Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.37 AVERAGE
3.37 AVERAGE
The book has a lot of complex ideas and can be difficult to read without your 100% attention. With that said Dr Peterson does an excellent job weaving these ideas into a cohesive narrative.
medium-paced
Some interesting psychology stuff, but mainly right wing messaging for the incel looking to no longer be a POS.
Although the primary tenets of the rules for living are solid, the author is self important and egotistical. There are clear themes of misogyny that were too difficult to read past.
Jordan Peterson's core argument is this: people avoid deep thinking because it's easier not to. While I agree that deep thought is beneficial, I don't think avoidance is the root cause. I’d argue that most people are either too focused on basic needs, according to Maslow’s hierarchy, to engage in introspection, or they’re simply not wise enough to realize introspection is import. People don’t think deeply because they can’t, not because they don’t want to. But this book isn’t meant for those people—it’s for people like me, who think The Self is a worthy subject.
So, what’s my take? Here's the deal: I’ve never quite been able to follow Jordan Peterson’s reasoning. It’s not that he lacks logic—it’s just that his delivery isn’t straightforward. He’s so adamant about the nobility of his philosophy that I wanted to hear him out. I tried really hard to follow along. But he rambles. I would’ve appreciated this book much more if the ideas were better organized, without the unnecessary detours through symbolism, archetypes, and human caricatures. “Know what you want, and once you do, share it.” There, JP, I just saved you ten pages.
He wrote 12 Rules for Life after his publicly-shared list went viral, and he padded the shit out of it to fill up a 400 page book. It should've stayed in list form. If these rules had been scrawled in Jordan Peterson's personal diary and published posthumously like Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, I’d have little to say about them. As rules for his life, they’re mostly fine. I have a few quibbles, but on the whole, Peterson is aiming for nobility in thought and action, and I can respect that. But this is a self-help book, and as such, the advice is meant to apply to everyone. And, as is often the case with books in this genre, it falls short of its promise.
The value of having read this book is that Peters' views of gender roles has given me pause. I'm not going to write about it here, but suffice it to say, I have some things to ruminate over. I appreciate the chance to grow. Additionally, he's gave me useful advice for how to be an active listener which I intend to put into action. Goes to show there's almost always a thread of unity between all people.
So, what’s my take? Here's the deal: I’ve never quite been able to follow Jordan Peterson’s reasoning. It’s not that he lacks logic—it’s just that his delivery isn’t straightforward. He’s so adamant about the nobility of his philosophy that I wanted to hear him out. I tried really hard to follow along. But he rambles. I would’ve appreciated this book much more if the ideas were better organized, without the unnecessary detours through symbolism, archetypes, and human caricatures. “Know what you want, and once you do, share it.” There, JP, I just saved you ten pages.
He wrote 12 Rules for Life after his publicly-shared list went viral, and he padded the shit out of it to fill up a 400 page book. It should've stayed in list form. If these rules had been scrawled in Jordan Peterson's personal diary and published posthumously like Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, I’d have little to say about them. As rules for his life, they’re mostly fine. I have a few quibbles, but on the whole, Peterson is aiming for nobility in thought and action, and I can respect that. But this is a self-help book, and as such, the advice is meant to apply to everyone. And, as is often the case with books in this genre, it falls short of its promise.
The value of having read this book is that Peters' views of gender roles has given me pause. I'm not going to write about it here, but suffice it to say, I have some things to ruminate over. I appreciate the chance to grow. Additionally, he's gave me useful advice for how to be an active listener which I intend to put into action. Goes to show there's almost always a thread of unity between all people.
I was so overwhelmed by all the information that it was hard to process. I spaced out several times while reading and didn't even bother going back to re-read because it was just rambling about how humans are like lobsters and crustaceans, the Bible, men are order, women are chaos, the Disney movie Frozen is propaganda...
I ended up reading an online review of his book because I really wanted to know what all the hype is about. The author of one of the reviews I read had been to one of Peterson's lectures and in his review, he said, "...he sometimes appeared to be in the thrall of his ideas and would not, or could not, constrain himself and self-monitor what he was saying." To me, that totally comes through in this book. Peterson goes on and on and on... It made me think of that scene in The Office where Michael Scott is talking to Dave Wallace, and then it cuts to Michael, who says, "Sometimes I'll start a sentence, and I don't even know where it's going. I just hope I find it along the way." That's what it felt like reading this book. Like, Peterson had all these little stories he wanted to tell and somehow he had to make them fit a rule, but he wasn't sure how he was going to do that.
