Jordan Peterson / Cathy Newman debate

Post Reply New Topic

if only anyone ever pointed towards his incomplete reading of nietzsche- and asked him to comment on zygmunt bauman's assumption that it's just too much for individuals to bear all the responsibility for everything and themselves. But of course, then he'd have to answer with his kierkegaardian leap of faith and there discussion sort of ....ends.

I'd agree and I'd actually love to hear someone take him to task on Nietzsche if the likelihood stands that he's omitted so much of his body of work as to distort it's broader value. In general this seems like a nascent dialog, the first steps are doddering a bit, and yet for all of it's blemishes I think one thing's clear - the elevation of the dialog had to start somewhere and I think it needs to keep happening. I'd figure the first standard bearers for that will be imperfect and I suppose all that really matters is that they're better than what came before them and that the people who they inspire to challenge them are better still.

and slightly more seriously:

And also, because HBR deserve more exposure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC3ORQvgtao

This was a really interesting perspective from Louise Mazanti.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MBYr7ULLUo

A bit too much woo for my tastes. What, JP should have been there emotionally for CN? Acknowledged her empty rhetoric, her demonizing projections and her childish display of entitlement with a "Oh yes, all of that is valid, but see my view is..."? Yeah, no.

Also, aren't everyone seemingly forgetting that this was supposed to be an interview?


EDIT: And her conclusions seem to be all over the place. Many girls have not had healthy femininity modeled for them, and this makes her ask "where are the men?". Men are lagging behind in self-improvement and self-development (says she), but lack of personal accountability isn't an acceptable criticism to level at women (she acknowledges)

Last edited by Wolfram87 on 02 Feb 2018, 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think she just needs to be able to clarify, even quantify to some extent, what it is she means but she seems to be trying to articulate the women's side of the equation. I think all she was saying is that the average subconscious structure of a woman functions differently, they know a certain internal reality, and that internal reality is spurned in the public sphere therefore women hold a certain type of anger about that alienation. In describing it at a 'collective' level, while it's possible she could have meant 'we are all one' I got the impression she was talking about shared concurrent states and shared consequences.

Quite possible, and I certainly acknowledge that men and women probably do see the world differently. But it still strikes me as expecting a degree of coddling when she suggests JP should acknowledge her anger and validate it, when she is supposed to interview him. Shouldn't a setup like that at least be reciprocal in some respect, then? Because that definitely wasn't the case.

I didn't get that at all. It sounded like she was pissed on Peterson's behalf, she said several times that Cathy Newman was showing the dark/manipulative side of the feminine, that almost everyone watching could relate to having been in situations like that, and that while (this I think is her most valuable point) it clearly comes from somewhere but the way Cathy Newman expressed it was really abusive and invalid and that she'd rather see it discussed properly rather than through the lens of some rogue political ideology.

oh, I got that she was firmly on JPs side, and that CN was being manipulative and abusive. But she did also say that CN was projecting a lot of anger from the female collective consciousness (bit divided on that idea, but I think I know what she means) that she seemed to feel was valid and needed to be acknowledged, in this case whilst coming from CN.

If feminism/some feminists/not real feminists/whatever whip women up into a frenzy using distorted statistics and half-truths, the productive response to that isn't to validate that anger.

If it's incorrigible it has to be dealt with as it's own item, otherwise we'll keep seeing and no amount of wishing it away will solve anything. That's the ugly side of Darwinian evolution - it doesn't care about rationality, or civility, a heck of a lot thus in a lot of ways we're really forced to alter our routine to accommodate it or face the consequences of our shoulds not mapping to reality.

Also it would be a real positive if women do have significant gifts in these areas that they're forced to sideline that they could bring them back to the table somehow. Our culture needs balance, it needs everyone's input, and its miserable to eat your own aptitudes.

Didn't say it was incorrigible. Merely said that this suggested solution will not produce the desired result. Wishing it away is merely the first step, but the subsequent steps must come from women, for the trend seems to take some level of offense when the explanation comes from men. ("something something mansplaining"). Everyone reading this, do check out HBR's channel, linked above. They're a group of mostly women giving some rather poignant insights on topics like this. In my submission, what is needed is not for men to reach into the feminine and almost ritualistically offer up their support and acknowledgement to either any particular woman or to women as some abstract entity with insights that are just beyond and outside what a male could possibly understand. Rather, what is more needed is for more women to grow a thicker skin and apply a more "male" approach to things like facts and data. For a crude example, look back and the interview/"debate".

CN: "The pay gap exists, and it's unfair!"
JP: "Well, here's why it exists."
CN: "Nevermind why it exists. It exists and it's unfair!"

Surface-level observation followed immediately by judgement and outrage. She'd no doubt follow the same template with any number of gender politics talking points, even though the majority of those are either easily explained by non-discriminatory factors or outright fabrications, both of which would soon be apparent with some careful and detached data analysis, the sort of thing that would no doubt be termed "male thinking". The "female way of knowing" in this case reaches a self-reinforcing consensus and makes a quick value-judgement of what is at best a half-truth into an accepted fact. This probably has a sound evolutionary explanation; back in tribal times women formed the social backbone of any tribe, so consensus and "common knowledge" was more important for group cohesion than was strictly being correct, whilst the men were out data analyzing mammoths into spike pits, so detached cooperation to reach a common goal was more important than interpersonal matters.

Apologies if this post is rambling and incoherent; much wine and sidetracking happened.

You didn't say it was incorrigible, I did.

I was saying that Louise Mazanti's outlook suggests that it's articulating 'something' immutable, albeit really badly and in about the most unhelpful manner possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

I have to disagree somewhat in what you are saying about the interviewer...
While I did have a problem with her gift of misunderstanding his position, she was a wonderful "fencing foil" to battle against...
Personally, I think she was doing a good job in allowing Jordan Peterson to shine and allowing him to show is cohesive conceptual consistency brilliantly...

Brilliant find, m8...

Peterson's new book is Amazon's #1 Bestseller:

https://www.amazon.com/charts/2018-01-2 ... onfiction/

It's not only good that he's getting attention, but also that he's making money.

He's also getting about $50k per month in patronage.