This Interview Changed How I See the World (Jordan Peterson & Cathy Newman)

[@SecretScholars]

That’s like saying Raygun is still breakdancing so her “career” isn’t over. Perhaps a more accurate thumbnail would have been: “This interview heavily impacted her career, more so likely than any other singular event.” It was never the same after this.

[@transformerstuff7029]

Choose the title of your video carefully I guess ;P

[@nicolasjanvier8617]

How is that safe to say? I mean sure, she had to deal with quite a considerable amount of online abuse following the Peterson interview. But she is still in the same job that she was then; she's the presenter who in 2022 announced the death of the Queen; and she was appointed in 2020 by Times Radio as the presenter of their Friday drive time programme (on top of her channel 4 news regular spot). Do you not think you'd do well to dispense with the clickbait thumbnails, or is that a desperate attempt to remain relevant?

[@farrongoth6712]

I love the BBC one there was an actual investigation, and in general it found Women were being payed more than Men to do the same jobs, and a bunch of men got pay raises because legally they had to. I'm not certain but if I remember correctly that investigation took place well before this interview and she would have know about the outcome.

[@StillAliveAndKicking_]

Really? Would you like to provide some evidence? She is still very successful and widely respected, for example presenting on Times Radio. I view her as the high priestess of woke. Channel 4 and the BBC are deep woke, she fits in just fine. Times Radio has woke elements. You need to understand that many if not most Brits regard Peterson as a far right satan figure. I admire him, but I’m atypical. Our traditional media are heavily woke influenced, as is our government.

[@pixelparable]

She's working fine...

[@Jdw-cb4ym]

The craziest thing about this interview is that Channel 4 posted this thinking Newman had put JP in his place. As a Brit I remember the rapid change in opinion as this ran… it was truly astonishing!

[@MedalionDS9]

Classic narcissistic behavior.

[@HH-ru4bj]

I only remember the American perspective online, as I'm an American. Could you describe how things went over in Britaintown?

[@cornfusedatbest3980]

Indeed, but their "Double Speak" as it were, only contributes to the negativity of the weak and narrow minded. Hence, "you can't fix stupid." Those that love to bash JP are either afraid of their own ignorance, or extremely jealous that he can be rich and famous for spreading common sense to the masses.

[@christinezaslavsky647]

Good point, since it wasn’t live. But HOW could the editors not know how gross it was?or was the slaughter just too valuable to them, even against their bias.

[@beetalius]

When you’re pushing propaganda, it doesn’t matter if what you’re saying is provably false. You just say it loud enough and confidently enough in the propagandize will believe it. you see it today, people will say things that are contradicted by their own words captured on video. It doesn’t matter that you know they’re lying. There are enough people who want to believe it

[@Bill-ni3es]

That video started my disdain for activists posing as 'journalists'..

[@signa8]

​@TheSpeedofTruthand you're just a reply guy looking for thumbs up on any topic or channel that offends your sensabilities. You've come here entirely because you are following your orders to hate. Sorry, I don't have any deeper points to make, but neither did you.

[@ninawildr4207]

​@@signa8❤❤❤

[@belgiumhr3524]

@TheSpeedofTruth That may be true (or not) but it doesn't change anything about Cathy Newman's fake journalism.

[@TacoTuesday4]

@TheSpeedofTruthregardless of what you think of him this a terrible interview by Newman. She continues to try and put words in his mouth. But I guess that is ok because you dislike him? Edit: guessing you won’t get my joke.

[@christinetipple6285]

@TheSpeedofTruth The speed of your reflexive dishonesty is clear for us to see.

[@davidwinters8325]

She still works for Channel 4, has had multiple pay rises, her career didn't end, she is still part of our hateful media.

[@evanconway9469]

True. This didn’t slow her down at all. The side, opposite of Peterson, viewed this interview as a great victory for Cathy Newman. I saw the carefully edited clips to back up that viewpoint.

[@613harbinger316]

@@evanconway9469 The simple fact that it needed to be edited to make it look that way reveals how hollow their victory is. They can pretend and celebrate and fool those who won't look beyond the curated view they dispense, but the truth cannot stay buried - especially with the internet. Some will find the full clips and realize they've been lied to and that is a win for the truth. It will never look like the overwhelming victory so many of us long for, since the truth is ever so inconvenient (which is ironically what they continually claim to convince themselves that it isn't them who are inconvenienced) and they have the power and will to maintain the narrative. But they can't fool everyone. Slow and steady wins the race. Is it better to have a mob with its fickle mob mentality on your side or a few with the truth and its lasting impact? Honestly a tough question to answer.

[@totalprocall6894]

The left live in utter delusion. Most call it a "metropolitan bubble"...this proves it's true. They are actually unwell people.

[@darthkek1953]

It ended her career as C4's "Jeremy Paxman", she didn't attempt these types of interviews again.

[@openmind5973]

That's a great win for the gender pay gap. 😆

[@woozledog]

Jordan peterson is a HUGE part of this awakening. Possibly the biggest. Slays everyone.

[@operandexpanse]

This was JP at his absolute prime. Incredibly clear minded and calm. A moment for the history books.

[@EzekielBrockmann]

You should check out what he's doing now.

[@joer9156]

​@EzekielBrockmann promoting genocide and Jewish Supremacism? Yeah, bit of a fall from grace.

[@alihenderson5910]

It all depends on who writes the history books.

[@YellowKing1986]

@@EzekielBrockmann He went wayyy too ideological now. He picked a side. He is not calm and probing, he has an agenda that he alligned with other people to achieve common goals. Which is fine, but it makes him less trustworthy. To me.

[@colorocko1]

​@alihenderson5910 you're obviously a snowflake.

[@EM-KeepingtheFaith]

UK woman here, I remember this interview so well. This was when I realised just how brilliant this man was and is.

[@madmelwood3778]

Same here

[@PrincessFionaYT]

I love that interview. I’ve watched it a dozen times. This was JP back in his prime. It’s a wonderful example of being precise and thinking critically avoiding pitfalls. This woman wasn’t there to uncover truth. She was there to expose him before she really understood whether or not there was something to expose. She has already assumed there was. This was a bad faith interview. He negotiated it brilliantly.

