Analysis of inept interviewer raises several interesting questions
Misleading and sensationalist news personalities have ceased to be noteworthy. They are the norm in American mainstream media. Interviewers strive to oversimplify and shape guests’ messages–tactics interviewees who are good communicators can cast in sharp relief. Experts tend to present information in systemic, relational, and process terms no longer welcome in or compatible with the aims of popular media outlets.
A fascinating article in The Atlantic not only surfaces these tactics (which may have become habits more than deliberate interviewing methods) but highlights the challenge any expert or systems thinker faces when attempting to convey concepts of any complexity or nuance.
I also found the interviewee’s (a sociologist) points very interesting in themselves. For example,
Peterson (expert): There’s this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And that is so untrue that it’s almost unbelievable. I use the lobster as an example: We diverged from lobsters evolutionarily history about 350 million years ago. And lobsters exist in hierarchies. They have a nervous system attuned to the hierarchy. And that nervous system runs on serotonin just like ours. The nervous system of the lobster and the human being is so similar that anti-depressants work on lobsters. And it’s part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with sociocultural construction, which it doesn’t.
Newman (journalist): Let me get this straight. You’re saying that we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters?
It would be funny as an SNL skit, but as a supposed demonstration of professional journalism, it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs.
More in line with this group’s focus is Peterson’s point on the evolutionary reality of the hierarchical organization of species, including humans. Of course, this was not a moral or political statement, but a reference to neurochemical bases for perceptions and behaviors.
I appreciate that in our discussions we can press into more nuanced conceptual territories than Ms. Newman was willing to allow Dr. Peterson.
Peterson has become quite the cause celebre in pop psychology. One of my associates, Trish Noland, is a practicing counselor, Ph.D. candidate and “theoretical psychology researcher, working with philosophy of science, mathematics psychoanalytic and philosophy literature, to ask the question: what might be essential in the formulation of a conceptual framework for the use of statistical analyses, in psychology research.”* She has a good understanding of Peterson and has commented about him here.**
And here is an excellent, articulate and well-informed rebuttal of Peterson: https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/?utm_content=buffer0b2b9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer