This book was not worth the hype for me; I read the whole thing, but regret purchasing it.

- It sorely needed an editor. Echoing other's sentiments, it could have been < 1/3 of its length. The writing style was rambling, overly emphatic, and arguments were often not coherent.

- It used a gratuitous amount of Bible quotes, which

  1. weren't necessary to make his point,

  2. were often referenced as if they were data, and how people actually behave, rather than anecdotes/fiction

I got suckered into to buying the book because the author is a compelling public speaker. I enjoy his lectures.

In retrospect, though, part of what makes him a compelling public speaker are his highly emotional arguments, which don't seem to be founded on great reasoning, and therefore make for a bad book, since we have more time to be critical about arguments when reading.

This[1] is worth reading.

"Jordan Peterson's popularity is the sign of a deeply impoverished political and intellectual landscape"

[1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-d...

I'm sorry but the first paragraph is very unfair and not true in my opinion.

You can figure out for yourself, watch this debate and tell me if Peterson is the type of person described in the article.

https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8

I promise I'll read your full article beyond the first paragraph :)

The article mentions that interview and concedes Peterson comes out stronger there.

I think both had strong arguments at times.

Quite fascinating discussion, like watching a match of intellectual boxing :)

I recommend reading the whole article.

Things are busy at work today, but I'll check it out when I have some time. If you could point me to a shorter clip within the almost 2 hours video, I will be more likely to look at it.

You can watch anytime at least the first 20 minutes. I just wanted to give a counter example to the first paragraph of the article which describe him like an opaque person who doesn't listen. I particularly like this debate because it shows he can have a decent conversation with a well known atheist and he actually listens to him. That's why I find the first paragraph really off which makes me having some doubts about the whole article. But I will read it nevertheless.

He did not came particularly well off in that debate.

I think both had their good points at times. Anyway, the debate shows a man different than the one described in the article. That's why I posted it

The author of this article either didn't actually read 12 Rules for Life or already made up their mind before going in.

> Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say.

The irony of this is that the author himself has nothing of real value to say. (See, I said it so it must be true)

I won't lie: My first reaction was to say "This is BS" to a lot of what JP writes and talks about - particularly biblical references as an atheist.

But then I realized much of what he is saying is true - and it personally hits my ego in such a way that the reaction is pretty much revulsion/dismissal.

Can it be written more concisely? Probably. But he is an academic afterall...

FWIW: If you enjoy his lecture style / cadence - try his Audiobook version. I would likely have a tough time with reading his book - but the audiobook format delivers like his youtube lectures, which IMO are very well done.

Peterson is very good at speaking and lecturing (practice makes perfect!) and I enjoy his work. That said, his tack is largely an updated stoic philosophy. A good idea, don't get me wrong. Still, if you liked his book, I'd go back and read more about stoicism. Here are some suggestion, but if anyone else has others, please chime in:

https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Thrift-Editions-Marcus-Au...

https://www.amazon.com/Senecas-Letters-Stoic-Thrift-Editions...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

> updated stoic philosophy

No, it's not. Stoicism has much more depth and the Stoics would not agree with Peterson on many things. Stoicism also doesn't need to be updated.

I mean, his 12 points are pretty stock Stoicism, with a 21st century spin. By my reading, he's not entirely stoicism, true, but he sits in the adjacent seat. If he is this popular with (as I see it) his re-skinned stoicism, then the conclusion that 'stoicism needed an update' is not unreasonable, as it seems to resonate better with the re-skin than without. Caveats, obviously, apply.

I think its unreasonable. Popularity and quality are often at odds with one another.

Adam Sandler has earned people more money from movies than almost anyone. That doesn't mean Anthony Hopkins needed an update.

The way he talks about religion, I think he's way into Jungian archetypes and psychoanalysis and shit.

I originally thought his critique of postmodernism/continental philosophy and stuff was interesting, reminiscent of chomsky

His thesis on alcoholism is interesting, clearly he's atleast a decent psychologist. Reminds me of my aunt, psychologist at U. of Missouri, really interested in carl jung and religion.

IQ testing and personality tests always seemed broken to me. What is IQ measuring? Personality tests seem like arbitary categories. All of this is based on frequentist statistics (factor analysis), wonder if there's a bayesian perspective but I have no idea what i'm talking about honestly, especially compared to Peterson.

I can't stand his economic views, they're similar to Joe Rogan's "classical liberal"/market fundamentalist views. I like Kevin Carson's word: vulgar libertarianism:

"Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term 'free market' in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get [a] standard boilerplate article… arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because 'that’s not how the free market works'— implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of 'free market principles.'"

