Episode dated 16 January 2018
- Episode aired Jan 16, 2018
IMDb RATING
7.4/10
11
YOUR RATING
Cathy Newman interviews the Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson on various topics.Cathy Newman interviews the Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson on various topics.Cathy Newman interviews the Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson on various topics.
Photos
Jordan B. Peterson
- Self - Author, '12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos'
- (as Jordan B Peterson)
Cathy Newman
- Self - Presenter
- (uncredited)
Storyline
Featured review
This famous interview is very misunderstood
"Cathy Newman interviews the Canadian psychology Professor Jordan Peterson on various topics."
I'm gonna say it, this interview is way underrated. It's a piece of important internet history and some of the most misunderstood history we have. It's also very fun to watch and rewatch. Do it if you have the time.
Firstly, yeah, Cathy Newman doesn't exactly shine in this interview. You'd think she was some random women stumbling around near a studio and then pulled in to do a scientific interview. She basically doesn't put a foot right. Instead she makes it into a gotcha style interview trying to catch the "evil supremacist" in a lie or bad moral statement. You can do that with anyone even an expert in his field. But you can never do it if you don't read up on the subject! Hell, Jordan Peterson is religious, there are plenty of ways to attack his logic by leaning into the concepts of proof and belief. Cathy Newman instead is fumbling in the dark. That's not horrible though, most regular MSM interviewers can't be experts on everything and they will say stupid stuff all the time as many of them don't even have a high degree and are not book smart. They then interview smart people all day long, of course they will mess up. Yet what Cathy Newman did besides this is perceived as mean or nasty as she seemingly tries to ruin the life of a top social scientist.
I'm not sure she is trying to cancel someone here though. I get that we live in cancel culture times and this is what it looks like, but I think she just tried to make herself look smart not understanding that you can't look smart on a subject you don't even care to read up on. She also tries to look tough. Peterson has a lot of lectures on masculinity in a modern society and Cathy Newman likely tried to "act like a man" as she saw it. Tried to be everything an alpha male can be. In her eyes that implies being some sort of a bully who doesn't listen to feedback. Even after the interview she stayed arrogant about it and blamed women haters for the negative feedback. Not even admitting that she could have done better no matter who said what afterwards. Even if some evil people gave her negative feedback that doesn't imply she did a good job here.
But overall this became a huge win for Peterson and that is how the interview should be remembered. Peterson surely earned some extra millions from this. He got huge exposure and for someone selling books this is frankly ideal. Furthermore, most who saw the interview did see that he didn't mess up. No matter if you like or hate him it's quite clear that this interview was a huge win for him and that there are no moments here that can be used to show that he is wrong. Actually, there are plenty of OTHER interviews where he makes some logical errors. How could there be big errors revealed here when Cathy Newman doesn't have the skillset to seek them out? Again, I'm not saying he's flawless. Many of his theories are largely in the periphery of social science so many are not yet fully accepted scientific theories and some will have evidence go against them.
Overall this interview is a win for Peterson and a positive note in his life.
I'm gonna say it, this interview is way underrated. It's a piece of important internet history and some of the most misunderstood history we have. It's also very fun to watch and rewatch. Do it if you have the time.
Firstly, yeah, Cathy Newman doesn't exactly shine in this interview. You'd think she was some random women stumbling around near a studio and then pulled in to do a scientific interview. She basically doesn't put a foot right. Instead she makes it into a gotcha style interview trying to catch the "evil supremacist" in a lie or bad moral statement. You can do that with anyone even an expert in his field. But you can never do it if you don't read up on the subject! Hell, Jordan Peterson is religious, there are plenty of ways to attack his logic by leaning into the concepts of proof and belief. Cathy Newman instead is fumbling in the dark. That's not horrible though, most regular MSM interviewers can't be experts on everything and they will say stupid stuff all the time as many of them don't even have a high degree and are not book smart. They then interview smart people all day long, of course they will mess up. Yet what Cathy Newman did besides this is perceived as mean or nasty as she seemingly tries to ruin the life of a top social scientist.
I'm not sure she is trying to cancel someone here though. I get that we live in cancel culture times and this is what it looks like, but I think she just tried to make herself look smart not understanding that you can't look smart on a subject you don't even care to read up on. She also tries to look tough. Peterson has a lot of lectures on masculinity in a modern society and Cathy Newman likely tried to "act like a man" as she saw it. Tried to be everything an alpha male can be. In her eyes that implies being some sort of a bully who doesn't listen to feedback. Even after the interview she stayed arrogant about it and blamed women haters for the negative feedback. Not even admitting that she could have done better no matter who said what afterwards. Even if some evil people gave her negative feedback that doesn't imply she did a good job here.
But overall this became a huge win for Peterson and that is how the interview should be remembered. Peterson surely earned some extra millions from this. He got huge exposure and for someone selling books this is frankly ideal. Furthermore, most who saw the interview did see that he didn't mess up. No matter if you like or hate him it's quite clear that this interview was a huge win for him and that there are no moments here that can be used to show that he is wrong. Actually, there are plenty of OTHER interviews where he makes some logical errors. How could there be big errors revealed here when Cathy Newman doesn't have the skillset to seek them out? Again, I'm not saying he's flawless. Many of his theories are largely in the periphery of social science so many are not yet fully accepted scientific theories and some will have evidence go against them.
Overall this interview is a win for Peterson and a positive note in his life.
helpful•10
- JurijFedorov
- Aug 24, 2021
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content