Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Jordan Peterson Channel Four Interview for Analysis

Question:  How many questions did the Interviewer begin with the word,  "you said..." in this interview in which the subject (Jordan Peterson) did not say?

Analytical Interviewing is the legally sound and most thorough way in which information is obtained, truth is discerned from deception and a profile of the speakers may be observed. 

The Psycho-Linguistic profile is made up of four basic elements:

1.  The subjects's Background
2.  The subject's Experiences 
3.  The subject's priorities and motive
4.  The subject's dominant personality traits 

When these four elements are carefully noted, anonymous authors of threatening letters are identified. 

Jordan Peterson Channel Four News 

This is a fascinating insight into deception techniques. 

 The interview has been reclassified as a "debate" by some as it is not an "interview" that seeks to obtain information. But even as a debate: 

Debates employ deceptive techniques as well as interviews and open statements. 

The journalist is agenda -driven and it is not:

a.  to obtain information 
b.  to allow the public to hear from the subject 

Keep in mind, an inconsistency may not be deceptive unless the speaker is aware of the inconsistency and counters it deliberately.  Being mistaken is not being deceptive.  One must intend to deceive, in order to be seen, linguistically, as deceptive. 

The overwhelming amount of deception is found in withheld or missing information. 

When one lies outwardly, it is insight into one's history, priority and personality traits.  

This is not "how not to conduct an interview" as the theme would be overly simplistic, however, it is still of value in Analytical Interview training to spot the errors she makes.  Errors will not only pervert meaning, it will cause some questions to be deemed as legally unsound. 

There are several questions to consider within this recorded interview, with the last being the most challenging for the listener. 

1.  What are the techniques she employs to accomplish her level of deception?

2.  Were any effective?

3.  How many accusations did she make that were falsely ascribed to him?

4.  Does she affirm knowing she is making a false accusation?  If so, what do you offer as evidence? 

For the analyst or student analysts, are there topics, words, phrases, or even body language that provokes emotion within you?  Can you identify which points, which emotions and how this might impact your analysis?  This is not easy for us to do, but it is important. 

This is the most challenging:  

What does the language of the Interviewer reveal about herself?  

At one point, she reveals some  personal information that she did not knowingly yield. 

Can you spot it? 


New England Water Blog said...

Clearly she was hallucinating and working from the voices in her head rather than from Mr Petersons voice. She had an agenda but she was quickly overwhelmed by a far superior intellect that was armed with the facts and articulate beyond her limited means. Scott Adams has a number of youtubes regarding this very interview.

ima.grandma said...

Peter, is this an auditory exercise? Am I going outside the boundaries by reading the transcript?

Hey Jude said...

There were a lot of 'you said' or 'you're saying' or 'you were saying' and other ways of saying'you said', such as 'you got in trouble' - and 'you've kind of changed your tune on that', when the subject had not said what the interviewer claimed, or 'got in trouble' as claimed, or 'changed his tune'. I counted twenty-five instances of the interviewer saying 'you said' or 'you're saying' - most of which the subject countered with a correction or denial.

The interviewer persistently misrepresented the subject.
Rather than invite Jordan Peterson to talk about his areas of interest, she first presented the listener with her own erroneous version, claiming he had said things which he had not said, which forced him into constant contradiction. She may have intended him to appear contradictory and argumentative, but the effect, from the outset, was of an interviewer who must either have read only biased material concerning him, or of one who was wIlfully misrepresenting him - I go for the latter, as she surely could not be so incompetent and still in her job.

I did not count how many times Jordan Peterson countered her arguments, or rather accusations, but there were many 'I did not say' or 'I said', followed by what actually he said, by way of response.

I think the point at which he has 'got her', she realises that the price of one person's freedom of speech should not be at the cost of the truth regarding another's - he has responded gracefully, at times agreeing with her, despite her rudeness and projections, of which, throughout there are several.

It was a very unfair 'interview', the interviewer's manner was overbearing and bullying, yet the subject succeeded in presenting his views reasonably and convincingly, turning around the attempt to make him look like the 'patriarchal sexist' she tried to portray. It was very strange how she seemed to view him as somehow personally responsible for the UK's 'gender pay gap', which, if the interviewer ever listenened to reasonable debate on Radio 4, she would understand does not exist - at least not in the way some feminists like to insist.

It was embarrassing to watch - absurdity upon absurdity. I think the language of the interviewer reveals that she is obnoxious, though I think that is not the right answer, even if it also is.

Anonymous said...

Towards the end of the interview, after he's repeatedly made the point that the two strongest predictors of success in a career are intelligence and conscientiousness, and adds that a degree of disagreeableness also helps, he notes that she's successful at her chosen field, which was in large part due to her noticeable disagreeableness. He says it with a smile, almost as a compliment to her, and she acknowledges it in almost a flirtatious way. It was interesting to note that once she realized she wasn't going to get under his skin by being overbearing, she knew she was done, because there was no way she could counter what he was saying in any meaningful cogent, or defensible, way. She had to keep her responses general, overbearing, and all-encompassing in order to parrot the progressive feminist talking points (You say intelligence and conscientiousness are the strongest predictors of success, so what you're saying is that women aren't intelligent?) Repeat that, or a variant of thereof, 10000 more times, and you have her side of the "debate". I'm sure if you did a word count and assigned percentages to the number of words each person said, she probably spoke at least three times the amount he did. Need to persuade by emotional appeal?

Anonymous said...

Consider her age and culture. When she started her career, obnoxious behavior may have been what was needed to make to where she is today. What she does is much different that a bosomy weather girl in a tiny skirt and tight sweater.

She mentions the Cindy doll (must be popular in UK like Barbie in USA)and perhaps a doll of her era when others told her what she'd be instead of her deciding.

It used to be said (You say) that women aren't good at math and others excepted it as the gospel. Math is a major part of engineering courses I'd think.

He says that women do great in the medical fields...caregivers might be what he is driving at.

I think maybe she is writing a book how men and women interpret the spoken language differently based on her many "You says" and her strong need to align herself with the women's movement which seems to roll everything but white men into one big rolling pile of horse hockey...including transsexuals and chairman Mao.

He seems to lean on the fighting spirit of men who will beat someone with their fists and intimidate which is why they make more money.Women get a late start because of child bearing years.

ima.grandma said...

Peterson: It depends on what they want. No I mean, it’s exactly how I laid it out like. Women want, deeply, want men who are competent and powerful! And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power! That’s just corruption. Power is competence, and why in the world would you not want a competent partner? Well, I know why actually. You can’t dominate a competent partner. So if you want domination, …

 Newman: So you are saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?

 Peterson: No. I’d say women who have had their relationships with men impaired and who are afraid of such relationships, will settle for a weak partner, because they can dominate them. But it’s a sub-optimal solution.

Newman: Do you think that’s what a lot of women are doing?

 Peterson: I think there’s a substantial minority of women who do that. And I think it’s very bad for them. They’re very unhappy. It’s very bad for their partners. Although the partners get the advantage of not having to take any responsibility.

 Newman: What gives you the right to say that? I mean, maybe that’s how women want their relationships, those women. I mean, you’re making, (those) women. 

Why does she distance herself from "those" women?

Anonymous said...

That guy is NOT a real man! His screechy voice, his effeminate posture--he should just shut the fuck up!!! That guy couldnt turn a woman on if he tried. Im sure he'd cry from exerting himself. YOU CANT TEACH A REAL MAN TO BE A REAL MAN IF HE ISNT. Im sure that screechy-voiced Boo Radley-looking guy has never even loved a woman so HE SHOULD JUST STFU!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

No woman wants to dominate a man! What a retard!!! But I COULD dominate that guy in 2 seconds bc he is a f&cking pussy!!!!

Anonymous said...

Hey Peterson, if youre a real man you'll know it, BUT YOURE NOT!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Peterson goes to bed at night with a negligee & a copy of Playgirl featuring sexy firefighters & police. He has Chippendale fantasies.

ima.grandma said...

Newman's pointed repeated challenges within her narrative: women are unhappy dominating men? it makes them (women) miserable?

Is she speaking about herself ?
Newman: But why shouldn’t women have 
the right to choose not to have children, she equates with vulnerability
the right to choose (those) demanding careers? (She's saying: I chose a demanding career. Are you saying that I'm unhappy and miserable, dominating men? well, I'm not. I enjoy fighting for myself (the underdog & radical feminist) against the patriarchal ideology of male dominated society's inequitable distribution of work/reward system.

Anonymous said...

In love, neither dominates the other. This guy is a freakin moron who has never known love. Also regarding him saying women cant be good lawyers, I could argue his ass under a table. He screeches, he stutters, he is not sharp of mind.
A strong man becomes gentle, not bitchy like that guy.
The patriarchy is a f&ckin joke. Everyone is miserable living within it.

General P. Malaise said...

ima.grandma said...
Newman's pointed repeated challenges within her narrative: women are unhappy dominating men? it makes them (women) miserable?

a lot of sensitivity to Jordan Peterson's points. all of which she took out of context because she wasn't hearing Peterson, she was projecting her thought.

Peterson points it out at about 15:40in the video. " You are not contextually listening, you are projecting your thoughts"

Anonymous said...

A strong man does not control. Let her do what she wants. He has no idea what masculinity is.

Anonymous said...

A strong man does not become dominated. Nor does he dominate. He is miserable bc he sucks in bed & someone told him & then he cried & cuddled up with his pink slippers & Hustler magazine special issue for women featuring hot plummers.

Anonymous said...

Im surprised Peter respects this guy. Peter is much more articulate and grounded in his masculinity.

Anonymous said...

Jordan Peterson's mother crochets his underwear.

Anonymous said...


I was not prepared for this. I'm not familiar with either of these two people.