Peterson is openly "way into" Jungian archetypes and psychoanalysis and shit.

Sorry to hear that. While I agree that the book could have been shorter I'm honestly curios about two things:

1. Do you regularly apply some of these rules in your life?

2. What arguments were not logical in your view?

The Bible is data. It's a collection of texts with its own [secular] field of study.

Peterson's thesis is something like the following: that the early biblical stories constitute a kind of dominant eigenvector of human cognition and experience, what you get when you iteratively retell a story over a hundred generations.

To dismiss this as anecdotes or fiction is very much to miss the point of what Peterson is trying to do.

It's hard for me to see why this logic points to the Bible and not the Odyssey or the Iliad, about which we could say much the same things (especially the Iliad, which shows clear marks of some parts of the story being much older than others). Or frankly any very old text with pre-literary roots.

I am certainly pro-Bible, but in the terms you're putting it here it doesn't seem especially compelling.

It doesn't uniquely pick out the Bible, except to the extent that Western civilization was shaped far more thoroughly by the Bible than by Homer.

> It sorely needed an editor. Echoing other's sentiments, it could have been < 1/3 of its length.

So like every self help book ever?

For some reason I am repulsive towards 'self-help' books. I always have a feeling that you just cannot sum up all the things to be "happy" or "content" or whatever in one book. I have seen numerous people who read inspirational quotes/books but the act the opposite way. I feel it is very difficult to change how the internals of a person work, reading a book will definitely push you in the right direction, motivate you, elate you, change your mental models[0]. But to bring those changes in your actual life, seems quite difficult and time consuming. Can your "mental model" be modified just by reading 1-2 books ?

I am interested to know, how often when you face a situation, you stop and think, oh I read this and that in a book, I should act this way instead of my natural intuition to do the other way.

Given the limited experience with life I have and the fact that I haven't read any of the self-help books, I am willing to change my perspective regarding this. Will give a shot to '12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.'

[0] => "It’s Okay to “Forget” What You Read" https://medium.com/the-polymath-project/its-okay-to-forget-w...

If I read a 300 page book and it has even just one sentence that somehow speaks to me and makes me introspect or reconsider or change some mental model I have, I absolutely find it with while. Sometimes the one encounter is enough to cause change (though sometimes it takes a while for my brain to change/adapt), and sometimes it takes multiple encounters with the idea.

IMO any book can be categorized as "self-help" - most business books I read, psychology books, biographies, etc, I read to enjoy, and the best ones (the ones I tend to enjoy the most and remember) are those that I'm changed by (ie. improved) in some way.

People get too caught up in labeling things instead of trying it out and seeing it works for you. You can read (for example) a celebrity gossip magazine and finish with great personal insights - the probability is just low - but if you do, awesome! Same goes with "self-help" books.

I also think it's highly dependent on timing. A book one year may have no meaning to you in one moment but be life changing in a future moment. It's the difference between reading things applicable to your situation now vs future need - the former approach is generally much better.

This is how I feel about this book (12 Rules for Life). I was actually just thinking about his 'Tell The Truth' chapter just last night. It's such a simple concept, but if you find yourself lying, even to yourself, you find that ultimately it snowballs into a worse problem in the future. Even if this is all I got out of the book (which it isn't) it's absolutely worth the read.

Do you really need a 300 page book to tell you that you're not fortunate enough to be the first person in recorded history that doesn't ever lie to other people? Do you need it to tell you that you're also not the first person in recorded history to be free of bias (self-deception)? What do you think about the linked article's assessment of the summary of principles? This is the first time I've heard of this guy and the princicples, along with everything else the author quoted sound just as vapid as he suggests.

I really think happiness is just a result of our brains filtering out unpleasant facts, we learn that the whole childhood; how can you be happy if:

1. the whole nature is based on preying on the weak, and that's mandatory for survival; right now some animal "kid" is being eaten alive by some predator without "empathy" of any kind

2. at this very moment some person that might be relatable to you in some special way (like a perfect fit for a friend or partner) is having a really bad day, like dying-bad

3. the amount of sophistication in cheating each other might be one of the main factors in developing many forms of language, behavior or even science

4. health statistics aren't about others; they are all about me and you, we all are going to end up in one category or the other; often we have no say in it as our destruction is already programmed inside us

5. whatever you worked on hard all your life can be gone from one moment to another; earthquake, volcanic eruption, storm or even divorce can strike any time

6. even if you dedicate your life to something amazing, become rich, respected, adored or die a heroic death before you turn a villain, at best you will be a short, quite pointless remark in the history notes; however most likely you will be as important as a dust speck

7. excitement of novelty wears off quickly if you become a hedonist; going ascetic to lowest lows so that you can reach highest highs again will become pointless at some point as well and nothing will move you anymore

8. even if you believe in afterlife, vast majority of religions will tell you that almost everyone ends up in some sort of hell or won't make it to the "next stage of game"

If you frame happiness like that, then yes, it'll be hard to be happy. But happiness, I think, is not an objective state that you get to when all your expectations, desires and wants are met. That's just the story our primitive animal brains tell us, but the reality is that happiness is an inner mental state, and the influence that external factors have on us is just our own imagination.

