- Joined
- Sep 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,558
Jordan Peterson's Interview
This interview has recently gone viral, and at the gym only an hour or so ago I saw Peterson's appearance on FOX News with Tucker Carlson, so I'm hoping the world see's more of him.
Peterson is a man who cares about the facts, the truth, and balance. I found him a few months back and was immediately sucked into all of his lectures. In fact I haven't been this obsessed with absorbing information since I find girlschase! Haha.
Watch the video and note how many times Cathy Newman attempts to discredit him or paint him as something he is not. Frankly, he shits on her. All while remaining cool, composed, and cordial. The best part of this entire thing is at 22:10, if you'd rather skip to the juicy parts. I'll tell you though it's a very engaging interview and I enjoyed watching it from start to finish.
Some thoughts on Media Rhetoric
It's a reoccuring theme for his appearances on the media, his interviews, etc. that the dude states facts about a topic, and then gets mudslingers from media sources that either disagree or dislike what he has to say. I feel like this is the current state of affairs with a lot of things going on right now, especially in the sphere of politics and debate. You have interviewers who are trying to paint the interviewee a certain way to add credibility to themselves and/or their camp, rather than find the objective truth. It's about dominance, not truth - which I think is fucked!
Furthermore you have experienced interviewers that can provoke their interviewees to totally shit all over themselves mid-interview through frustration or being condescending. In one sense it makes me think, this acts as a screening tool. You better be able to defend your argument if you have an argument to make. However, the nature of hostility that comes from the execution drives the point more towards a battle for dominance than an engagement to draw out information and form logical conclusions.
Now you might say, well that's how people are. You have to know the game, respect it, and play it. But in the context of an interview, one might imagine that a civil discourse guiding the road to truth as easier, simpler, less polarizing. If it were logic based. But again, we're people. We're more than that.
Peterson's point,
I think this is excellent. And if people did this in a civil discourse, we might not have so much chaos and division as we do nowadays. But then we see the people on the screen engaging in a far more intense, emotional, combative discourse, and monkey see monkey do. Social Learning Theory.
Am I being unrealistic in hoping that the individuals everybody watches, for hours daily, could engage in discourse in a way that would practically draw how it's "supposed to be done"? Or is this just wishful thinking?
The interviewer goes on to say "aren't you just whipping people up into anger and division?" when it is her very rhetoric that I think perpetuates the division! Do the media sources know this? Is this just what sells? What gets views? I think it's good and healthy to engage in discourse that causes emotion, but when you're rhetoric is serving the purpose to draw emotion in order to discredit your opponent, I think that's inappropriate for the context of an interview because it then becomes a matter of political strength and less that of INFORMING people.
In a follow up interview Peterson mentioned how Newman went from putting her notes together in one state of character and talking in a calm environment, to the cameras going on, to the character you saw in the video. Many people out there have commented on how news anchors are actually just "playing a character", so I naturally question the motivations behind this. I'll try to draw back my suspicious side - I just find it frustrating and want clarity... I've got to be missing something here.
What do you, men of GC, think about the matter(s)? Interested to hear.
Hue
This interview has recently gone viral, and at the gym only an hour or so ago I saw Peterson's appearance on FOX News with Tucker Carlson, so I'm hoping the world see's more of him.
Peterson is a man who cares about the facts, the truth, and balance. I found him a few months back and was immediately sucked into all of his lectures. In fact I haven't been this obsessed with absorbing information since I find girlschase! Haha.
Watch the video and note how many times Cathy Newman attempts to discredit him or paint him as something he is not. Frankly, he shits on her. All while remaining cool, composed, and cordial. The best part of this entire thing is at 22:10, if you'd rather skip to the juicy parts. I'll tell you though it's a very engaging interview and I enjoyed watching it from start to finish.
Some thoughts on Media Rhetoric
It's a reoccuring theme for his appearances on the media, his interviews, etc. that the dude states facts about a topic, and then gets mudslingers from media sources that either disagree or dislike what he has to say. I feel like this is the current state of affairs with a lot of things going on right now, especially in the sphere of politics and debate. You have interviewers who are trying to paint the interviewee a certain way to add credibility to themselves and/or their camp, rather than find the objective truth. It's about dominance, not truth - which I think is fucked!
Furthermore you have experienced interviewers that can provoke their interviewees to totally shit all over themselves mid-interview through frustration or being condescending. In one sense it makes me think, this acts as a screening tool. You better be able to defend your argument if you have an argument to make. However, the nature of hostility that comes from the execution drives the point more towards a battle for dominance than an engagement to draw out information and form logical conclusions.
Now you might say, well that's how people are. You have to know the game, respect it, and play it. But in the context of an interview, one might imagine that a civil discourse guiding the road to truth as easier, simpler, less polarizing. If it were logic based. But again, we're people. We're more than that.
Peterson's point,
I think this is excellent. And if people did this in a civil discourse, we might not have so much chaos and division as we do nowadays. But then we see the people on the screen engaging in a far more intense, emotional, combative discourse, and monkey see monkey do. Social Learning Theory.
Am I being unrealistic in hoping that the individuals everybody watches, for hours daily, could engage in discourse in a way that would practically draw how it's "supposed to be done"? Or is this just wishful thinking?
The interviewer goes on to say "aren't you just whipping people up into anger and division?" when it is her very rhetoric that I think perpetuates the division! Do the media sources know this? Is this just what sells? What gets views? I think it's good and healthy to engage in discourse that causes emotion, but when you're rhetoric is serving the purpose to draw emotion in order to discredit your opponent, I think that's inappropriate for the context of an interview because it then becomes a matter of political strength and less that of INFORMING people.
In a follow up interview Peterson mentioned how Newman went from putting her notes together in one state of character and talking in a calm environment, to the cameras going on, to the character you saw in the video. Many people out there have commented on how news anchors are actually just "playing a character", so I naturally question the motivations behind this. I'll try to draw back my suspicious side - I just find it frustrating and want clarity... I've got to be missing something here.
What do you, men of GC, think about the matter(s)? Interested to hear.
Hue
