Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.37 AVERAGE
3.37 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
This could’ve been chopped in half. Some good rules to live by, but strange religious references that didn’t fit or make sense. It was so slow and repetitive that I began to skim through about halfway in.
I initially heard Jordan B Peterson on a podcast (Art of Manliness) and thoroughly enjoyed his perspectives at the time on masculinity, work ethic, and religion. Unfortunately, after painstakingly reading over 350 pages I began to dislike his thoughts more and more with each step. What do I have against this brilliant self-help therapist? For one, I believe he’s intellectually dishonest. Something I’ve seen with certain western writers do in projecting the a dominance of white make superiority blatantly by only quoting or referencing thoughts that serve his point. Take for example Peterson’s deliberate attempt to not quote anything from Islamic sources on the creation story (yet everything else is quoted if it supports his view).
I think what bothered me most about his world view as he presents it, is this idea that women and minorities are in the state they are in due to their own actions. This excuses years of genocide on natives, slavery, Jim Crow laws, and continuing misogynist sexism. Lastly, he makes every problem with the human condition the result of socialism, to the point where his examples are laughable.
For some, this book will reinforce and validate their ego and world view, but only if that some is of a certain gender, race, and economic status. I’d donate this book but don’t want to promote such garbage.
I think what bothered me most about his world view as he presents it, is this idea that women and minorities are in the state they are in due to their own actions. This excuses years of genocide on natives, slavery, Jim Crow laws, and continuing misogynist sexism. Lastly, he makes every problem with the human condition the result of socialism, to the point where his examples are laughable.
For some, this book will reinforce and validate their ego and world view, but only if that some is of a certain gender, race, and economic status. I’d donate this book but don’t want to promote such garbage.
If you strip it of the few chapters that are almost only bible study - it becomes an interesting take on parts of modern culture.
It's obvious, that his job writing this book was to expand on 12 simple lines of advice - some chapters are way to long and doesn't properly underpin the "rule", but overall it's a nice read. Some interesting statistics towards the end.
As with anything though - be critical..
It's obvious, that his job writing this book was to expand on 12 simple lines of advice - some chapters are way to long and doesn't properly underpin the "rule", but overall it's a nice read. Some interesting statistics towards the end.
As with anything though - be critical..
Dieses Buch ist das erste, bei dem ich am liebsten 3,5 Sterne geben würde. Ich entscheide mich ganz egoistisch für 3 Sterne. Um die generelle Bewertung ein wenig mehr in meine Richtung zu verschieben, wenn auch verschwindend gering.
Jordan B Peterson’s Buch enthält viele wundervolle Passagen. Es hat mich mehrmals dazu gebracht meinen Lesefluss zu stoppen, vom Buch aufzublicken und mich von den einzelnen persönlichen Geschichten bewegt zu fühlen. Das ist für meine Verhältnisse etwas besonderes. Der Satzbau und seine Ausdrucksweise gefallen mir sehr.
Auch die „12 Rules for life“ sind treffend und haben einen großen Mehrwert für mich. Wobei die meisten der Prinzipen mir nicht neu erscheinen schadet es dennoch nicht, sie ab und an erneut dargelegt zu bekommen. Vor allem aus der Sicht eines anderen Menschen. Und deren Begründung. Und hier greifen auch meine größeren Kritikpunkte:
Zu Beginn gibt Peterson an, dass er sich ausgiebig mit verschiedenen Glaubensrichtungen und deren Philosophien auseinandergesetzt hat. Ich will ihm nicht unterstellen, dies nicht getan zu haben. Ich will ihm jedoch vorwerfen bestimmte Glaubensrichtungen für „richtiger“, beziehungsweise „glaubhafter“ zu halten. Seine Regeln beinhalten viele (und leider ausschließlich) christliche Weltbilder und eben auch deren Konnotation. Das ist per se nichts verwerfliches, doch sich zu Beginn selbst einer gewissen Objektivität zuzuschreiben und sich dann nicht ein einziges Mal nennenswert auf andere Religionen zu beziehen ist für mich das Gegenteil von Objektivität. Natürlich bin auch ich nicht objektiv was meinen Glauben angeht. Aber im Gegenteil zu der Einleitung von Peterson behaupte ich das auch nicht.
