You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.37 AVERAGE
3.37 AVERAGE
challenging
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
An amazing audiobook. If I would have had the physical copy of this book it would be highlighted and I would have had to reread sections to let the words and concepts truly take root in my mind.
informative
reflective
slow-paced
There are good things in this book, but I found it bloated and full of side stories that did not add anything to the main rules. Some parts are very good though, I enjoyed the parenting stuff. But it took discipline to finish since at times he kept going on side stuff that was not interesting at all to me
Asked to read by niece. I had no idea who this writer was. I’m on the upper side of 50, and this has no mysteries to unpack for me. Some decent rules, a lot of extra words and psychology that perhaps someone needs. I may inherently agree with rule nine: assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t,” but I’m of an age to decide that I don’t need to read this much to find a nugget. I value my own time and judgment, which might fall under rule two, treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping.
Some parenting bits in rule 5 that I mostly agree with, having already raised my children.
Some parenting bits in rule 5 that I mostly agree with, having already raised my children.
reflective
medium-paced
I finished this book as an exercise in critical thinking. Peterson's arguments are messy even on points where I agree with him, I tend to disagree with how he got there. On gender relations he looks at a biological view of women having limited mating opportunities then jumps to post women's sexual liberation where we were able to have more freedom of choice in mate and if we wanted one at all. He ignores most of human history where women were not free to choose their partners. This is just one example where Peterson cherry picks his evidence or sets up a strawman argument to knock down.
I expected more. I did not know anything about the author, his view, or this book when I picked it up other than it was popular on Goodreads.
I expected more. I did not know anything about the author, his view, or this book when I picked it up other than it was popular on Goodreads.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Picked this up out of curiosity. I have been pondering what to say about it. I understand why so many have found direction through Peterson’s writing: he has taken effort to develop a coherent account of his life philosophy. It’s an argument for a return to a more ambitious and constructive approach to social commentary. Pity Peterson’s philosophy is so harsh and hollow. Rated 1 star not out of indignation, but because I found the book slow going and profoundly depressing.
Verbose christian book attempting to pose as some type of philosophical treatise
It's hard to single out one theme for criticism in this poorly written, shoddily argued, and critically weak book, but I'll settle for the idea that bullies perform an important positive social function as one we can easily dismiss. The author's claim is that without bullying, growing up (parents shouldn't intervene), at school (playground harassment is good), and in the work place (glorification of work place tyranny), men become feminised and socially awkward. Of course, the social fitting the author prizes is largely one of conformity, economic security, and minimal personal distinctiveness. In defence of the obviousness of this argument the author presents a childhood crush between fictional cartoon characters (Maggie Simpson and Nelson Muntz).
It's daunting to imagine what kind of people, and in particular, what kind of men would emerge if this book's precepts were following society-wide. Of course, the arguments are not new, this kind of rant about the weakening and feminisation of men dates back to the roots of the industrial revolution. But, in this form, with the glorification of bullying and the accompanying lack of vulnerability and personal distinctiveness that flows from it, one wonders how this author's ideal world would have any room for artistry and creativity. Maybe it wouldn't. And, maybe that's the point.
It's daunting to imagine what kind of people, and in particular, what kind of men would emerge if this book's precepts were following society-wide. Of course, the arguments are not new, this kind of rant about the weakening and feminisation of men dates back to the roots of the industrial revolution. But, in this form, with the glorification of bullying and the accompanying lack of vulnerability and personal distinctiveness that flows from it, one wonders how this author's ideal world would have any room for artistry and creativity. Maybe it wouldn't. And, maybe that's the point.
I was frustrated by how many bible references there were in this book. I lost some of his points because they were too steeped in Christian ideology. I can appreciate a smattering of them here and there, but I began losing some of his points because of them. It turned out to be more of a religious book than a philosophical or self-improvement book. He did have some great points, but they were so buried among religious ideas that it was really hard to get to and appreciate.
Also, he is a psychoanalyst. He writes about some of his experiences in that realm. I really liked those stories and points, and it seemed to bring more prevalence to those ideas. He also talks about some of his experiences as a parent. Those were okay as well. His experiences with other people in his life and stories of growing up were fine. These even added to some of his points. But by spending such a huge portion of his book referring to the Bible and Christian ideology, it made him lose some credibility. Not because he is Christian or values these things, but because you can’t mix psychology and religion effectively.
Mixing these two together creates chaos, which is exactly what this book is supposed to be fighting against. Anytime you bring religion into anything, chaos will ensue. It’s inevitable. Even among Christians of the same sect, there is dissension. Christians don’t agree on what the Bible means, who god is, and the meaning of Christ’s life. So how can introducing that bag of cats into a psychologist’s work be beneficial in being an antidote to chaos? It can’t be. It only opens the floodgates for chaos.
This being said, there were certainly some extremely good nuggets of information in this book. He has a sort of fire and brimstone element to the way he presents his information though, which is not exactly helpful for making me want to listen. No one wants to be preached to. It also didn’t help that he “modestly” brags in the beginning of the book. His voice after reading the first part was enough for me to not finish the book, but I did. There were chapters that were easy to get through and others that I wanted to put it down and never pick back up.
Sadly, because of the way he writes, I didn’t glean much from what he said. I wish he would rewrite this in a way that’s more approachable to people who do not believe the way he does. Maybe then it wouldn’t cause so much chaos in my own opinion about his presentation of information. In his attempt to rid his readers of chaos, he just left me lacking any clarity. Not because I didn’t understand his ideas, but because I was too distracted by the way he tried to present them.
Also, he is a psychoanalyst. He writes about some of his experiences in that realm. I really liked those stories and points, and it seemed to bring more prevalence to those ideas. He also talks about some of his experiences as a parent. Those were okay as well. His experiences with other people in his life and stories of growing up were fine. These even added to some of his points. But by spending such a huge portion of his book referring to the Bible and Christian ideology, it made him lose some credibility. Not because he is Christian or values these things, but because you can’t mix psychology and religion effectively.
Mixing these two together creates chaos, which is exactly what this book is supposed to be fighting against. Anytime you bring religion into anything, chaos will ensue. It’s inevitable. Even among Christians of the same sect, there is dissension. Christians don’t agree on what the Bible means, who god is, and the meaning of Christ’s life. So how can introducing that bag of cats into a psychologist’s work be beneficial in being an antidote to chaos? It can’t be. It only opens the floodgates for chaos.
This being said, there were certainly some extremely good nuggets of information in this book. He has a sort of fire and brimstone element to the way he presents his information though, which is not exactly helpful for making me want to listen. No one wants to be preached to. It also didn’t help that he “modestly” brags in the beginning of the book. His voice after reading the first part was enough for me to not finish the book, but I did. There were chapters that were easy to get through and others that I wanted to put it down and never pick back up.
Sadly, because of the way he writes, I didn’t glean much from what he said. I wish he would rewrite this in a way that’s more approachable to people who do not believe the way he does. Maybe then it wouldn’t cause so much chaos in my own opinion about his presentation of information. In his attempt to rid his readers of chaos, he just left me lacking any clarity. Not because I didn’t understand his ideas, but because I was too distracted by the way he tried to present them.
Lots of wisdom in here, but it's burried under the constant introduction of new stories and examples. Some points stick and some don't. Took me quite some time to get through this book with how aimless it can feel at times.