I highly suggest you avoid anything that crackpot writes, especially his An ABC of Childhood Tragedy. And don't look up YT vids about his dreams of his grandmother either.

I would argue his approach really isn't meant to be a feel-good type of self-improvement strategy. He posits that suffering is inherent to the human condition and discusses (through biblical, mythological, literary, psychological, etc. means) how we as a species overcome such suffering. To which he generally says: tell the truth, adopt responsibility, don't ignore your problems, be grateful, improve incrementally.

The community is very polarized on this guy. I think his stuff on the importance of adopting responsibility to overcome suffering and live a meaningful life is an excellent lesson. His politics bother people, but his clinical psychology insight has taught me a ton. So it sort of depends how willing you are to take lessons from someone despite other disagreements (that is if you do in fact actually disagree, there's absolutely nothing wrong either if you don't. It's important for a society to have both liberal and conservative thinkers).

It's because he cant hide how bigoted, hateful and unapproachable he is as a person, even when he's trying to write from a logical perspective. He sucks

Kermit voice "I let her have her way..."

It’s funny since it was his videos that led me to his book. Some of his commentaries are quite insightful, and they do give structure to life in general.

However, reading his book is another thing. I could kinda tell that he is very sincere on his viewpoint and that he truly is hoping the best for the whole world, but he does so in a military way of preaching, which is so hard to swallow and discouraging to read.

Her genital region was exposed, dimly; it had the appearance of a thick mat of hair.

Yeah I agree with you.

I like his YouTube videos a lot and that’s why I bought the book.

I totally concur with the idea to pick up responsibility and live a purpose driven life, but seeing how harsh he is on those who are going through depression and addictions—-it’s not like those people do not know what they are doing is detrimental to themselves or their families, but it’s kind of a way to avoid the truth JBP told——that life is suffering. So to me by telling people what they’ve already known too well isn’t really a way to give impetus for improvement

I am not against him, and I don’t think we need more polarisation(which is sad to hear this from your comment), but I really think he could do better with his delivery in the book.

He says the most basic things in the most pretentious way possible.

Also, I'd checked out some of his lectures, they suck ass when he isn't directly quoting authors. He makes insanely sweeping generalizations and conclusions based on data sets with n = 25. What a con artist.

Eww. Did he actually say that?

Verbatim

What a nutcase

I know nothing about the guy except what little I read (past tense) about him on Wikipedia. I just looked over his 12 rules as they are presented there and a couple of things seemed pretty clear.

First, these aren't ACTUALLY 12 rules for life, they're 12 rules for creating a community he's comfortable with. He's trying to build the US into the community he wants it to be. As are we all, right? Not a moral hazard, just something to be aware of going in. Except that by calling it 12 rules of life, he's broken his 8th rule, that is if he is self-aware enough to see what's really going on.

Second, people have a long history of coming up with rules for living that actually shed no light on the basic problem, which is that we - humans - cannot tell right from wrong. The Bible's Ten Commandments are another example of such a list; no doubt there are many others. This problem is the real reason slavery managed to persist for so long, why people can see no problem with invading countries who have done nothing to them, why people allow it to become illegal for homeless people to shelter themselves et cetera. There are many examples of this blindness. Until our rules for living actually include as their primary goal the determination to investigate and develop a way to tell right from wrong reliably, nothing else will really matter very much.

Finally, rules 6 and 7 seem problematic to me. Pursue what is meaningful - this is the kind of advice people give who don't themselves know what is meaningful, and are hoping you will figure it out without them having to admit their ignorance. Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world - this is a recipe for never criticizing anyone or anything, and never making progress on any problematic issue. Hypocrisy and deception are central to humanity. If we must eliminate them to move forward, we might as well just commit suicide right now. Thankfully, we don't have to do that. We have shown that we can make progress despite widespread hypocrisy and deception.

(I know, I'm SUCH a know-it-all!! Sorry lol)

Yeah that's a fair criticism. He can definitely come off as too analytical/matter-of-fact and less compassionate. Admittedly it's been a few years since I read his book so it's tough to recall more than just the major themes. But it's interesting you liked his videos and then disappointed by the book. It's nice to hear reasonable critiques from someone who approaches his work with good-faith.

