[plurinshael]

While I like Petersen's message and analytical competence quite a bit, in this interview he makes the mistake that a lot of highly intelligent people make: he states the truth at his level of intelligence and training and expects the other person to understand perfectly. "If you've correctly listened to my exact construction of words, you should understand." He could do better at connecting with her, on a relational level and not only an intellectual one. (Which, yes, is much more of an abstract concept and is typically a lot harder for intellectual people, and is definitely a lot harder when someone seems hostile.)

He still does a good job of articulating the nuances of his position, but needs perhaps a little more connective tissue to let her know "I'm not against women! Hear me out." And I don't mean to let her off the hook, because she inappropriately framed his arguments a number of times.

It's incredibly difficult to think on your feet in front of an audience/camera, let alone actually learn and genuinely absorb an entirely new level of complexity for something you already think you know. I appreciate what Petersen's saying about how the gender gap as described is a myth, and he articulates his reason for saying so: it's actually an 18-factor gap. But after he explains this and she continues to use the phrase gender gap multiple times to challenge his view, that's where he needed to identify that she has not correctly processed his real view, and stop her: "But ok it shouldn't be called a gender gap: based on the data, it's an 18-factor gap. Do you see what I'm saying?"

Connective tissue; reading your audience.

[RohaenGFlex]

Where in the interview does he even use hard concepts. I have no degree in ANY related fields that Peterson is fluent in and there is not a single sentence where I can say that it would be hard to understand.

[plurinshael]

Multivariate vs univariate analysis of variance is not at all a simple set of ideas. There's a ton of deep abstraction there, both on the side of statistical analysis as well as the theoretical underpinnings of large-dimensional spaces (and for that matter, interrelationships between variables). But moreover, he was dropping the concept casually, and medium provocatively by saying "the gender gap doesn't exist"--she was having to process "is this fool serious??" at the same time as a technical scientific argument.

Put yourself in her shoes. He was appearing to deny a widely reported phenomenon that is but one aspect of the repression women face in our culture. That would be frustrating.

[paulddraper]

I won't say that you don't have a valid point in general.

But in this situation, IMO Petersen did a fantastic job of being personable, clear, and helpful. Especially considering he was granted one sentence at a time.

If it was any less "intellectual", it'd be a interview with a fifth-grader.

[julioneander]

Jordan Peterson analyzed the interview to greater detail in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6qBxn_hFDQ

He goes full on clinical psychologist on what he thinks happened, and also where he thinks he could have lead the interview for better. According to him, he was not dealing with Cathy Newman the person, but rather a personification of an ideology. It's very interesting to hear, also for the remainder of the interview.

[plurinshael]

Less intellectual wasn't exactly what I meant. I also thought his explanations were clear. He did flirt with provocation: "It doesn't exist" is perhaps less clear and helpful than "It doesn't exist as described", especially when gender is one of those 18 factors that contributes to variance.