We choose to be unhappy. By fixating on our wants, our worries, our anxieties, or desires, by refusing to be happy unless everything is exactly what and how we want, we don't let our body and our mind be. I think it's only when we let go of our destructive thoughts, when we let go of what has been and what will be, and just live in the present, in the moment, that we can experience a real state of happiness.

It sounds esoteric and counter-intuitive, I know. But just consider the thought. I personally find this to be more and more true the older I get.

I think it doesn't sound counterintuitive. The thing that's counterintuitive is that we're not in this state all the time (myself very much included).

Wow that's quite a depressing list, how long have you been curating it?

Assuming you won the birth lottery (no terminal illness, overall healthy, work in tech given you're on HN), then you are in the top echelon of society and success.

There are many things to be happy about e.g. volunteering to give back, settling down with a significant other, starting a family (or not), traveling the world, cooking, fixing cars, shooting guns, etc. While you partake in these activities (hobbies?) you can get lost in them and for brief moment, nothing else in the world matters i.e. your list. This gives you something to look forward to and a routine away from existential ideation.

Humans are social creatures and we've evolved this way. Generally speaking the majority of us derive happiness from the ones we care about in this weird thing we call life. Thanks for sharing the list!

All your points are true and I agree with them. When I raise similar viewpoints to some people they tend to regard me as pessimist, but I actually feel quite stable and happy with my life. I'm curious how do you feel or deal with the facts you listed here?

In my view, searching for happiness is a bit pointless in a world where everything is temporary and brutal in many ways. But there are things which you know you can avoid to not make your life a living hell(Peterson's words) such as doing excessive drugs and alcohol. As Charlie Munger used to say once is much easier to try to not be stupid than trying to be smart. I totally agree with that. After avoiding things which will make you miserable for sure, it all comes down to probability: it's still probable that life will f*ck you up in a grand way no matter how many good things you did. Just hope for the best and be very grateful if you're life is not a living hell now. Meaning is very important. Life itself is meaningless but we get to decide what it will mean in the end. When I decided to leave a good career to move back to a poor country because I wanted to be close to my family I gave a meaning to my life, which is "family is important to me and I will prioritize it no matter what".

Lastly, Peterson book is not about searching for happiness, is just a readme manual about dealing with chaos. Some ideas are not necessarily mind blowing, one can find good tips in stoicism, buddhism or whatever religion or philosophy. But his book can be a start.

> For some reason I am repulsive towards 'self-help' books.

I wouldn't classify 12 Rules of life as a typical 'self-help' book because Peterson is not a self-proclaimed self-help guru without any substance.

If you check his career section on Wikipedia you'll find out that "Peterson's areas of study and research are in the fields of psychopharmacology, abnormal, neuro, clinical, personality, social, industrial and organizational, religious, ideological, political, and creativity psychology. Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers. Peterson has over 20 years of clinical practice, seeing 20 people a week, but in 2017, he decided to put the practice on hold because of new projects."

And he doesn't try to sell you the idea that life is beautiful and amazing, he actually agrees that life is tragic and brutal.

> I always have a feeling that you just cannot sum up all the things to be "happy" or "content" or whatever in one book

I agree to that. You cannot sum up all the things which make you happy or more content, but you can follow principles which increase the probability of success in what you want to do, such as "be a bit better tomorrow in some minor way"[1]

> I am interested to know, how often when you face a situation, you stop and think, oh I read this and that in a book, I should act this way instead of my natural intuition to do the other way.

Not every time, but more often than before reading that book. For example, I've read Feeling Good: The new mood therapy(another great book with a self-helpish title) and after reading that book I really started to put in practice some exercises in that book which by now they became almost automatic. For so much time I was a victim of cognitive distortions and now I finally found a way to beat them. And not only me. [3]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz2tYGt0_As

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood-Therapy/dp/0380...

[3] https://blog.ncase.me/nicky-reads-feeling-good/

I use so-called self-help books to find philosophies I resonate with but didn't know about. Basically, I improve my strengths by reading about principles I share with an author who has thought about it longer than I have.

