidence as a means of saying he's wrong.

If identity politics and class analysis are the wrong approaches, as per Petersen, what tools are there to look at inequalities between categories of people?

Stop putting words into my mouth, @PatriarchyPersonified. What I meant was, I would have liked a more thorough explanation of his views rather than the sparring kind of approach that was taken. So I can understand them better and understand his point of view to see if I agree or disagree. Not to hope for some mythical "magic bullet" question that debunks his research and theories.

AssassinatedBeauty : "how does each group get given its role? Is that innate, as per the lobster?"

Definitely not innate. The folks who believe in group identity don't believe in innate.

I think if you ask a critical theorist / postmodernist they'd tell you that you have to identify groups with power, and they get assigned the role of baddies. And then groups without power get assigned the role of goodies. So because we're ruled by a white straight patriarchy, if you're white, straight and male then it's 9th circle of Hell time. The difficulty is when you sit within an intersection - eg white straight woman or black gay man. Then you have to work out who's oppressing whom according to the still developing principles of intersectionality.

But to cut a long story short, you'll be told. Your job is to get out with a placard and protest the patriarchy. Don't bother your pretty little head with theory. Just memorise the slogans.

Assasinated

How does each group get given its role

According to radical feminists, men are the oppressors, regardless of individual circumstance. That is precisely Peterson's point. Collective identity politics.

I found it hilarious that the interviewer took issue with the statement "the typical woman", because she sees all woman as individuals, yet tried (unsuccesfully) to lambast Peterson about the gender pay gap, which is a metric measured entirely around the disparity between the average man and the average woman's earnings and takes absolutely no account of individual differences or preferences. Thats probably the reason that Peterson was trying not to laugh at that point, because the irony is so obvious.

When you say you wish his points had been explored more, I think what you mean is you wanted a magic bullet question that would debunk everything he says. The problem is that nobody has yet found a way to argue against the thrust of his arguments.

I meant in relation to her getting the piss ripped out of her on here, Lee. Peterson played it perfect.

EamonnWright : “Men get the piss ripped out of them all the time. Mostly by other men. I know this because I live in the real world and see it with my own eyes.”

Sure, and women rip the piss out of other women, and out of men. Humans are good at this sort of thing, regardless of sex. But I disagree that Peterson was ripping piss in this case. He walked into an ambush interview – probably knowing in advance that it might be hostile – but he knew how to deal with it. And he did it by being polite, careful with his words and good humoured. And by being far better informed about his subject than she was (as you'd expect since they were discussing his book.)

“What you want is for this interviewer to be given a free pass because she is a woman. It was a car crash of an interview.”

I think car crash overstates it. She tried the traditional BBC-style hectoring assault, as if she was interviewing a politician, and it didn’t work. So her ambush failed and Peterson came out looking rather calm and reasonable. But it was obvious – to me (and I've never seen her before) – that she’s pretty smart and articulate so that she’ll likely learn from the experience and become a better interviewer as a result.

Now there will no doubt be some who think that’s very patronising – little woman learns useful lesson from male Professor. But who cares what such people think ? I bet Peterson thinks he’s learned something from the interview. Some of his answers were very good and spot on – eg the stuff about men needing to grow up. But although his answers on gender equality were way better than her questions, he could certainly have been clearer and more precise. So since he believes in learning from experience, next time he gets an ambush interview he’ll do better still.

No I don't. Don't put words into my mouth. I couldn't care less if Newman did a good or bad job. I don't care that she (specifically) did a bad job of this interview, it's a shame that this man's ideas weren't more thoroughly explored. The interview was essentially a waste of time.

@LeeMoore how does each group get given its role? Is that innate, as per the lobster?

Of course her sex is relevant. The utter delight in her getting ripped apart wouldn't exist otherwise

This is where it all falls down. Men get the piss ripped out of them all the time. Mostly by other men. I know this because I live in the real world and see it with my own eyes.

What you want is for this interviewer to be given a free pass because she is a woman. It was a car crash of an interview.

PP : "The interviewers sex is kind of irrelevant."

Wrong wrong wrong. The sex of the participants is not merely relevant but it's the ONLY thing that's relevant. That is precisely the point Peterson is making. The strength of your arguments is not relevant. The facts are not relevant. Your individual strengths and faults are not relevant. The only thing that matters is which group you belong to. if you belong to an oppressing group, you are an oppressor. Period. If you belong to an oppressed group, you are oppressed. Period.