Ganze Kapitel bestehen teilweise aus Bibelzitaten und er Geschichte von Adam und Eva, Cain und Abel, um einige Beispiele zu nennen. Daher lassen sich viele seiner Regeln eben auf ein stark westlich und christlich geprägtes Weltbild zurückführen. Das mag die meisten Leute ansprechen, aber eben viele ausschließen. Ich behaupte hier einfach einmal, dass ich als Buddhist mit diesen Regeln sich nicht so einfach übereinstimme. Und schon gar nicht mit deren Herleitung und Begründung. Deshalb finde ich die Regeln eher auf bestimmte Gemeinschaften zugeschnitten. Ich hätte etwas mehr Universalität schön gefunden.
Ein anderer Kritikpunkt ist eine stark konservative Sichtweise bei einigen Punkten, die ich für nicht mehr ganz zeitgemäß halte und auch hier deren Begründungen eher für vage erachte. Ein Beispiel ist sein Weltbild von Mann/männlich und Frau/weiblich. Ich will hier nicht im Detail seine Meinung dazu wiedergeben (und das könnte ich mir Verlaub auch nicht mehr präzise genug), aber er scheint die momentane Bewegung des Feminismus zumindest kritisch zu sehen.
Das darf man durchaus tun, aber sollte man dafür andere Gründe aufführen, als Peterson das tut. Er wird hier streng historisch und verweist darauf, wie das Verhältnis von Frau und Mann doch schon immer gewesen ist (Frauen suchen sich starke und intelligentere Partner zu ihrem Schutz, Männer wollen Unterlegene Frauen). Das mag seine Richtigkeit haben, aber die typische Schlussfolgerung, dass Sachen ja „schon immer so wahren“ hält in sich für mich keine Schlüssigkeit parat. Die Gefüge in denke wir leben haben sich in den letzten 100/200 Jahren massivst verschoben. Wir haben den Punkt erst vor kurzem überschritten, an dem der (leider zur jetzigen Zeit überwiegend nur der westliche) Mensch um sein nacktes Überleben kämpft. Alte Geschlechterrollen haben zu diesen Zeiten sicherlich einen wirklichen Mehrwert für das Überleben bedeutet. Gerade aber heute sind diese nicht mehr zu vergleichen mit den Sozialstrukturen, die wir besitzen oder gerade dabei sind aufzubauen.
Diese Kritikpunkte sind für mich keine Kleinigkeit. Deshalb haben sie ein starkes Gewicht auf meine Bewertung. Da die Regeln aber wie gesagt auch für mich viel lehrreiches enthalten und man diese auch mit anderen guten Gründen sicherlich untermauern kann würde ich wie gesagt gern mit 3,5 Sternen bewerten.
Jordan B Peterson’s Buch enthält viele wundervolle Passagen. Es hat mich mehrmals dazu gebracht meinen Lesefluss zu stoppen, vom Buch aufzublicken und mich von den einzelnen persönlichen Geschichten bewegt zu fühlen. Das ist für meine Verhältnisse etwas besonderes. Der Satzbau und seine Ausdrucksweise gefallen mir sehr.
Auch die „12 Rules for life“ sind treffend und haben einen großen Mehrwert für mich. Wobei die meisten der Prinzipen mir nicht neu erscheinen schadet es dennoch nicht, sie ab und an erneut dargelegt zu bekommen. Vor allem aus der Sicht eines anderen Menschen. Und deren Begründung. Und hier greifen auch meine größeren Kritikpunkte:
Zu Beginn gibt Peterson an, dass er sich ausgiebig mit verschiedenen Glaubensrichtungen und deren Philosophien auseinandergesetzt hat. Ich will ihm nicht unterstellen, dies nicht getan zu haben. Ich will ihm jedoch vorwerfen bestimmte Glaubensrichtungen für „richtiger“, beziehungsweise „glaubhafter“ zu halten. Seine Regeln beinhalten viele (und leider ausschließlich) christliche Weltbilder und eben auch deren Konnotation. Das ist per se nichts verwerfliches, doch sich zu Beginn selbst einer gewissen Objektivität zuzuschreiben und sich dann nicht ein einziges Mal nennenswert auf andere Religionen zu beziehen ist für mich das Gegenteil von Objektivität. Natürlich bin auch ich nicht objektiv was meinen Glauben angeht. Aber im Gegenteil zu der Einleitung von Peterson behaupte ich das auch nicht.
