The Jordan Peterson Thread - The Architecture of Belief


I think what he said was a simplification with some truth behind it.

At the start of life as a newborn you are utterly selfish for evolutionary reasons and you don’t have any concept of putting your own needs aside for the benefit of others. As you get older you spend more of your time working towards common goals with others. When you are an adult you generally have people who depend on you (young or old) and your effort is largely directed towards their welfare. As you approach the end of your life if you are still able to contribute to society most of the things you invest your time in will not come to fruition in your life-time so you have moved full circle from selfish to selfless.

Becoming a parent is typically a watershed on this transition as the demands on you to support others increase dramatically at that point but there are plenty of people without children who selflessly dedicate themselves to others and plenty of parents who don’t.


looks like Jordan got some one in trouble because she showed one of his videos in a class, the audio is worth a listen

The left wing obsession/cause celebre with the tranny BS is very strange and foolish


Leaked audio from Lindsay Shepherd from the a “tribunal” carried out by the faculty at Wilfrid Laurier University for wrong think thus demonstrating Jordan Petersons original point.

Laurier apologizes to TA Lindsay Shepherd after she aired debate clip on gender-neutral pronouns - -> … e37039010/



A car crash interview, common sense vs. Guardianista feminist


Could only sit through a quarter of that, Cathy Newman is the real life incarnation of Alan Partridge.


So…you’re saying… [insert controversial mis-interpretation]


It worth it, about 20 mins in… 8)


Some of the feminists who have confronted Peterson have been a lot less rational than Newman. She may have absorbed some of the groupthink but I think she’s a decent journalist.

Speaking of feminist groupthink, here is another fine Canadian example. Janice Fiamengo is a professor of English at Ottawa University. She is another of those first wave feminists who are horrified by feminism’s latter day evolution. These vids are painful to watch – she has to repeat the same simple positions over and over again, it’s as if her protagonists have been struck deaf to anything they don’t want to hear. As someone says in the comments, if this is the state of academia we are borked.


Sargon dissects the Cathy Newman interview.


I think Newman is coming in for very unfair criticism, she had 30 minutes to debate some very complex issues and had to act impartial and be seen to challenge Peterson.
As an aside, he is starting to develop a bit of a Dawkins persona - i.e. anyone who challenges what I say is an idiot.

Refreshing all the same.


Agreed. I thought she did a pretty good job and was clearly willing to have a cogent debate. A news interviewer is expected to be provocative, as is obvious when they interview two people of opposing views: they have to play devil’s advocate with both sides of the issue. So Newman will have been putting some common perceptions of Peterson to him, whether or not those perceptions are misguided or, indeed, whether Newman held them herself (although I’d be pretty sure she did on at least some of the points).

Also agree that Peterson is becoming a bit of a legend in his own lunchtime. His own clinical psychology is certainly not totally devoid of rigour like (say) gender studies but it’s not exactly a hard science either. You also can’t play scientist and prophet at the same time. But if we have to have someone play the prophetic role in calling out the radical loony left I’d prefer it was Peterson than a buffoon like Milo Yiannopoulos.

And finally, like all social media prophets, he’s attracted some riff-raff among his own followers. I don’t hold him responsible for them, but they will inevitably cause him some problems by association. I mean the genuine misogynists, some of the MGTOWs etc.

EDIT: Douglas Murray in The Spectator cuts Cathy Newman a lot less slack.


I think criticism of her is completely fair.
As an interviewer, she’s completely in her right to put across the ‘other side’ and challenge Peterson.
Her problem was that she stepped way over that line.
It became painfully obvious that the ‘other side’ was her side and she had a lot invested in it.
But I couldn’t care less about that.
It was her persistent attempt to put words in his mouth, much of which very snide, that I found extremely unprofessional.
'‘So what you are saying is …’ before changing the topic and continuing on with another point.
This is a very sneaky, yet clever technique to misrepresent the interviewee and try to prevent them from correcting her.
He had to go back and correct her on practically every single synopsis she made of him.

She purposely and intentionally tried to misrepresent what he was saying.
Either she wasn’t listening or actively set out to sabotage him, both of which are phenomenally unprofessional in that setting.

Peterson was well able for her tactics.
Not only was he able to refute her points, but in doing so exposed the highly suspect nature of her interview technique.
And that’s what made him look vastly superior.

But who else has she interviewed that wasn’t so well equipped ?


On the other hand, you could say the interviewer is doing something right – the video is among Channel 4’s most watched ever… a million hits just in the last day alone. And there are 100x the number of comments of the most watched videos, thirty-five thousand of them.


She kind of shot herself in the foot and set up Peterson for the slam early doors, when she herself claimed that the glass ceiling was driving the pay gap stats.

She would have made him work a bit if she stuck to pay comparisons at the same level. Like the BBC’s Chinese correspondant was claiming.


JP probably wouldn’t be able to comment on the BBC- and even if he knew, I doubt he would defend it. That seems to be a more traditional example of unequal pay for equal work ( with the only possible (flimsy) excuse being that the men there pushed more).


The inevitable assholes doth appeareth … … line-abuse


I had a look at the comments on the youtube video posted by Channel 4, and they are mostly fair criticism of how she conducted the interview, the insensitive comments are along the lines of “This interviewer is the dumbest person on earth.” which is hardly the “I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.” that the articles written by fellow female journalists in the Guardian and Independent (UK) make it out to be and such comments by trolls should be expected on the internet. The charitable comments towards her are along the lines of “she was just doing he job” and “that’s how modern journalists are supposed to operate”. Channel4 news will probably welcome the publicity it brings them (It’s now in their all time top 10 most viewed), however the content does not portray the news team as being competent and the sheer volume of negative comments has likely dented the self confidence of the journalist at the centre of this and she is understandably nervous having never experienced this level of scrutiny in her entire career as a journalist. I suspect the security thing is more about playing victim to deflect their own failing.

Scott Adams video is probably closer to the mark with his observation cognitive dissonance on show. Cathy Newman also has a book on womens history to sell which is being published this year so there is probably an element of free publicity in this by framing the discussion of evil male patriacal misogynists versus strong independent modern feminist. It is not the first time she has found herself called out for her behaviour.

There was also another interview with Jordan Peterson on radio 5 that did not get much publicity. Full interview here.


I think she did a very good job.

She’s a generalist interviewer though so won’t have the time or background to ever be even moderately familiar with his fields of expertise.

For example he claimed that the gender pay gap does not exist when you control for various factors. This itself is a very questionable statement. Yes, the raw pay gap narrows considerably, but there is very little in the literature that suggests that it disappears entirely.

This was a provocative statement and an open goal for Newman but unfortunately she didn’t know enough to tackle him on it.


This is his daughters website -