BBC HARDtalk - Jordan Peterson - Psychologist (6/8/18) (720p) (50fps)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ส.ค. 2018
- Stephen Sackur talks to Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson. Anger is a powerful force in politics and there's a lot of it about. Donald Trump, Brexit and a host of populist movements have been fuelled by anger with the way things are. Where does it come from? How best to respond?
One much discussed, provocative perspective comes not from a politician, but from psychologist and writer Peterson - whose defence of traditional values has won him a worldwide following. Is his diagnosis liberating or dangerous?
Interviewed Guest - Jordan Bernt Peterson
Interviewer - Stephen Sackur
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bd...
![ความรักไม่ได้น่ากลัวขนาดนั้น (TRUST ME) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9np-lAtCRpQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g5wpgeAIzMs/mqdefault.jpg)
God, Jordan always seems so damn sad at the end of interviews like this. Like he was really hoping to discuss real topics and ideas, and instead it's mostly just correcting the same bullshit over and over and over.
He's sad because he genuinely helps people but the radical left hates him.
His not sad, his playing attention! That requires listening, concentration. He never stumbled once in his delivery but was interjected by the interviewer multiple times. That’s sad.
He’s not sad it’s just he’s emotionally charged, every convosation is so deep. He’ll be remembered as one of the best minds in 21st century
Especially the whole bit about Scandinavia man. If I had a pengar every time they asked him about that.
I think he's physicallly exhausted in this one - jet lag, too much work, not enough sleep etc. but by god his answers are still incredible. Excellent interview.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-Aristotle
In a similar vein...
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Jordan is one of those few people that you can listen to the whole day without getting tired of.
I disagree. I mean, I like him, sure. But listening to his Maps of Meaning on Audible is hard work, because it makes me pause and think often and hard... So, eventually I'm so tired I have to stop for the day and pick it back up the next day. :)
If you see the world through a lens of evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology you may form different conclusions about the best way to achieve a good outcome in life for yourself. The way the human brain has it evolved is important. There is utility in following traditions that have worked in the past and not tearing up the rulebook and starting from day one like the Khmer rouge for example. For me it's about thinking critically and not being bogged down in ideology that will free people to make choices and a better existence and more fulfilling life for themselves.
Hardly. As everybody else, he is right and wrong.
In this interview he's mostly right imo
I passed out listening to maps of meaning. so I disagree.
@@DK-ic5uc It's a complicated book. You need to concentrate, pause and contemplate
"It's not 'what I say' it's what a large scale scientific investigation has revealed." Oh dear Steven he's got you there.
Ok, I'm not an expert... But I am! :)
went to the comments sections to write that hahaha
He should have had said. What is wrong with TRUMP?
So what if people are on his side or go because of me to his side?
I mean lets be real here.
TRUMP is a 80s liberal.
The man is not a RIGHT WINGER at all. SO WTF does he LEFT complain?
But because the left has gone so far left and insane, that now even 80s liberals seem to them as FAR RIGHT ...so that is their problem not ours.
And this is also proof that JP is not a right winger. LOok how he cucks when it comes to the alt right.
The alt right are right now the most TRUTH speaking group on the planet.
Someone make a meme with cool black glasses 😎
Daisy Unchained it was wrong of him to refer to himself as an evolutionary biologist, but obviously he knows way more about evo bio than almost everyone and psychology is heavily related to neuroscience, animal behavior and evolutionary biology. if you get a PhD in genetics and have been an academic for decades, you're going to end up being very well-versed in biochemistry and cell biology, even though it's not what you got the PhD in. Again, Peterson shouldn't call himself an evolutionary biologist, he clearly should have used different wording (Be Precise in your Speech!).
i had to watch that at least 5 times, laughing every time.
That interviewer learned nothing from the Cathy Newman debacle. He dug out the same tired shit, and he got the same responses. Entirely redundant.
Yea...as I was just watching this I couldn't help but think how much of how Cathy Newman screwed up this interviewer has done the same. Sad and pathetic that his whole goal wasn't to learn but rather to try to bring Dr. Peterson down.
time markers :
1:50 - Alienated men
2:31 - political content on your book and political views .
7:35 - underestimate importance of old stories .
12:30 - importance of changes .