This "interview" really depressed the heck out of me. Every time she'd try to re-frame what he said, misrepresent what he said, and pretend to do it in an innocent summing-up-it-all-up kind of way. She was relentless but fortunately so was he.

Anonymous said...


She thinks freedom of speech shouldn't be allowed to offend people.

(This is a correct paraphrasing, right? She says this.)

Anonymous said...

Gee it sounds like one of the commentators has her knickers in a twist. She may need some white whine and a cuddle with a few of her cats...

ima.grandma said...

2.  Were any effective?

Using "the outright opposite" is a propaganda technique in which the principle design is not so much to persuade, but to shock, repeat, and desensitize.  

Shock is a method of attention and it works.  

Outrageous statements get publicity.
Everyone is talking about it. 
Repetition has its impact. 

ima.grandma said...

Newman: "If I was a young woman"  watching that I would go:
“Well, I might as well just go and play with my Cindy dolls! Give us trying at school, because I’m not going to get the top job I want, because there’s someone sitting there saying it’s not possible and that it’s not desirable and it will make you miserable.”

 Newman: I’m saying that nine percent pay gap exists! That’s a gap between men and women. I’m not saying why it exists, but it exists. Now "if you’re a woman" that seems pretty unfair!

 Peterson: You have to say why it exists.

 Newman: But do you agree that it’s unfair? "If you’re a woman," ….

Newman: Because they might not be happy if they could equal pay?

 Peterson: No, because it might interfere with other things that are causing the pay gap that women are choosing to do, …
Newman: Like having children?

Does she think of herself as a woman or a man?

Anonymous said...

@823, I bet Peterson could rock my world. ! Show me what a REAL man can do! Maybe he can whisper in my ear about the pay gap & men in the corporate world! Does he like wearing black panties or red?

E said...

Jordan Peterson is awesome.

Watch some of his lectures/ his Biblical series before you make up your mind on him. Sure his voice is like kermit the frog, but that's out of his control. As a clinical psychologist, he's researched all of his ideas for 20 - 30 years. Why criticise the way he speaks/looks? Sure, criticise his ideas but the way he looks? Why not put your name on your anonymous posts if you choose to do so - hiding behind a computer making nasty remarks is pretty weak imo. Then again, your right to free speech :) I'm sure I've done it before.

I can't find the bit Peter may be referring to - maybe it was when she said 'I had to battle my way......' - without this 'battling' trait, she would probably not have made it to where she is. ON the downside, she is more interested in telling him what he (incorrectly) thinks - Peterson later discussed this in another interview saying 'Cathy was arguing with the man she wanted me to be' - as opposed to having an honest discussion - so he was disappointed.

E said...

Aha I found it! Cathy is obsessive/ oppositional person - I found it in Peter's notes (search word personality) as she keeps saying 'so' and 'because'

Anonymous said...


The Turpin Family in California....

those T shirts...has anyone seen a large family wearing those before? Is that a popular shirt?

I saw several once with that red shirt with the number in the center and I think THING at the top as I found it humorous and even spoke to them and said they looked like a basketball team. The woman replied that was what they were hoping to become in a joking manner. I wasn't in California or Texas at the time and it's been maybe 5 years ago.

Anonymous said...



"And so what makes me dangerous,[laughs] is that, like William Wallace, who had his wife murderd"

Davey Blackburn

Habundia said...

I came on to this 911 call........about missing toddler Lana Lowther
I've been looking on the blog to see if this call was already spoken about here.....i didn't seem to find anything searching her name.

At first i just listened to the call without looking up further information about the case. When i went to look for a picture, when at the end of the call she was asked the color of her eyes and i couldn't exactly hear what she was saying, that's why i went up looking for a picture. That's when i found out the child was found alive.

The 911 call on it's own (without the information she's been found alive) to me had alarming things in it.

https://soundcloud.com/wews-705399481/0000000000-phone-911-1-2016-02-17-20-45-48-by-ui-startdate-asc (the call)

O: “Police, how can I help you?”

M: “Hi, my daughter is missing and she’s only two”

O: “Okay, okay, where are you at Ma’am?”

M: “I uhm am at 2040 Randal street? My, my oldest daughter said she saw her run outside.”

O: “Hold on, hold on, you said she was two years old?”

M: “Yeah she’s two”

O: “Hold on just a second”

M: (crying sound)

O: “Okay, Ma’am what was she last seen wearing?”

M: “She had a pink sweaty pajamas. She’s blond.” {sigh}

O: “How tall is she?”

M: “Uhm she’s about the size of a normal two year old, I am not sure” (laughs){sigh}

O: “How long is she been missing Ma’am?”

M: “Uh just a couple of minutes, but my ten year old said she went, my, what happened was, my son, uh she thought she heard my husband’s truck (do I hear laugh?) so she reached outside to him and my two year old daughter was a (chaser?) and she seen somebody grab her with her. And she yelled her name”

O: “Okay Okay, she seen somebody grabbing where?”

M: “Grabbed her by the hand and went off with her.”


M: “She wouldn’t have a coat or anything on, just pajamas.”

O: “Okay the lady, the ten year old could she give you a description of the person who grabbed the hand.”

M: “Could you see the person who grabbed her hand?”

10 year old daughter: “No” (with a tiny voice)

M: “No” (sigh)

10 year old: “I just see bits, I yelled” (crying) (operator interrupts her)

O: “Which way they go?”

M: “Toward, toward, Colorado Avenue. She said she yelled Lana really loud, and, that’s my daughter’s name, and she started to cry and they took off running.”

“Can you some (?) please?”(to someone from where she calls)
O: “It’s okay” “Her name is Lana?”

M: “Lana, L A N A” {sighing}

O: “Okay take a couple of deep breaths, okay?”

M: Crying

O: “Could it be a neighbor who took the kid?”

M: “All my neighbors are standing outside right now.”

Habundia said...

O: “Okay. Alright. We, we are bringing a K9 unit over, that’s gonna attempt to track the juvenile, okay? So”

M: unaudible

O: “Ma’am, ma’am, ma’am just calm down okay? Can you, can you just make sure nobody is moving around that much okay?”

M: “Yeah”

O: “Okay, just calm down a little bit okay”

A child is talking unaudible, mother respons unaudible
O: “Are you out with my officers ma’am?”

M: “Am sorry?”

“Hold on. What did they just say? Hold on just a second
Talking in background can’t hear what they say
O: “Ma’am?”

M: “Yeah?”

O: “Is my officer out there with you?”

M: “No” {crying}

O: “Just take a deep breath ma’am okay?”

Talking in background

M: “I was yelling her name"

?: “Did she took the backyard?”

M: “You can look again”

O: “Ma’am?"

?: “Okay”

O: “Ma’am?”

M: “Yeah?”

O: “Have you guys checked the house?”

M: “Yes”

O: “Okay” You’ve checked like closets, under beds everything like that?”

M: “Yes, then we yelled her name, all the kids, we’ve looked everywhere ”

O: “Okay, is there an officer with you ma’am?”

M: “Not yet”

O: “Take a couple deep breaths okay? They’re gonna find her okay?”

M: “I try” (I am not sure if that is what she says)

O: “Alright just take a couple of deep breaths”

M: “I am sorry”

O: “It’s okay. What color hair does she have?”

M: coughing.

O: “What color hair does she have ma’am?”

M: “She’s blond”

O: “What’s the color of her eyes?”

M: “They are a greenish (?) and they are big. She’s …..they are pulling up now”

O: “Okay okay, take a couple of deep breaths, okay ma’am. Ma’am I need you to calm down so you can help the officers okay?’ They are gonna find your daughter. Okay? Are you with the officers?”

M: “They are coming up right now”

O: “Alright”

O: “Okay, is there an officer with you ma’am?”

M: “Not yet”

O: “Take a couple deep breaths okay? They’re gonna find her okay?”

M: “I try” (I am not sure if that is what she says)

O: “Alright just take a couple of deep breaths”

M: “I am sorry”

O: “It’s okay. What color hair does she have?”

M: coughing.

O: “What color hair does she have ma’am?”

M: “She’s blond”

O: “What’s the color of her eyes?”

M: “They are a greenish (?) and they are big. She’s …..they are pulling up now”

Habundia said...

O: “Okay okay, take a couple of deep breaths, okay ma’am. Ma’am I need you to calm down so you can help the officers okay?’ They are gonna find your daughter. Okay? Are you with the officers?”

M: “They are coming up right now”

O: “Alright”

This call has some alarming issues and i was wondering how this would effect the judgement of the situation.
I haven't been reading very much about the case, but i saw officers did have questions about the situation and the state (condition) in which the girl was found didn't seem consistent.
Can this call tell us what happened?

She begins with the unexpected 'hi' to the operator followed with 'she's only two'

Then she laughs when describing how tall she is ("about the size of a normal two year old, i am not sure')

Then we get to the point she has to tell the dispatcher 'how long she's been missing' (just a couple of minutes) followed with BUT....then there is an explanation of 'what happended', it's a very vague 'story' in which her 10 year old is mentioned, her son, her husband and her two year old.

If the two year old was chasing her 10 year old sister (because she thought she heard her father's truck) how did the two year old then end up in front of the 10 year old....so someone was able to grab her by the hand and the 10 year old couldn't see the person.
Although she wasn't able to see the person who grabbed the two year old, it was said that she was grabbed by 'her' (a woman)
How would she have known it was a woman if she didn't see the person who grabbed the child?

If someone grabbed her hand and went on foot to get away, why didn't the mother run along? Why would you immidiately call 911? Without chasing the 'kidnapper' if they were on foot running away with your child?

Habundia said...

