Menu

How To Avoid Embarrassing Yourself In An Argument – Jordan Peterson

73 Comments

How To Avoid Embarrassing Yourself In An Argument  – Jordan Peterson


We’ve all found ourselves in conversation and felt attacked like we started off talking about one thing and then the other person twisted our words and before we knew it, we lost our cool,
lost respect in their eyes, and maybe even acted like a jerk. Now, I don’t normally do the same person twice in a row but this interview between Cathy Newman and Jordan Peterson was just too interesting of an opportunity to discuss how you can handle someone who uses subtle conversational tricks to bully you into looking dumb. So in this video, you’re gonna see firsthand some of the most common tricks that people might be using on you and you’re also gonna learn how to reverse those so that you can walk out of a kind of aggressive situation having earned more respect than you had going in. So first off, to stop a conversational bully, you have to realize what’s going on before it’s too late. Now, typically, a person will reveal their aggressive attitude early on with their tone of voice and their word choice — kind of like this — …but I wasn’t specifically aiming this message at young men to begin with; it just kind of turned out that way but— And it’s mostly, you admit, it’s mostly men listening. In this case, Cathy is indicating very clearly that
she thinks Jordan has done something wrong. Otherwise, why would she use the word “admit?” She makes her stance clear a moment later when she implies
that he should be bothered for being divisive. Just watch. Does it bother you that your audience is predominantly male? Is that a bit divisive? The point here is that even when they’re being passive-aggressive, people will often indicate that they’re about to attack you before they actually do. So if you hear someone say something like, “Well, what do you have to say for yourself?” be prepared. That person thinks that you’ve done something wrong and you need to be very careful what you say next not because you did do something wrong but because a conversational bully may be trying to trap you into saying something that you disagree with so that they can attack that straw man. And the first way that this often happens is called
the “so-you’re-saying trap.” Here’s what it looks like. So you’re saying women have some sort of
duty to sort of help fix the crisis of masculinity? Women want to dominate — is that what you’re saying? So you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality whether
you call them feminists or whatever you want to call them should basically give up because “it ain’t gonna happen.” Let me just get this straight; you’re saying that we should
organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters. The general pattern here is that someone says, “So you’re saying…” and then proceeds to oversimplify or mischaracterize what you actually said. I won’t spend too long here because it’s very easy to spot and it’s rather simple to avoid and get around by saying, “Well, actually, what I was saying is…” and then repeat yourself. …along the lines of the lobsters. I’m saying that it’s inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. But there’s a much sneakier way that people may
mischaracterize your beliefs and then attack them. Basically, it’s when someone’s words imply that you
believe something you don’t and they don’t actually say it. So in business, they call this “assuming the sale” like when a car salesman says, “So would you like that with the leather interior or with the
fabric interior?” before you even decided to buy the car. Now, with the several thousand dollar purchase, you’re likely to notice this and say, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said I was buying in the first place?” But it’s very likely that this is happening to you in conversation
all the time and you don’t even notice. Here’s how it might look. [Cathy talks over Jordan] Yeah, but why?
Why should woman put up with those reasons? Embedding the question “why should women put up with it?”
are several important presuppositions; namely — one, that there is something to put up with and two,
that Jordan thinks woman should put up with it. Now, the trap here for Jordan would be to answer Cathy’s question directly and many of us fall into it in similar situations then we start arguing for things that we don’t even really believe just out of habit. Instead, you need to identify that hidden presupposition and then call it out. So watch how carefully Jordan listens to Cathy’s questions so that he can catch what she’s not saying. “Why should women put up with it?” I’m not saying they
should put up with it. I’m saying that the claim— Here’s another example of assuming-the-sale from later in that conversation. See if you can spot the hidden presupposition and
ask yourself what you might say to respond to it. …which women do a lot of. But why shouldn’t women have the right to choose not to have children? So what’s the hidden presupposition — that Jordan thinks women must have children. And of course,
he defends a woman’s right to make any decision about that. …the right to choose and demand it, correct? They do. They can. Yeah, that’s fine. But you’re saying that makes them unhappy. Here’s one more example. See if you can spot the hidden presupposition here. [Cathy talks over Jordan] So you want to say to your
followers now, “Quit the abuse. Quit the anger.” Did you catch it? The presupposition is that Jordan’s followers are abusing people. Now, he can’t answer that question directly; he has
to address that hidden point first and he does. Well, we’d need some substantial examples of the abuse
and the anger before I could detail that question. There’s a lot of it out there. When I cut the clips like this, it makes it very easy to see these
hidden presuppositions but in real time, this can be difficult. One simple thing that you can do to make it easier on yourself is to purposely assume a relaxed posture as Jordan does throughout this entire conversation. Now, this posture actually helps you to think less frantically because your body is signalling to your brain that everything is okay; you’re in control. You’ll also want to give yourself some time to pause after each question which Jordan definitely does. In addition, you’re going to want to study up on frames and frame games because there’s a clearly a whole level of conversation that is going on behind the words. Now, I’ve talked about this in other videos specifically the one on Tyrion Lanister from Game of Thrones and I’ll leave a link to that in the description if you want to check it out. Moving along though, the last clip contains a small
example of the third conversational bully tactic in this video which I’m naming the “smash technique.” Take a look. [Cathy talks over Jordan] So you want to say to your
