Nobody wants to talk to Jordan B Peterson

Journalist Cathy Newman, presenter and interviewer for British Channel 4, became world famous after an interview with Jordan B. Peterson – the Canadian psychologist and author who has achieved world-wide cult status as a speaker. Peterson was on tour in Britain to launch his book early in the year, and Newman was apparently committed to sending it to him. During the interview – which currently has more than twelve million views on Youtube – Newman has turned out to be not only poorly readable and ignorant of topics covered by Peterson, but also several times. had to say.

The result was not a mere accident for a British reporter from a British television channel. It was a failure that was symptomatic of a journalistic work easy to recognize for a Swede as well: the journalist, in this case, Cathy Newman, thinks and feels law, and so not only can, but should also put an interviewer who thinks fault.

Jordan B Peterson is now in Sweden. It's controversial, because his book, Twelve rules of lifeand the lectures on the Youtub channel are based on a reasoning that questions social constructivist ideas about human social hierarchies and gender differences. In addition, many people are wary of his classic midwife to succeed in life and become a better person: stand straight with your shoulders back. Clean your room. Sweep in front of your own door before criticizing others. Instead of realizing that Peter's advice could make life easier and more enjoyable for the many young men who feel bad today – or the school staff who meet and deal with these issues. young men, these simple and reasonable tips are considered dangerous conservatism highs.

Last Friday, during the skating session, Peterson was placed with the head of the center, Annie Lööf, for a discussion, among other things, on the differences between the sexes. In the ensuing conversation, Skavlan and SVT succeeded – just a year after Cathy Newman's flat case in Channel 4 – repeating the same type of journalistic failure. Neither Skavlan nor Lööf can even relate to Peterson's theoretical distinction in the debate on women's career prospects: namely equality of opportunity and similarity of results.

The fact that the old Randian Annie Lööf suddenly explained that the equality of chances was more central than the equality of the results could be considered particularly remarkable because the discussion in a Swedish context was used between leftist politicians and bourgeois. If Lööf had discussed with Stefan Löfven, she had probably adopted a position similar to that of Petersons, but it is now, as in the case of Cathy Newman, to position himself in relation to him. The intention was not to understand what Peterson was trying to say, without put there him.

At the same time, Peterson's problems are hardly critical issues. Biologists question the conclusions he draws from human hierarchies based on evolutionary biological reasoning (the famous lobsters). All of this, you can have informed calls, provided you are interested in such conversations.

This is an opinion piece published in Today's Society. The views expressed in the article are the author of.