[@susancunningham7933]

Umm bad faith interview, like that. There are many such interviews on MSM.

[@JimC]

It's no more bad faith than her other interviews. She wasn't trying to expose him. She just has a shtick: claim that the interviewee said/thinks something which is totally nothing like that, interrupt the interviewee's answers with another lie. Repeat until the interviewee gets frustrated or loses his temper, which is when she wins. If you like, her bad faith is allowing everyone to imagine she wants to get at the truth, but all she really wants is to apply her shtick and win.

[@headecas]

Yeah, dude took a bit of a hit with the benzo abuse

[@Achonas]

@@headecas "abuse" sure, if "abuse" means taking them as prescribed

[@TheSSEssesse]

@@headecasWe need to elevate this comment. Nobody could have thought up a comment as sharp and witty as this. Masterful display of intellect.

[@rowanmac]

100% this interview changed my whole worldview.

[@billyboybarton]

Kathy Newman interviewed me when I was playing the role of Boris Johnson in a Theatre comedy. She was pleasant , but I remember her asking me "Do you think it's appropriate to do a comedy about a man who compares Muslim Women to Bank robbers & Letter Boxes ?". She was referring to an article Boris wrote. She had completely misrepresented him. I had read the article and was able to reply "He didn't compare Muslim Women to letter Boxes. His article was actually criticising Denmark for outlawing The Niqab. He said that that those who wish to wear the Niqab should have the right to do so , even though they look like Bank Robbers & Letter Boxes" .Completely different context. Unfortunately her question and my reply didn't make the Channel 4 edit.

[@le13579]

Women like her use feminism to shield and advance their career. I wish young women weren't seduced by the words but we've all done dumb things.

[@williamjenkins4913]

But that is a comparison though?

[@starlit_hawser11]

@@williamjenkins4913yes, it is. Both and accurate and humorous one!

[@nicktecky55]

@@williamjenkins4913 You have to understand how this works. She is at the top of her craft, that requires careful planning. She knew perfectly well that she was using the comparison out of context. She did it in the hope that the interviewee would not have seen the article. Her further reckoning would have been: "and if he has seen it, we can leave it out in the edit". The purpose was to strengthen the perceived wisdom regarding Boris Johnson. The same is so today, Boris Johnson, Trump and Brexit are all conflated into one political message. That narrative can be found in any "Brejoiner" discussion on YT. All of this is not new, it goes back to the arrival of John Birt, Peter Jay and Nelson Mews at LWT after running the "Insight Team" at the Sunday Times in the early 1980s. They were sponsoring the "Mission to Explain", which was the foundation stone needed for news channels to ignore facts in favour of 'narrative'. The reasoning was this: "People can't understand the modern complex world if they are just presented with a series of facts, because they don't receive enough information to make a coherent picture of events." That became "information should be presented as part of a coherent framework." I don't recall any mention of the dangers of an intellectual elite being in control of the news 'narrative'. Via Oxford University college dinners and the Guardian, that approach was expanded into education... and we are where we are today. That coincides almost exactly with the Marxist agenda, where dissent is equated to a detachment from reality requiring mental health treatment.

[@colorocko1]

​@@nicktecky55Well stated. Thank you for sharing that.

[@Jaasau]

Journalists today simply aren’t journalists. They are activists. This interview helped many understand that revelation in vivid detail.

[@FlamingCockatiel]

Read Slanted by Sharyl Atkisson. It touches on this. I don't trust a lot of journalists any more because they don't put themselves in the work in the proper way.

[@AbsentMinded619]

They’re spokespersons for the powerful. The cat came forever out of the bag when we found out that the DNC and Clintons laundered fake “intel” through allies at the Post, NBC, etc. In the emails we saw how they work. They have fabricated evidence that Trump did bad stuff in Russia, created by paying a foreign agent through a shell company. But they can’t just present it themselves. So they call their favorite reporters and journalists, pass the dossier onto them, and they craft “bombshell” stories using the DNC-generated dossier as their “sources.” They even deceived the FICA court by using the NYT and Post stories as “independent” evidence that the dossier was verified, even though the only source in their stories was the dossier itself.

[@ChuckUnderFire]

I think journalists are still journalists… but the vast majority of these entertainers are not journalists.

[@cerverg]

They are propaganda/agenda promoters nothing less nothing more

[@bruce_just_]

More like stenographers, or press release sub-editors

[@JezzmanGAMES]

One of my teachers actually showed us this interview in class (Belgium, by the way) to show us just that. Words being put into your mouth. It's also the first time I ever heard about Jordan Peterson. I'm in my thirties now. I still believe this was one of the most useful things I've learned. I admire Jordan Peterson's way of carefully choosing his words.

[@sit-insforsithis1568]

Goede leraar !

[@trax72]

This interview is overrated as a good JP performance, by making descriptive statements without a punchline he basically forces the interviewer to try to get at the meaning behind his statements.

[@ERH-ph5gb]

@@trax72 That is, with respect, incorrect. He's not ‘forcing’ her, he's making it clear that there are many reasons why women earn less than men. If you think that there is a ‘compulsion’ behind the statement of multiple reasons, that should encourage you to get to the bottom of these reasons, which, as always in real situations, are manifold. I am a woman and I confirm that this gender pay gap does not exist. Either you work in the private sector, where salary is a matter of negotiation and therefore depends on the skill of the applicant for a position, or you work in trade union organisations or in the public sector, which are bound by collective agreements and there is no such imbalance. Or, you work as an entrepreneur and there it is certainly not a matter of sex, but a matter of knowledge of the market, willingness to take entrepreneurial risks, willingness to face competition and so on. Women tend to take more secure positions and less entrepreneurial risks. If women are also less talented at negotiating, then they have to learn to do so and not fixate on the invented idea of an injustice that doesn't really exist. JP wants the interviewer to think of those reasons herself and not to just counteract on those, he might have given.

[@n0odles86]

Which classes were you taking in your late twenties?

[@n0odles86]

​@@trax72Lol.

[@samdg1234]

She actually responds to Jordan's accusation that people *aren't* listening to what he says with, "I'm listening very carefully." while being 100% *unable* to repeat back to him the points he just made.