followers now, “Quit the abuse. Quit the anger.” It’s subtle here but Cathy smashes together
two very different terms — abuse and anger. Now, by ending on anger, it would be easier for
Jordan to just forget it and answer the question. But that would tacitly accept that his followers were abusing people. That’s why the smash technique is so frustrating; people are
embedding hidden statements that you actually disagree with and then moving through them before you have the time to voice that disagreement. You may also have seen people barrage you with questions just to overwhelm you into having to accept their points like this — …otherwise, why would that only be seven women
running FTSE 100 companies in the UK? Why would there still be a pay gap… [Jordan talks over Cathy] Why are women at the BBC saying that they’re getting paid illegally less than men— It can be easy to get overwhelmed and to lose focus as you try to answer all of these questions but with the smash technique in general, the best policy is to slow down the tempo of conversation and tackle one question or one point at a time. Let’s just go to the first question; those both are complicated questions. So hopefully, now you’re more aware of the so-you’re-saying trap when people “assume the sale” and of course, the smash technique. This moves us to the second section of this video which is how to persuade someone in these kinds of situations. And I will say, it seems to me that it doesn’t look like Jordan is necessarily trying to change Cathy’s mind but simply to debate in front of an audience. There are still some valuable tips to be gleamed
from this video and a few things that I’d add First, do not straw man the other person’s ideas even if they’re doing it to you. And to be clear, I don’t know if I mentioned this, straw manning is when you create a caricature of their ideas
and then attack those rather than what they truly believe. Instead, show the other person that you are truly engaging in their real points, attempt to understand them, and sometimes this mean that
you have to ask them to repeat themselves so that you can. Seven? Seven women… repeat that one— Seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies in the UK. Well, the first question might be. After you’ve made an honest attempt to understand them, you need to make sure that they can understand you which is necessary for persuasion. And to do that, you often have to use the visual imagery. For instance, here’s a very abstract point without any images that Jordan makes. …that it’s inevitable that there will be continuity in the way
that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable. And there is one-third of
a billion years of evolutionary history behind that. Now, maybe you can understand that but it kind of lacks any emotional oomph. But notice how the addition of a concrete example
makes that one-third of a billion years just feel different. That’s so long that a third of a billion years ago,
there weren’t even trees; it’s a long time. So adding concrete examples especially ones that people can easily imagine is a smart persuasive move and lastly, when you’re arguing, oftentimes the best way to get someone to change their position is not by changing their mind but by gently showing them that they are already agreeing with you. I talked about this in the frame video but here’s an example from this interview. Why should your rights to freedom of speech
trump a trans-person’s right not to be offended? Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You know, like, you’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable. This is huge. Jordan is no longer arguing that her point is wrong; he’s arguing that she already agrees with him —
her behavior and her previous statements demonstrate that she cares more about free speech than not offending people. And then Jordan doesn’t try to make this point wrong;
he shows her how they’re actually very much in alignment. You’re doing what you should do which is
digging a bit to see what the hell’s going on. And I gave you what you should do but you’re exercising
your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me. And that’s fine. I think — more power to you as far as I’m concerned. And then of course Cathy feels stumped because she
does actually agree with Jordan and she’s proven it herself. People have a strong desire to remain consistent with things they’ve already said and done so oftentimes, this becomes one of the few ways to persuade someone who’s really dug in their heels. You’re basically showing them that they don’t have to move in order to agree with you; they already do right where they’re dug in. And then of course, Jordan hits her with the “gotcha.” …uh, and… [sighs] I’m just trying to work that out but I mean… [sighs] Jordan: Hah. Gotcha.
Cathy: You have got me. You have got me. Even though I laughed at that phrase at the time I was watching the interview, I have to say that last bit “gotcha” does not improve Jordan’s persuasive case. It actually makes Cathy feel silly and wrong as opposed to happy to discover that she and Jordan are really on the same team all along and if I had to give one last point of constructive criticism, it would be that Jordan answered all of Cathy’s questions rather than trying to proactively address her deeper unstated emotional concern. And in my opinion, that emotional concern is that Jordan is her enemy — that if he believes something, it must be against her interests. If Jordan could have found that and pointed to a more common ground that they share which we all of course have, I don’t think the interview would have continued in such an argumentative fashion but Jordan’s role isn’t necessarily to convince Cathy Newman of anything — it’s to debate for an audience and to promote his book which I think he did at an A+ level. If you think that I missed something or you just want to discuss, leave a comment below. I’m actually to be checking periodically but I will be most active in the comments for that first hour after the video goes live which is now 2 p.m. Eastern on Mondays so hit subscribe and hit the notification bell to make sure that you’re notified when I am here and chatting. That way you can hop on if you want to discuss anything with me or if you have a question that you’d like to ask. I also think that this video makes a very strong companion for both the Tyrion video that I mentioned about frames which are super interesting and the previous Jordan Peterson video which will teach you how to get respect without being a bully so click the screen if you want to check either of those out. Hopefully, you guys enjoyed this video and I will see you in the next one.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