'she wouldn't have a coat or anything on, just pajamas"
Why did she use the word 'wouldn't' instead of doesn't?
'Which way they go?"
Why did the dispatcher turned to 'they', while it was said there was only one person grabbing her hand?
"Could it be a neighbor who took the kid?"
"All my neighbors are standing outside right now.
It only happened 'couple of minutes' before the call yet ALL the neighbors were standing outside?
The opperator annoyed me with saying 'just calm down a little' so many times. I get they are taught to say that, but if a mother is calling for a missing child then as an opperator you should be knowing that a mother will NOT calm down untill her child is found!

I do get that for getting information the operator needs someone who can give them that information and need to be calm enough to share the information. I think they overdo it by saying this constantly to the caller (not only in this call, ive heard it in many calls), if it was me i would shout to the dispatcher and tell her that i will NOT CALL DOWN UNTILL my child is found! So if she wanted information she should ask for it and not continue to tell me to calm down! It would really make me mad and I would end up telling the dispatcher to do her job and stop telling me to stay calm!
Then we have two times of 'I am sorry'. First when asked if officers are out with her and second time when she was told again to 'take a deep breath'
Then the dispatcher asked if they checked the house.
I don't have a clue to why she would ask that, when she was told that the 10 year old had seen someone grabbing her by the hand outside. Why would one have to check the house if the child was seen grabbing by the hand outside?
Instead of telling this to the dispatcher the mother says 'we've looked everywhere'
Everywhere means there is no place left to look for her. They didn't search for her.....they 'looked everywhere'
Although she claims 'they went towards Colorado Avenue' …….but they didn’t went after the ‘abductor’
She didn't go “looking” for her there.....no she grabbed the phone and called 911
I opened google maps and looked up for the address she went of missing. Looking at that street, its a very open street, wide. There is a street nearby that ends up at Colorado Avenue, i would think that was the street she would have been taken through (because the mother said 'they' went towards Colorado Avenue.
I don't see how on earth you wouldn't run your heart out after your 'abducted' child if they went on foot. a two year old can't run that fast that it can keep up an adult running. So or the child had been dragged with the person who grabbed her by the hand, or she was running by herself (while grabbed by her hand) and so the person who grabbed her couldnt run that fast with her.
So why didn't she went after them instead of calling 911 within minutes of 'disappearing'?

John Mc Gowan said...

Habundia Awareness's OT:


I agree there are many principles of concern within that call.

If you go back and read Lena Lunsfords 911 call on her missing daughter, there are eerily similarities in the the language used by both their Moms.


Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

The boyfriend of a mother whose 3-year-old daughter was found dead in December was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder in connection with her death.

Adolphus Earl Kimrey, 32, also faced “a charge of felony child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury/death,” Live 5 News reported.

Mariah Woods was found dead on Dec. 2, after being reported missing from her Jacksonville, N.C., home five days earlier. Her mother, Kristy Woods, said she last saw her daughter when she put her to bed.

Kimrey initially told authorities that Mariah got up after Woods was asleep and was sent back to bed, Live 5 reported. Kimrey also reportedly said he left the door unlocked when he left the home for a short period of time.

Her disappearance led to an Amber Alert.

Mariah’s father, Alex Woods, questioned his ex-wife’s story. He was involved in a custody dispute with Kristy Woods and claimed he had not seen Mariah in about a year.

Mariah’s remains were ultimately found in a creek and an autopsy report found the little girl’s cause of death was due to chloroform, a general anesthetic, ABC 13 reported. Officials said it did not appear the little girl suffered from any trauma before her death.

Kimrey was apprehended on Dec. 1. Court documents stated Kimrey allegedly sexually abused Mariah Woods and her two younger brothers. He was also accused of hitting the boys with a belt. Kristy Woods allegedly knew about the alleged abuse and Kimrey’s drug use, court documents stated. The mother has not been charged in connection with her daughter’s death.

"Kristy Woods has been cooperative with the investigation and continues to cooperate with the detectives as the investigation continues," the Onslow County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. "These additional charges do not mean the investigation is concluded but will continue until all leads and information are thoroughly evaluated."

Kimrey was being held in the Onslow County Detention Center in Jacksonville without bond.

“The death of a child is always a sobering reminder of how fragile life is. When the community is so deeply affected by such a horrific crime it is sometimes difficult to not allow our emotions to influence the decisions that we make," Sheriff Hans Miller said. "However, the best way to honor Mariah is to ensure a fair and thorough investigation, which will lead to a successful prosecution. We must remember that through these moments, together, as a community we can ensure that justice will be delivered for Mariah."

Miller said more charges in connection with Mariah’s death were possible.


Habundia said...

Anonymous said...


"And so what makes me dangerous,[laughs] is that, like William Wallace, who had his wife murderd"

Davey Blackburn

January 25, 2018 at 8:05 AM

Is there anything to find for statements made by those who are sitting in jail right now for this murder? Did anyone on this blog have seen those? I would love to see what they have told/stated that made police have arrested them?

@John mcgowan:
That's why i thought this 911 call is interesting because of the words that were spoken.
And the questions it raises. I wanted to put the transcript on that blogpost (you linked) responses but thought nobody would read it then that's why i choose this blogpost.
It's the first case in which i hear such a 911 call that has red flags all over and where the child fortunately was found alive after some time, instead of being found death.
What really happened is what i wonder!
And i wonder what can it teach us?

Habundia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Habundia said...


Anonymous said...



Love Island’s Amber Davies Denies Taking Drugs After Deleting ‘White Powder’ NTAs Selfie

I do know what it looks like and I am devastated.'

No Reliable denial
Anthromorphic language
Heavily qualified
Possible embeded confession

happyuk said...

"What does the language of the Interviewer reveal about herself? "

Her language suggests that at some stage she has been thwarted or disappointed career-wise?

If so welcome to the club. Failure is a fact of life. In fact so-called "equality" and "affirmative action" removes the right of individuals to fail as well as succeed.

She has no ears, everything he says is used as ammunition for her repartee.

"I'm not going to get the top job I want"

"I'm not very agreeable"

Says it all really.

An unrealistic narcissist, typical of BBC / Channel 4 group-think. My employers tire of hearing people at interviews telling them they want to be a director at the company some day. Not because they don't want them to succeed, but because of the phoniness and that they have no clue as to the amount of dedication, hard work, intelligence, persistence and luck needed.

Anonymous said...

@805, Yep, Blackburn has been screamining "Guilty!" for a long time now.

I blame LE for not seeing the obvious red flags.

Habundia said...


This youtuber has made interesting vids with DB as keyplayer.

The way he described how he started his 'blended' family, with his new wife and her daughter.......his son was 'a lot of bagage' he brought in.....the daughter of his 2nd wife, 'a lovely lovely sweet little girl'

This man creeps me out!

Anonymous said...


Do you think when he schemed well ahead of time by making plans to take his present wife to the ballet before they were married, and then at the last minute had a woman take her to theballet while he took the womans daughter on a "date" might scream MOLESTER?!?!
He has already given highly concerning limguistic indicators ie. "closet, lights off"

Anonymous said...

I have a question: Does anyone know if someone is asked a question & their response is a denial consisting of "No. (And then parroting back what was asked in the question)" is that an indicator that he or she is being deceptive?

Anonymous said...

For example:

Person A "Nobody came over here last night did they?

Person B "Nope, nobody came over here."

Is Person B's answer reliable?

Anonymous said...

Actually it should be:

Person A "Noone came here last night did they?"

Person B "Nope, nobody came here."

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
I have a question: Does anyone know if someone is asked a question & their response is a denial consisting of "No. (And then parroting back what was asked in the question)" is that an indicator that he or she is being deceptive?

YES or NO questions are generally not good for analysis as it is easy to lie. coupled with parroting back makes it undetermined.

One can not make a reliable assessment in that case. best set aside in most cases.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I guess youre right.

The one weird thing I noticed is how they empasized the word "here" when responding, which I dont think is natural if it was a truthful statement & it was their own emphasis on the word "here".

"Nope, nobody came HERE" (their voice rose in pitch--almost sing-songy but not cheerful) when they said the word "here" which I thought was odd, but Im not sure what to make of it.

Anonymous said...

Re: Davey's youtube clip of him talking about playing out fantasies of killing in his head and then saying that he lusted after a woman who wasn't his wife: Davey is, in my opinion, the walking embodiment of Dostoevesky's theory that all criminals WANT to be caught and punished. He is basically waving his red flag faster and faster trying to get in trouble but noone arrests him.

Anonymous said...

I really believe Davey WANTS to get caught.

Anonymous said...

Her brief "Hi" may have been a typical response to avoid being seen as kurt and short with other people when other children are creating a dilemma to be dealt with.In this case, it really was a dilemma. Fortunately, social media and all the alerts forced the captor to let her go. Sadly, in the cold for a 2 year old only means he/she (the abductor)is a dangerous predator. Scary. Very scary.Even her sometimes laughter may be a way of releasing the stress. You can read the many "sighs" that denote her impatience for it all.....she just wants her now and would prefer to slam down the phone and go look if the operator would quit asking questions.

They found her and that's what really matters. You rarely hear of those tales as the death toll of toddlers means more ad revenue and many journalist would prefer to prevent them from being found.

Ladela said...

Peter asks:

"At one point, she reveals some personal information that she did not knowingly yield. "

Newman says at one point; "I'm glad I put you on the spot" Admitting she likes to dominate.

Ladela said...

Newman is quietly agape when she realizes Peterson is correct in that she does not have a high degree of agreeableness--ultimately a male trait that helped her achieve her success.

And that she likes to dominate.

Ladela said...

Newman becomes nonplussed when Peterson brings up the 'risk-of-offense' argument. That the questioning of anything risks the possibility of offense was an equalizer of thought for Newman. It blew her away.

Anonymous said...

Ladela, Thanks for showing how many 601 SAT words you know. Seriously.

Ladela said...

