Jordan Peterson Interview with Helen Lewis

[rightreckoner]

here

It's long but I thought I'd give it a bit of a watch since I've heard so much about him. Initial thoughts are - he's not as clever as he thinks he is. Questions he doesn't like he closes down with a bait and switch answer or a terrifying Paddington stare. Comes across as a bit of a plonker. With absolutely no humour. Helen Lewis did a good job I think of not getting annoyed although he is so bullet proof there's almost no point in the discussion.

His basic thesis (if I understand it correctly) is that society is not shaped by the patriarchy but by competence. So the reason men are scientists and women look after babies is that they are better at these skills respectively. There is no such thing as the patriarchy.

There is a good bit at about 1.05.40 where she asks him why women change their names on marriage if not to symbolise their transfer from one man to another and he says - ugh, Margaret Atwood is an idiot.

I was reading an article about current hunter gatherer society

It was pretty clear that the community only survived because the women did the boring stuff by ensuring food available even whne the failed..gathering

Even though sex based roles were strong there was respect because you can’t really disrespect the person who feed you

GATHering being more reliable than hunting ..sorry

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2018/nov/01/pity-jordan-peterson-lobster-analogy-replace-sense-humour

So is Marina right or wrong about him?

Yes the rules are fatuous
But he's so popular he has so many followers!
There must be some magic secret code in the rules his reprogramming people's brains and he will save us all
That's got to be it hasn't it 🤪

Marina Is someone who thinks that attacking someone's appearance is a good substitute for engaging with what they think. But then the guardian has always been hostile to jp because he threatens their beloved identity politics.

Hi,When he was a paperboy and first new new his wife [13 yrs],he over heard her saying she wasn't going to change her surname to a friend.So she would probably have to married a B male or sissy man,something to that effect.Years later when they went out in their late 20's and he proposed ,she accepted.He said he she would have to change her name.This wasn't his best interview,i revisited the Cathy Newman one,and thought he was having fun ,but in this one he just seemed totally fed up,she just went over the same old ground.Wouldn't listen to facts,caught him out on transgender issue with her views which were more mainstream.I think she did well in terms of point scoring ,but no real substance to her arguments.Interestingly Tommy Robinson case has been referred to the Attorney General,it's becoming increasingly clear there was no contempt of court,which as a British journalist she would have been ofay with .So a little lie.But i think JP needs a break.

Hi thats no what he said at all.He said the more egalitarian a society becomes e.g Sweden the more choice the genders have they choose conventional roles..{the data is explicit on this outcome.} Conversely, a Middle Eastern woman will choose to be an Engineer because prospects are better for her. This is 'data', taken over many countries, thousands of participants, and was an unexpected finding.{Generally this was research undertaken by left-wing social scientists].The science is out there he has just brought it to peoples attention. It wasn't a great interview.He looked tired and Helen Lewis was saying the same old same old.I think he can't be bothered anymore. Her suggestion that he doesn't like women keeping their own names after marriage was so ridiculous. You should listen to the sweet story of how his wife took his name. Maybe watch the Cathy Newman interview,he was enjoying it then, now he's bored with it all. You can see this interview, as one up for the feminazi's but only because he's operating below par.

No wonder he's is bored, I can't tell you how bored I am of people using the word feminazi.

So is Marina right or wrong about him?

It just comes across as a rather snide article to be honest. Hardly surprising though given that the Guardian has gone out of its way to write dozens of hatchet job articles since JP rose to prominence.

For what’s its worth I don’t agree with everything he says although he does raise some interesting questions. I imagine his somewhat droll irritated manner in interviews probably stems from having to rebuke for the umpteenth time something he has never said or views he has never held.

Hi, His daughter suffered very badly with the autoimmune disorder,has had numerous operations, as a teenager, there were times she could barely walk, she discovered that eating only a meat diet, her condition improved, and symptoms disappeared. Both he and his wife had less severe symptoms,and they tried it for themselves, and their health improved. He wasn't promoting meat eating,he said it was very very boring. But it's a sacrifice he has made for his health.

In the HL interview he did look really fed up from the beginning , perhaps he's had enough of the same slightly patronizing tone from right on interviewers who can't quite believe that someone thinks differently from them . When he rebuttedd some of her points she just gulped and moved on ...not his best interview but she wasn't impressive either .

Just thinking about this a few days on and the bit that sticks out is where Lewis is so damned sure that Count Dankuka was not making a (imo crap and tasteless) joke. That's the vision of my children's future (she will form/ is forming part of the leadership class of the UK not Peterson!)

i know it's frightening.But of course she doesn't persecute comics and is for free speech ...not

"I just have no understanding why people think what he is saying is new or revolutionary, he is a bizarre mixture of New age mysticism and right of centre thinking. He also has an astounding lack of understanding of anyone whose life differs from his own."