AssassinatedBeauty couldn't have put Peterson's point more perfectly if (s)he had been trying.

Of course her sex is relevant. The utter delight in her getting ripped apart wouldn't exist otherwise.

"What particular issue do you take with Jordan Peterson's points and the fact they are gaining widespread traction? Can you counter any of his points? "

The issue I have is the use of his views by anti-women and anti-feminist types who want to use his scientific credibility to support discriminating against women. I'm sure I can't counter any of his points to your satisfaction, after all, what could I possibly know about anything?

Whiskyowl : “Jordan Peterson is widely viewed as a disgrace to the profession in academia. The best description I've read of him is that he's the "stupid man's smart person". There are intellectuals on the right who are pushing limits and doing interesting work - Nick Land, for instance - but he isn't one of them.”

This is an echo of one of the funnier things coming out of the otherwise disturbing Wilfrid Laurier case. The one where a graduate student and teaching assistant (Lindsay Shepherd) showed her class a clip of a TV discussion, one of the participants in which was Peterson. And as a result the teaching assistant was dragged into a disciplinary hearing and berated for allowing the tender ears of her class to be exposed to the words of Satan (aka Peterson.) Unfortunately for the really nasty bullying tribunal members, she taped the tribunal. And when it came out, everyone could hear the bullying and hectoring for themselves. The piece de resistance was that - she broke down and cried at the bullying, and was promptly accused by people defending the bullies, of using “white woman tears” to oppress the (non white) professor who had been berating her !

Anyway that’s the background. One of the dafter points that the bullying Professors made was that Peterson wasn’t a real academic and had no standing in the academic community. Some cruel person then looked up the number of citations of academic papers published by (a) Peterson and (b) the two professors accusing him of being an academic nobody. The answers were (a) 8,928 and (b) 161 :)

Assassinated

Everybody likes to see someone who thinks they're a smart arse get verbally destroyed now and again.

The interviewers sex is kind of irrelevant. She came into the interview with a list of condescending and dismissive talking points and was made to look a fool.

What particular issue do you take with Jordan Peterson's points and the fact they are gaining widespread traction? Can you counter any of his points?

Your story earlier that you were sacked for acting like a man sounds interesting. What did you mean by that?

I find the absolute glee in a female interviewer making a fool of herself, and the absolute glee that views like Petersen's are apparently becoming more mainstream to be thoroughly off putting.

Whiskyowl

He is viewed as a "disgrace" by a very narrow self-selecting group of academics.

Have you watched the interview? What issues do you take with his points?

Jordan Peterson is widely viewed as a disgrace to the profession in academia. The best description I've read of him is that he's the "stupid man's smart person". There are intellectuals on the right who are pushing limits and doing interesting work - Nick Land, for instance - but he isn't one of them. And this thread is full of trolls.

Newman was her usual cocky, aggressive self and intended, with her penetrating insights and unanswerable arguments, to expose Peterson as the misogynist dinosaur she had decided he was but instead she got well and truly owned. Douglas Murray in the Spectator wrote an excellent critique of the interview (also contains a link to the interview itself).

Peterson is not only 100% correct in everything he says, his views on masculinity, feminism, gender etc. are rapidly becoming mainstream.

The times they are a-changing.

No, not too depressing. The Graun is the Graun and there's a lot of nonsense in there. But I find it a lot less annoying than say the Washington Post. The WP is relentlessly conventional, the Graun has a bit more lunatic vim to it. And in accordance with Peterson's advice I do believe in glancing at what they say from time to time, just in case they know something I don't. And in this case they did :

"Jordan Peterson....built a Native American longhouse on the upper floor of his Toronto home, and [has] been inducted into the coastal Pacific Kwakwaka’wakw tribe"

I did not know that.

Yes, I enjoyed that! But didn't you find it depressing how predictable the review was?

Thanks for that, Lucy.

One of the Guardian commentators made me laugh :

the whole interview:
JP - some mornings I like to start with coffee and toast.
CN - so you're saying men are better than women?

The Guardian had a review of his book yesterday
here
Which is everything you'd expect from a Guardian review.
Numerous below the line comments posted under the line, the vast majority of which were critical of the review. Comments were closed at 264, which seems pretty low to me, and one of the few anti-Peterson comments chosen as the pick to be highlighted at the top.