Misandry is as destructive as misogyny.

Anonymous said...

My heart is filled with pain. I dont care.

Anonymous said...

Why would I wake up in the middle of the night TERRIFIED, like petrified terror, with the feeling that something has entered my house? Paralyzed with fear, I try to figure out what it is. I ask myself "Is it a robber?" "No." Is it a home invader? A rapist?" "No" "Is it a wild animal? A bear maybe?" "No." My mind tells me, as I grow even more petrified bc I cant figure out what is, "No, its none of those things. Its something worse." So I think is it a monster? What the f&ck is it? And my mind says "No, it doesnt have a physical form." THEN WHAT THE F&CK IS IT???

Habundia said...

@Anonymous said...(January 25, 2018 at 10:11 PM)

"Lorain police say Lana Lowther's condition is 'not consistent' to being exposed to Wedndesday night's freezing temperatures."

I don't see how her sighings are related to her 'impatience'
The time she wasted while saying NOTHING.........(not giving exact information about the situation, instead being very vague) to me didn't indicate 'impatience' at all.
Sure laughing can be a way to release stress, but there is nothing in that call that lets me think that there was one time she'd rather would lay down the phone to look herself.

Because if she would have, she wouldn't have called the 911 dispatcher within minutes after she was 'grabbed by the hand' and was taken by foot!
Not once is there mentioned there was a car or other vehicle involved. The 10 year old had seen 'the abductor' RUN OFF 'after grabbing the two year old hand'
Two year old don't run as fast as an adult, so why didn't the mother then chase down the streets to catch up with her toddler (and told anyone to call 911 in the meantime)
No instead she decided to call herself and let the 'abductor' run along.

To me that doesn't seem something a mother would do. I know i wont. If my child just had come in to tell me that my 2 year old was being grabbed by the hand and was taken on foot the first thing i would do is start running. (after seeing the way the street is build where this family was living, and she knew which way they were run of too) I wouldn't have had the time to call 911..........i would have been out running....untill i knew i wasn't able to catch up on them THEN i would call 911.
She never told dispatcher she went after her child..........she did tell the dispatcher the 'looked everywhere' when asked by the dispatcher if they had looked in the house (in closets, under bed etc.)
This part of the 'story' to me seems 'deceptive'
No mother would go 'look in the house' if they were just told by their oldest child that the youngest was 'grabbed by the hand' (outside the home)
She called 911 within minutes after disappearence, while she claimed to have 'looked everywhere'
How on earth will you be able to have 'looked everywhere' within 10 minutes?????
While at the same time she didn't had to look 'everywhere' because she knew 'exactly' which way the 'abductor' had went to..........all these things make this call very strange and not what is expected for the situation.

Sure i am glad the girl was found alive.......and sure it is wonderfull she was found alive...........but if indeed someone inside the family had caused this 'trouble' then the safety of this child is at risk........even if they have found her alive.

So i really wonder if CPS is involved in this family or not.......if there is indication that there could be other 'troubles' in the home that caused this to happen. I am not saying that is the case. I am just saying that this case is not what one would expect (at least not what i would expect to happen in such a situation)

Anyone else who has theories about this? It's just an interessting situation, which i think can teach us some.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...


Anon @ 6.45 Jan 25 - No, I don’t think that. This is what I think - it’s opinion, not SA.

Potentially, there would be no fewer questions as to why Davey was babysitting Kristi’s daughter at ‘Chick Fil A’ and ‘Build a Bear’, than as to why he would have been at a restaurant and the ballet with Kristi. I think the story as to why he did not want to be seen with Kristi at the ballet is not true - babysitting Natalia in public places was more an indicator of how far along the relationship was than being seen on a date with Kristi.

It could be he had told Kristi not to worry about a babysitter, he would make arrangements, and Megs being unavailable, he had asked a stranger to look after Natalia, with whom Natalia refused to go - so to save the day, or evening, Davey had to swap places, whilst Kristi went to the ballet with ‘practically anyone’ - the babysitter?

I can imagine Kristi trying not to fume that Davey asked a virtual stranger to babysit her daughter, thinking he would have arranged someone known to them all, rather than just to him, or to him and Weston. Davey leaves Weston with a variety of people so he wouldn’t necessarily foresee a problem, whilst Kristi, over-estimating Davey’s emotional intelligence, assumed Davey had asked Megs or someone else known to Natalia.

Is it not likely Natalia had been promised the meal and ‘Build a Bear’, while mummy was at the ballet, and Kristi didn’t want to let her down, or for there to be a scene, so the compromise was that Natalia was happy to go with Davey, or with Davey and Weston, who may have been there too? Davey did not say Weston was there, but he didn’t say he was not - unless he was staying with family, Weston would have needed babysitting, too.

The words ‘practically anyone’ caught my eye there - it is like an insult to the wife of the church overseer who went to the ballet, and also to Kristi - it’s also unnecessary to say, but if Kristi had said to Davey, something like, he couldn’t expect Natalia to go with ‘practically anyone’ - or ‘anyone’ - that could be a turned around barb at Kristi for criticising his judgement. I’d feel put on the spot and likely to make that compromise, even if I didn’t want to go to the ballet with ‘practically anyone’ - it would be the only way to avoid disappointing Natalia, and Davey, who had bought the tickets, and booked the meal - I probably would not greatly enjoy either for the unexpected company, but at least Natalia would have got her bear, it would be a bonding opportunity for her and Davey, and oh, well, may as well make the most of it, and be sure to arrange the babysitter myself next time.

Davey wants to be seen as the great new dad to Natalia, so he would likely make up an alternative reason for why Kristi went to the ballet with ‘practically anyone’ than admit that he thought Natalia would be fine to be left with ‘practically anyone’, and that he had messed up what was meant to be a great and expensive date. Also, he explains that the ‘practically anyone’ person was the wife of a church overseer - so not just ‘practically anyone’ then - I do think he likely was stung by Kristi saying he had asked ‘practically anyone’ to look after Natalia, or both children, and he was still stung and countering that in his blog post - it was not ‘practically anyone’, like as if he had asked someone he met on the street - she was the wife of a church overseer.

John Mc Gowan said...

The reason for the greeting ("hi") could be that she had already spoken to another OP and was patched through to this one.
Other than that it should be flagged.
The similarities in two calls are striking.
As Habundia said "it's just an interesting situation, which i think can teach us some". I hope, Peter, sheds some light on this, it"s so fascinating.

Hey Jude said...

OT - related to my previous comment



On the afternoon of March 3rd, I wound up in a 3-hour long text conversation with this girl. Now, I’m usually the one getting onto teenagers for not picking up the phone and making a voice call but on this particular afternoon I found myself giggling as I typed out miscellaneous emoji’s. In this text conversation I discovered that although she chose the route of sports her whole life (softball, track, cross country, and volleyball) she was majorly into ballet. Immediately I looked up when the ballet was going to be in Indy next. This was my opportunity to ask her out on a date!
That night at Crossfit I walked up to her and started in, “Hey, what are you doing on March 31st?”
She looked puzzled as she answered hesitatingly. "Uh, I don't think I have anything planned. That's a long way off though."
Her bewilderment didn't phase me one bit, "Will you let me take you to the ballet?"
All of a sudden her eyes widened and broad smile stretched across her face. "Really? Yeah! That'd be great!" I found out later that she didn't know I was asking her out on a date, but that she was that obsessed with the ballet she practically would have gone with anyone. Oh well, I was in. 
But on March 31st it wasn't me taking her to the ballet. We had received some wise counsel that it would be a good idea to stay under the table with this developing relationship until after Amanda's trial (which was set for May at this point). So instead of me taking her to the ballet I paid for her and one of our church overseer's wives to go to a nice dinner and the ballet while I took her daughter to Chick-Fil-A and Build-A-Bear. We still tell people this was our "first date."

Hey Jude said...

^ Stranger - I meant a stranger to Natalia, not a stranger to Davey.

Habundia said...

@John mcgowan
I agree that if she was put through then a 'hi' would have been 'okay'
But listening to the dispatcher who came on the phone and how she responded, to me it didn't sound like she was put through to that dispatcher.......it seemed like that was the person she got on the phone after dialing 911, like direct......but i could be wrong.

Yes let's hope Peter will find the time to shed some light on these two similar looking cases with different outcomes. I would love to read what Peter has to add to it :) and what he can teach us about this.

CQuinn said...

I like what ima points out about the distancing language Newman uses when talking about "those women." To piggyback on what ima says, later in the interview, when Peterson points out that Newman is not unsuccessful, Newmans states, "Yeah, and I have battled quite hard to get where I am." Then later she says "You just said that I've fought to get where I've got. What does that make me, some sort of proxy man?"

But Peterson didn't tell Newman she battled to get where she is; Newman said it herself.
She then goes on to say, "I've had to fight to succeed, therefore I'm an honorary man?"

I think what she reveals about herself is that she sees herself as successful, she sees it as having been a battle and therefore sees herself as a proxy, "honorary" man. She distances herself from women who do not have those traits.

habundia said...

I wonder what is the kind of "battle" she means? What did she have to do that makes her say she had to battle for where she is. Dont we all have our battles in live? Battling on its own doesnt make anyone succesfull....or does it?

ima.grandma said...

Newman: Well, you’ve also called trans campaigners authoritarian, haven’t you? I mean, isn’t that, …
Newman: You’re saying someone who’s trying to work out their gender identity, who may well have struggled with that. Had quite a tough time over the years.

She drops a pronoun in "Had quite a tough time over the years"

In an earlier comment, I posed a question "Does she think of herself as a woman or a man?" I'm confused. Newman is too...

ima.grandma said...

Peterson: I’m saying that it’s inevitable that there will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organize their structures. It’s absolutely inevitable! And there is one-third of a billion years of evolutionary history behind that! Right? That’s so long, that a third of the billion years ago, there weren’t even trees! It’s a long time.

