Verified by 
You may have already seen the following video, presenting a discussion between clinical psychologist, Jordan Peterson and Channel 4 (UK) presenter, Cathy Newman, from earlier this week. Regardless of the (current and arguably controversial) topic discussed, the interview makes clear to me three very important points about critical thinking (CT) in the modern world. If you have not yet seen this interview, I ask you to spare some time to watch it and consider how the arguments within are made and, likewise, refuted (i.e. both successfully and unsuccessfully); and perhaps, more importantly, what some of these arguments tell us about CT, not only in this interview, but on a broader scale. It is worth noting that there is an expectation here for CT, given the interview was prime time aired on a major UK news outlet, dealing with a very topical debate.
Media Misrepresentation
“I didn’t say that; what I said was…”—a phrase stated countless times by Peterson throughout the interview. On these occasions, he would make an evidenced point and then seconds later, be misquoted by Newman. The real question is whether Newman, as a presenter and face for the media, is (a) purposefully misrepresenting what Peterson has said for sensationalist purposes, or (b) simply does not understand Peterson’s line of thought. For example, when discussing ‘feminine traits’, such as agreeableness, as in this context:
Peterson: "They don’t predict success in the workplace. Things that predict success in the workplace are intelligence and conscientiousness. Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace…"
Newman: "You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies?"
Newman clearly puts words in Peterson’s mouth which he did not say. Now, I myself cannot say that this misrepresentation was a result of a desire to sensationalize or perhaps bait the interviewee; or if it was simply a matter of not comprehending the argument being put forth. Regardless, what both of these reasons have in common is that they’re both products of emotion.
Leave Emotion/Bias out of it
If it was the case that Newman did not comprehend some of the propositions presented to her, then her response to such propositions are clear example of ‘letting emotions do the thinking for you’; though, it may not be as simple as that. For example, consistent with research by Herbert Simon and Daniel Kahneman, we know humans are cognitively lazy; and as a result, often, when we receive information, we process it in a manner that isn’t necessarily accurate, but rather, ‘good enough’. There is something to be said for this as a possible reason in this particular context.
On the other hand, this may not have been a case of failing to comprehend or accurately process information; perhaps it was purposeful sensationalism. When information is sensationalised, the goal is generally to evoke some emotional reaction, perhaps outrage or disgust. “You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies?” would, of course, evoke outrage had Peterson said it; however, it’s not even close to what was said. For someone not thinking critically, this cathartic response from the sensationalist slant may elicit a negative response towards the interviewee. Simply, CT will cut through sensationalism and prevent emotional reactions from guiding thought. That said, emotional reactions make for good television, and this is why we often see so much misrepresentation in the media.
Newman: "I take issue with the idea…"
Newman does not follow up with an evidence-based objection. It is clear Newman takes issue, but without appropriate justification, it is simply an emotion-driven response. In a previous post, I stressed the importance of leaving emotion out of CT. We are, of course, all biased in our own little, nuanced ways. However, we can manage this bias by making extra effort to self-regulate; and be as open-minded and objective as possible. However, by throwing emotion into the mix, self-regulation isn’t particularly likely. Again, we must leave emotion and bias at the door—we must see through sensationalism and not let an emotional reaction guide our thinking.
Understanding of Stats, Research Methodology & Causation v. Correlation
Following Peterson’s explanation of the pay-gap phenomenon (i.e. sex is only one of numerous factors accounting for the pay-gap), Newman responds "You keep talking about the multivariate analysis" and then reverts back to the beginning point that there is a 9 percent pay-gap in the UK between men and women; and thus, must be because of gender. Based on the manner in which this objection is delivered, my interpretation is that Newman may not have followed Peterson’s point. I am not familiar with Newman’s academic background, but it appears that she doesn’t understand the fundamental statistical/methodological point that Peterson makes. That is not an attack by any means, but more so an important observation—how many people watching this interview are likely to know what Peterson is talking about when he speaks of multivariate and univariate analyses? Most individuals who have a background in social sciences and health research are likely to have the required understanding of statistics; but, how many people outside of the domain do? We need to include basic statistical/methodological concepts such as these in our educational systems. For example, Peterson identifies gender as a correlate of the pay-gap—it is one of numerous mitigating factors. Newman appears to be identifying it as the cause for the pay-gap. The difference between correlation and causation, as many of you are aware, is massive; and, in this particular context, the impact of the difference is undeniable—one leads to the indication that further research is necessary, while the other leads to sensationalism.
Concluding Thoughts
Of course, I must account for my own biases here. I am a psychologist who has researched emotion, bias and advanced statistics. In many ways, I take my knowledge and skills for granted. I enjoy the field I work in and I find it infinitely fascinating. I understand that others don’t and will not have the desire or even see the point in dedicating their time to such endeavors. However, it has become blatantly obvious, as evidenced in this interview, that there is a need for general training in these realms. The one ‘umbrella’ realm that addresses these important issues is CT. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: We need to teach CT to the coming generations. I believe the purpose of this post is summed up quite well by an exchange between Newman and Peterson roughly midway through the interview.
Newman: "A lot of people listening to you will just…say, I mean, are we just going back to the dark ages?"
Peterson: "That’s because they’re actually not listening. They’re just projecting what they think."
Regardless of the topic within this interview, when it comes to many debates in our modern world, there are numerous problems: people don’t listen, and fail to be open-minded and reflect upon the information presented to them; they project their opinions and beliefs regardless of whether or not they have evidence to support their claims. Had CT been applied appropriately by Newman in this interview, I think we would have seen some beneficial effects - perhaps, seeing CT applied may have provided viewers with a better example of how it’s done and allowed for people to form more accurate perspectives based on evidence rather sensationalism. To reiterate, people need to listen with an open mind and reflect upon what they have been presented, rather than instantly object with an emotionally charged, evidence-lacking opinion. There is an expectation here for major news outlets to lead the way and exemplify CT. After having seen it not applied in such a manner as in this interview, it only reinforces my rationale for people desperately needing education in CT.