They don't. You've fabricated this narrative. It's quite clear many of the posters hear have formed opinions based on shreds of information.

People do not think what he is saying is new. They know it is (some of it, at least) the truth. This era of leftist theory painting groups of people as those responsible for other group's demise/misfortunes is a narrative a lot of people simply do not buy in to, and up until now any other analysis of social constructs other than the left's remarkably self-assured, supposedly progressive version has been seen as an attack on "progress" (as defined by the left, that is). He has the nerve to actually question the infallible left, and people like that. The left, of course, fucking hate it.

He is not championing new thought, he never really claims that. He IS championing logical(ish) ideas and the responsibilities of the individual.

It is, and will become dangerous, to judge one by (one of) the (many) subset(s) they belong to. It is ironic, since it attempting to combat exactly that behaviour.

As for his interviewing persona, you have to be aware he's had dozens of lefties combat with him over the last two years (culminating in the remarkable Cathey Newman interview), it's hardly surprising he now walks into an interview with his guard up.

FWIW I would define myself as liberal, centre-leaning-left. However I'm becoming very sceptical of the leaning part lately.

"It is ironic, since it attempting to combat exactly that behaviour."

It is ironic, since the left attempts to combat exactly that behaviour. *

Mary you have fabricated your own narrative as well . Contrary to 'shreds of information', I have watched hours and hours of JP. I agree with him on some points but find his rigid thinking difficult to get beyond.

The big question is does he get a cut of the motivational pillow business or are they all just leeching off him?

www.redbubble.com/people/thirteencats/works/32986470-jordan-peterson-comparing-yourself?cat_context=u-pillows&grid_pos=11&p=throw-pillow&rbs=ff349620-53a2-4312-931c-ebc1a9d307cc&ref=shop_grid&searchTerm=jordan%20peterson%20throw-pillows

Peterson is the personification of neoliberalism. A selfish person for selfish times, obsessed with his own glory at the expense of all others.

To Mary Blah Blah. Well said.I am very concerned at people like Helen Lewis who seem to suffer no conflict of integrity,e.g pats herself on the back for supporting a Burmese? comedian, and then in next breathe condemns Count Dankula [pug doing Nazi Salute],if you ever watched it,it's puerile and inane but it's not racist. Seems quite gleeful that he was fined.I thought 1984 has arrived.'I'm for free speech except when i don't like it'.She's very good at ignoring contradictions.

Peterson is the personification of neoliberalism. A selfish person for selfish times, obsessed with his own glory at the expense of all others.

I'm sure that sounded clever in your head.

I'd be interested in how he'd answer the q 'Why didn't women have the vote in the first place?'

Hi,How many men had the vote?He has addressed this numerous times.But in the 1800s very few people had the vote.So it's been a gradual thing for everybody. People were very very poor,we can't imagine,but what he says is that it was by co-operation between men and women that society progressed. People had to pull together.If you put everything into a tyrannical patriarchy you are missing the point. Society was brutal to everyone [bar landowners] at this time. He's just trying to point to the context of life. And feminist trying to frame everything as a tyrannical patriarchy isn't serving any purpose.As we can see in the Swedish egalitarian model, and the agreeableness and disagreeableness model in 'success in boardrooms'.Her dismissal of the Indian man developing a 'sanitary towel ', for his wife as something 'nice', shows the 'feminist disconnect', and i would query her empathy for poorer societies.She plugs her book and said she has spoken to a few male teachers who say they feel left out at work in a all female environment. Well, iv'e known loads of male teachers, iv'e never met one who's told me that. She hasn't done any proper survey, collecting proper empirical evidence, but no-doubt some other feminist will quote this half-baked research.I think in the coming months some of her statements will comeback to haunt her.

So, in answer to the question "why didn't any women have the vote?" you're going with "not all men had the vote" which is interesting. You kind of lost me after that, I find reading walls of text quite difficult for which I apologise.

cor Sunnyroad1, may I draw your attention to the return key?

Move your hand slightly to the right and you will alight upon it

it's just super for avoiding that 'wall of text' motif

okay fair enough.Men after long struggles, fighting gradually gained the full vote in the 20thCentury. Women's right to vote followed not long after. There was a peaceful struggle and a radical struggle [suffragettes]. But many people think that the peaceful struggle would have won through without people dying.[i don't know].But if choose to see that as a Tyrannical Patriarchy.so be it.