 You have a mechanism in your brain that runs on serotonin. That’s similar to the lobster mechanism, that tracks your status. And the higher your status, the better your emotions are regulated. So as your serotonin levels increase you feel more positive emotion and less negative emotion.

{Insert: additional statement from Peterson to clarify his lobster/hierarchy theory @ http://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489

"The higher up a hierarchy a lobster climbs, this brain mechanism helps make more serotonin available. The more defeat it suffers, the more restricted the serotonin supply. Lower serotonin is in turn associated with more negative emotions – "perhaps making it harder to climb back up the ladder"  According to Peterson, hierarchies in humans work in a similar way – we are wired to live in them. But can a brain chemical really explain the organisation of a human society?"}

 Newman: So you’re saying like the lobsters, we’re hardwired as men and women to do certain things, to sort of run along tram lines, and there’s nothing we can do about it?

Order is important. "we’re hardwired as (1)men and (2)women to do certain things"

Question: did she recently "fall down the ladder" involving a salary negotiation? 

ima.grandma said...

^I am reminded of the phrase I often heard while working: "successful women can work themselves out of a job."

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing Peter. What an interesting man. Great to hear a different perspective, one you don't often get to hear. The journalist's assault on his views and misrepresentation of almost everything he said was typical of the British style of so called hard hitting interview. Just contrary for the sake of it. I will definitely seek out more information about this guy.

Anonymous said...

@ Hey Jude, I dont understand why you are offering such a convoluted explanation for why Davey took the little girl on a "date". It was a precalculated thing he did, that he actually planned mos. in advance when he first asked her mother to the ballet in a few months.

Why do you think he targeted the mother in the first place? Most likely bc of the daughter.

Remember he said he watched the mother from afar for mos in multiple locations?

ima.grandma said...

Definition of: Soliloquy (from Latin solo "to oneself" + loquor "I talk") is a device often used in drama when a character speaks to himself or herself, relating thoughts and feelings, thereby also sharing them with the audience, giving off the illusion of being a series of unspoken reflections.[1] If other characters are present, they keep silent[2] and/or are disregarded by the speaker".[3] see Wikipedia

Newman's interview is a class example. I assume readers accept the stipulation that Newman does not listen to interviewee. His words are absent in her mind; she doesn't hear Peterson. I've removed Peterson's words as she doesn't allow for disruption in her thoughts, her voice, or her agenda. If she doesn't hear them; to entertain questions of this exercise I will exclude context in which her words are spoken around. Peterson's words are omitted.

I've seen a few articles posing "what is Jordan Peterson trying to say."  I pose the question: "what is Cathy Jordan trying to say?"

Newman: Jordan Peterson, you’ve said that men need to, quote, “grow the hell up!” Tell me why.
Newman: You’re saying there’s a crisis of masculinity. I mean, what do you do about it?
Newman: (And) it’s mostly, you admit, it’s mostly men listening. I mean,
Newman: (And) about 90 percent your audience is men, right?
Newman: (But) does it bother you that your audience is predominantly male? Does that, isn’t that a bit divisive?
Newman: (Right), you’re just saying that’s the way it is?
Newman: What’s in it for the women, (though?)
Newman: (So) you’re saying women have some sort of duty to sort of help fix the crisis of masculinity?
Newman: (So) you are saying women want to dominate, is that what you’re saying?
Newman: Do you think that’s what a lot of women are doing?
Newman: What gives you the right to say that? (I mean), maybe that’s how women want their relationships, those women. (I mean), you’re making these vast generalizations.
Newman: (Right). (So) you’re saying you’ve done your research and women are unhappy dominating men

ima.grandma said...

Newman: (Okay), you said it was making them miserable.
Newman: Let me put it quote to you, from the book, where you say:
“There are whole disciplines in universities, forthrightly hostile towards 
men. These are the areas of study dominated by the postmodern stroke neo-Marxist claim the Western culture in particular is an oppressive structure, created by White men to dominate and exclude women.” But then I want to put
 Newman: Okay, (but) I want to put to you that here in the UK, for example, let’s say that as an example. The gender pay gap stands at just over 9%. You’ve got women at the BBC recently saying that the broadcaster is illegally paying them less than men to do the same job. You’ve got only seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies!
Newman: (So) it seems to a lot of women, that they still being “dominated and excluded” to quote your words back to you.
Newman: (But) that is not true, is it? I mean, that nine percent pay gap! That’s a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women!
Newman: (But) you’re saying basically, it doesn’t matter if women aren’t getting to the top, because that’s what’s skewing that gender pay gap, isn’t it? You’re saying well that’s just a fact of life, (so) they are not going to hardly get to the top.
Newman: (You’re saying) it’s a fact of life.
Newman: (But) why should women put up with those reasons? Why should women be content.
Newman: (I’m) saying) that nine percent pay gap exists! That’s a gap between men and women. (I’m not saying) why it exists, but it exists. Now if you’re a woman that seems pretty unfair!
Newman: (But) do you agree that it’s unfair? If you’re a woman, ….
Newman: (Again), a vast generalization.
 Newman: Some women are not more agreeable than men.
 Newman: (So) you were saying that by and large, women are too agreeable to get the pay raises they deserve? .
Newman: Surely, the answer, ….
Newman: (Okay), (so) rather than denying the pay gap exists, which is what (you) did at the beginning of this conversation, shouldn’t (you) say to women, rather than being agreeable and not asking for a pay raise, go and ask for a pay raise!
 Newman: Make yourself disagreeable with your boss!
Newman: (Okay).
Newman: (Okay).. One of the reasons. (So) why not get them to ask for a pay rise? Wouldn’t that be a fairer way of proceeding?
Newman: (And) they just don’t.
Newman: (And) you celebrate that?
Newman: (So), do you agree that you would be happy if that pay gap was eliminated completely? (Because) that’s all the radical feminists are saying.
Newman: (And) you’re saying if it’s at the cost of men, that’s a problem
Newman: (Because) they might not be happy if they could equal pay?
Newman: Like having children?
Newman: (But) why shouldn’t women have the right to choose not to have children, or the right to choose those demanding careers?
Newman: (But) you’re saying that makes them unhappy. By and large.
Newman: You’re saying it makes them miserable.
Newman: (Right). 
Newman: I’m going to take issue with the idea of the “typical woman”. (Because) (you know), all women are different! (And) I want to just put another quote to you from the book, …
Newman: (Okay). You say women become more vulnerable when they have children.

Newman: (And) you talked to one of your YouTube interviews about, “crazy harpy sisters”.  (So) a simple question. Is gender equality a myth in your view? Is that something that’s just never gonna happen?
Newman: Treated fairly, getting the same opportunities.

ima.grandma said...

Con'd part three:
Newman: (But) they’re really not though are they? I mean, "otherwise" why would there (only) be seven women running FTSE 100 companies in the. UK? Why would there still be a pay gap which we’ve discussed of late?
Newman: Why are women at the BBC saying that they’re getting paid illegally, less the men, to do the same job? That’s not fair, is it!
Newman: Seven women running the top FTSE 100 companies in the UK.
Newman: Why would a man want to do it? They earn a lot of money. It’s an interesting job.
Newman: (So) you think women are just more sensible? (They) don’t want "that", (because) it’s not a nice life?
Newman: (So), you don’t think there are barriers in their way that prevent them getting to the top?
Newman: Let me come back to "my" question. Is gender equality a myth?
Newman: Is gender equality desirable?
Newman: What do you mean by that? Equality of outcome is undesirable?
Newman: (Right), ( so) you’re saying that anyone who believes in equality, whether you call (them) feminists, call (them) whatever you want to call (them), should basically give up, (because) it ain’t gonna happen!
Newman: (So) you’re saying give people equality of opportunity, that’s fine?
Newman: (But) still women aren’t gonna make it! (That’s) what you’re really saying.

ima.grandma said...

I've seen a few articles posing "what is Jordan Peterson trying to say."  I pose the question: "what is Cathy Newman trying to say?"

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger ima.grandma said...

His words are absent in her mind; she doesn't hear Peterson.

that is an interesting look, a good way to see her strategy. there does seem to be a blind / deaf approach on her part.

still I think she does listen to Peterson, not to understand his perspective but from the standpoint of finding a way to attack him with his own words. so she hears him correctly but does not register what he says in a critical manner. I'm sure she can not challenge her own beliefs. she was going to challenge everything he said.

she was outmatched in that debate.

she is like the monkey in a zoo looking for feces to throw.

ima.grandma said...

General, :)

This may be a bit out there but I see a few things, many might not agree with. I think she is an avid YouTube listener of Peterson. Even, an admirer of his words; perhaps, even identifying herself as a wannabe audience target. Remember the but what's in it for the women? She knows his ideology and she agrees with many of his rationalities. In the back of her mind, she is wanting to manipulate his words to her advantage to be of use in the future, either psychologically (self actualization) or to implement his ideology in strategic planning. His practices and teachings assist her in assessing "risk management". She's not as stupid as she comes off and I say with emphasis, she does come off stupid. This event will become a step back up the rung of the ladder for Newman.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger ima.grandma said...
General, :)

she may have been an admirer of sorts before. Peterson's works are not aligned with Cathy Newman's ideology.

I don't think she realized she had lost the debate until the twitter meltdown. her language indicated she thought she had bested him and she tweeted, "Enjoyed doing Battle with you Jordan - thanks for being a good sport ." She did not include the pronoun "I". and when she said "thanks for being a good sport" she is indicating he lost the debate hence was a "good sport".

had she realised how she came off I doubt the you tube would have been left up. once it had gone viral it was too late. Channel 4 then tried to spin Peterson's followers (and by association Peterson) were threatening her.

