Posted on 08/14/2018 4:17:43 PM PDT by RoosterRedux
My first introduction to Jordan B. Peterson, a University of Toronto clinical psychologist, came by way of an interview that began trending on social media last week. Peterson was pressed by the British journalist Cathy Newman to explain several of his controversial views. But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication.
First, a person says something. Then, another person restates what they purportedly said so as to make it seem as if their view is as offensive, hostile, or absurd.
Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and various Fox News hosts all feature and reward this rhetorical technique. And the Peterson interview has so many moments of this kind that each successive example calls attention to itself until the attentive viewer can’t help but wonder what drives the interviewer to keep inflating the nature of Peterson’s claims, instead of addressing what he actually said.
This isn’t meant as a global condemnation of this interviewer’s quality or past work. As with her subject, I haven’t seen enough of it to render any overall judgment—and it is sometimes useful to respond to an evasive subject with an unusually blunt restatement of their views to draw them out or to force them to clarify their ideas.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Fifty years ago it was a Psychology fad. Whatever the client says the Psych comes back with “I think I hear you saying...” and fills in the blanks with whatever the Psych has already predetermined is the problem, almost inevitably another Psych fad thing.
for later
To hear, one need only listen.
She couldn't believe, or accept, that she was totally in the wrong on everything she thought she knew.
I have never thought it a bad thing, in a contentious situation, to restate back to the person what I think they are trying to say.
But I am careful to do it in such a way that it actually does reflect what I hear the person trying to say. And I give them plenty of room to modify what they have said, and I restate it.
What you describe sounds like a leftist malicious magic trick to me...
As did mine.
But I listened to the interview, I didn't watch it on YouTube.
There was one of these JP threads that I caught where someone posted that this interview with Newman was brilliant so I found it on YouTube and played it during my drive home from work.
I was very good! Peterson was whip smart and hammered Newman hard, smashing her tired liberal talking points with quickness and finesse. I was very impressed.
I've been listening (not watching) Peterson during my drive-time commutes daily ever since.
This guy is good (even if his thin Canadian accent does take some getting used to).
“To hear, one need only listen.”
—
Sometimes I wish FR had an “like” or “upvote” buttons. That’s the only answer the writer really needs.
Make your bed and clean your wiener.
Liberals and too many Freepers love to play the “So you’re saying...” game where they restate whatever you say into something outrageous, then they get outraged, and then they expect you to apologize for or to defend something you never said at all.
I utterly refuse to play that game and I am extremely militant about shutting down anyone who tries it with me.
He’s done I think a couple of segments for Prager University.
Good for you! Keep it up.
Peterson not only beat her with logic...he beat her with the calm application of it.
Yes. Peterson has actually explained this in some videos.
Normally, people converse because they seek a destination -- some truth or new insight. It's a team effort, and they help each other get to a good place.
The other approach is to try to "win" every conversation. Peterson says that normal people do not do this, but that many of the people who interview him do exactly that. They just try to "beat" him on every sentence he utters. And he stays calm, rational and factual, so he really cannot be "beaten" -- which drives them crazy. Mind you, saying he "cannot be beaten" isn't the same thing (really) and saying "he always wins" because he doesn't try to win. He tries to have an adult conversation. But he's the only one doing it.
He ends up looking good. They end up looking like Cathy Newman.
I keep listening to him, but I just can’t cotton to him. I don’t know why. I have probably heard 5-10 of his podcasts, but his style isn’t grabbing me.
People have great things to say about him, people I really respect, so I am going to keep at it.
I think he just might be too calm and level for me!
“Your saying that we should organize our society along the lines of the lobsters...”
Why, oh why, didn’t Peterson say: YES! Lobsters, crawfish, shrimp - all crustaceans! Plus, they are delicious!
The Atlantic... coming out for logic and reason?
Wonderful.
Liberals really do think they’re brilliant.
They think importing illegals is going to improve the economy and not destroy even their own wages, they think spending the country into debt beyond oblivion is “fixing the economy”, they think booing God and Jerusalem makes sense. They think two men getting married is perfectly-normal, they think Obama and Hillary can do no wrong and they think they’ll all sing “kumbya” with the fanatical Muslims.
There’s no reasoning with people this far gone.
I hear him loud and clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.