Ganze Kapitel bestehen teilweise aus Bibelzitaten und er Geschichte von Adam und Eva, Cain und Abel, um einige Beispiele zu nennen. Daher lassen sich viele seiner Regeln eben auf ein stark westlich und christlich geprägtes Weltbild zurückführen. Das mag die meisten Leute ansprechen, aber eben viele ausschließen. Ich behaupte hier einfach einmal, dass ich als Buddhist mit diesen Regeln sich nicht so einfach übereinstimme. Und schon gar nicht mit deren Herleitung und Begründung. Deshalb finde ich die Regeln eher auf bestimmte Gemeinschaften zugeschnitten. Ich hätte etwas mehr Universalität schön gefunden.
Ein anderer Kritikpunkt ist eine stark konservative Sichtweise bei einigen Punkten, die ich für nicht mehr ganz zeitgemäß halte und auch hier deren Begründungen eher für vage erachte. Ein Beispiel ist sein Weltbild von Mann/männlich und Frau/weiblich. Ich will hier nicht im Detail seine Meinung dazu wiedergeben (und das könnte ich mir Verlaub auch nicht mehr präzise genug), aber er scheint die momentane Bewegung des Feminismus zumindest kritisch zu sehen.
Das darf man durchaus tun, aber sollte man dafür andere Gründe aufführen, als Peterson das tut. Er wird hier streng historisch und verweist darauf, wie das Verhältnis von Frau und Mann doch schon immer gewesen ist (Frauen suchen sich starke und intelligentere Partner zu ihrem Schutz, Männer wollen Unterlegene Frauen). Das mag seine Richtigkeit haben, aber die typische Schlussfolgerung, dass Sachen ja „schon immer so wahren“ hält in sich für mich keine Schlüssigkeit parat. Die Gefüge in denke wir leben haben sich in den letzten 100/200 Jahren massivst verschoben. Wir haben den Punkt erst vor kurzem überschritten, an dem der (leider zur jetzigen Zeit überwiegend nur der westliche) Mensch um sein nacktes Überleben kämpft. Alte Geschlechterrollen haben zu diesen Zeiten sicherlich einen wirklichen Mehrwert für das Überleben bedeutet. Gerade aber heute sind diese nicht mehr zu vergleichen mit den Sozialstrukturen, die wir besitzen oder gerade dabei sind aufzubauen.
Diese Kritikpunkte sind für mich keine Kleinigkeit. Deshalb haben sie ein starkes Gewicht auf meine Bewertung. Da die Regeln aber wie gesagt auch für mich viel lehrreiches enthalten und man diese auch mit anderen guten Gründen sicherlich untermauern kann würde ich wie gesagt gern mit 3,5 Sternen bewerten.
While Jordan Peterson makes some very valuable, insightful, and researched points, I wished the book was a bit more succinct. This was a bit harder to read then I anticipated. I would recommend, however more as a guidebook.
Some interesting things to say but I really didn’t like the writing style. It had too many words sometimes.
I'm a researcher and the biggest issue with Jordan's work is the way he uses his sources to support his arguments. I've read other reviews on here that discuss all the ways his ideas must be "correct" because he's citing sources. But, you need to look at how he cites these sources. Jordan will introduce a study (often something from the mid-to-late 19th Century, a few studies from the 2000s+, or the bible...so much bible) and then apply it to a completely different context. It's not that you can't apply a theory or a set of findings to a unique context, but as a researcher, you need to describe how these contexts differ and what limitations there are in your comparison and analysis. He doesn't do this.
He's very selective with what kinds of work he uses to support his arguments - not providing an understanding of both sides of the argument to let the reader decide for themselves whether the evidence can speak for itself. While I acknowledge that this book is supposed to be for a lay audience, Jordan's use of evidence is so limited, it's like he doesn't think his readers can think for themselves.
Jordan's second biggest issue (which is equal to his misuse of evidence), is that he can't stay in his own lane. He has a PhD in Psychology and is a Clinical Psychologist. It's odd then that he pulls most of his work from the bible or uses examples from disciplines like anthropology. It's not to say that he can't be a discerning reader and critical thinker and use texts outside psychology, but graduate students and academics spend years delving deep into these areas. For example, I take exception to Jordan's use of a few anthropological case studies. First, his brief mention of the !Kung People (who are known as the San people to any contemporary Anthropologist) or his use of Chagnon’s work with the Yanomami people (p. 121-122). His inclusion of both these populations as case studies for murderous traits among hunter-gathers (without any context or discussion from updated sources of these cases), as a reason to acknowledge the pacifying effects of urban settings (this is quite a leap) - demonstrate his limited understanding of this work. Pick up any Anthropology 101 textbook and you'll find evidence of this. For those of you who would tell me to 'stay in my own lane', well, this is it. I have a PhD in sociocultural anthropology and teach Anth 101 every semester.