Anonymous said...

I think what Peterson said was so "on the mark". Every man wants a woman to serve him a warm pasta dish when he comes home from his long day at work. He is the kind of man who could make a woman feel so secure, and he probably is so wonderful at the art of love-making, I can't imagine why a woman would have a problem with serving him a warm home-cooked meal. I bet listening to him drone on and on would be a small price to pay for his protective, hunkish arms wrapped around you at night. I am truly amazed at what a self-actualized man he is. Gosh, I would throw him the reins in the bedroom--I bet he is a wildman!

NOw I just have to get him to stop wearing "v-neck" shirts ;)

Anonymous said...

He "embodies" what a "man" should "be". His "assertive" posturing=success in the corporate office place. His "toned" "chest" equals "power" in the bedroom. His "tan" "suit" jacket equals he knows people in high places. His "jaw" held "tightly" equals he does not "back" "down".

Anonymous said...

His "kermit" the "frog" voice = you'd better not mess with "me".

His "idea" of men becoming "mature" + "men" taking center stage in "corporate" America= an invaluable "idea" for our "world".

Hey Jude said...

OT - Anon @ 7.28pm

My reasoning was in my post - I think Davey asked a stranger to Natalia to babysit, but Natalia, unlike Weston, was not happy to be left with a random babysitter, so rather than waste the dinner and ballet tickets, he took Natalia to Chick Fil A and Build a Bear, while Kristi and the babysitter went on the date.

I think it is reasonable to consider first for an innocent reason for why he took Natalia to Build a Bear rather than Kristi to the ballet. He has not said clearly why or how that change of plan came about, or whose idea it was. You may find it was carefully contrived - if so, can you be sure it was not in order to avoid Natalia going into a meltdown because she did not know the babysitter?

He said the date was arranged within a month, rather than months ahead. Whichever it may be, he and Kristi may not have known there was need of a babysitter for Natalia till nearer the time - it could be that other arrangements had fallen through, and a last minute babysitter did not work out, even with a promise of Build a Bear. He takes Megs for granted - he may have wrongly assumed she would babysit. I doubt Megs is Kristi’s biggest fan - she maybe wouldn’t have gone out of her way to pursue surrender through babysitting for a Davey and Kristi date.

I don't see any logic in the reason he gave (wise counsel to keep the relationship under the table) for not going to the ballet with Kristi, when his taking Natalia to Chick Fil A and Build a Bear was equally public and would point to the existence of a more established relationship with Kristi than a ballet date might, as she was trusting him to look after Natalia - the reason he gave is not the reason, IMO. I think Davey would not want to admit of messing up babysitting arrangements, yet likely had been seen out with Natalia as he found a need to explain that. Super Daddy Davey would be unlikely to admit of personal ineptitude, and insensitivity towards Natalia in assuming she would be happy to be babysat by anyone - that could be a reasonable alternative.

A shy or bashful admirer can watch a person from afar without being predatory. Davey had the added complication thar his potential new love interests might have been amongst the many who suspect him of involvement with Amanda's murder, which would have made him cautious. It appears Kristi went to places where Davey was, too - she joined his church, when there are many well established churches to choose from in Indianapolis. They went to the same Crossfit - I don't know who started there first. The seeking out was mutual.

These are thoughts rather than SA.

I would like to know if your claims are based in analysis or upon your opinion of Davey.

I would like to know have you previously said that Davey is gay?

Anonymous said...

Davey is so far in the closet he is in Narnia

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, Your reasoning is made up--it is fictional...that the daughter was upset to be left with anither babysitter.

Yes, a shy person can watch a woman from afar, yet Davey is not shy.

Davey's pervy closet game: DOOR CLOSED, LIGHTS OFF, SCARING A CHILD, BRIBING WITH TOYS----These are limguistic indicators that are VERY CONCERNING!!!

You asked if I have ever said Davey is gay?

My opinion: Davey is a psychopath & predator & as such, would probably sleep with any gender and could also harm children.
Davey's fake & extreme religiosity is oftentimes found in predators who harm children.

Anonymous said...

Also, no it does not sound like they mutually sought each other out. Rather, she attended the gym & the church & he was watching from afar. He is NOT shy. He is a PREDATOR.

John Mc Gowan said...

Watching those YT compilations (selective parts) of DB knock me sick.
I agree with anon @3:55 and 3:59. He is (in my opinion) a sociopathic narcissist, if not a Psychopath, too, and a danger to whom he comes in contact with.
The language he uses in his so called pastor roll speach's to his, and i quote "flock" is screeming out for someone in his "flock" to open their eyrs, ears (and it will come, just a matter of time) and say, hold on, did i just hear that, what did he just say.
I fear for his new wife and her family.
He is tantamount to becoming a contempory David Koresh.

The man (and i use that word [man] lightly) is dangerous

Hey Jude said...


Anon, to my understanding, it’s okay to speculate so long as we don’t call it analysis.

Okay - I will go with your belief that Davey planned ahead of time that rather than take Kristi to the ballet, he would take Natalia to Chick Fil A and Build A Bear, and it never was his intention for the church overseer’s wife to babysit Natalia while He took Kristi to the ballet.

I agree he makes it sound that way:

‘But on March 31st it wasn't me taking her to the ballet. We had received some wise counsel that it would be a good idea to stay under the table with this developing relationship until after Amanda's trial (which was set for May at this point). So instead of me taking her to the ballet I paid for her and one of our church overseer's wives to go to a nice dinner and the ballet while I took her daughter to Chick-Fil-A and Build-A-Bear. We still tell people this was our "first date."’

He received wise counsel, so he paid for tickets for Kristi and the overseer’s wife to go to the ballet - it does sound as if he never had got a ticket with the intention to go himself. If that is so, it was a strange thing to do, but I still don’t see justification for your claim that his motive had to be predatory.

Hey Jude said...

Well, since March 3rd, you have been looking forward to going on your first date with Davey, who Is taking you to the ballet on the 31st. Davey calls and says he has paid for the tickets, not for you both, but for you and his church overseer’s wife, and he has booked a dinner table - also for you and her. He says he had to do that because of some of wise counsel you had both received to keep your developing relationship under the table. He also says that as he’s no longer going to the ballet, he will be free to take your daughter to Chick Fil A and Build a Bear, instead. Are you good with that?

Reasons not to go: He doesn’t want to keep your first date a romantic secret - he actually intends not to be there. He wants you still to go, but with his church overseer’s wife. Meanwhile he will be in Build A Bear with your daughter. You are of more than reasonable intelligence. What he is saying sounds as unnecessarily cautious as it does self-defeating. As this is his revised idea of a first date, which no longer sounds like a date, as he will not be on it - should you not jump out of Boat Crazy before it even leaves the dock? You might add his carelessness with the lives of his family members, and several Internet forums dedicated to his suspected involvement in the murder of his wife and unborn child.

Possible reasons to go: That unspoken ‘Trust me, I’m a pastor’ thing; your inexplicable liking for him; your obsession with the ballet overrides all other considerations.

Your most likely considered response:

a) F*** off, jerk
b). That’s lovely, Davey - I absolutely can’t wait to go on our first date with your church overseer’s wife while you hang out with my daughter in Build A Bear, all somehow incognito
c) Um, it looks like I won’t be able to make that date, after all. Thanks for calling - have a nice life.
d) Something else

Hey Jude said...

I was thinking, it could be that Davey, ever selfish, got to thinking that he would not like sitting silently through the ballet. I think the ballet would be generally discomfiting to someone like Davey because it’s high brow; Davey’s cultural interests appear to be violent movies, and Disney. As such, I think Build A Bear would be more his comfort zone than Swan Lake. It’s not so long ago since he demanded of a pastor, at whose church he was guest speaker, that she return to him a Disney video which he claimed she had stolen from him when he was aged four or five, when she was his babysitter. There was probably more to why he did that, too - but Disney.

I don’t know what the more is of Davey’s alternative arrangements for the ballet, but if it was not due to a last minute babysitter problem, it could have been that he got cold feet about it. Rather than impress Kristi, he might give away too soon his gaucheness, disinterest, and inability to sit still for two or three hours. Buy tickets in haste, repent at leisure.

If that were the case, and if he had told Kristi, as an excuse, that a wise person had said they should not be seen together at the ballet, I don’t understand why she would be happy to go instead with one of his church overseer’s wives. Or why, if she really did still want to go, she would have found it non-contradictory to them not being public for him to to be in Build A Bear with Natalia I don’t believe Davey and Kristi could be simultaneously quite so cognitively dissonant.

mom2many said...

under the table
very drunk.
"by 3:30 everybody was under the table"
(especially of making a payment) secretly or covertly.
"he accepted a slew of payoffs under the table"

Davey's choices of cliche always seem a little off.

Hey Jude said...

OT - Anon, what possible interest could Kristi have had in deciding to attend Resonate? - as she appreciates the ballet she would have to be recoiling at the vulgarity of Davey's performances. Maybe she's one of those nice girls who is attracted to a 'bad boy'. I doubt she would' have married him otherwise.

Hey Jude said...

Mom2Many - I think Kristy would feel a little peeved at the idea that she should be kept under the table, and that for no apparently good reason - at least according to the Prosecutor. They do say love is blind.

'He keeps his cards under the table' - I remember the phrase from when I was a kid, though I don't know its provenance - the men in my family often played cards. I don't think it was a compliment.

mom2many said...

The card playing version implies cheating.

Hey Jude said...

John - I watched Kate's most recent video, too. I'd say the 'Strings' series trailer video was designed to psychologically denigrate young girls - horrible, and a abuse to show it under the guise of Christian teaching.

I think Davey doesn't do Philippians 4:8 - he probably has never read it, and that is just as well, as he would find a way to butcher that, too.