14:24 - backlash against toxic masculinity
16:23 - Scandinavian law for quota .
17:50 - danger of equity .
18:40 - about Lobsters .
20:12 - crucial need of two parents
20:55 - little personal attack
23:00 - does success give meaning to your life ?
Thanks!
You missed the part where Peterson claims he's an evolutionary biologist 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*@selvamsuresh6598* Many thanks.
The only thing hard about Hardtalk, is how hard it is to listen to.
@@yareyaredaze9656 There’s actually no addenda here, just critical analysis of an individual and their book. That’s absolutely necessary. Don’t put Peterson on a pedestal and blow sunshine up his ass. Challenge his views, whether you agree with them or not, challenging views is necessary for everyone. Politically right, left, centre or not political - if they’re a social voice they need challenged to reveal biases or faults.
@@berniestephens4506 oh now, c’mon, Bern. That is disingenuous to the extreme. Stephen Sackur has carried water for the Left for decades. To assert that no addenda or agenda or prejudice exists in the mind of this scripted talking head is absurd and laughable. Be a grownup and admit that you find Jordan Peterson repugnant and , but stop pretending that people like Sackur are objective. You’re killing me.🤣
@@joewright9879 you think JP is without agenda and bias? 😂😂 everyone has their own biases, whether Sakur is left wing or not, it doesn’t matter to my point whatsoever. In fact, it’s better if JP is interviewed by someone with opposing views….otherwise you just operate in one big echo chamber where yes men pat each other on the back in agreement. So remind me - what is your actual point here? 🤷♂️🤦🏻♂️ if he’d been “objective” how should this have gone? Should no one challenge JPs views? 🤔
@berniestephens4506 For one, he won't have misquoted Peterson as he did on a number of occasions within this 25-minute interview. At the very least, it suggests a poor review of Peterson's works if not an outright agenda against him.
I'm a Muslim. Jordan doesn't offend my religious principles or beliefs. I support his work with people development. Jordan is creating amazing change in a lost world.
Reporter: I am no expert
Peterson: But I am.
Summarizes the whole interview.
Emotions vs Facts
@Boris Cuduco I think he is both. As described here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
@@Concord003 This is an article about evolutionary psychology. He clearly states he is an evolutionary biologist, which he -to my knowledge- is absolutely not.
@@Bem_flanc ah, I see. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. A slip of the tongue, which doesn't happen often with him.
@@Bem_flanc i believe it was said in the context of discussing the emergence of ethics and morality. “I’m an evolutionary biologist, not a political philosopher” meant that his approach to this specific question is that of science and not of pure philosophy. Obviously, by trade he’s a clinical psychologist, not an evolutionary biologist.
That's just my opinion though and maybe JP could've worded it better!
The interviewer isn't emotional here. It's a show called Hardtalk. He gives politicians a much harder time.
Sackur "I'm no expert", Peterson "Yes, but I am".
Ross Kirkbride Then Peterson claims to be an “evolutionary biologist”. Bullshit.
@@cjaquilino people don't notice his BS, they are blinded by his verbosity and their own bias towards his ideas. Also the interviewer didn't notice him claiming to be a EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST!
@@m.c.v.a.8586 He studied neuroscience and evolutionary biology during his post-graduate studies. A lot of his publications are based on evolutionary biology and neuroscience. But no, his job is not an evolutionary biologist. But his psychological education and his psychological research have their roots in and draw from evolutionary biology and neuroscience.
"Sackur "I'm no expert", Peterson "Yes, but I am". Yes, but he isn't and it's sad the interviewer didn't go straight there and call him out on it. He missed a trick.
@@squeet6831 "A lot of his publications are based on evolutionary biology and neuroscience"
LOL. I've read his publications and they aren't on those subjects. You're talking out of your arse. His PhD was on alcoholics. Fucking boring and not scientific.
This guy is Cathy Newman without the "so what you're saying is..."
This guy come across as more of a dick than Cathy Newman
This guy being the bbc interviewer
@@MysticJabulon it seems that he can't find Mr. Peterson's Achilles heel.
That’s because Peterson often implies or directly makes imprecise claims, then when you try to pin him down he retreats to less controversial claims most people would agree with.
He’s a huge bait abs switcher, or motte bailey guy. But since it’s hard to prove motives he can get away with it.