73 thoughts on “How To Avoid Embarrassing Yourself In An Argument – Jordan Peterson”

  1. Circus Midgets says:

    "So what I'm saying is what I'm saying".
    Peter Hitchens vs some half-wit Marxist bint.

  2. thetruereality says:

    Please post the full interview

  3. Miki Dewberry says:

    the progressive social circle will always win against the truth

  4. Wasim Babili says:

    Thank you. Very useful. Honestly. I appreciate you guys.

  5. Wasim Babili says:

    I understand your point. I just dont know how to calculate other people feelings. I can try to understand them. But that's about it.

  6. Wasim Babili says:

    I just look like that. But I am very friendly.

  7. Ryan McCarthy says:

    I watched this breakdown Relaxed.

  8. Tread Softly says:

    Kathy is overly aggressive and rude. She is an attacker and he knows it. It's very hard to listen to this bully. He has handled it very well.

  9. trident3b says:

    3:18 and 3:25 "woman"?

  10. Kal T says:

    Arguements and debates are mostly useless, rarely lead to changes, and are largely ignored. If you want to defeat a bully, there's no better way to, than actions. People remember nearly 250 years later that George Washington crossed the Delaware River to surprise attack the British, but 20 years from now no one will have any idea that this Peterson debate even happened.

  11. SwordsHeldHigh says:

    Far right is the biggest threat to humanity and must be fought

  12. Marriet Visser says:

    This is a very helpful post. Thank you for the lovely tips.

  13. Theo T says:

    he banged her and then ditched her..lol, love it.

  14. Zatocrew says:

    Sure that 'Got you!' didn't improve Peterson's persuasive power but she totally diserved it, I hope she realized that straw men conversations don't do any good to society. Well done JP

  15. Sober Sherpa says:

    She is obviously a obnoxious manipulator

  16. Sober Sherpa says:

    Wish Joan Rivers was alive – she would have a field day with this lady.

  17. Andrew ward says:

    I disagree with you that she would’ve been happy to learn that they actually agree. I think she actually hates that when she realizes it. She’s so clearly biased, she doesn’t want to agree with him

  18. Fran Sahm says:

    Jordan is never trying to win. He is all about the facts.

  19. Bill Fisher says:

    Very helpful breakdown. Thank you

  20. William William says:

    Kathy deserved that "gotcha" at the end.

  21. AUDIOHOSTEM187 says:

    MALE AND FEMALE ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL RIGHTS! TRUMP/EPSTEIN 20/20

  22. Peter Childs says:

    My country, Australia is failing badly with multicultural integration.. it fails because it’s impossible to achieve, especially with the ideology of Islam. Do not place Australia as an example of success as it’s not, and it’s ignorant to think so.

  23. Kevin B says:

    So you’re saying she should be cast adrift at sea? Not cool guys, not cool.

  24. Wesley417 says:

    Ugly crazy white woman

  25. Sean M says:

    I have liberal friends who constantly do exactly what she did. This is a helpful video for so many reasons. One thing I notice liberals do, however, is they don't WANT you to slow down the tempo and have you address their questions, they just want to keep moving, keep barraging you with unrelated questions. If you were in a swimming pool with them, liberals are the ones who just want to hold your head underwater and not let you up for air. Thank God I don't swim with liberals.

  26. NickieB says:

    That gotcha moment might bot have been the best for the moment, but Cathy DESERVED it

  27. Цаце Цацевски says:

    He destroyed her like plus ultra damage.

  28. arbys exploror says:

    Woah does Cathy have a dab pen

  29. Lord Fancourt says:

    What a shrew that lady is! I just want to slap her arrogant face. Bullying, aggressive, pushy, driving her personal agenda. A horrible person. Great breakdown of the arguments and analysis. More, please!

  30. Timon van Dael says:

    0:22 I don't know in which part of that interview you found cathy's annoying strategy 'subtle'

  31. smell my finger says:

    Christopher Hitchins was a beast in debates but Professor P is also very impressive. Newman is so far out of her depth its embarrassing.