Agreed on the polarization thing. Which is funny, my post is already getting hit by downvotes. Despite (I think) it being a fairly innocuous opinion of his work. So it's somewhat manifesting on a Monday morning r/books thread!

It's a load of hateful, controlling, pseudo-Christian, malarky. The advice isn't all bad but there's a load of BS in there. You aren't useless today, at least most of us aren't. To imagine that you can keep your children from doing things you don't like is madness. The division of the sexes is at best counterproductive. "Boys to boy things..." Seriously? What a fool.

Yes, be responsible (no excuses), speak clearly and say what you mean. Do meaningful things. Be truthful. Recognize that everyone knows things that you don't.

But "we all deserve to die" ??? Those are words to live by?!?! Trash that book.

Life can be very cruel and challenging to some people, sugar coating it and enabling self destructive behavior isn’t a solution. The proof is in the pudding in that his book and lectures have helped many people improve their lives.

I don’t think he is propagating a cult as he clearly opposed and rebuked it in his videos.

I came to some what of a conclusion of my own that he, being an experienced clinical psychologist and a person who’s been through numerous ordeals, is hard not to become a realist himself.

Discrediting his whole because of his parts is not doing him justice, and even more polarising.

Is he still teaching in the U of T? I will be great to see someone who is willing to play the bad guy in a world that likes to appease instead of appeal.

I am living in a city that’s totalitarian and I understand the horrors of being silenced. Polarisation is the first thing a totalitarian state will propagate, please don’t let this happen in Canada :(

[removed]

I totally agree. It’s just so hard to swallow. Maybe it’s better to those who have recovered and looking for a new way of life. But I wouldn’t recommend this to those who are in the middle of a disaster. Kinder words might be better

I would implore you to be more critical about what you think is good about his videos. He is a confused presenter and does not often make coherent points. I have found that the most common way people 'like' his commentary is by crafting a personal interpretation of it that makes some kind of deeply personal sense out of nonsense.

This is quite literally the same trick of astrology, allowing many people to find personal meaning in a generic description.

Gabor Mate put his finger on something important when he pointed out that Peterson is full of anger. He is a very angry man, and in open denial about it when it has come up in interviews.

His tone is frequently bitter and sneering, and very reductive.

I would look elsewhere for answers.

It gets worse.

What else has he said? Man, I'm so surprised that he has such a following

When I listened to the audiobook, his words suggested to me that he is a horrible person.

[deleted]

Peterson is the male version of astrology for a lot of the manosphere

Yes, both your comments are reasonable. "Polarization" isn't quite accurate when there's a strong negative skew. As with any intellectual/scholar who gets very popular, there are things to admire, appreciate, cringe at, and even disdain.

I do not follow Peterson's work, nor have I read his book(s). I've seen a number of videos (since before his rise to infamy in 2016), and his lectures at U of T. My impressions of him are shallow/not personal, but even still there are certain things that I admire, other things I appreciate, other things I cringe at, and yet other things I disdain. I think it is possible to view people in such variegated ways, especially with respect to their work when you don't know them. The caveat being, you don't know them (don't make a guru out of someone you don't know(

The amount of people on this thread asking OP to be critical whilst also just shitting on JBP and offering very little criticism besides “JBP is a bigot” is hilarious 😂

Imagine wanting to restrict what people are able to read and calling yourselves the good guys 🤣

If you are willing to think, consider this: stoicism and the philosophy of living through pain fits very well with people who are disconnected from their feelings and bodies. They get a reason why it's the right move, and why connecting would not help.

Almost all the guys who are into JBP have very limited connection to their bodies and feelings beyond basic elements (that are clearly coded as safely masculine, no salsa or tango dancer stuff).

[removed]

If anyone can define life in as simple as 12 rules then holy shit, they might just be God.

My question and answer isn't why it's unforgiving, my question is why didn't this individual tell others how to live correctly?

[deleted]

ITT: The r/books braintrust attempts an Olivia Wilde caliber takedown of JBP with predictable results.