[@johnnhoj6749]

She is probably listening very carefully for anything she can twist into a slur but completely ignoring anything which she can't.

And interrupting him repeatedly, trying desperately to put words in his mouth he never stated or implied, because she's too dense to understand what he's saying.

[@3nertia]

"Arguing with stupid people is like playing chess with a pigeon - they'll shit all over the board and then strut about as if they won" ...

[@kathieovercash8414]

Jordan Peterson is a gem. So intelligent and so dedicated to helping others. Priceless knowledge and common sense.

[@graemejack9040]

This is probably the greatest example of how to conduct yourself in a debate that I’ve ever seen! His intellect, rationale, temperament is sublime. He beautifully articulates his responses so as to truly provide a clear understanding of each subject matter!

[@bazotter]

The moment when he reveals to her that what she is doing to him is what she accuses him of doing to others was a great moment. It revealed a lot about msm journalism in general. I think it changed a lot of peoples minds, including mine.

[@YSFmemories]

Unfortunately most people dont see their hypocrisy when its pointed out

[@colorocko1]

I feel the same

[@ardentenquirer8573]

Yes Mr. Warren Smith, Secret Scholar Society Winning an argument often depends on maintaining a consistent position. In the interview between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman, Newman displayed a notable contradiction. She criticized Peterson for asking uncomfortable questions of people, but she herself was asking Peterson uncomfortable questions, thereby creating a contradiction. Essentially, she demanded that Peterson face scrutiny while others should be allowed to avoid scrutiny, making herself a hypocrite. When arguing, you cannot have it both ways. An easy way to remember this is that you cannot both suck (breathe in) and blow (breathe out) at the same time. Addressing such contradictions is crucial for effective argumentation. This principle is central to the Socratic Method and the Scientific Method, which help ensure that arguments are logically consistent and thoroughly evaluated. These methods are also used in law contexts to rigorously examine evidence and reasoning. If introduce evidence claiming the glove was use to murder someone and the glove does not fix the suspect you have reasonable doubt Did you know that, from a scientific perspective, the concept of "race" is a social construct rather than a biological fact? Although there is genetic diversity among human populations, the idea of distinct human races is not supported by scientific evidence. For a better understanding of the Socratic Method, I recommend “The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook” by Ward Farnsworth (2021). You may also find “On Bullshit” by philosopher Harry Frankfurt insightful.

[@colorocko1]

@@ardentenquirer8573 A very insightful comment. Thank you for the information. I will look up the mentioned books.

[@065Tim]

The MSM will always reply with something along the lines like "The end justify the means"

[@BlackSilver23]

Such an iconic interview. Someone once counted the number of times she said, "so you're saying." I think it was something like 27 times.

[@robinbeckford]

It prompted the New Culture Forum channel to have a "So what you're saying is" series.

[@allisshop8092]

She can’t refute any of the data that he presents. All she has is the old rhetoric that uneducated people spout without any data to support the ideas. Her retort then is limited to ‘so you are saying’. Totally exposed for what she is.

[@P.H.888]

So you’re saying it was 27 times?

[@sallymjmj750]

Only 27 times?

[@Hera4]

Same. 2018 was the year I abandonded leftism because of that interview

[@synchacker25]

It definitely was a catalyst for alot

[@DJWESG1]

Lol😂😂 This isn't anything to do with the left , or leftism as you call it.

[@christianlovelock3910]

@@DJWESG1 Of course it does. It's people on the left that go around acting like the thought/language police. It's people on the left that attempt to perpetuate the lie of the wage/pay gap.

[@thomaslacroix6011]

​@@DJWESG1 The interviewer is talking almost exclusively about leftists talking points using leftist arguments. How is that not related to leftism?

[@helenrogers1400]

Well done. 👍☘️🇮🇪🇺🇲🌎

[@patwoods6487]

Absolutely fantastic.

[@YungStinkyWinky]

The title is correct. This interview changed how I see the world. Opened my eyes. I left leftism pretty soon after. Then, reading 12 Rules For Life changed how I see myself. Opened my eyes. I left mediocrity soon after.

[@MrVvulf]

My eyes were opened almost 30 years ago by one specific article which appeared in the Harvard Business Review. You can still find it online, and I recommend everyone does so. Some of the mechanisms of information dissemination have evolved since it was published, but the rotten underlying system is still very much the same. The title is: "Why the News Is Not the Truth" by Peter Vanderwicken

[@panzer00]

JBP is one of the reasons why I started paying attention and seeking the truth.

[@GordonSchumwaay1201]

Hey man, you had your own JP moment teaching that kid to think critically about the JKR question. Really enjoy your perspective. Cheers.

[@SelenaSea]

True that!

[@madmelwood3778]

100%agree

[@delaroxx]

I am convinced everyone who says JP talks difficult is just not sophisticated enough to follow him cause that man uses precisely the words he needs. he is a master at rhetoric, it's absolutely amazing and such a privilege to watch him at work.

[@lavenderbee3611]

This interview opened my eyes, he lays out a foundation for his arguments and does his homework.

[@harrymills2770]

It didn't change how I saw the world, but it was world-changing to see a true adult responding to juvenile questioning from yet another half-educated news personality.

[@danlyson7681]

I listened to Jordan for the first time listening to this interview while driving to Idaho from California. To today I have listened and learned from Jordan's wisdom!

[@stefanoprivetto6744]

I actually watched this live. I was jumping around the living room. I had that eureka moment. Jordan is such an inspiration.

[@Nad-A123]

I live in the UK and this one interview changed my perception of JP I had absorbed what the UK media and said of JP and yes, beloved a lot of it. This interview truly opened my eyes

[@jeremyrfk]

I remember when I discovered Jordan Peterson on KZbin and came across this interview rather early on. I watched the entire interview and I thought to myself, “This man is a genius. I need to see what else I can learn from him.”

[@dennisburns2002]

I sent this interview to my brother, who said I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video on the gender wage gap. A year or so later, he bought our whole family tickets to go see Jordan Peterson at the Akron Civic Theater

[@HolographicThoughts]

Wow. That's a quite the anecdote.

[@HedgeFundCIO]

The interview that opened my eyes. Thank you, Jordan.

