How To Avoid Embarrassing Yourself In An Argument  – Jordan Peterson

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.


  1. I have a sister in law who is so lazy and sociopathic that she thinks being three hours late for family events is ok. How do I deal with such rudeness? It is so bad her husband comes on time without her. She also is mad that my husband is doing remodeling on her mother’s house and screams at her mother for hiring him. Help please. I don’t want a screaming match but I also don’t want her to think her behavior is ok with our family.

  2. Cathy is an ignorant woke girl. does it not bother her that no one on her street speaks English? the post culture, zero identity elites ask a question then immediately answer it themselves then explain that the interviewee is wrong or extremist then they ask interviewee to explain themselves.

  3. at least channel four doesn't add fake listener comments at the end of the interview in a editorial attempt to label the interviewee a misguided extremist – like the BBC (socialist Victoria show is unmistakably biased and political).

  4. This video I would say is mediocre because Jordan Peterson is good at keeping his calm and come across more relateable and he is especially good at answering questions without truly answering them for example he could say “That women have a choice” but what does he believe should happen if they make a choice that he doesn’t like or agree with? but all the questions she asked is legit if you know anything about Jordan Peterson ideals, philosophy, beliefs etc.
    The video would be good to me if you would have instead critiqued the journalist’s approach and how she could’ve done better instead.

  5. Useful tip: the human brain finds silence awkward, so it tries to fill that silence, often by talking. So if someone is really angry with you and raging (yelling, cussing, etc.) shift your body into a relaxed but confident posture, keep your face calm, make eye contact, and say nothing. The person will get angry that you aren’t saying anything, and that combined with their anger will lead them to say things that they really shouldn’t and dig their hole even deeper

  6. Even if a good analysis of the exchange, targeting a feminist against what i understand is a man perceived as mysoginist by women (? I dunno, rather more asking, i’m not american and know none of them) DOES look a bit manipulative tho – to sort of ridicule her. Fact she made a few formal mistakes within a media debate, doesn’t make any feminist ‘requests’ invalid. That’s what i mean.

    If we treat every human who tries to gain more equality in the face of discrimination (be it racism, feminism, etc) as ‘nasty, angry / having anger issues’ pblms (if i refer to the comments below this vid – aside from the many jokes <— including many that are way over the top) when those pple were IN FACT probably exposed either to potential discrimination or forms of social oppression, then it means society has a larger pblm; being incapable looking at itself without feeling ‘offended’. [the mirror effect]. Determining every feminist or assertive woman (i recog the woman here has been a bit clumsy, but some of her arguments seemed reasonable) as an ‘angry nasty b***’ IS sexist, per essence.

    Doesn’t mean the guy had no valid points. Just underlying that to state she gives herself the right to offend him, means he doesn’t realize if feminism exists it’s because women feel offended on what they’re being exposed to (daily), to START with. There’s no ‘offense’ being done, in wanting to throw light on disparities.

    Therefore corning her on such an argument sounds a bit self-victimizing (as much as most men think feminists are self victimizing – often worded AS ‘complaining’). By the way, i’m no follower of your channel, so i can’t judge – but ‘Charisma on command’ sounds like a Toolbox’s title for manip’ inspired by Narcissistic methods in a patriarchal system. Just my 2 cents. …

  7. the average chick will be aggressive in many ways but when she is weaken she will retreat and ask others for help. just dont argue with a woman and walk away because to a woman no matter what they are always right.

  8. Man you gave me such a great information.
    I now able to classify why my wife always made me angry … She was using smash technique

  9. I find when you have nothing to hide there is no question that is annoying. Remember the old saying, "What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive"

  10. It is the lack of understanding of communicating the English language also. For instance: You walk up to me carrying a briefcase, reach out shake my hand and then cough in my face and I say, "Nice Grip". Now, I am talking about the grip on the briefcase, the handshake or the cough in my face? Two out of three you are wrong.

    People should ask, what is your definition of grip? Then they will not be assuming what you are saying.

  11. This is actually the worst example ever, he's just patronizing her, and she is not accusing him of something he has not done. Why don't you go over that debate with Żižek, there we see other Jordan…

  12. Channel 4: alrighty Cathy, we've lined up a real softball for you. Some Yahoo misogynist who thinks women should shut up and get pregnant.

    Cathy: LET ME AT HIM

  13. As a female, twisting the words of anyone is a deviation tactic that children use. This woman set all females back a decade with her antics. Shame on her.

  14. I like the guy but HE PRESENTS HIS OPINIONS AS FACTS.

    Thorough scroll through the comments and it’s easy to say that a great majority of men and women are displeased with the interviewer. Nobody actually considered her argument. That’s easy to do when Jordan Peterson is such a personable fella… if he plays this tough interviewer with precision imagine what power he has over your pliable minds.

    Don’t be a sheep. Think for yourself people. He is smart and makes great points but his opinions are extreme.

    EXTREME! The women right movement and visible changes in society are all new phenomena. His philosophies are a mere attempt to explain what’s going on… I hope he stays humble. It’s a great power to have a mind like his. I hope he doesn’t cause damage but does good.

    Watch all of his videos from a woman’s perspective and you will know exactly what I’m talking about.

    And thats the point Cathy was trying to make but she failed miserably. Doesn’t change the fact that she sniffed something wrong … just couldn’t quite state it with cool reason without getting emotional.

