Did Jordan Peterson "Destroy Q&A" Last Night?
Canadian Psychologist and author Jordan Peterson appeared on the ABC’s Q & A program last night.
And he certainly spiced things up. He shared his views passionately, and got the panel talking.
So much so, that the ABC put out a webpage this morning entitled ‘Jordan Peterson Destroys Q&A’, outlining the different things he said (hey, even our national broadcaster is not beneath a little click-bait!).
Like many, I watched the program, and it got me thinking. Here are some of my reflections:
1) I Was Surprised How Civil the Discussion Was, Despite it Being Robust
There were very few personal attacks, unlike some previous shows.
Let’s face it: Q&A does have a reputation among many Christians and conservatives of being stacked in favour of panelists with secular Leftist views. And who aren’t backward about putting their views forward, even to the point of attacking conservative or Christian panelists who disagree.
Witness Sam Dastyari’s diatribe against traditional marriage campaigner Katy Faust, or comedian Catherine Deveny's attacks on then Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen.
But last night had almost none of that. Yes, there was some too and fro between the two politicians (Labor’s Terri Butler, and Liberal politician Alex Hawke). But no vicious take-downs. No ad-hominem name calling. Rather, robust disagreement and (as much as is possible) debate.
It was refreshing!
2) Jordan Peterson was Surprisingly Emotional
To the point of being defensive, and at times almost aggressive.
I like a lot of what Peterson says. And last night was no exception.
But persuasion is more than merely what we say – it’s also how we say it. Now I think Peterson carried himself well overall. It’s not easy being in an environment where many of the panelists (and audience members) disagree with you.
But he did get a little too emotional at times, I thought. Of course, that’s easy for me to say. I wasn’t in the ring, with my views questioned and pushed.
But a part of me expected more from him, so far as his manner goes. He seemed defensive. And when one questioner did have a go at him, he gave tit for tat, to the point of almost being aggressive toward her.
Again, I can only imagine how hard it is to control your emotions when you’re under such pressure. But dare I say it, I think he could have done better.
Having said that, I think he made some great points, and overall carried the discussion well.
3) The Most Persuasive Panelists Were Those Who Kept Their Cool
In fact, it’s what the FBI trains their hostage negotiators to do.
In contrast to Peterson’s emotive-ness, Terri Butler and transgender activist Catherine McGregor seemed cooled and measured.
They didn’t react to the emotional heat thrown against them, but absorbed or side-stepped it, and went on to engage the questions they were asked.
And so, came across as more persuasive and winsome.
Interestingly, I’m reading a book on negotiation written by former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss. He makes the point (repeatedly!) that the best negotiators are the ones that keep their cool, and don’t get emotional (which, as you could imagine is no easy feat when the lives of hostages are on the line). He advises a curious, relaxed voice, or at least the cool calm tone of a late night DJ. Very rarely will a hostage negotiator speak forcefully, and almost never with anger.
And I think his advice works for nearly all our interactions. Especially when we’re speaking - and disagreeing - publicly with others.
4) I Was Surprised How Many of the Panel Professed Belief in God
They weren't ashamed, but spoke of it openly.
A Catholic gentlemen asked whether the panel believes in human dignity, and if so, whether they believe in God. After all, he (rightly) argued, it’s difficult if not impossible to logically hold to human dignity without a belief in God making us in His image.
The panel's response surprised me.
Transgender activist Catherine McGregor spoke openly of her deep faith in God, and her daily rituals of prayer. Feminist author Van Badham spoke of her devout Christian faith (which she marries with her Marxist beliefs). And Jordan Peterson gave the quote of the evening:
I act as if God exists, and I’m terrified that he might.
Jordan Peterson
My wife suggested that perhaps Peterson secretly believes in God (though not being a Christian), but doesn’t want people to know, for fear of being pigeon-holed. Maybe.
Either way, I was pleasantly surprised to see faith in God being owned so openly, and proudly. There was no hint of shame or ridicule.
5) There Are Limits to How Deep A Panel Can Dive
People can make their points, but it rarely goes beyond assertions.
Finally, while I found the panel discussion refreshing, it was also frustrating. Panelist’s can only speak for 1 minute at a time (which Tony more or less enforced), and it doesn’t allow much beyond disagreement and throwing assertions.
Yes, panel discussions have their place. But I do wonder if less panelists, and more time, might be a better format to discuss the complex and contested issues that confront our society?