Don’t agree, I think this journalist is truly challenging Petersen without twisting his answers
This guy kept trying to trip Jordan Peterson up. Didn’t work..
Legend has it that, to this day Stephen sackur remorse that time when he decided to invite Peterson on his show. That look on Stephen's face is so loud that he's finding it extremely difficult to grasp and apprehend the mass amount of wisdom peterson's is transferring at a time. Peterson surely knows how to turn the tables, what a man!
One person in this interview appears to have dedicated his life to making a positive contribution to humanity by pursuing truth, identifying logical fallacies, and stimulating other humans to undergo self-examination and self-development.
My primary issue with this interview style is that these issues are complex, with multiple interconnected variables, and none of them can be effectively answered in a few minutes, or without a deeper examination of the facts behind the position, so an interviewee such as Peterson is always walking in with very little chance of being able to present the full argument behind any of his positions, and the interviewer only has to create drama to accomplish their or their organization's goal (that may not be this interviewer's conscious goal, but the program's format makes it inevitable). The best he can hope for is that a portion of the audience hears enough to stimulate them to read his books and/or to search out his long-form interviews with interviewers who wish to explore issues in depth.
It's no wonder Peterson suffers from depression, given what he has to endure to widely disseminate his perspectives.
Well that is exactly the purpose of this style of interview: to inform the audience about the interviewee and their stances, in a relatively short time. It's meant to give an idea of what kind of person Peterson is and where his ideas come from, it isn't meant to make the viewer fully understand everything Jordan Peterson has ever written. The viewer can then choose for themselves if they want to delve deeper into the subject by, for example, reading Peterson's books.
Yes, it's hard to fit complex issues into short conversations. Still, even 25 minutes is a big chunk of air time on BBC World News, for which Hardtalk competes with other programs. So, 25 minutes of intelligent conversation between Stephen Sackur and Jordan Peterson is still better then 10 minutes, or none at all.
Even if they spend it on the usual checklist of accusations. Perhaps, more people will listen and hear Peterson's actual answers, and maybe even pick up and read the book eventually...
"Pursuing truth", by telling people he's an evolutionary biologist when he is not?
well said mate
A missed opportunity by Hard Talk. By the end of the interview, the interviewer clearly tries to dominate Peterson. In so doing, he ( the interviewer) loses his credibility. It is sad to see how far journalism has slipped over the years, even at the beloved BBC.
Andrew Thomas hopefully the bbc changes rather than disappears
It's the style of the programme, as shown by the title
It’s been a long time since I have called the BBC honest or beloved. They are no longer unbiased, leaning violently to the left. Omitting relevant information on topics to satisfy their own agenda.
Thanks for uploading this! Great quality.
And the BCC post for this is already unavailable. I can't access if here in the Philippines!
I join you in thanking this channel for posting this video!
This never gets old. Jordan schooling the establishment.
this whole thing was either Sackur testing JP's knowledge of his own material or Sackur showing that he doesn't know JP's material
Couldn't agree more
@@fubar5626 Is it not necessary to test people conviction on their own views? You just want everyone to slap JP on the back and agree with him? Cause that’s how you get tyranny. Everyone should be challenged all the time - even if your a fan of their work.
Third time viewing this interview over 2 years. The more I listen to Dr Peterson, the more reasonable and sound it becomes.
How Jordan remains calm with yet another so called journalist constantly misquoting him is almost divinely inspired. A reasonable man would lose his temper in no time.
You can tell how much he doesn’t care about what Jordan is saying by how fast he replies (i.e. goes on to the next question).
Great interview as usual, Jordan.
i dont know if this thing is edited or not but it seems like the interviewer doesnt listen to a thing peterson says.
He should have had said. What is wrong with TRUMP?
So what if people are on his side or go because of me to his side?
I mean lets be real here.
TRUMP is a 80s liberal.
The man is not a RIGHT WINGER at all. SO WTF does he LEFT complain?
But because the left has gone so far left and insane, that now even 80s liberals seem to them as FAR RIGHT ...so that is their problem not ours.
And this is also proof that JP is not a right winger. LOok how he cucks when it comes to the alt right.
The alt right are right now the most TRUTH speaking group on the planet.