Hey Jude said...

Mom2Many - yes, 'putting all your cards on the table' or 'showing your hand' is something people say when they are being up-front, or claiming such, so to keep your cards under the table would be to hide them or to appear to want to hide them - you keep your hand above the table so everyone can see where your cards are.

'Under the table' was an interesting choice of words - Davey attributed them to wise counsel, so perhaps it was not his choice of words to begin with- even so, he could've put it differently if he didn't like how it sounded.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude @ 9:39,

Good post.

I am at a loss as to why she would continue dating him, nevermind marrying him, after the Build a Bear stunt, or, just in general.

My guess is that she comes from an abusive childhood and has been in abusive relationships, and therefore has low self-esteem. One thing I have learned in my 40+ years is that abusive men can smell out low self-esteem like a shark smells blood and they are very skilled at manipulating it. Without a sense of self-worth, a woman does not stand a chance in not being targeted by a manipulator/predator/abuser. It also seems as if her daughter' father is no longer in the picture, which means he sucks and so anything is going to seem a step up, especially Mr. Charming who just dotes on her daughter.

Even myself as a woman over 40, it is a bizarre conundrum where I am approached, contacted by men who initially come off as "OK" and I attempt to give them a chance, however, I quickly realize they are abusers, however, short of never communicating with men, the second I open the door, I have put myself into the hands (if only to receive their verbal comments) of a predatorial abuser attempting to prey on me. I have become so sick and tired of it, I do not communicate with men regarding anything except politics, etc. I have PTSD and I am getting nauseus right now thinking about it. As I get older, I find the older men are more exploitative then the younger men, and in fact, seem interested in raping me (one verbally expressed this and another attempted to rape me even though I thought we were just acquaintances going out to hear a band). I can no longer stomach men, because i don't understand what their point is. I also cannot be with the man I thought I loved, I look back and he was very kind to me and never tried to take advantage of me, although we were intimate one time, afterwards he was cool when I was struggling with emotional problems when most men would have become frustrated and upset, as I was struggling with issues. He was the one love of my life, and I couldn't be with him. He's probably better off without me. However, I have no desire to date, I don't feel like being pressured, disrepected, used or raped, so I will probably be single forever and i'm cool with that. Men make me sick and they don't care what is inside me, just what is on the outside. That used to make me feel good, but it doesn't anymore. Ive been objectified me whole life, and it bores me.

Anonymous said...

Davey's fiancee may perceive him as being "strong" if only physically. I find as a woman that I have never once had a man help lift a single centimeter of the weight I have on my shoulders (if even for a second)...(except for the guy I once loved). It's absolutely devastating to hit age 40 and realize that I have never known the strength of a man (except the one guy I loved that I couldn't be with). If anything these men have just dumped weight upon weight on me. I am not a weak person, but at a certain point, what is there for a woman to desire if men do not have any strength (and I'm not talking physically).

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...

It's sad you have such a negative experience and jaundiced view of men, Anon. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. Imagine if you were a man writing what you wrote, but about women. Men have a lot of denigrating generalisations to contend with.

Hey Jude said...

Why do you say Davey's fiancée, Anon? - they are married. Do you think she does not psychologically find herself to be married? In his current podcast, which I listened to earlier, he said he tried to get Krist to call herself Blackburn - she's still signing as Monroy. That was interesting - he quizzed Todd Erb about his reactions to discovering his wife and daughter murdered - he asked too many questions, he said how he forgot the details of discovering Amanda, but he remembered he took mental snapshot - he said what he has remembered differs to what he has been reading about what he said and was recorded in documents at the time. Later, after the Erbs, he went on to explain the reason why he asked all those (insensitive and probing) questions, which reason I forgot - it was transparent that he was asking because he wants to rehearse himself with appropriate sounding testimony, as gleaned from others, in case he needs to give evidence. He had a need to explain why he asked, though nobody asked him why he asked. He also said he expected to go through more tragedies in his life - he made it sound as though it was routine to find your wife shot three times on the living room floor, and who knows what might happen next, hey Kristi? - who, also as part of the podcast, was probably asking herself again, 'Who did I marry?' He joked, a couple of weeks ago, that she had thought or said that - I forget which - on their honeymoon. Not a great start. Amanda didn't seem to be asking that till they had returned from the honeymoon.

I hope she and her little girl are safe - it's too much to think about. Mr Charming, indeed - Charming Madman, though. He can be charming when he is not ranting and brandishing weapons - his podcasts are much different to his 'messages', but often his disinterest in his guests is evident - mmm - yeah,yeah - pass over and ignore that - let's talk more about me or Resonate, sort of thing.

Ladela said...

Davey needs to 'up' his sympathy factor. Watch out for the safety of Weston or Natalia. Another murdered/dead wife won't do. He needs a kids death for an even 'better' story/book.

Ladela said...

#NoOneIsWasted (for Davey's "story")

Hey Jude said...

Okay, I will go and look at Kim Kardashian - I don't know much about her, except she takes her baby to fashion shows to annoy people, and is related to Kaitlyn who was formerly known as Bruce, and who still sounds like Bruce, which can be a bit disconcerting. I don't relate to women who dress like Kim - I think they are somehow a different species and that they have to be airheads and poor role models.

Hey Jude said...

Their safety must be on a lot of people's minds. Kristi looks very happy in the podcast photo, though. She might be treading on dangerous ground as her teeth are at least two shades whiter than Davey's. Whatever 'Quantico' is, that is what they are watching now. I wonder if Kristi likes Braveheart, too.

Hey Jude said...

Davey is the sort of person who would stand in your kitchen and tell some sob story or relate a pointless drama, and end it with, 'But no-one died!!...'. TaDa!

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude,

No, Kim is not an airhead, and I don't think what she does is "wrong".
Lately, I don't know why but I just feel so sorry for her that she is with Kanye, you can see the unhappiness on her face, and she does not feel loved...that is why she seeks attention on social media. She may be unconsciously reenacting some kind of trauma over and over. I think she is a very nice and genuine and non pretentious person.

Anonymous said...

I can't "read" Daveys wife. She has the rare "plastic" smile and facial expression that betrays very little of what is going on emotionally, not saying she is a fake person, she just has a very unexpressive face that has one expression "plastic smile", and I can never read that type of face.

My face constantly betrays emotion even when I don't want it to, therefore I do not understand people who's faces dont do that.

Hey Jude said...

Kim Kardashian has been accused on Twitter of 'appropriating culture' by having corn row style hair - not only that, she has made it worse by calling them Bo Derek (white person corn rows) rather than just corn rows. Well, there's a trigger causing scandal. The transvestigators on YouTube think she is a man, and that Kanye gave birth to their baby - that's nothing to go by, though as they think virtually everyone famous is a closet transgender.

Hey Jude said...

I will find and listen to her, Anon - I have only seen photos, usually in the Daily Mail. I can't help thinking 'airhead' because of her appearance - that's quite some bias. I think she does not respect herself to dress as she does.

Hey Jude said...

It is a very subjective view of men, then, Anon. If I was an alien from another planet who came to find out about the earth's population, and you were the Designated Person for Alien Enlightenment, and I had instructions to ask "What is a man?" and to rely only upon your information as to what message to send to my planet, it would say 'Nuke 'em.' So, that would be unfair.

Hey Jude said...

I think 'Poker Face' is mastered very young in life - it probably is a self-defensive survival skill.

But I am a robot! said...

Quoting Davey's interview:
We had received some wise counsel that it would be a good idea to stay under the table with this developing relationship until after Amanda's trial."

I realize it's been years and any grieving spouse/partner has every right to continue living life, find new love (you know, when they aren't the killer...), but I can't even wrap my brain around strategizing my sparkly new romance around his dead wife's murder trial and not tarnishing my gallant new knight's shining armor.

Quoting Hey Jude:
should you not jump out of Boat Crazy before it even leaves the dock?
a) F*** off, jerk
b). That’s lovely, Davey - I absolutely can’t wait to go on our first date with your church overseer’s wife while you hang out with my daughter in Build A Bear, all somehow incognito
c) Um, it looks like I won’t be able to make that date, after all. Thanks for calling - have a nice life.
d) Something else


Can we perhaps require some sort of coffee-nose warning in here? I just made the best freshly roasted pour-over brew in history and it's now searing my sinuses and nose as I mop it off of my screen.

I haven't yet read the rest; this could reach litigation level.

But I am a robot! said...

FYI, I don't know the show or movie "Quantico" as I haven't had TV reception in years, but that is the name of the primary FBI training center where all attend academy, re-certify and take additional special classes.

Hey Jude said...

Well, I am pleased to cause a coffee splutter, Robot - sometimes preservation of sanity makes for posts like that. It is too absurd that 'date' happened, and that he felt the need to explain, yet did not explain it in a credible way. I can think, if it was an on the spot thing, due to a babysitter, Kristi would be okay with that - otherwise, it seems bat-sh*t crazy that she would have seen him again, much less married him.


Well, that sounds interesting - I am going to see if we have 'Quantico' available to view, and I will watch if it's about the FBI.

Also, in the podcast, Todd Erb said he and his son went to visit his wife and daughter's graves - they noticed a temporary plaque on a new grave a couple of plots over - he went to look and it was Amanda. He phoned Phil Byers to ask if Davey knew his wife and daughter were buried there - Phil said No. it is apparently yet another amazing and godly coincidence that three brutally slain women are buried almost next to each other. Interesting that Todd Erb phoned Phil and asked that question. Was he disturbed by it - did he suspect Davey chose that plot in knowledge that the Erb victims were a couple of plots from Amanda's burial site? I wonder if there are other family graves there, and what reason for the choice of burial place - it may just be coincidence. Todd Erb went to Amanda's 'Celebration of Life' Service to 'reach out' to Davey - he must have felt his 'pain'...(somehow). There is a YouTube of his wife and daughter's funeral - it was also called 'Celebrarion of Life' - the caskets looked much like Amanda's. I wonder if Davey modelled Amanda's memorial on that. They were victims of a home invasion by a disgruntled former employee - he told his mate he had smashed them in the head 'with a piece or concrete, or something'. It's all very strange - I wish I could stop rubber-necking the Davey train wreck. I would be freaked out to go to a memorial for a murder victim to see it was set up the same as for my wife and daughter, and then to find Amanda buried almost next to them.