[@halcyo]

Peterson is a legend. What bravery!

[@ph8077]

Cathy is also "stunning & brave."

[@colorocko1]

​@@ph8077idealistic, not brave. Jordan Peterson demolished her.

[@trax72]

This interview wasn't as bad as you think for Kathy Newman. It's easy to laugh about the "so you're saying" meme but then you fail to consider that this was a result of Peterson exclusively making descriptive statements rather than prescriptive ones.

[@allisshop8092]

He has studied the research and conducted some himself. By presenting that in the discussion he makes her look like the uneducated fool that she really is.

[@mrp9023]

He's intelligent on some matters and a complete idiot on others. He also clearly bullies other people and uses his favourite 'virtue signalling' line to discredit people who don't know what a hypocritical line it is. Quote if the day joe rogan 'how many people starve to death in the world?' Jordan 'almost none'. Classic peterson chucks out an obvious BS line to derail a line of questioning he doesn't like.

[@stumac869]

That interview changed by view of the MSM forever and introduced me to Prof Peterson. Well done Cathy.

[@scatton61]

After the show, she and Channel 4 claimed that she had received 100's of hate comments and threats of death and Grape but wasn't able to produce any evidence. A meta-analysis was done in the twitter responses and the vast majority of threat tweets, that could be identified, came from women and were aimed at Jordon.

[@markaurelius61]

Amazing! So they simply misrepresent him to keep the carriage on the wrong road.

[@stevenmackay3342]

I was in awe of Petersons interlectual prowess in this interview.

[@kylec1411]

Jordan is a genius. This man has basically saved men.

[@CharlieBravo887]

Jesus saved men. Jordan is just pointing out the obvious: all this feminist claptrap is...claptrap.

[@coronaphone710]

He saved me from women 😂

[@kylec1411]

@@coronaphone710 i could see that. Women these days are hell on earth sadly.

[@chrischamberlain5845]

I have watched this interview more than a few times and completely missed that glimpse of the genuine woman behind her well-crafted [and well compensated] Persona, until now. Appreciate your analysis as well as it’s delivery, immensely.

[@susancunningham7933]

Yes nice comment, I agree with what you say here.

[@beetalius]

that fact that she's a real person for a moment means that she's a completely disingenous propagandist for the rest of the time

[@PrincessFionaYT]

@@beetalius we did not need to see the real her to understand that but yeah, it was nice to see the person for a change.

[@Syncopia]

Oh no, this is standard fare for Cathy.

[@Sci_3nt_ifiC]

You're entirely correct. There is a genuine human behind the ideological script. It's just a shame western society seems to run on the ideological woke facade and not the logic, truth and compassion they all likely have inside. I wonder if they sigh with relief when they get home and metaphorically take that faux virtue filled costume off?

[@shabadooshabadoo4918]

That's one of the greatest interviews of all time. And a few of the greatest interviews of all time feature Jordan Peterson

[@PoussinNoNeko]

About Bill C16, we can now see that his prediction is actually becoming true. Because he studied the way human societies could lead to genocides, he could recognize patterns and foresee the insidious slip into totalitarianism. He was a real vocal pioneer in this regard. And I will forever be grateful to him for opening millions of people's eyes!

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

Not "becoming" true... it already came to be. "Give an inch/cm, and they will take a mile/km."

[@adamyoung6797]

Look into early 1900s philosophers, primarily Jung and Nietzsche, who were alive during those times and talk about war, genocide, and the state. JP is a good man, but why not go to the source he is pulling from directly? For a good starter, essentialsalts on KZbin. His new video on ‘mass psychosis’ is tackling just that

[@FoursWithin]

It is a bit ironic that he's now gunning for a group who want to censor not only speech but almost every aspect of a person's existence. He's become rich and famous but sadly he may have sold his soul to a beast he doesn't understand as much as he thinks he does.

[@lucky5757]

Which is?

[@lucky5757]

​@@FoursWithin?

[@StillAliveAndKicking_]

That interview DID NOT end her career, quite the opposite, she’s still very very successful. You need to understand that she lives inside a liberal identity politics world, which includes her employers. These people saw the interview differently to you. I’ve seen this video before, and in subsequent viewings I appreciate it even more. He gives a masterclass in clear thinking, and having the courage to express himself clearly.

[@HankD13]

She gives a masterclass of how conduct a truly awful interview, with loaded questions and absolutely no interest in the answers. Sound bite after sound bite never even noticing she was being ripped apart and exposed.

[@VVayVVard]

I imagine it must be challenging for many people to even properly process the arguments outlined by Peterson in the interview. In this context it isn't particularly surprising that many would not see much issue with her performance.

[@3nertia]

@@VVayVVard Yep! It's the Dunning-Kruger effect in action heh

[@dalisllama]

Even Peterson’s “aha! I gotcha!” was playful and shows he made her really think without being aggressive. And power to her for conceding.

[@salmonblox]

He even said later that his biggest regret of the interview was actually saying “gotcha!”, as he didn’t mean to put down Newman, he was legitimately trying to convince her of his viewpoint

[@machtnichtsseimann]

@@BrandonHeat243 - Give him a break. He's still one of the few on the forefront risking the deeper stress of bad faith interviews, cheap gotcha journalism, ( who knows regarding death threats ), and the Woke Cult are still popular. It's a long battle. Did you see him on "Kill Tony"? He was quite playful and funny. Context matters all the time. There are times to be very serious, which thankfully he serves as a leader and captain.

[@machtnichtsseimann]

@@salmonblox - I was just going to comment on that detail. He regretted playing into "gotcha" rather than being silent and letting her sift through her dissonance on her own. He played a bit into his pride. He's fallible, admitted it, owned it. Otherwise, stellar responses from him with her.

[@JimC]

@@BrandonHeat243 It's the aftereffects of the family's crisis over wife's cancer; and the drugs he was prescribed to help him cope turned out to have extremely serious drawbacks. He's not the same as he was before all that. And he is older, too.

[@signa8]

​@@JimCyeah, I miss this Jordan Peterson. He's a damaged version of this guy and I barely get anything of value from him speaking now. I'm glad he didn't die when he and his family went through hell, but it cost him dearly.