Indeed
The format has always been like this from the start of HARDtalk in 1997, the primary objective of HARDtalk is to get as much information as possible, answering less questions as possible, and not agreeing or disagreeing with their guests.
The first presenter of HARDtalk Tim Sebastian was like that too, if you can find that rare video of him interviewing the cleric Abu Hamza in 1998 you'll hear the same tone/technique used.
i think it's the intended style of the show. 'hard talk' meaning you're getting grilled.
@Echoplex Media No you listen, if you think he was lying, go and write to him and tell him you are lying and cant get a p****. Why are you accusing me of lying and poor of character? In this clip, he says he is an evolutionary biologist he says as apposed to political philosophy. He means his ideas are based on science not politics. If you cant digest this fact then your argument is pointless.
As an interviewer, his communication skills are extremely poor...As the interview went on, he sent Jordan P a barrage of attacking questions, without giving him the courtesy of fully answering. Rudely interrupting him constantly. Another example of the aggressive left agenda. Never willing to listen and contemplate, just attack attack, interrupt interrupt, accusation accusation.
It's called Hard Talk for a reason. He does it to most of his guests on the show.
The interviewer is not a person in charge of himself. He is just reading pre prepared questions written by others. He is not following up with what Peterson is talking about. For most of the questions, he was just waiting for Peterson to stop talking to fire the next attack. It is Attack, Interrupt, Insult; attack, interrupt, insult. Standard stuff when your position is not based in ideals , but on power.
Because it wasn’t an interview. It was a planned attack that failed.
Bullshit. He's a political interviewer. If there was a "lefty" in the studio and he just sat back and let them say whatever they wanted without challenging them would you think he's doing his job? No. He's just doing the same he always does: Putting the counter argument over. That's what he's there for. I don't know if you noticed the name of the series but that's the format of the fucking show. He isn't there to kiss Peterson's ass.
@ahshdjt wjjdjfjejs "lol the interviewer isnt arguing his ideas against petersens. He is supposed to challenge the ideas of the interviewe hence hard talk. You fucking geniuses.. he does this same format with leftists too."
Exactly.
It’s obvious that Sackur either did not read the book or simply could not understand it intellectually.
Sacker is far more smart than Peterson.More open minded while JP,smart but closed or narrow...Can't able to appreciate the science of change
@@mandlambukwane1664lol you must be drunk or mad
21:24 - I love how the response is the classic "You could say that... You'd be objectively wrong in doing so, but there is, nonetheless, nothing in the structure of the universe that could prevent you from making false statements like that."
God this was extremely painful to watch. To intents and purposes, Sackur is Cathy Newman in a suit
He tried his best to rattle and evoke a rise out of Jordan. There’s not another man on earth that can stop me in my tracks, perk up, and take my full attention. When Jordan speaks, he can melt 3 hours out of my day like it was 5 minutes. Bravo Sir. You’re an absolute gift and a saviour. Glad to see you’re on the mend and looking forward to public speaking once again. 💯👍🏻👍🏻
Wonderful Job Sir.Jordan Peterson , i am not wonder , that's why you are Professor ...
Suhail from Saudi Arabia
Came here for the "I am no expert" part. Found it at 19:18. Watched it. Feel happy now.
He's no expert in biology
@@carcorr much more than the interviewer that is for sure
@@kpl455 no.
@@carcorr I must have missed Sackurs PhD in Biology then
@@kpl455 JP doesn't have a PhD in biology either...
BBC: but but Jordan your views are totally destroying the weak values we hold so dearly. Jordan: Well its time to grow up and rethink them.
17:45
Peterson: Is that the feminist perspective?
Voice in Sackurs earpiece: Shut him down!
Sackur: Let's get back to...
😂😂😂
The 'pathetic weasels' remark was so damn subtle, I watched this live and burst out laughing at the time... maybe it's wishful thinking on my part that it was both a true answer to the question AND aimed at the host, but Sackur was being exactly that in this interview. I get that it's supposed to be a tough questions interview, but it's called HARDtalk, not WON'Tlisten.
This is the kind of interview you get when a reporter informs all his views on his guest on a superficial read of other reporter's opinion pieces about the guest. Useless conversation.
The interviewer was so far out of his league it was cringing.
Exactly
the coolest show so far
To the first question of " is it liberating or dangerous ?"