>> I am interested to know, how often when you face a situation, you stop and think, oh I read this and that in a book, I should act this way instead of my natural intuition to do the other way.

This of course won't work.

But reading a book, finding a usefull tool in it, and practicing it until it become a part of your skills is possible.

This is absolutely true.

The way to change behavior is to actually change something and consistently practice that change.

It requires a great deal of commitment. Progress is generally slow. Set backs happen.

But if you actually change something and make it a diligent practice eventually it will be part of who you are.

There are a huge amount of people that read/share/talk about feel good life change quotes/books/etc that are doing nothing more than playing psychological tricks on themselves while avoiding the hard discouragingly long process that is required to make actual changes.

Well, there's also the fact that many of our problems are external, and can only be solved by interacting with others and making real change; your attitudes and lack of optimism are not the actual problem.

I loved the message of self-reliance and "bearing your burden" in the book personally, it really reminded me of Mark Manson's The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck. Could've done without all the religious metaphor but I understand the point of it being there.

He reframes religion (specifically Christianity and the Bible) as a symbolic guide to living as opposed to a historical text that should be taken at face value. i.e. God is a symbol for the greatest good. Christ is a symbol for the human ideal of that greatest good.

In his view, the value of the Bible is not as a pre-scientific historical account of the world. Instead, it's a survival guide for generations of people (who had no concept of science anyway) told in story form.

When I look at his religious metaphors in that light, they seem relevant and meaningful in the context of his 12 Rules.

How does viewing God and Christ as symbols for the greatest good make sense? If they existed and were anything remotely resembling what the Old and New Testaments describe they were incredibly immoral and psychopathic at various times.

I think we stand to learn quite a bit from reading the Christian bible, but I didn't walk away feeling like anyone should emulate the behavior on display.

If you want to understand why he uses religion so much as I did (I've always considered myself an atheist), his lecture series here goes into it in much greater depth: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I...

He's dedicated his life in trying to explain why the atrocities of the 20th century happened and how they can be prevented. I believe he sees our rejection of religion as part of the problem but he understands that the way religion has been presented in modern times (last few centuries) is completely alienating given the rise of science. So he uses science to attempt to give a new meaning to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of western society. I'd say the biggest precursors to his work are Darwin and Carl Jung.

So many people want to take away all the doctrines that make Christianity distinctive and then turn around and still call it Christianity. I can't understand the point of this exercise. What exactly does he think is the point of Christianity, if he doesn't believe in God?

> He's dedicated his life in trying to explain why the atrocities of the 20th century happened

Looking at what he published it seems he dedicated most of his life to researching the effects of alcoholism.

Also would you mind expanding on how he uses science to give new meaning to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western society?

> Also would you mind expanding on how he uses science to give new meaning to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western society?

The first lecture should give you a good idea, but if you're looking for discussion, I'd be willing to have it but we'd be here for hours. We'd have to get into philosophy and define terms like "science", "God", "society", etc. We'd then have to explore psychology and models of consciousness, like Jungian archetypes and Freud's subconscious. We could also cover biology and how some substances trigger spiritual experiences that have positive life-changing effects. All the while, we could relate these discussions to the stories of the Bible or chapters of the Tao Te Ching and why they are both at the very least profound and contagious.

I'll give the lecture a watch. I am more interested in how he approaches the subject. I've had my doubts out Peterson for a while since some of his views seem very regressive, however I haven't watched everything he has said.

I like you. Most of the people criticizing him didn’t bother to watch his lectures or read the book and still act like they know him.

But still that means he wants to believe in something that does not exist. The fact that we depend on God and religion is what actually takes our sight out of what is right in front of us which is family, kids, neighbors, little things, etc. Why do we need to attribute these things to God? Can’t we all be nice to each other without God?

> But still that means he wants to believe in something that does not exist. [...] Why do we need to attribute these things to God? Can’t we all be nice to each other without God?

I might be wrong but it doesn't sound like you've really read his material beyond 12 Rules for Life. It doesn't necessitate believing in something that does not exist but it will at least leave you with a deep respect for your subconscious and for the collective subconscious. That's enough to understand the value of religious stories. Once you're there, belief in God is your own business... it's not even clear if he believes in God and I'd say it's barely relevant.

Whether or not you believe God exists, ideas and stories about gods are part of the foundational myths of our society. Properly interpreted, they shed light on how the subconscious works.

You might try reading the book Sapiens by Noah Yuval Harari. Among other things, it shows how intersubjective realities such as human rights, religion, and money make civilization work, whether or not the objects of those stories 'exist'.