    Blame biology. Women are emotion driven. Doesn’t make them inept – just at risk of being explored by all systems known.

  15. Logics will always defeat emotions , only when an audience is mentally stable enough to hear it. The US media is in the business of nurturing drama queens. The danger is , It is not what we believe , it is that some believe in anything….they regurgitate. Slowly losing their ability and desire to reason. Results , a new wave of emotionally controlled people bots , a foundational stepping stone to socialism , ie. communism.

  16. Who cares what someone else thinks , if you break THEIR nose , they'll forget what their piddly narrative is .😊👍
    Passive aggressive is for punks.

  17. She's an offensive liberal , nothing factual will bring her back to reality , from her HATEFUL fantasy world of feeling over FACT.

  18. The CLASSIC reddit left wing extremists.

    "So you're saying that……"
    Is that what I wrote down? You can clearly copy and paste it, is that what I said?

    "So you're saying…."

    Is that what I said? Pull the tape back, let's listen again!

    "Well……'s not what you said but I want to shape the publics view about you and move the goal posts because I have no good points or argument, I don't think for myself, I only attack"

  19. I like your point on the “gotcha moment” but if he had not said anything he would
    Have come
    Across as a smug bastard that was pretending to be cool
    When the situation really called for a bit of humour. And that was Jordan’s invitation to let her in. And she took it. (As much as she could permit herself.) so sure. Your point is technically true but I very much disagree with you. JP did a fine job there.

  20. I'd keep my face covered, too, if I were you. If you don't believe it, don't celebrate it. No one is forcing you to celebrate it. Don't try to force us NOT to celebrate it. We don't believe YOUR way of thinking so what you do is exactly what you are accusing us of doing.

  21. It's a whole lot easier to do these things when you actually care about reaching a consensus of truth and not proving you're smarter than the other person, which is where most of the comments fall short.

  22. Her job is to try to simplify his ideas for easy interpretation. He was having none of it. This was a very unproductive interview.

  23. I would never put up with someone who talks the way she does. I would walk out in the most polite way I can and make sure I have nothing to do with her again.

    The only people like her that I tolerate are family.

  24. how can I check the video out if you edited, and gave your opinion through out the entire thing. thanks for ruining it for everybody.

  25. A bully/aggressor will attack the ‘ego’ if you remove yourself from your ego you don’t feel threatened,you don’t take a personal offence.
    It’s when you you become personally involved/attacked that you become emotionally involved and allow your opponent to take advantage.
    As Bruce Lee would say….’become like water’.

  26. She didn’t even let him answer the questions. Her intention seemed to destroy him and making him look bad and he literally got her.

  27. Bottom line: never completely buy the premise of a leftist argument. It's usually either partly or completely wrong. Whether intentional or not. If you do, you give them the home court advantage. If you can discover the error(s) then you can topple the rest of the argument by exposing that flaw and then all built upon it will collapse as well




  29. If she wasnt a jerk she would actually be a very attractive woman. I do like her hair though. Right right not the point.

  30. Jordan Peterson is an excellent communicator with his pacing and self-control, but not very aggressive, he is very good at defending his perspective. Ben Shapiro, on the other hand, is so decisive he'll answer the question then question the other's belief and turn the pressure back.

  31. This little girl should feel thankful that Dr. Peterson was a kind and benevolent to her as he was. Kudos to Dr. Peterson for patience with someone not fit to tie his shoes.

  32. Some people say defeating Shapiro in an Argumentative Debate is rather impossible.
    But defeating Peterson in an argument is like talking to a God.

  33. This interview was painful to watch. I felt sorry for her. She came to win and potray (reveal in her opinion) him as bad instead of just being a professional, which I would bet she is and can be.

  34. She is a hack propagandist working for fake news, its sell out liars like her that are responsible for our countries to be SJW nightmares

  35. The Gotcha could be a historical moment. It was the first time some actually argued back against a crazed feminist and made them look as ridiculous as their whole ideology.

  36. How To Avoid Embarrassing Yourself In An Argument ?

    Don't be prince Andrew in a BBC interview where you lie like a sheet …

  37. notice the jump cut at @2:00. purposely trying to make it look like she was cutting him off

    Also, notice that her emotion is not aggressive, but rather it is defensive in reaction to what he had said in regards to women. She had apparently taken that as a challenge to women's validity, and was acting in a defensive manner, from her point of view.

  38. 10:17 He didn't do it to convince her. The purpose of this interview has never been to convince her anyway and she didn't do it to convince him of anything either, it all was about hammering home a message to the audience, and he did it on her expense.

  39. i'm not sure I get Jordan on this one. 1/3 of a billion is about 333million. Trees first showed up 380million years ago.

  40. I have a wicked cousin. EVERY time I see her, usually at family affairs with other relatives, she strategically waits for me to talk, and then she interrupts me with a nasty bomb. Every time she does this, it sets me right off, on queue. The last couple of times, I tried to get ahead of her and had a snappy answer. OK, so behind my back she's badmouthed me to the point where nobody calls me any more at all. Seems like I'm outmatched because I never expect these horrible things to be said, and especially from a "beloved" family member.

  41. Jordon Peterson: people should take care of their health,
    Interviewer: so you're saying that we should stop watching porn? 🤣🤣

Leave a Reply

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