Well it is a good question , one that for now , personally , I can only answer as " certainly enlightening and thought provoking "
Amazing Jordan
Don't know why people are hating on the interviewer. The show is called "Hard Talk". Not "Agreeable Ass Kiss". It's his job to grill people. Jordan Peterson did a good job of defending his position, as always. Good interview.
Narthumpulous exactly! Finally someone sensible!
Agreed, it was a good respectful interview and he was a skilled interviewer
People are hating because the host is either being obtuse or ignorant. I get that it's supposed to be difficult questions. But he's (in many cases) deliberately mis-quoting Peterson or misconstruing what he's saying. Peterson spends the interview correcting the (ignorant) questions, and then the goal-posts are moved. This isn't hard talk. It's Ignorant-Darts
I think you have got to know the HardTalk format and history to understand there's nothing to hate ... on the contrary, this show has been groundbreaking in a very positive way for journalism at large. Mr Stephen Sackur is a very respected interviewer and I doubt his objectivity has ever been questioned.
Mr Perterson is a very smart intellectual and he was true to himself this time too. Personally I have a lot of respect for his acumen and agree on quite a few things too. My biggest wish has to be that he one day sees faith and religion for what they really are ...
Why is every interview with Jordan Peterson the same? You could replace this guy with Cathy Newman. Same questions, same shit different day. Do these people not watch, read or listen to anyone else in their industry or any other interview with Jordan Peterson prior to interviewing him? At least this way you won't ask the same question that has been asked of him for the thousandth time. And his response is the same. I imagine he can just go through these interviews on autopilot now.
Agreed although the answer lies in generating views on what they see as controversial subjects on the left. Jordan now knows this
Awesome Jordan!!!
This wasn't a TALK, just a man with prepared questions trying to ask them all before the episode ends. He won't wait until the answer is finished, just shooting one question after another which Jordan already answered in dozens of interviews before.
Amazing guy!!!
Love it
Urgh, these journalists with their agendas and their unwillingness to listen or to learn.
so, they will only 'learn' when they agree with your cult leader?
PCPolice crickets
"Urgh, these journalists with their agendas and their unwillingness to listen or to learn"
You just pinpointed Jordan Peterson and his fans. His agenda and their ignorance.
Cloeren Jackson can you explain what you mean.
When i hear all these people trying to analyze things so deeply and then inspite of solving a problem complecating it even more i feel so blessed to be given a proper direction towards life from the beginning in such a clear cut and simple way by just telling to follwing my religion as a way life and suddenly i find every thing becoming meaningful without any controversies and complexities.This is how Islam leads us ...solves our problems and makes the biggest complexities of our psycological behaviours easiest to handle! I am simply in love with this simplicity...Alhumdullillah....All praise be to Allah❤
Note the professionalism at the end. The interviewer indicates towards the papers and his questions, as if to say, yea these are the questions I have been told to ask and they don't actually represent my views. That's my interpretation of it at least :) This guy is on Hardtalk. There needs to be an atmosphere of tension and there needs to be some kind of struggle. He did a good job.
"I'm an evolutionary biologist, by the way, not a political philosopher, and so my timescale is thousands of years, not hundreds of years..." Don't tell me that this statement's meaning is truly lost on so many...
Physio- Polemicist i’m afraid yes it is people always look at life in myopic terms
You mean that he's a clinical psychologist and not a biologist? Or that evolutionary biologists look on a timescale of millions if not billions of years?
@@katking6820 Oh, they take a cursory glance at the utmost superficial facets and fail to realize that they're doing that which they surely detest whenever they encounter people perpetrating the same offense-i.e., excising context and engaging in eisegesis.
@@NelemNaru What I was intimating is that he never professed to be an evolutionary biologist by profession, but by mode of analysis with respect to a very specific and isolated paradigm, to which timescale was relevant.
I encountered people within this comment section purporting that he was falsifying an academic credential, despite the fact that his other public statements prior to this interview in conjunction with those which he'd made within it negate the veracity of such a specious assertion; the claim that Dr. Peterson had falsified an academic credential is a misconstruction.
@@NelemNaru His point was that his timescale was thousands of years, as distinguished from hundreds.
Dr Peterson has the patience of a saint. This should have been a great long form opportunity to engage in the real issues, instead Sackur completely missed enagaing in real debate.