[@darktower74]

One thing to bear in mind is Peterson said he regretted the "Gotcha!", and as it was transformative to you, I hope the regret was part of that. In jest or casual situations, taking delight in someone's error or failure isn't a sign of weak character or a mean spirit. Avoiding an enemy's trap, I think, should allow us some glee. Meeting on neutral ground, in a television interview where common ground or like-mindedness is a potential goal, Peterson was elevated by his later admission. One reason I enjoy listening to Peterson talk so much is his open-mindedness, the evidence of his personal reflection, and his hyper-articulate reasoning seasoned by decades of experience. Critics of his would do well to observe his more reserved social state in situations that are a bit out of his wheelhouse (as seen when he appeared alongside stand-up comics on stage). I also find his avoidance of swinging a bible around despite my suspicions he is a spiritual man. He is a man of high character and quality, a boon to society.

[@ron6625]

"Because they're not listening, they're projecting what they think" is a very powerful statement everyone should remember and think about when you're in a conversation.

[@nuxkamina]

Jordan Peterson on controlling language was bang on. I don't agree with many of his ideas but he blew up fighting against authoritarianism, language and thought police.

[@bperry573]

This was the first exposure to Peterson I had ever seen and I remember just being in awe of how well he avoided all the traps she had set.

[@David-cf2iq]

An agenda driven interviewer vs. a prepared intellect.

[@Seekingsophia00]

I absolutely love this style of video....Do more 👍🏼

[@Martin_Adams184]

Well observed and analysed, Warren! Thank you! I saw this interview online, a day or two after it was first broadcast. One of the things that stood out, in addition to the points you discerningly make about how Jordan Peterson responds to Cathy Newman's questions, is the responses of Cathy Newman and of Channel 4 to the post-broadcast controversies. The broadcaster thought she had performed so ably that they put online the full, longer version of the interview. And in subsequent interviews CN seemed to think she had done reasonably well. In subsequent interviews, JP spoke quite well of her professionalism and general disposition, comparing this interview favourably with a later one conducted by Helen Lewis. That too is readily available online. The Cathy Newman interview and subsequent events epitomise one of the most striking symptoms of infection by wokery. It tends to produce extraordinary inabilities in self-awareness, in seeing things as they really are. All this reminds me of a profoundly wise article by the great German theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whose short essay "On Stupidity" was written while he was imprisoned by the Nazis. (They murdered him a month before the war's end.) He argues that "stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem", for even very intelligent people can be rendered stupid through adhering to widely accepted ideologies, especially those concerned with power. (In his case Nazism, in ours identity politics.) And he observes that in conversation with such a person, "one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken possession of him." The parallels with this interview and with so many attempts to engage in coherent conversation with supporters of identity politics are striking.

[@christopherpetergoodman8994]

It is ideological, but the ideology serves the purpose of justifying their hate. If they started from a position of love of truth they would never have embraced the ideology in the first place. You can't reason somebody out of a position by appealing to facts if what motivates them is their resentment or their desire to say things which they believe will advance their career. She could have used the interview as an opportunity to learn something, but that presumes she was interested in finding out things rather than angrily repeating claims which made her feel good, or which she believed helped her accumulate money in her bank account.

[@613harbinger316]

@@christopherpetergoodman8994 Even if her motivation wasn't monetary, it's not hard to see that much of what she pushes or agrees with is based on resentment and a need to get some sort of vengeance. It can be cathartic to get gotchas on people like Dr. Peterson, but that kind of negativity can't build a positive focus on life. It'll only lead to a perpetual misery with the only prescribed medication being more attacks and more vengeance. Honestly, it's one of the oldest stories out there - power, influence, getting whatever you desire, but the cost is your joy and happiness and an end smothered in misery.

[@alihenderson5910]

​@@christopherpetergoodman8994Logical fallacy and hypocrisy are the primary weapons, which render rational debate with paid activists like her, almost impossible. The 'win' is the only important thing, not the truth.

[@allisshop8092]

Slogans and catch phrases. Yes exactly. No need for facts or research.

[@ERH-ph5gb]

Yes, this is, what drives people crazy who genuinely seek to have a conversation and even an offensive debate but must realize that the person one talks to, is unable to not talk without phrases and catchwords. I see it happening everywhere in the media and it happened to me personally in private. If there is no substance behind what the speaker says, it's almost futile to want to help this person to get into deeper waters. Very frustrating.

[@bastianogr4960]

In this interview, what I find even more astonishing than his surgically sharp arguments, is his calmness. How does he do it? In my personal experience, my lack of calmness is the thing, that makes me lose every argument. I always get angry and emotional, which instantly leads to me losing the ability to think straight and forge the right arguments. This interview truly is a masterclass.

[@alihenderson5910]

I'm the same. Arguing with stupid people and liars is incredibly frustrating.

[@ardentenquirer8573]

Practice: Mr. Warren Smith, Secret Scholar Society Winning an argument often depends on maintaining a consistent position. In the interview between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman, Newman displayed a notable contradiction. She criticized Peterson for asking uncomfortable questions of people, but she herself was asking Peterson uncomfortable questions, thereby creating a contradiction. Essentially, she demanded that Peterson face scrutiny while others should be allowed to avoid scrutiny, making herself a hypocrite. When arguing, you cannot have it both ways. An easy way to remember this is that you cannot both suck (breathe in) and blow (breathe out) at the same time. Addressing such contradictions is crucial for effective argumentation. This principle is central to the Socratic Method and the Scientific Method, which help ensure that arguments are logically consistent and thoroughly evaluated. These methods are also used in law contexts to rigorously examine evidence and reasoning. If introduce evidence claiming the glove was use to murder someone and the glove does not fix the suspect you have reasonable doubt Did you know that, from a scientific perspective, the concept of "race" is a social construct rather than a biological fact? Although there is genetic diversity among human populations, the idea of distinct human races is not supported by scientific evidence. For a better understanding of the Socratic Method, I recommend “The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook” by Ward Farnsworth (2021). You may also find “On Bullshit” by philosopher Harry Frankfurt insightful.

[@bastianogr4960]

@@alihenderson5910 Exactly.