  32. Peter Kay says:

    No offence but this is a beautiful analysis!!!

  33. Peter Kay says:

    You are wrong about one thing…the "GOTCHA" moment. WE ALL deal with people like HER! Catching her CAUGHT everyone guilty of her behaviour!!!!

  34. Steven Johnson says:

    This is why she should be paid less. LOL

  35. Raniere says:

    "so you're saying.."

  36. slab6046 says:

    It explains every single interview he is involved in. He is always attacked verbally and is always so pissy when he answers.

  37. kathy breda says:

    Smash that like button!

  38. kamuelalee says:

    Cathy is the Mistress of Why…Why, Why, and Why?

  39. Ashley Stroebel says:

    Great Video…Damn Son

  40. Malky Headbutt says:

    5:04 "Your body is signalling to your brain that you're in control….." Surely your brain sends a signal to your body to relax first!!?? ……I no longer trust myself……

  41. Prodesu says:

    How to avoid being embarrassing: featuring Jordan Peterson? Yikes.

  42. jason triplett says:

    how could Peterson agree to this waste of time interview?
    good video btw

  43. Janet Rothstein says:

    Wish I could make up my own mind and watch the interview in longer clips. He barely could say anything .She was so aggressive.
    I’d really like to see you in a debate!

  44. Mystery Man says:

    Damm conversations are harder than fighting games those word combos are very hard to do for a normal person XD

  45. mr dashin says:

    If you feel the need to say gotcha. Instead say see we agree to lock them into the position of your point of view. Even if they disagree the viewers will agree with you.

  46. Q Tē says:

    Exactly why you never let a "q"uestion unanswered, take them back & keep them to exactly the words they spoke😏 and or asked😜

  47. Q Tē says:

    Actually @07:55 it's plain and simple🙈

  48. Q Tē says:

    Truth is truth 😉

  49. david mc mahon says:

    It a bit like pissing down you'r back and trying to tell you it's raining!

  50. Hello Corp says:

    I wouldnt have said Gotch'ya, i would have said Checkmate.

  51. David Shaddix says:

    Peterson is masterful in these situations.

  52. Greg Kates says:

    Learn to pernounce presumption.

  53. specialkalberta says:

    There's another interview between Jordan Peterson and Wendy Mesley that was similar to this video. I should rewatch it and see if Jordan used the same techniques, probably did because I seen to recall him effectively disarming her. The word disarming is used because like this video he was definitely under attack from a leftist interviewer, what a surprise

  54. PeggyAnn says:

    I love Jordan. So smart.

  55. Lizeth Gutierrez says:

    As a woman, I feel bad for this lady’s husband.

  56. DES the DIVER says:

    Excellent forensics of a conversation. Easy to understand and visualise the concepts.

    Jordan is a mind apart tho! and as for the interviewer…well her pedigree is dubious but known. She stood no chance.

  57. Michael K says:

    Punch your aggressor in the throat

  58. Philip Ketchum says:

    Mr Peterson is one of the best. Right along with the late Charles Krauthammer.

  59. GodsPerfectWord says:

    Newman is the perfect caricature of socialism in a dress… What an UGLY soul.

  60. GodsPerfectWord says:

    Jordan epitomizes the "POWER" of competent male energy. Newman served as the perfect illustration of almost every point he made regarding issues with Feme-Bullies.

  61. ColeYounger16 says:

    I love breaking these down as well. Your analysis is spot-on. Thanks for doing it!

  62. Gonzalo Melendez says:

    Poor woman Jp turn her into a joke ! She probably regrets this interview lol

  63. John Adkins says:

    "Well, I think….."

    "You know, Hitler 'thought' too……"

  64. Lance2773 says:

    Wow, there is some serious genius here ! Glad I found this. I needed this.
    Thanks.

  65. crystalawen says:

    Someone should put a sock in that irritating, gobby womans mouth…

  66. SelfAccountable says:

    THis is why universal suffrage is a bad thing.

  67. Toxic Stoic says:

    Cathy "So what you're saying" Newman

  68. Disco Devil says:

    Well Lobsters taste better, so how could they not have a good society? I'd respond like that because I'm more of a comedian than a politician.

  69. Danny Moore says:

    He Pwned Newman.

  70. Danny Moore says:

    Just so you know, channel 4 gets handouts from the EU along with the BBC, so nothing they report is the truth, and they simply avoid reporting anything they don't like, regardless if it's news or not.

  71. Donagh Cronin says:

    JP is brilliant.

  72. omgwtfbbq says:

    The gotcha was needed. You don't put in that amount of work without getting one in every now and again.

  73. G00GLE IS WATCHING says:

    It's like watching a girl's softball team play against an MLB team…lol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *