Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

Just on. He was saying that people are different due to ' agreeableness, women being more likely to be so; men less so, hence the gender gap

It's the first time I have ever seen Cathy Newman angry. And he was spluttering a bit, first time for him too, for me, I think.

Watch it on + 1

I agree with some of Petersen's views but he didn't come off at all well here

Well thats fine flower

And i do appreciate your point and opinion

But i have seen dreadful interviews by all sorts of people and i dont think people should be judged on one interview

I have seen her before but not paid much attention, if she continued in this vein then yeah i would agree with you

I would very much like her to speak to him again, as he suggests, but in a format where they explore, together, a number of these topics. Would be genuinely interested in seeing Peterson respond to an intellectually coherent challenge from her, and has he states in that second interview posted above, that wasn't a "victory" - it was an advertisement of how debased and polarized our discourse has become, which is a genuine tragedy.

We cannot seem to disagree with any empathy or curiosity - it's just draw lines in the sand, pick a side and start battling.

In that spirit, I don't regard her as a failure at all; I would just like to see some introspection and perhaps re-evaluation. Curiosity. Empathy. A bit less Paxman and a bit more Loius Theroux. We'd all benefit.

I do not think her credibility is shot at all. Pretty quickly C4 and The Guardian shifted gears away from the interview itself and onto the abuse she got on Twitter. The story will become about what happened on social media and not on the content of the interview itself.

What dominates public discourse too much is binary thinking. Either something is X or it is Y, it can never be elements of both X and Y with perhaps elements of Z. Furthermore one of the Xs or Ys is usually some group of people whose fault it can be.

It can be immigrants for brexiters/trump supporters, feminists for trans activists/mras, straight white men for feminists/sjws. In short we all do it and it's all a bit one note. Genuine question why is it when class analysis comes up the point seems to always be how any individual given group is being the villains of the piece and not what are the strengths of this group and what can we learn from them?

There’s too much lazy thinking in public discourse.

To quick to call transphobic/ bigot/racist etc.

Also too quick to throw up the stock phrase of “ you can’t generalise/ stereotype ‘ etc. Actually, why not? Certain cultures or groups do have tendencies to have certain characteristics.

I think the interview exemplifies the frustration that many people have with broadcast media these days where any notions of nuance, context or understanding , values that make a debate interesting have been exchanged for hectoring bullying, a quest for a sound bite and ‘winning’. Newman is not the only one guilty of this approach, it’s been seeping into newsrooms for years. Fortunately long format interviews expose that abrasive method as being of limited value when up against an articulate, calm individual who has total faith in their understanding of the of subject to hand. Newman came on to do a hatchet job and was found wanting. After her umpteenth ‘so what you are saying’ I actually started to feel sorry for her, she had lost all control.

"Certain cultures or groups do have tendencies to have certain characteristics."

Examples please - because I am not so sure about that.

NickSherrat

I work for a multi-national company and am often working in cross-cultural teams.

We have plenty of training to show the cultural differences in communication styles so that we can better understand each other and improve our working relationships.

A typical example is the different styles of an American vs a Japanese person and what is considered rude etc.

From that we can and do male generalisations about Americans being blunt and too the point and Japanese being more subtle

We can joke between ourselves of German colleagues being organised and precise. Note our German-colleagues may initiate this humour when asking for a deeper lower level report to be produced. So it’s not humour at their expense. They are using a stereotype about Germans to ask for what they want. And using humour to ask someone else to do extra work for them.

Also too quick to throw up the stock phrase of “ you can’t generalise/ stereotype ‘ etc. Actually, why not? Certain cultures or groups do have tendencies to have certain characteristics.

You guys are really working this snowflake angle hard.

To say that this interview was between a nice honest science-based guy and an attack dog feminist is ridiculous.

This guy has an agenda.

Makeourfortune

Care to explain what you think that agenda is? Seriously asking so I can understand your viewpoint better.

"Women's studies, and all the ethnic studies and racial studies groups, man, those things have to go and the faster they go the better," he said. "It would have been better if they had never been part of the university to begin with as far as I can tell."

"Sociology, that's corrupt. Anthropology, that's corrupt. English literature, that's corrupt. Maybe the worse offenders are the faculties of education."

• Peterson

Corrupt?

Corrupt in the sense that they have essentially been captured in ideological terms by postmodernists/marxists and the left overall. Certainly in the North American university system. In other words, an ideological cabal and a resultant lack of intellectual integrity.

That's before you get on to the basic pointlessness of much of the output of humanities and social science departments. I think the figure is around 80% of published output remaining entirely uncited/unread.

'cultural differences' - right, so that has nothing to do with the sprurious sciences' of evolutionary biology/psychology. It is cultural, learnt, socially favoured and derived historically on the basis of the society in which it takes place. So a completely different thing to what JP is talking about. And anyway phony - in that within a culture you will find plenty who do not fit the stereotype - so really just anecdotal nonsense.

god, when did the Daily Fail find this board?

This sort of bullshit from an anthropology class in the US

i.magaimg.net/img/1mou.jpg

I thought she made an arse out of herself.

Peterson is an intelligent and articulate man who came across well. He doesn't seem to be a 'provocateur', simply an intelligent person with a point of view.

Acknowledging socialisation and it being a major effect in sex differences isn't a precursor to being correct, it's simply one stance of several.

I like him more and Newman less after that interview.

scientific facts are social constructs - well, not so stupid. How do you access 'facts' - through language, language which articulates certain aspects and not others. I for one am greatly interested in Geothe's mode of optical science, which is incompatible with Newton's - both have purchase on reality but do not exhaust it.

and also be cautious - maybe you need to take a class in context and montage. How do you know what weight to give that single image, what came after, before, what words contextualised it - you really need some basic arts training, before making assertions, radicalrooster.

This sort of bullshit from an anthropology class in the US

That is exactly the sort of thing Anthropology examines. Didn't women use to be subject to hysteria? They had floating wombs or something?

You question things. Is God real? Is the Earth the centre of the universe?

If that were in a Chem class you might want to get upset.

"scientific facts are social constructs"

Is there a 'I'm squinting at the ignorance' emoji on MN?

A fact is a fact is a fact. People don't need basic arts training. People need basic science training.

Accepted. The picture may be misleading

Alternatively, there may be no preceding or subsequent slide. Nor any tolerance of debate. How are we to know?

Speaking of no tolerance of debate, my employer's compulsory infliction of Implicit Bias training was a beauty. And I love Peterson's utter contempt for that loathsome attempt by universities in particular to meddle with people's heads.

How are we to know?

It's a mystery.

well a fact is a fact is a fact isn't it....or hold on, maybe......