[@paulds65]

@@alihenderson5910 Never argue with a fool, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[@Svensk7119]

​@@paulds65Oh, but this wasn't arguing. This was exposing.

[@whisperienced]

If we get through this nonsense. Jordan Peterson is one of the people we owe for being first through the wall.

[@madmelwood3778]

Amen

[@hannuorn]

Excellent point - we see the real Cathy for a few seconds, she actually seems quite nice and charming in that moment - and then it's like the light goes out in her eyes and she immediately goes back to zombie mode of hardened face and lifeless eyes. Peterson managed to find the real person under heavy layers of ego and ideology, if only briefly. Thanks Warren Smith for a great analysis.

[@Thetache]

Peterson said this himself, she was friendly and charming to him until the cameras rolled then she went into feminist misandrist leftist attack dog mode.

[@graemejack9040]

Jordan has also said that Cathy was polite and respectful towards him in the studio beforehand and totally changed the moment the interview commenced

[@cdrtej]

I hadn't noticed at the time, she's actually very pretty for about three seconds, then the ideological mask drops back into place.

[@blacksmithsligo]

It didn't really end Cathy's career, she is still presenting on Channel 4 news. But it did flatline her career. Not just that, it flatlined the perception of Channel 4 news as a credible news outlet.

[@philangell1403]

Journalists today love asking what they think are gotcha questions but they have an innate inability to listen to the answers. Cathy Newman is a classic of the genre.

[@mizofan]

She is part of the corporate establishment, a phony careerist

[@allisshop8092]

Spout the party line. Say it loud enough and often enough and the dimwitted sheep will actually believe it. No need to actually examine the root cause of anything.

[@markpostgate2551]

Obvious reason why is you can plan your questions; you can't plan the answers, and they are control freaks and feel uncomfortable with things out of their control.

[@AlexandreOliveira1974]

I remember when it happened... He was accused of 'trying to humiliate her because she's a fragile woman', the poor lady. For real, by many!! Lunacy. But it was indeed a huge defeat for ideological 'journalism' - not that they've learned the lesson. Prof. JP is just brilliant. He faced a really hard time months after this interview... Thanks God he got over. We still need him, and more like him, so much.

[@alihenderson5910]

C4 went straight to damage limitation mode, she was portrayed as the victim, who was allegedly subject to online hate and d threats, without any evidence being shown. Classic leftist strategy.

[@colorocko1]

Yes, we do need JP and more of them.

[@chetrodell]

Seems pretty sexist of them

[@colorocko1]

@@chetrodell explain?

[@chetrodell]

@@colorocko1 "a fragile woman" as if they should be treated any different. according to feminists women are everything men are and they should be treated equally right?

[@cordyone]

I rememeber my friend showed me this interview. I was so impressed by his demeaner, the gentle way he laughed off her preposterous attacks. It really was something special, something genuine. But over the subsequent years he got beaten down and lost that gentle, confident demeaner. Its understandable, but unfortunate.

[@SirBladewind]

He's been being attacked every day for years since then. I honestly understand his bitterness

[@Ironknuckle100]

He still has that in spades, he is just terse to those who earn it.

[@jaybee9269]

Sometimes he talks to people who don’t have a real sense of humor. Whatever you think of Cathy Newman, she has a sense of humor.

[@JonesySurvived]

0:25 Notice that only AFTER she begins to speak, a few moments in does her thinking actually kick in. This is not the only time I've seen Jordan have that effect on someone. I think it shows that she was so intent on proving him wrong she wasn't actually rationalising her own points. She never took the time to think about what she was going to say. She was being reactionary and regurgitating an established talking point instead. A common emotional rather than intelligent response.

[@realplonk]

i remember this, she blew it big time, she wasn't prepared and JP is an intellectual that can explain himself very quickly whereas many intellectuals speak too slow and drawn out and can never speak within the time limits of TV and radio, an example would be noam chomsky who although highly intelligent on how the secret services control the media he could never explain it in a quick comprehensive way for television interviews

[@Montrala]

As someone raised behind The Iron Curtain, under blessings of "realistic socialism", I always enjoyed watching JP crushing Western useful idiots full of themselves. Even if he is completely out of the water when he tries to chime in on international politics, I still respect him as a philosopher.

[@shadowsbruther]

How is he completely out of water? Maybe you need a speaker

[@danix8538]

​@@shadowsbrutherI'm not sure about international politics but there's plenty of subjects where he chimes in and doesn't properly understand. One example is sexual dynamics and personal relationships. He's a total simp when it comes to women. You can see it in the way he lets the women in his family put their head into the picture even when they have nothing to contribute. Just look at his interview with Tommy R. where he kept trying to bring Tammy in the discussion for her supposed intuition and instinct. He has plenty of good stuff to say but it's ridiculous to try to sanctify him. He says plenty of retarded stuff along with the good. Not sure why we should become zealots who see no wrong with him. It's just as lazy as disregarding everything he says.

[@boatrat]

@@shadowsbruther Equivocating on the need to absolutely, fully, unconditionally eject Putin from Ukraine? It's the Chamberlain cowardice all over again. And all the more dismaying, coming from the man who's dedicated his entire professional career to the very effective deconstruction of all forms of Totalitarianism on the sociological level. (He wrote the forward to the 50th anniversary reprint of Gulag Archipelago, FFS!) To then fail to oppose this most overtly brutal example of aggressive totalitarianism we've seen on the geopolitical level in the last 50 years? It's nothing less than an egregious abdication of his own principles. An incomprehensible betrayal of his own life's work.

[@kenmcd2014]

I love Jordan Peterson he is one of this worlds greatest treasures. However, Cathy Newman is still there doing the same thing she has always done. This interview didn't end her career. We need to keep things on point and true and not promote BS.

[@DirkusTurkess]

Remember kids, you think you hate journalists enough. You do not.

[@Thetache]

Fun fact, MSM is now activists and propagandists, they fail on the definition of "journalist" like an XY chromosone owner fails on the definition of "woman", so they just try to redefine words to suit their viewpoint in a very disingenous way to try to hoodwink the public

[@dkBybee]

I despise elites who are journalists

[@aryapranav]

Peterson is amazing.

[@BonesFrielinghaus]

Sad Peterson is now such a Zionist shill.... Very sad. He's lost it.