But...but... But... You're not agreeing with my point. A less irritating version of Cathy Newman.
Firstly a) irritability is bad praxis and b) Cathy Newman interview was entertaining.
If you’ve seen one mainstream interview with dr. Petearson, you’ve seen them all!! Here the usual questions: are you a misogynist? Are you with the alt right? Are you a trump supporter? Are you transphobic or homophobic? How much white priviliege do you have ? And finally, should we behave like the lobsters? Of course the answer to all of that is no but in way more word carefully thought out and with class 😊
U nailed it bro
Welcome to: Hard to Talk
Dr Peterson- one of my favorite people!!
great interview and great journalism really probing JP
What a great interview. I wish had the mind and eyes to strip away at the fabricated layers of society/the accepted narrative in all things. I'm not saying Peterson is absolutely right. He definately a brilliant man. I haven't researched the other side of the issues he speaks of although he sounds very valid in a lot of things.
JOLLY GOOD. Brilliant, just brilliant. Blimey!
"I'm no expert".. "Yeah but I am" ... hilarious
bbc should listen rather than interrupt
This interviewer is horrible for not letting JP finish his response.
I'd rather quit my job than disagree with Jordan about things he genuinely has thought through.
WELL SPOKEN JBP !
So, I know a lot of people didn't like this interviewer - but challenging people in this way is the theme of this show; you can even see this out in the name of the show - 'Hard Talk'. This interviewer does this to all his guests in this show. It allows for some very tough, in-your-face questions to be answered and clarified for the viewer; that style of 'attack', if you want to call it that, isn't personal - as it probably was in other famous interviews of Peterson. So, in essence, this interviewer did exactly what the show promises to do, what he is paid to do. In that, he did a good job. He didn't have much to throw at Peterson, honestly. And Peterson didn't falter.
From having watched this interviewer in the past, it seems to me that he likes Peterson personally.
20:00 I don’t need a bloody degree or years of upon years of study to know that having both a loving mother and father is crucial to a child, he labels it a “belief” rather than the blatant truth it is as well what’s the world come to
So the role of father and mother are irrelevant?
So the most important factor in your life is your parents, there are no other important variables?
@@berniestephens4506 who said that???
You can be happy with only a single parent. You can be miserable with two parents.
You ppl need to learn how statistics work.
"Men are on average stronger and bigger than women" does NOT mean that there aren't women that can fucking kill me bear hands with an arm behind their backs.
But if you look at the whole population, take the average of all women and men, you will find the difference is quite extreme (like >10cm at least)
Same here. OVERALL having both parents IS a significant advantage.
This does not mean that a toxic relationship is better than a single parent. But it does show that a child is a responsibility and you shouldn't leave just because "oh it got hard"
JP looks to be lacking energy, however, it has the effect of giving him a gentle quiet demeanor which comes across well.
He should have had said. What is wrong with TRUMP?
So what if people are on his side or go because of me to his side?
I mean lets be real here.
TRUMP is a 80s liberal.
The man is not a RIGHT WINGER at all. SO WTF does he LEFT complain?
But because the left has gone so far left and insane, that now even 80s liberals seem to them as FAR RIGHT ...so that is their problem not ours.
And this is also proof that JP is not a right winger. LOok how he cucks when it comes to the alt right.
The alt right are right now the most TRUTH speaking group on the planet.
It is not lack of energy...he focuses really hard because he knows what the media does with words.
So he tries to be calm and think what he will say.
In my eyes he cucked on some points, but well i am not him, so yeah.
I think he just so fucking bored with all these interviewers who all share the same prejudice and ask the same questions and fail in the same way
The anchor is also enlightened
The people who criticize Sackur here in the comment section apparently don't know a thing about this "HARDtalk" show. The whole idea behind this is about being confronational with the guests, to put them under pressure with any bits and pieces of criticism that could be found at all, and then witness, whether they will somehow budge under the pressure or hold their ground.
So from that perspective, it was a decent performance from both of them, though especially from Peterson, who managed to hold his nerves.
