Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Dawkins calls Peterson a bumbling fool (politely)
Was listening to this interview.
And I thought:
Peterson never shuts up, is he even going to ask Dawkins anything or allow him to say anything?
And then, in the most neutral and mild voice possible, Dawkins says:
Dawkins: it seems to me you keep wandering from one subject to another without sticking to to one at a time (goes on to explain how he went from one thing to another, without any connection)
This is VERY disempowering to Peterson.
At this point, I thought:
Wow, he's really telling it is how it is, without pulling any punches, and without caring about breaking rapport.
I thought it was very strong/dominant and disempowering to Peterson.
But... Also true, and I immediately respected Dawkins more -I'd say, I'd even be a lot more careful, almost a bit fearful if I'd have to talk to him publicly after that-.
Dawkins didn't stop there though.
He goes on to dig out an old example that to him shows how Peterson rambles on onto nonsense:
Dawkins: let me take one example of something that I've seen of yours um which is it's not nothing with sexual selection um you you once uh showed in a lecture a picture of snakes spiraling around each other oh yes and you said something like (...) and that idea to me is COMPLETE nonsense
Peterson: OK, I will absolutely address that (<---- gives Dawkins judge roles when he suggests he'll be explaining himself)
And little later:
Dawkins: (...) cultural representations all over the place. You love symbols. I mean you're obsessed with symbols, you're almost drunk on symbols
Peterson: You could say that (<---- accepts the status-damaging power move)
I personally thought that was too much from Dawkins.
However, I can't deny Dawkins was right.
On the other hand, Peterson was not only socially obtuse in the beginning with his monologue, but also too submissive to Dawkins' power moves (easier yelling and railing against woke idiots on Twitter then when you're matched with a smart, no-BS academic legend, I guess).
Overall, I lost some respect for Peterson.
This was a great case study in characters, at several levels.
Dawkins' approach is what one can think of as "alpha male" (within a more academic context):
- Direct / no-BS
- Dominant / high power
- No time for BS / overly complex flowery language (of the type Peterson gets lost in, a guy who's NOT an alpha male type :)
- Low emotionality (as opposed to Peterson who cries and get all worked up)
- Rational / critical thinker (as opposed to Peterson's seeing spurious connections everywhere)
But even outside of more erudite conversations, these traits and approaches tend to give men lots of status / social power.
Thanks it is quite a telling case!
I did find Dawkins a bit too agressive/dominant for my tastes. I think that he could have gone more indirect when he disapproved to help him save face. Otherwise he could stick to the more dominant/direct approach in terms of social finesse in my opinion: navigating between the two styles.
Before your analysis I considered Jordan Peterson as the alpha male type.
To clarify: I agree with you about the loss of respect towards Peterson. It feels the same to me reading the exchange.