[@ph8077]

He's charismatic, super-smart, erudite & articulate - rare qualities indeed in the age of the internet "creator"...although his extant bizarre obsession with Christianity is a bit of an outlier.

[@colorocko1]

​@@ph8077I appreciate his interest in Christianity. Why would you say it is bizarre?

[@aryapranav]

@@colorocko1 I would argue that his obsession with it makes him, him. I am not christian but still this would be my assessment.

[@liamlluls1588]

This interview was definitely a very specific turning point in my life, I remember seeing it for the first time so vividly and the rabbithole I went into afterwards

[@Bombbashable]

I love this interview. I have to revisit it a couple times a year for fun.

[@jaybee9269]

Absolutely.

[@mustang607]

She tries to equate trans activists with trans people. That’s like equating tree activists with trees.

[@jrd33]

So are you saying trans people are not even human? ;-)

[@jamesedward9306]

@@jrd33 😂😂😂🤣 Cathy? Cathy? Is that you?????

[@redfo3009]

So true. Trans activists are narcissistic neo marxists. Totally different person.

[@redfo3009]

​@@jrd33no. There are real trans and idiots who are using real trans' issues for attention and sympathy. Kind of like stolen valour. They use race as well by putting black and brown and feathers into the new flag.

[@Levnyan]

😂😂😂 I see what you did there ​@@jrd33

[@carlosportillo2781]

This interview changed my life.

[@garypalmer1122]

There have been several interviews of JP in the UK in recent years, where the interviewer completely underestimated or misunderstood him, only to be publicly embarrassed. This has also happened on one occasion in Denmark, where JP gradually eroded the interviewers' and his other guests' pre-conceived notions of him, followed by a feeling almost of admiration and agreement on their part, as JP was able to articulate his views. This helps to explain why he is so popular, even in non Anglosphere countries...

[@alexsilva-vn7jc]

You´re thinking of "Skavlan", that was Swedish, but no matter. The worst for me was an article/interview in "The SundayTimes" where the female journalist labeled him schizophrenic (after his dyskinesia ordeal) and called his daughter a bimbo. Absolutely shocking bad faith "journalism".

[@lak1294]

Glad you're examining this forensically, even years after the fact. Cathy Newman went in with prejudice, preconceived notions not founded on reality, and her own agenda. She didn't listen to JP's answers, he ran circles around her in terms of listening, understanding what was going on, and responding thoughtfully and genuinely (not by counterattacking). Cathy Newman dug her own grave, 100%. A journalist should be impartial and LISTEN. No one should take her seriously as a journalist after this fiasco. She illustrates everything wrong about wokism.

[@betterbetty3542]

This truly was a masterpiece. I’ve gone to see Jordan Peterson in person and he truly is an amazing person/speaker.

[@LemonHelmmet]

this interview introduced me to JP and changed my life for the better

[@stefanconradsson]

They changed the title of the interview within a day of posting it. I was one of the first ten thousands, or so, that saw it within hours of it going online. Can't remember what the original title was, but it was blander than the current one. I even posted a comment to the effect of “this is an instant classic”. And I was correct, it turns out, imagine that. It is one of those strange “planet alignment” events that are usually only acknowledged in retrospect. Cheers man 🍺

[@Ragnarok187]

"So what you're saying is, something completely different to what you actually said"

[@madmelwood3778]

😂😂❤❤❤yep

[@RobertaPeck]

You are a great teacher!!!! Everything is so much easier to grasp after you articulate your thoughts

[@canchadhandlethat872]

Truly a master class and a star was born…thank you Warren

[@jessw4350]

It’s so satisfying in that brief moment when she lets her true self slip out and she smiles because even if she didn’t realize it in the moment she was wearing a persona the whole interview (til that moment) and wasn’t trying to find the truth as a journalist should but trying to push a narrative that she was told or had decided was already there. But in that moment she realized there was more to this person she was grilling than she previously assumed. And her true self was uncovered. It’s a shame that pride tends to stand in our own way, even after realizing we were wrong we are too stubborn and attached to our ideas that we prevent ourselves from thinking deeper and obtaining true understanding.

[@alihenderson5910]

She's a regime tool, truth be damned. She had one job to do and she failed.

[@mondomartinez4066]

This was one of the first introductions I had to JP's work. Watching his lectures and interviews and reading his work was enlightening. It helped me to carefully pay attention to my thoughts and my words. I'm glad you've found so much of his work worth your time to comment on. Great upload.

[@Seekingsophia00]

I hope you're doing well, Warren. Keep up the great work. We need people like you and Jordan. 👏🏼

[@ItApproaches]

I wouldn't say she believed the stories she was saying, I would say she WANTED what she said to be true.

[@jsbrads1]

Thank you for explaining that moment, thank you for describing that moment. She is real genuine, charming- for a moment, before returns to that, as you and Dr. JP expressed, other person.

[@joer9156]

It's amazing how much more feminine she seems in that brief moment.

[@Zukadog]

The GOAT of such discourse

[@uppermost865]

One of the best interviews that Jordan Peterson has been part of. Made me buy his book.

[@Torquemada70]

Legendary interview....I seem to remember Channel 4 initially posting a truncated interview to make Peterson look bad, before releasing the whole thing

[@Tedmader-fp3vb]

I never forgot this interview and it’s great hearing your take on it.

[@sapientgreen]

I miss this Jordan Peterson. The quiet, thoughtful intellectual rather than the fire and brimstone preacher.

[@jaywoodside0731]

He seems to be that way only under certain circumstances now. I think he's become to jaded and proud to let his guard down like he used to.

[@carolineramage7480]

The world is going to hell in a hand basket. This is why he has become more forthright. It's a natural logical progression of his analysis, not just some neurotic extreme personality quirk.

[@AtheismF7W]

Agreed ​@@carolineramage7480

[@LaitoChen]

Sad, but unfortunately he had to adapt to the malicious world around him the way he knew how.

[@ironyage]

He went through some nasty experiences, including drug addiction and recovery, and came out mentally intact but with a much different attitude.

[@GoodBoyOskie]

Peterson is one of my modern heroes. He's the father figure many young people never had but deserved.