I guess you could say so, but to be honest, how in the world can you "confront" or "criticize" something that you don't have the least amount of knowledge about, for the look of it, it seems that some assistant just wrote him down some notes that he looked in some videos and that's that, we have questions for the whole interview. He has no idea what the book he is critizce says because it is clear he didn't even read the first chapter, it is clear that he hasn't even see one lecture of JP, because he is constantly putting words in his mouth, so I'd be on board the whole idea of "he is cocky because he has to make the hard questions, you know because this is hardtalk", but really, this just look pathetic, half hour of JP correcting him on his book, his views and all the misinformation he had in his notes that clearly he didn't bother on checking and verifying if they were true at all.
JBP is so calm.
Same old talking points trying to intentionally misconstrue Jordan's positions
"Same old talking points trying to intentionally misconstrue Jordan's positions"
Peterson's using the same old talking points.
@@cloerenjackson3699 Spamming the comments with your stupid posts
@@FriendlyNeighbourhoodSpidey
LOL. Yeah. Whatever dude.
"...I'm an evolutionary biologist by the way not a political philosopher..." I thought Peterson was a clinical psychologist.
His approach to psychiatry is through evolutionary biology.
@@matthewatkinsfilmscore That doesn't make him an evolutionary biologist. Peterson is influenced by the work of Jung, how is that related to evolutionary biology?
@@lethalsub It is absolutely nuts that he is straight up lying to his opponent's (and the audience's) face about that. Makes you question everything else he states as facts.
@@Bem_flanc I prefer listening to Peter Jordanson.
That’s a perspective to which one can understand meaning of clinical psychology. It’s more a descriptive title than it is a faculty of study which is of course open to interpretation however in my opinion must mean he studies the whole story of man, his struggles and solutions to said trails but not in a social science manner but a more anatomical dimension that explores the development of his psyche hence biologist.
6:36 It's simple : Jordan Peterson is attracting people who feel lost, because he's offering them meaning by helping them take on responsibility for their lives.
That's why attracts a lot of young people, and in particular men, because they are the people most looking for meaning.
People who feel lost look for answers, and populism also provides answers. Easy answers and probably wrong ones, but an answers nonetheless. So it's not surprising that there's an overlap, but you have to get the cause right. And Jordan is offering something that actually helps people, whereas the alt-right will just abuse these people to further their political goals.
"abuse these people to further their political goals". I don't think that's exclusive to the alt-right.
He should have had said. What is wrong with TRUMP?
So what if people are on his side or go because of me to his side?
I mean lets be real here.
TRUMP is a 80s liberal.
The man is not a RIGHT WINGER at all. SO WTF does he LEFT complain?
But because the left has gone so far left and insane, that now even 80s liberals seem to them as FAR RIGHT ...so that is their problem not ours.
And this is also proof that JP is not a right winger. LOok how he cucks when it comes to the alt right.
The alt right are right now the most TRUTH speaking group on the planet.
Man you have put this so beautifully.
Poor Peterson, I'm sorry that he has to deal with nasty fools. He looks very tired. I'm worried about his health. How much power you need to withstand the onslaught of evil people.
no one forces him to do these interviews, I assume
Gordon Freeman Agreed. But I am thankful he does. Identity politics and dogmatic ideology have returned, and very few have the courage to take on all sides.
"He should have had said. What is wrong with TRUMP?" This is the BBC. To ask such a question there might have caused mass syncope.
@@omegafury204 Were you trying to break a record for the most copied and pasted comment ever? Christ sake, dude.
I was looking for this exact talk. TH-cam didn't show it on the search even after adding "..."
Maybe it's the title or something else but if I cant find it when specifically looking for it here then it's worth noting that
In this instance, Hardtalk wasn’t hard
Stephen Sackur is so in love with his own voice that even his ears cannot hear the voice of anyone else....
Journalist to Dr Peterson: “I am not an expert but it seems to me...”
so if you are not an expert, why suggest your statements have equal value as those of the experts?
We.....the audience....listen to Mr Peterson because intellectually he is head and shoulders above others, his arguments about responsibilities, conscience, meaning have resonance, he is affable, he is wise........
God bless, Jordan. Ya’legend
Dr Peterson was crushing Stephen Sackur.
It's called Hardtalk because it's so hard to talk to the interviewer. Downtalking the lobsters? Attempting to associate Peterson with Trump right off the bat? That's not a very Rogan thing to do.