Did you read the book? Its literally extrapolations of basic common sense self-help tips...

I think you are conflating JBP the man and confusing it with the image of JBP put out by the media to form really misguided opinions about his self-help book. I would recommend maybe actually reading the book or maybe, you know, having an open mind. You dont have to like it but what you are saying here is straight up just not factually correct.

Not only that, but you are actively trying to tell someone what they should and shouldn't read, which isn't very tolerant of you.

What i wrote about "This is water" :-

"Wittgenstein’s ruler: Unless you have confidence in the ruler’s reliability, if you use a ruler to measure a table you may also be using the table to measure the ruler.
It feels like extremely revolting to read life advice-ish texts from people who suffered to the point they executed themselves"

JP is extreme.

His daughter ruined her stable marriage to be with numero uno toxic 2022 andrew tate.

He himself was addicted to drugs.

Everything he says should not be heard for would you trust his words?

BUT, his extreme nature has produced USEFUL material for the masses. As a way to self correct his behaviour or his daughter or any other projection aside, idk.

Read, try to look for useful practical advice and move on... His tone can be infectious or annoying equally but that's to be expected

Did you read the book? Its literally extrapolations of basic common sense self-help tips...

It is in no way hateful... you'd know that if you were not just blindly criticizing someone based on your preconceived biases. I would recommend maybe being more factual next time you want to convince someone you actually read the book...

He recently did an interview with Piers Morgan and when asked if he considers himself a champion of lonely young white males (presumably his key target demographic...whom he calls "marginalized"), he actually cried during his answer.

Dude, I will treat the dude as the conman every self help book should be treated as. Trash meant for people with low self confidence, desperate to look for meaning in the meaningless. Also as per every Peterson fan. Telling me to hear the thousands of lectures because of course I didn't understand. I read the books and pirated them because I'm sure as hell will make sure he doesn't get even a cent out of me. Not sure I am getting down voted by Peterson fan or astrology fans. Either way downvote me for either. It's worth it. Also maps of meaning wasn't self help. Edit: also at least make your response unique instead of a copy paste you have been putting throughout the thread.

>If anyone can define life in as simple as 12 rules then holy shit, they might just be God. My question and answer isn't why it's unforgiving, my question is why didn't this individual tell others how to live correctly?

​

This is like the lowest IQ take... first off he's written two self-help books so far with twelve rules each. Secondly, he doesn't tell you how to live your life because that would be antithetical to human development and the minimization of human suffering...

So I take it you never read the book referenced by OP and instead, opted to poison the well and shit on the author with the goal of telling OP what he should and shouldn't read?

You sound like such a level-headed and well meaning individual, you're not commenting in bad faith at all lmao

I don't think anyone said you shouldn't be able to read him, just that they don't recommend it. The difference is pretty big here.

I've seen/read loads of stuff with peterson and without fail he comes across as a deeply distrubed, angry and anhedonic individual with a messiah complex in every single one of them.

I read the book and it would be better if he skipped the beating children and religious spam.

I looked into JBP as a woman who had not read his books and wasn’t his target demographic, out of curiosity to see if the criticism against him rang true.

The discrepancy between how people on Reddit and in general media portray him, vs how the man actually comes off, was so wide it was honestly fucking disconcerting.

I am, to clarify, NOT stating that public figures shouldn’t be criticized, especially when it comes to educators of mental health, but Peterson rose to fame as someone whose book and general advice helped guide a lot of bitter, misogynistic men who were filled with hate away from the incel-community and towards the road of self-improvement and moral responsibility. He seems to be one of the few people who are actually trying to fix the rising incel issue instead of just pushing the general narrative that makes fun of them, which does nothing but drive these people further into the community. For people to not recognize that but instead just hail him as “an incel king”, which makes him sound like a supporter of it, is so sad to me.

The problem is people who can’t recognize that not everything is for them and as a result seek to discredit and destroy it because they can’t understand that Peterson’s advice is for people who are in a different mental state than them and suffer from different problems. We’re not all one and the same and we’re not all going to find help from the same book or the same philosophy.