Have you read him? More, are you even trying to represent his position?

I don't think you have to fully understand or agree with him. In large, I don't. Your paragraph, though, is a gross deliberate misunderstanding of his view. :(

I actually read the book. Not sure what you mean by deliberate. I am being very clear. Instead of trying to bridge the gap or modernizing religion and continue to spread the myth in some shape or form, can’t you not use religious references to state your arguments?

You represent him as taking religion over family. This seems counter. And a false divide. Rather, he seemed to push to use religion to strengthen self. Strengthen self to strengthen family. Strengthen family to strengthen society.

Again, I don't necessarily agree. In large, I think he is familiar with a different nihilism than I am. I grant, however, that he probably knows the topics better than I. I certainly plan to dive deeper on it. In large because I disagree.

Yes, I could have done without the religious metaphor as well, I hope some potential readers will not be put off by this because it really is a great book. Something stayed with me after reading this book and I'm so glad I didn't give up when reading about too many religious analogies.

Peterson also gave a presentation about his book for those who are interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RCmu-HuTg

I just finished the audible of this. The emotion in his voice for some of the more laden sections was tough. I confess I was almost in treats for the section of his daughter's health.

I have not reformulated my understanding of the rules. Definitely plan to.

Regardless, I second all you put here. Good luck on your decisions!

12 Rules for Life reads like a skilled astrologer would write: many vague clouded truisms, lots of exceptions, covers pretty much all bases.

No wonder people are getting insights out of the book. It is practically impossible not to!

Life changing and powerful. Simply no other book will make you as introspective as this.

IMO The next closest thing - in terms of creating introspection - is a psychedelic / psychotropic experience with accompanying ego-death [1].

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death

I like the principles in the book, but it could have been edited down to about a 1/3rd the length. It reads like transcriptions of his lectures, rather than something intended to be prose.

I'll add a recommendation for the condensed audio version of "Maps of Meaning" available on his podcast. From Amazon's blurb on the book: "A cutting-edge work that brings together neuropsychology, cognitive science, and Freudian and Jungian approaches to mythology and narrative, Maps of Meaning presents a rich theory that makes the wisdom and meaning of myth accessible to the critical modern mind."

You remember how Ryan Holiday got pretty famous quite a while back? I like Jordan Peterson, but I fear that he's the same kind of phenomenon. He's just curating all these sources, and we view him as a genius and a pancea for our anxiety ridden young adults.

Nothing wrong with curating sources, is there? Yes, in large he is sharing his learnings from studying old sources. Mostly religious. Not all Christian. But mostly.

I think he would be delighted if he got more people to go to the sources. I could, of course, be wrong.

Not neccessarily anything wrong with him. It's just our tendency to flock to these figures to the answers of our problems, and perhaps they fix a couple people for a five year span, but a new generation washes in, and another guy will get his shine. Information doesn't fix anything. He's just cashing in.

This comment is leaving me with some pause. Quite frankly, I didn't even know the name of the author, and would have stared at anyone blankly that said it. Still would, oddly.

I did enjoy his reading of his book. And I will admit that I found some of the ideas more compelling than I would have thought seeing them on paper. In particular, the religious overtones are somewhat offputting to me, on paper. Will see how I feel about them after a few day's reflection.

To the point of this post, however. If he his being pushed as a savior of some sort, I agree that is misguided. However, based on their merits, many of the arguments were compelling and I'm interested to see where they can be taken.

So, to that end, I'm not sure what the criticism "he's just cashing in" has to do offer here. What, exactly, are you accusing him of? Successfully presenting his arguments? Is that really such a bad thing?

I am not accusing peterson of anything. I'm just trying to predict the future. He seems like an icon. Something long lasting. He's just another figurehead, and anyone could have filled his place. This is just tides turning. This is just a hiccup in the universe. He will go away, he will try to stick around, and it will be ugly. But he will fade away. He will go mainstream. It won't matter. This is just entertainment. It's not real help. It's not therapy. It's not a fix for the underlying issue of our society and our males.

You accuse him of "cashing in." If that is meant as a value free statement, my apologies. You then state that "he seems like an icon. Something long lasting."

Oddly, he just seems like an author, to me. If he is a figurehead, I missed that there was a movement. Is there more subtext to this? I assumed he just had a good seller. Oddly, many people can and do lay claim to that honor. It neither diminishes nor distinguishes it.

Another commenter said Peterson is not an empty self-help guru. I suspect the only difference between the "real deal" and an "empty self-help guru" is how much we like the person.

I suspect that there are no real deals out there at all. Or if they are out there, they aren't writing books about it or recording youtube videos to redpill us.