"It's called Hardtalk because it's so hard to talk to the interviewer." LOVE THIS, SO TRUE Lol!!
'If you'll just let me finsh my thought' interruption, interruption, interruption.
The Peterson disciples are all out attacking the interviewer as usual (and it's usually warranted) but I think Stephen Sanker is pretty good and he gets Peterson explaining himself well here
"But if I may finish my thought"
Then continuously interupts Dr Peterson.
Anyone can see that discussion speaks for itself, even with the bait questions and by the constant interrupting of logical points.
So, are there other academics whose views are as intelligent, coherent and relatable to most people as Dr. Jordan Peterson's?
I am a muslim, I find the message of Jordan Peterson deeply resonating, because the wisdom can be derived from things you hold sacred but its difficult, if people fail to drive the wisdom from their religion they tend to drift away and can become extremists giving religion a bad name. Bibal shares many stories that are common to the Quran, a lot of them. So listening to his Biblical stuff, has helped understand my own scriptures in a better way, to be become a better person.
19:17 😂 "But I am."
The way that the interviewer announced Jordan Peterson was undoubtedly tendentious.
This bloke is a great interviewer. Always have been.
He was trying so hard to interrupt and cite incorrectly dr. Peterson's words, as he tried to stretch professor's arm over that impossible table.
"Ok, I'm no expert, and it seems as though I have very little understanding of the this subject matter."
No shit sherlock
Its so funny to see how the interviewers gets weaker and weaker :):):)
The moment he said “I’m no expert” is the moment the interviewer lost.
No. He was telling the truth. Peterson is not an evolutionary biologist. If you think lying = winning it explains why you're so gullible for Peterson's bullshit. If Peterson was telling the truth, he'd have said "Nor am I. I'm just talking out of my arsehole and I'm lying straight to your face too".
@@cloerenjackson3699 I feel sorry for you
@@FriendlyNeighbourhoodSpidey
What for pointing out Peterson is a liar? What's there to be sorry about?
@@cloerenjackson3699 How is he a liar?
Interviewer lost before he even started with his closed mind.
... if I can finish my thought (Sackur)... and then proceeds to interrupt Jordan Peterson continuously. The lack of a collegiate attitude by Sackur but expecting it from Peterson is awe inspiring in its contradiction.
extremely exasperating these hosts
It's HARDtalk because it's HARD for the guest to get a word in edgewise.
Looks like JBP accidentally wondered into the Brass Eye studio.
Peterson's answers do NOT change and these interviewers are really boring.
Yeah; he's got to get bored of this soon. These interviewers aren't interested in conversation. They ask the same questions based on sentences jordan has said. Unfortunately the interviewers never take the time to understand the context of Jordan's words. Leads to the same boring interviews over and over. The only thing entertaining about the first couple times we see this is that it's new and we learn how shallow these shows truly are. After that point; the only value I can see is being encouraged that if you keep a calm attitude and think before responding then it's very hard for someone to try and "make you look bad". Even on difficult topics; having well reasoned opinions backed by truth, is a sure fire way to at the very least demand a certain level of respect.
22:30. The moment when Peterson let's him know that Peterson had his number the moment they sat down.
Interviewer had a clear and obvious objective and bias. Anyone who listens to engage and have a meaningful conversation knows this.
Yes, but it is the whole point of the show: to invite an important guest, who has caused controversy or wide-spread criticism, and ask some hard questions that people want to hear. Some guests handle this well and respond with facts and clear statements, like Jordan Peterson. I like how he handled this. I think this interview does more good than harm.
Other guest try to deflect, shift topics, manipulate, etc... Some guests just mumble and don't know what to answer.
For example the president of my country - Volodymyr Zelenskii - was on Hardtalk a couple years ago. His answers we not detailed, not convincing, not impressive. Which is reasonably expected, because we had a lot of questions and suspicions about how he and his party were running the country.
He turned out to be a surprisingly good leader during the Russian invasion, staying in Kyiv in the face of danger, motivating us, uniting the nation, and winning the hearts and minds of other world leaders. Still, it doesn't mean that the Hardtalk questions about corruption, inefficiency, and political persecution were wrong. I still think it was a valuable interview.
If only people will just suck up their personal offenses and listen
Where do people just appear from in history?
I have a feeling that this wasn't the full interview...