It's not for everyone. Some people are more receptive to a "tough love" approach to self help or life advice.

Honestly, this is the only thing you need to read about Jordan Peterson. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

>I am, to clarify, NOT stating that public figures shouldn’t be criticized, especially when it comes to educators of mental health, but Peterson rose to fame as someone whose book and general advice helped guide a lot of bitter, misogynistic men who were filled with hate away from the incel-community and towards the road of self-improvement and moral responsibility.

Here's the thing. He helps them be less self hating and despairing, perhaps, but he does nothing but encourage them to embrace misogyny and other forms of bigotry. He is also a gateway to other even more extreme, self-described fascists like Matt Walsh and the rest of the alt-lite dailywire folks.

I've watched several interviews with Peterson, and the most memorable thing about him is that he comes across as astonishingly incoherent and vaguely stupid.

So you havent read the book referenced by OP. Thanks for confirming.

This is my problem with people like you. You see an interview you dont like and just assume the worst without ever reading what he has to write. Sad really, that you lack the critical faculties necessary to distinguish between the man and his work.

I'm not the person you were initially responding to.

You need to have more discerning tastes when judging literature, you are currently defending a man who spews Neo Nazi talking points, pretending that we just dont "understand" his philosophy.

The man believes White Supremacy and Patriarchy aren't real...the man has openly promoted forced monogamy as an answer to inceldom.

> He seems to be one of the few people who are actually trying to fix the rising incel issue

No he's fucking not.

Lying to these men, telling them that feminists are the problem is NOT HELPING THEM, he's fucking feeding into their delusions.

He is making them worse, making them angrier, reinforcing their darkest prejudices.

What the absolute fuck are you talking about?

HELPING these me would be unpacking their prejudices....trying to reintegrate them to reality...getting them to understand that women and modernity aren't their enemies.

A therapist is what these men need! Not someone who openly engages with their conspiracies and prejudices!

There's one Neo Nazi thing that JP ALWAYS does.

He always talks about the "unproductive 10%" or even trans people, like their very existence and visibility are an existential threat to western society.

....but he always stops short of giving a solution to the "problem" of these people...he gets to the precipice of calling for violence, then takes a step back and says "we just need to be talking about this...no one is talking about it."

He's a Nazi, wrapped in a film of self-help pop-psychology.

I refuse to beleive you posted this entire thread without even looking into his comments about trans people, forced monogamy, or the unproductive 10%.

What is your fucking goal here?

There is all sorts of trash in there about the imaginary guy in the sky. The quotes I used are from the book. But no, I’d never waste my life reading such BS.

Why read an advice book by someone you perceive as stupid?

Thank you.

Exactly, this is the only Peterson point that matters: he uses his half-decent lifestyle advice (which he himself doesn’t follow), as a way to draw disaffected young men towards the alt-right.

One of Peterson’s academic mentors initially thought Peterson was brilliant but became horrified as his career in academia continued, as Peterson was so convinced of his genius that he would never move an inch, and he fetishized actual fascist thought leaders. Jordan Peterson is extremely dangerous as an agent of radicalization

And just look at him! This is the guy you want to be your mentor? Addicted to benzos, talks like Kermit the Frog, got totally destroyed when he tried to debate an actual philosopher (Slavoj Zizek), seems to be controlled by his daughter. He’s a very, very weird man.

“Up yours, woke moralists!” Is so funny. Who talks like that?

Thank you for confirming you have no idea what you are talking about and that you have not read the book OP is referencing.

THATS what you think is the worst thing he said? I mean come on... Some criticisms presented are completely fair, but offering guidance to a base audience that feels marginalized, regardless of whether or not they represent the majority, is hardly something worthy of criticism.

He just puts on a show to fool people is my best guess. Piers Morgan himself is such a twat, can't even imagine how both of them would be together.

He doesn't encourage people to embrace misogyny... There are a lot of fair criticisms on this thread, but this is perhaps the most off base and blatant hatred by someone who clearly hasn't read him. Which is fine, but don't go around blatantly spreading misinformation simply because you don't like the man.