One thing that will stick with me from this book is from the Coda. He says that we should be grateful for the progress our ancestors have made; people have suffered immensely. Although, I didn't ask to be born (that's a whole other conversation), I can appreciate that my parents have had a hard life and if they hadn't immigrated to the U.S., I would likely barely be literate and I, certainly, would not have time to sit around and read a book.
Overall, the rules are good and I know they've changed people's lives. I just wish he had been concise.
I ended up reading an online review of his book because I really wanted to know what all the hype is about. The author of one of the reviews I read had been to one of Peterson's lectures and in his review, he said, "...he sometimes appeared to be in the thrall of his ideas and would not, or could not, constrain himself and self-monitor what he was saying." To me, that totally comes through in this book. Peterson goes on and on and on... It made me think of that scene in The Office where Michael Scott is talking to Dave Wallace, and then it cuts to Michael, who says, "Sometimes I'll start a sentence, and I don't even know where it's going. I just hope I find it along the way." That's what it felt like reading this book. Like, Peterson had all these little stories he wanted to tell and somehow he had to make them fit a rule, but he wasn't sure how he was going to do that.
One thing that will stick with me from this book is from the Coda. He says that we should be grateful for the progress our ancestors have made; people have suffered immensely. Although, I didn't ask to be born (that's a whole other conversation), I can appreciate that my parents have had a hard life and if they hadn't immigrated to the U.S., I would likely barely be literate and I, certainly, would not have time to sit around and read a book.
Overall, the rules are good and I know they've changed people's lives. I just wish he had been concise.
Much can be said about Jordan B. Peterson, but that’s not the subject of this review. His book ain’t bad, I agree with pretty much of all his rules, but… the reasoning he uses to get to them, or to justify them, is farfetched or even naïve, I find. They are not solid arguments or facts, but rather stories and anecdotes that would expect from someone with a less critical mind. If you are well-versed with the self-help genre, this book will add nothing to your repertoire.
I understand why so many people have been helped by the advice in this book, but it wasn't really my cup of tea. As a humanist/atheist the endless analysis of Biblical stories (& Disney movies) didn't resonate with me (although apparently I'm not an atheist because I haven't become a serial killer as well...?) and there is a lot of repetition and waffle that obscures the elements of good advice that are present.
I found a lot of the advice aimed specifically at men, which would be fine, if it didn't seem to purposely exclude women too. I don't think Peterson is necessarily sexist, but apparently women need to focus on being the "sacred mother", while men get to focus on behaving morally? A lot of emphasis is made on taking responsibility for yourself, which is later undermined by complaints about boys/men having a hard time of it due to society preferring women/ trying to 'feminize' them. I also found it rather convenient that civilisation & order are characterised as male, apparently due to myths (& especially the Bible) that symbolise it as such. I wonder why that might be. Surely not because for millennia men were the ones with power to write those myths?
Overall, I preferred the sections where he didn't make a point of differentiating on gender as though women don't care about being strong, responsible, and courageous too (i.e. as full human beings). The analysis of the horrors of the Soviet Union/communism was also quite shallow and simple. Perhaps I misread something (I was skimming parts of it by then), but Peterson seems to be arguing that the atrocities committed are because of the psychological repression/lies of the citizens. That may be an element, but it's one among many and seems to confuse causation to a ridiculous extent. The idea that telling a well-meant white lie will pave the way for totalitarian despotism is a slippery slope argument if ever I heard one.
That's not to say there aren't some interesting, useful points made and I might recommend it to some young people despite the waffle, but only reservedly.
I found a lot of the advice aimed specifically at men, which would be fine, if it didn't seem to purposely exclude women too. I don't think Peterson is necessarily sexist, but apparently women need to focus on being the "sacred mother", while men get to focus on behaving morally? A lot of emphasis is made on taking responsibility for yourself, which is later undermined by complaints about boys/men having a hard time of it due to society preferring women/ trying to 'feminize' them. I also found it rather convenient that civilisation & order are characterised as male, apparently due to myths (& especially the Bible) that symbolise it as such. I wonder why that might be. Surely not because for millennia men were the ones with power to write those myths?
Overall, I preferred the sections where he didn't make a point of differentiating on gender as though women don't care about being strong, responsible, and courageous too (i.e. as full human beings). The analysis of the horrors of the Soviet Union/communism was also quite shallow and simple. Perhaps I misread something (I was skimming parts of it by then), but Peterson seems to be arguing that the atrocities committed are because of the psychological repression/lies of the citizens. That may be an element, but it's one among many and seems to confuse causation to a ridiculous extent. The idea that telling a well-meant white lie will pave the way for totalitarian despotism is a slippery slope argument if ever I heard one.
That's not to say there aren't some interesting, useful points made and I might recommend it to some young people despite the waffle, but only reservedly.
Phenomenal book! So real. Such sound principles!