At the start of the interview I initially thought she had an agenda to take him down a peg (maybe she had). As it went on though it struck me more that she wasn’t quite grasping what he was saying in a lot instances. Maybe her mind was made up before the interview and she had prepared a lot of her "so you’re saying"s, defaulting to them when she was a little stumped. Or on the other hand she consciously refused to accept his arguments. Either way, she was just doing her job and fair play to her for trying to take him on.
This guy reckons she was hallucinating due to cognitive dissonance.
He didn’t actually deny that a gender pay gap exists. He accepted its existence (in some sectors).
His argument is that prejudice is only one of a number of contributing elements that inform it. She couldn’t actually grasp this aspect of his argument and went on to attempt to misrepresent what he was saying accordingly i.e. “So what you are saying is…”
I’ve listened to a number of his videos at this stage and his arguments are not ones that most SJW/leftists will have come across before because they are based around what he perceives to be the underlying reasons humans act in the way they do and also make the decisions that they make. His argument is that individual personality types can predict political predisposition for example. He also gives a lot of credence to Jungian philosophy which again places strong emphasis on unconscious motivations being at the heart of human actions.
These are arguments that are long overdue being presented in the public sphere and will upset ideologues on both the left and the right. In fact, one notion that could maybe sum him up best is an avowed opponent to all forms of ideology as well as a defender of individual rights AND a proponent of the existence of attendant accompanying responsibilities.
A lot of his stuff certainly resonates with me…and judging by the explosion of interest in what he has to say, I’m quite clearly not alone.
He is also calling out how it can be abused especially the implicit association test (IAT) and if you work in the multinational sector you will at some point come across this in such forms as Men Advocating Real Change(MARC) which is a training/propaganda course aimed at male managers to tell them all about their unconscious bias towards women. There are several companies hawking this material to HR departments around the globe. Be warned as a man you may come away from sessions like these feeling very angry and insulted, however, you won’t do much about it because you are trying to climb the corporate ladder and this is not a battle you want to fight with the head of HR who likely initiated this, the real challenge for you will be overcoming gender quotas that flow from this attitude. You will probably see this unconscious bias testing being pushed in the public sector (if it’s not already) in due course as some governments are making this mandatory for certain public sector roles.
I’d suggest going to the source rather than relying on the Guardians interpretation of what he says or said.
I’ve listened to about 5 of his YouTube lectures and they’ve been interesting. I’ve also watched a few interviews with him and while he’s not infallible he appears to make sense…to me anyway…which is pretty unique these days amongst public figures. But each to their own.
Edit - just to add, you’ll note that the Guardian article makes a lot of very general suggestions as to his being wrong, misleading or scientifically incorrect on various issues. However, it doesn’t once seek to rebut any of his assertions i.e. It’s a standard hit piece. As I said, you’d be better listening to him and making up your own minf
He was on before but I thought it was just another pampered academic whining about identity politics so I skipped it.
I have to say his voice is annoying. All these links and videos are too confusing. He has his own podcast so I’ll listen to that. My prediction is that he will get tripped up by who he chooses to share a platform with. Rogan alluded to him sharing a platform with some loons and he laughed it off as “yeah there’s a lot of graffiti there”. He’ll say something on some discussion with a wingnut that although technically justifiable will lead him to be easily dismissed by liberals in one sentence - “oh Yeah Peterson is the guy who said X on Y about Z”
As for the he’s “popular” criticism (and it’s sibling “he’s cashing in”) there will always be that no matter whom you are… as for his voice, well at least he has a sense of humour about the obvious comparison.
I watched a few of his philosophy bites videos. It struck me that he might have had a run in with depression/anxiety himself so that’s what I looked up. There are similarities to Eric Maisel in his line of thinking
Aside - he definitely uses the term SJW - at the end of the Joe Rogan interview he laughs about how “he’s found a way to monetize SJWs - the angrier they get and the more they talk about him the higher his patreon donations get”