He's a grifter. The latest in a long line of snake oil salesmen peddling self-help garbage and who's managed to fool folks into thinking he's an intellectual... a dumb man's idea of a smart man. Incidentally, here's the grandma vid.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4KHM-Ibaq4

Well, yes. I’m like that, so stuff like that speaks to me. Don’t really have a deep connection to my body or feelings. It’s a personality thing, I’m more of a thinker than a feeler.

Hahahaha oh my god why did the song start in the end?! Duuude. This is a hundred shades of disturbing, but that song just killed me

You can get similarly insightful rules for life from many other people. To put it in perspective, JP was a prof at the University of Toronto, and everyone else in his department hated him and thought he was a phony basically

Yeah, he's off his rocker...or faking it to cultivate some kind of weird edgy authenticity.

>away from the incel-community and towards the road of self-improvement and moral responsibility.

No. The man has openly suggested we may need to solve a bunch of social issues with 'enforced monogamy'. He is absolutely not leading men away from being incels.

Probably both

I don't think enforced monogamy means what you think it means.

Only book I have DNFd along with Mein Kampf. Both are the weirdly aggressive ramblings of creepy dudes

Assuring young straight white men that they are, in fact, a marginalized and oppressed group in the United States, and that feminists, neo-Marxists and trans people are the cause of their alienation and rage is worthy of criticism.

Remember what he said about Friedan and "The Feminine Mystique"? If that's enough to fuel his loathing he's at least misogyny-adjacent.

Give your take then.

It means that being a single woman who supports yourself and refrains from marrying should be socially discouraged.

The society Peterson advocates is the one we used to have in the United States, in which divorce was rare and shameful. A woman was almost required to be married and have children to be respected and admired.

That's what 'socially enforced monogamy' means in practical terms.

Enforced monogamy is a term from anthropology and sociology. It means a society or culture that doesn't allow for plural marriages. The Western world practices enforced monogamy. It is illegal for a man in the United States to have three wives.

Now let's here yours.

Throwing rocks at Lunchbucket was harsh.

Judging a clinical patient and then writing vituperatively about her in a book was unforgiving.

Personal note: I'm about the same age as JBP, and everything useful and helpful in 12 Rules is something I'd learned before I graduated from high school. Except I learned it without the half-baked Jungianism and retrogressive gender ideology.

Like the saying goes, his work is both good and original. The good parts aren't original, and the original parts aren't good. It's like a pint of pure spring water to which a tablespoon of raw sewage has been carefully added. When you object to the sewage, his fans demand to know what you have against water.

No it doesn't. Not even close. In practical terms it means that a person should be discouraged or prohibited from having multiple partners. Enforced monogamy has nothing to do with married vs unmarried, it's about monogamy vs polygamy.

Since nobody I know in offline life knows who he is, the only evidence I have for the impact his message has on people are his supporters online.

Who are the people whose lives he's improved? What did they learn from him that they hadn't known before, and what did it enable them to do that they weren't able to do before?

Given that one of the Rules is 'be precise in your speech', it's noteworthy that getting JBP to give a definite answer to a question is like nailing jelly to a cloud.

'Dr. Peterson, are you a Christian?'

Most people would answer either yes or no.

By his own account, he's experienced chronic anxiety and depression most of his adult life. It makes sense that he would endorse the belief that 'life is suffering'.

So when I read paragraphs from a book then those paragraphs have no meaning?

When you're in the wrong always go to the ad hominem attack. ;-)

How do you think that applies to how he uses the phrase? He uses it in a context that would prescribe enforced monogamy to western society, as in we do not currently have it as a strong norm.

I think Peterson is often a deeply reactionary thinking person with sympathies to old modes of thought that comfort him. This situation is an example. When hes asked about modern dating and mens issues he uses this term and people hearing it take the meaning to be distributing women to men in a sort of effort to tame them. Speaking of women as a resources to better utilize. Now im unsympathetic to the calls that this is unfair to him because i think hes a poor communicator and hides in ambiguity and unclear speaking all the time.

So again, if you can explain why he prescribes a norm you say already rules, then maybe there can be some clarity here.