Hey Jude said...

^ Like, as in 'Who's pulling your strings?' - from that horror trailer to the 'Strings' series which Davey had at Resonate in the weeks leading up to Amanda's murder. Thinking about that sends a shiver down my spine, and it is days since I saw it.

But I am a robot! said...

And you're spot-on about what a bizarre "first date" via text between Build A Bear and the ballet if it had been arranged that way from the start.

Not only would I run like hell; no way in any universe would I entrust him with my young child while he had me occupied miles away.

Back to the pronouns: we were advised; not I was advised. This reads more like the two of them happily describing their plans together, not him making arrangements to set up the date.

But I am a robot! said...

What's the missing info before that "and" above? The post that vanished, where I commented that the Erb parallels (that sounds like a low-budget sci-fi film) are chilling and fascinating; I need to research that more.

Hey Jude said...

I think they must have known each other quite well, including the children, for Kristi to let her daughter be babysat by Davey - or he just turned up with stranger babysitter, put every one on the spot, and Kristi didn't like to say no, There would have been the 'Trust him, he"s a pastor", thought, and emotional manipulation on his part. Or - Kirsty just was happy with that unlikely first date arrangement, for reasons unknown. You'd have to think 'failure to protect' if she just let her daughter go with a virtual stranger, despite he was her pastor.

I missed your vanished post. :-/

Anonymous said...

Is there any proof (pictures showing what an awesome Dad he will be) that he took the daughter to Build-A-Bear? Is it even open that late
at night?

My guess is that it is not even open at night.

Also, why would a lady agree to fill in for a date in Davey's place with a woman?

To me, that suggests that the lady who filled in for him and Davey are somehow in cahoots.

Anonymous said...

"wise counsel" = whatever plan Davey & the lady came up with

Anonymous said...

" I found out later that she didn't know I was asking her out on a date." And "We still tell people that was our first date."

Krist didn't know DB was asking her out on a date. They didn't go out on a date. They (still?) tell people it was their first date.

Ok then.

If that was supposed to be their first date, why does he refer to receiving wise counsel to keep the DEVELOPING relationship under the table?

A relationship was clearly developing before the "first date". That seems a bit backwards. Most relationships develop after the first date. Especially if the "first date" never happened.

Anonymous said...

She probably married him for money.

There are only 3 possibilities in what leads a woman to marry a man

1) money
2) decent sex
3) love

Men's motivations can be somewhat different, as typically they are looking for a housekeeper, someone to clean up after them and put a hot dinner in front of them, and cater to them in a myriad of different ways, and also simply easy sexual access to a woman.

With women, it's one of 3

1) money
2) decent sex
3) love

In this case, we know it isn't love and we know it isn't decent sex, so evidently she married him for money or the promise of money in the future.

Sol said...

Crazy Davey went out to eat at Chick Fila with a woman that he'd been ogling at the gym.

That's a date.

The fact they kept their kids (3 yrs and 4 years old) up until 10:00 by shooing Weston and Natalia back into the play area, whenever they came out complaining they were tired, notwithstanding.

But I am a robot! said...

To one of many million random Anonymous posters: Your expressed views on men and women read like cliches from watching PSAs and B-grade afterschool specials made in the 1970s.

No age group, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., holds a monopoly on slimy, predatory behavior, and none hold a higher proportion of decent, caring people.

For every evil man story you can cite, there is another with a woman mistreating, abusing, manipulating, harming one or more men.

For every white, black, Asian, etc., creep story someone can cite, someone else can counter it with a creepier story involving a creep of another ethnicity.

There are many kind, decent, caring Americans appalled by some of the awful people representing us around the world, just like there are millions of Europeans revolted by some of the most recognized villains in/from their part of the world.

The same works for positive stories about every possible demographic, and good works performed by people from all over the world.

When you blindly and ignorantly write off an entire demographic, you not only miss out on knowing a lot of wonderful, caring, quality people; you allow for the real scumbags and predators to exploit you and your uninformed stereotypes and fears.

Anonymous said...

@11:55, Lol. That's funny.
Oftentimes, cliches exist for a reason, they are based on truths.
I know what I am talking about.

Most men are worthless. My entire life men have not shown me strength, although they have dumped MUCH weight on me.
I bested them in their little game they play, and it wasn't difficult, they are extremely simple creatures. Every f&ckin time I had them calling me the next day, and I didn't want them. Their emotions mean nothing; men's emotions are very shallow and often tinged with great selfishness and cruelty. But I was just in it for the game, I am simply expressing the nuisance to me that their fondness for me created. If you don't think I understand how men operate, you are quite wrong. Men are handicapped and depraved by their feelings of entitlement, leaving them incapable of reaching their true nature, leaving them one-dimensional and incapable of having a woman truly hand them her heart. They don't realize this. This is their blind spot. Their goal in marriage is to have a housekeeper, someone to clean up after them, clean the bathroom, cook them dinner, wash the dishes, etc. That is their first desire. Their second desire is easy sexual access to a woman. Their third desire may include some type of companionship but this is very peripheral to the other 2 things.

Women marry for one of 3 reasons with a few rare exceptions who marry simply for "companionship" with the other 3 elements missing, however these women may be latent lesbians or masochists.

The 3 main reasons are:

1) Money
2) Decent Sex
3) Love

The majority marry for one of the first 2 things.

If you don't believe any of the things I've written, JUST LOOK AROUND YOU, AND YOU WILL SEE THAT I AM CORRECT.

Anonymous said...

And you can read certain things like "the ego is not good or bad" or "love your ego it is not your enemy" etc etc. And that is all fine and good. However, love goes after the ego with a wrecking ball. I don't care what any person writes about the ego, online or whatever, love wishes to DESTROY the ego, and that may not be palatable to some people, but that is the truth.

ima.grandma said...

Anonymous, it may be to your advantage to review Psych 101 to discover the illogical and irrational primary process of the id.

Robot@11:55: I applaud your logical voice of conscience and reasoning. I have both sons and daughters. I wish there were more mentors such as Peterson to speak to young men in crucial times of self-identity exploration.

ima.grandma said...

The id is not affected by: reality or logic The id operates: within the unconscious part of the chaotic and unreasonable mind.

The ego works by reason.

Freud made the analogy of the id being a horse while the ego is the rider. The ego is 'like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse.' (Freud, 1923)

Congratulations,  as you've progressed to the "ego" stage of which you speak of so personally. My point:  Keep riding. 

Hey Jude said...

I am sorry for contributing to this thread going so off-topic - maybe it had run its course?

I love this blog - the video enabled a great discussion with a young relative which otherwise we would not have had. I found it pleasing that a young person, not much interested in intellectual pursuits, was caused such great amusement by a professor in clinical psychology and a rampant feminist. He sent it to his friends, and said he was going to buy the book and watch his lectures. I think Professor Peterson gained another follower, maybe more. It's not surprising his book sales increased after that interview. I think one of the funniest lines was when Cathy Newman said '..you admit it's mostly men watching - your audience is predominantly male - isn't that divisive?'. She must have known how ridiculous that was, yet she still said it.

Ima Grandma - thanks for posting the interviewer's questions - I'll enjoy the illogic of those again and again. The interview was like a comedy sketch for its absurdity.

habundia said...

Just a question.
Could he have killed her before he went to the gym?

Nadine Lumley said...

Shivering g with pleasure reading some truth by Jordan. Delicious. I saw this video for the first time only recently, maybe last spring. Love it.

Nadine Lumley said...

Dr pat Allen says that there can be no harmony in a relationship unless one is allowed to be the leader. A tango if you will. She says equality kills intimacy.

Nadine Lumley said...

A strong man does control. 80% of them do. A woman can't tell a strong man what to do. But the woman grounds herself in her no to get what she wants from the man. The man cherishes the woman but first she must respect him.

Nadine Lumley said...

Did you know only 2% of pilots are woman. It's because they're are real brain diffences between men and women.

Nadine Lumley said...

Dr pat Allen says that women can act like men at the office, full equality at work, fEminem was hood for that.

Feminism ruined womens personal lived. At home 80% of women must play dum dum marilyn monroe to make man feel manly next to her.

Nadine Lumley said...

Yes, so true. It is 100% up to women to fix masculinity. God made men as a servant and provider etc for women. All we have to do is stop giving men free sex until they marry us first. Or at least get a ring.

Nadine Lumley said...

Perfectly said: she hears him correctly but does not register what he says in a critical manner.

Nadine Lumley said...

I don't get the feeling Davey is gay. He really pursued second wife. He married a blonde was it? But he really wanted to be with a brunette / 2nd wife.

Nadine Lumley said...

I feel they were screwing well before she showed up in church with her bible. I feel Davey didn't murder his first wife until he had met his soul mate. Many men don't leave until the meet the loves if their lives just in case they don't meet them.

Nadine Lumley said...

They had many dates before the official one. They had to postpone that ballet date because it was too soon for people to see how in love he is with new chick. He has no interest in the dotter imho

Nadine Lumley said...

Dr pat Allen says that men pick with their eyes and women pick with their ears. Men marry for sex and women marry for money. Nothing wrong with either one.

Nadine Lumley said...

What was the personal information lady interviewer leaked?