[@34rlyw4rn1ng]

I've seen that interview a million times..but you really laid it out so well. Thankyou.

[@LEDB89]

It's no exaggeration to say this interview saved my life. Before I stumbled on it, I was a depressed, miserable, anxiety-ridden nihilist (probably Googling the gender pay gap so I could have something to be mad and resentful about), but it sparked in me an interest in this man I'd never heard of, Jordan Peterson, that sent me down the most transformational path of self-education and self-examination I could ever imagine.

[@_APG_]

Truth vs that which scorns and hates truth.

[@baswenmakers6846]

Truth vs Power.

[@_APG_]

@@baswenmakers6846_Exactly._

[@ardentenquirer8573]

Mr. Warren Smith, Secret Scholar Society Winning an argument often depends on maintaining a consistent position. In the interview between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman, Newman displayed a notable contradiction. She criticized Peterson for asking uncomfortable questions of people, but she herself was asking Peterson uncomfortable questions, thereby creating a contradiction. Essentially, she demanded that Peterson face scrutiny while others should be allowed to avoid scrutiny, making herself a hypocrite. When arguing, you cannot have it both ways. An easy way to remember this is that you cannot both suck (breathe in) and blow (breathe out) at the same time. Addressing such contradictions is crucial for effective argumentation. This principle is central to the Socratic Method and the Scientific Method, which help ensure that arguments are logically consistent and thoroughly evaluated. These methods are also used in law contexts to rigorously examine evidence and reasoning. If introduce evidence claiming the glove was use to murder someone and the glove does not fix the suspect you have reasonable doubt Did you know that, from a scientific perspective, the concept of "race" is a social construct rather than a biological fact? Although there is genetic diversity among human populations, the idea of distinct human races is not supported by scientific evidence. For a better understanding of the Socratic Method, I recommend “The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook” by Ward Farnsworth (2021). You may also find “On Bullshit” by philosopher Harry Frankfurt insightful.

[@Try_Gratitude.123]

Thoughtful and articulate is quite refreshing.

[@thiefkeith214]

Warren, i remember this interview came out and it felt like a victory but I didn’t know why really. Peterson talks in such a way I find hard to understand at times, but these bite sized synopsis’s make it all crystal clear

[@phil5569]

Jordan Peterson is such an amazing person. Absolutely amazing!!!

[@victoriabarnett4279]

Wish I could think and respond as fast as Peterson.

[@ardentenquirer8573]

Try these books and practice all the time Mr. Warren Smith, Secret Scholar Society Winning an argument often depends on maintaining a consistent position. In the interview between Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman, Newman displayed a notable contradiction. She criticized Peterson for asking uncomfortable questions of people, but she herself was asking Peterson uncomfortable questions, thereby creating a contradiction. Essentially, she demanded that Peterson face scrutiny while others should be allowed to avoid scrutiny, making herself a hypocrite. When arguing, you cannot have it both ways. An easy way to remember this is that you cannot both suck (breathe in) and blow (breathe out) at the same time. Addressing such contradictions is crucial for effective argumentation. This principle is central to the Socratic Method and the Scientific Method, which help ensure that arguments are logically consistent and thoroughly evaluated. These methods are also used in law contexts to rigorously examine evidence and reasoning. If introduce evidence claiming the glove was use to murder someone and the glove does not fix the suspect you have reasonable doubt Did you know that, from a scientific perspective, the concept of "race" is a social construct rather than a biological fact? Although there is genetic diversity among human populations, the idea of distinct human races is not supported by scientific evidence. For a better understanding of the Socratic Method, I recommend “The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook” by Ward Farnsworth (2021). You may also find “On Bullshit” by philosopher Harry Frankfurt insightful.

[@torstenaan]

The part about victories leads to more success gave me chills. JP is so good at saying things precisely.

[@gbernardwandel4174]

When Dr Peterson does a misstep or at least says something that goes against my values I go back to this interview and remember there is something special in him that is worth pondering. I had only been checking into him maybe 6 months before this came out and this interview crystallized that there really was a there there.

[@jaybee9269]

What has he said that goes against your values? Genuinely, I’m curious.

[@gbernardwandel4174]

@@jaybee9269 when he tweeted “ Sorry, not beautiful and no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that” about the swimsuit model who was heavier than the norm. That’s what comes to mind quickly Something about “enforced monogamy “which I’m not remembering well but I’d have to dig it up I stopped listening to him for the most part but I’m sure there’s more it’s kinda unimportant the specifics I generally don’t try and vilify him but I also don’t think he walks on water

[@Leathal]

Peterson has two distinct eras that are delineated by his benzo detox coma. Post detox JP is a sad shell of his former self. Went from classical liberal intelligentsia to an angry boomer who types in haikus and suddenly has strong feelings about foreign policy in the Middle East

[@karencampbell2410]

Great analysis Warren. I love how you inject salient comments at certain parts of the interview. You let us observe and think. Thank you for not over talking. 🙌

[@outoforbit00]

That glimpse of a beautiful authentic woman she gave us and then immediately shut down is painful to watch as it shows the true misery of wokery.

[@joetowers4804]

I know myself. If someone had misconstrued my arguments in such a way, they would have succeeded in making me angry. Dr. Peterson is clear in his thinking and controlled, and I really started paying attention to him from that moment on.

[@slawomirkulinski]

Thank you Warren for making this analysis. There are too many "oh he destroyed her" videos out there which don't really give the picture.

[@iceman00behave]

​@@MG-me7iwYou can't be that naive. She's a cog in the msm machine, and if she doesn't turn a certain way she will be replaced with one that does. Nothing she said was by accident or mistake, it was all a pre-meditated hit piece, and when it blew up in her face she played the victim card. That's a vile woman.

[@torreyintahoe]

This was a legendary interview. Jordan is a very skilled debater. Cathey actually thought she came out on top.

[@treehugger9809]

This made me understand why everyone thinks I am different. I think exactly like him.

[@samspade1841]

Awesome job Warren. Really enjoyed your overview of this interview. JP is a Canadian gem. What a shame what our government has done to try and humiliate him. All it has done is shown those of us who have been watching what small petty tyrants they are. CathyNewman essentially showed me she was an activist with an agenda.