He used the phrase in one New York Times interview where the interviewed deliberately took it out of context as part of a hit piece and it led to this position that you are trying to attribute to him that not only does he not have, but no reasonable person has. Do you honestly think that Jordan Peterson believes young women should be forced into relationships with the most pathetic men our society has produced? How would this hypothetically be enforced? Under threat of murder or threat or imprisonment? Seriously? Peterson has made very clear in several interviews his opinion of incels and it basically boils down to "if all the women reject you, all the women aren't wrong to do so".

The point he was making, and it's irrefutably true and has been well established for more than a century is that societies with culturally enforced monogamy are significantly less violent than those without it. In cultures where the most successful men can't have harems, and where cheating on your spouse is considered immoral, less disaffected young men are produced and less violence occurs. That is a good thing and if a better approach exists, we aren't aware of it.

I also noticed that you never actually provided your definition of enforced monogamy like I requested. Are you going to do so now or are you going to admit that I was correct and you didn't actually know what the term meant when you used it?

[removed]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think he ever actually said that. If he did, you’re correct that is wrong. But you can be alienated without being oppressed. You can be alienated and not be a minority. I wouldn’t make it into a competition, but there’s nothing wrong with having a different base.

I would agree with your distaste for that quote, but it’s hardly a view propagated and promoted within his book. Like I said there are many fair criticisms of Jordan Peterson, but acting like he’s leading people towards incelhood and the alt right shows a fundamental misunderstanding between random Jordan Peterson quotes and the actual material written in his books. I’m not defending every aspect of his personality, I also criticize him. But that’s not what he writes and the bash fest for anyone who enjoys his teachings is misguided by the flawed man.

[removed]

I don't accuse him of promoting inceldom as such. But he definitely promotes the view that 'sex' is something women have that men are supposed to get from them. As for alt-right, no. He's promoting the paleoconservative views that were current around the time he and I were born. Gender roles that were the product of an industrial/post-industrial economy and society are represented as the natural and inevitable result of immutable human nature.

Jungianism is no more scientific than Freudianism, and depicting women as 'chaos dragons' is not philosophy or psychology.

Feel free to read his material but don't be fooled by his pseudo-intellectual character. JBP is a perfect example to demonstrate that education and intelligence are two different things.

Personal conduct

Please use a civil tone and assume good faith when entering a conversation.

Personal conduct

Please use a civil tone and assume good faith when entering a conversation.

[removed]

The predictable result? Lobsters flock to defend the truth of Daddy Lobster.

I didn’t say you did, I was replying to someone else to start with. I can disagree with how people in this thread are portraying his ideology while agreeing with many of the (fair) criticisms of the man, some of which you yourself have just presented. But considering I get downvoted even for that I doubt that same level of impartiality exists elsewhere in this discussion. He’s a flawed man, with flawed views, absolutely. But his teachings aren’t nearly as dramatically awful as some people present them as.

[removed]

[removed]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

https://australiabusinessnews.com.au/news/jordan-peterson-asks-wear-makeup-workplace/

In addition to the things covered in these articles, specifically that he believes sexual harassment occurs because women induce men to commit it by wearing sexually provocative makeup in the workplace, he also believes rape within the confines of marriage is acceptable.

[removed]

You're comparing Jordan Peterson and his book to Hiter, Mein Kampf and the enactment of Lebensraum. Dumbest thing I've read in my life. Classic Reddit rubbish.

He doesn’t say that in 12 rules. I don’t need a summary for a book I’ve actually read. I’m not arguing about whether Jordan Peterson, the person, is good and above criticism. Im saying 12 rules is not some misogynistic, alt right creed that exists for incels. I’ve read it, it’s nothing of the sort. It’s fairly innocuous. If you want to criticize things that Jordan Peterson said in interviews you’ll get no argument from me.

That's fair. However, if someone becomes a fan of his work and looks into more of what he says and supports, they can easily get sucked into the misogyny and bigotry that he supports. That's all I'm saying.

That’s 100% fair too. I appreciate your rational debate and thank you for showing me some of the things he’s said. I wasn’t aware of that and I completely disagree with those statements.