And it's not just me that takes issue with his misuse of scientific work.
Here is a review article from Psych Central (written by John Grohol who is a white, male psychologist and PhD - I give his identity characteristics to acknowledge that Dr. Grohol is arguably one of the target readers for Jordan's book). Dr. Grohol discusses each chapter (rule) and the worth (usefulness - or in this case, a lack thereof) of this book as a 'self-help' book:
Book review: 12 Rules for Life by John M. Grohol: https://psychcentral.com/lib/book-review-12-rules-for-life-an-antidote-to-chaos/
I've read some comments responding to other 1-star reviews and people are say, “well you don't understand this book because you haven't read the original book: Maps of meaning!!!” Ya, well, check out Paul Thagard's abysmal review of that book as well - Dr. Thagard is a Canadian philosopher and cognitive scientist with a PhD in Philosophy (thanks N. R.). He breaks down Jordan's misuse of even the psychological theory he includes: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning
Have more questions about Jordan's pseudo-scientific claims? Me too - and so do these people:
Jordan's use of evidence is extremely skewed when looking at his work comparison of animal to human behaviours. For example, his comparison to lobsters is seriously misinformed (check out this article by Leonor Gonçalves who is a Research Associate in Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, UCL):
https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489
Or Bailey Steinworth's article on the presence of hermaphrodite sea species:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/04/jordan-peterson-needs-to-reconsider-the-lobster/?utm_term=.361310fa9783
It's a fact that Jordan conveniently ignores examples in the animal kingdom that would disprove his theories. Why for example, does he focus on only certain behaviours of Chimpanzees (not providing a more holistic overview) and ignores Bonobos (another hominoid - close relative of humans) as suitable comparisons?
See Dr. Frans de Waal's work on this: https://www.ft.com/content/da283f36-3f9e-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44
Or check out this article by Dr. Eric Michael Johnson:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/the-better-bonobos-of-our-nature/
He likely doesn’t do this because he's NOT AN EXPERT in these areas.
You're likely going to @ me because I'm providing only ‘contrary evidence’ to Jordan's. Well, I acknowledge that Jordan's work does pull from real existing work; HOWEVER, as mentioned above, he misuses and avoids the context of these studies (i.e. he doesn’t include what other scientists in their field think about the work he’s using).
For example, check out this piece on whether and why human females may prefer larger dominant males (by Beatrice Alba):
https://theconversation.com/women-show-sexual-preference-for-tall-dominant-men-so-is-gender-inequality-inevitable-98159
I appreciate this article because - like anthropologists - it uses a biocultural perspective to understand this phenomenon.
This, like many of Jordan's ideas, are so much more complicated than what Jordan lays out. And if you think that he didn't have time to discuss his arguments more holistically, I can tell you that his editors were ASLEEP on the job - that there was lots of room to include any and all of the rebuttal work. If Jordan really wanted to make his case, he needed to provide all the data and let the reader decide whether they agreed with his evidence.
Okay, if that's not enough (hey, if you've made it this far, congrats!) perhaps maybe you could question this book for the way Jordan lumps together the 'liberal left' into a bucket of postmodernism. To describe this group – which must be what…hundreds of thousands of people – if not millions – he uses 1 citation (and even that citation - from its title seems only to cover postmodernism up to the 1970s and not beyond - that is 50 - fifty - years ago and surprise...a lot has happened).
In any case, these Pomos are the 'big baddies' of his intended readership. He argues that Pomos are trying to change the world as we know it - to open up a playing field that has historically benefited from colonialism and contemporary systemic racist infrastructure - to let others in. He connects this thought with the idea that Pomos are ruining universities with their social revolutionary speak promoting equity for all - and yet doesn't address the fact that the first goal of post-secondary institutions is to teach critical thinking.
If they're teaching critical thinking, then students and graduates will be able to think *gasp* for themselves.
Post-secondary institutions have freedom of speech policies in place so that individuals from many walks of life and experiences can discuss their various ideas (although Canadian universities still struggle to bring in diverse voices considering the majority continue to hire and promote white, heterosexual men: https://www.ualberta.ca/arts/faculty-news/2018/march/political-scientist-malinda-s-smith-leads-the-fight-for-equity-diversity-and-inclusion).
This broad brush that Jordan uses to paint ALL universities (in Canada anyway) everywhere as left-liberal elite powerhouses is simply not true. Attend at administrative or faculty meeting and you'll see that there is a great diversity of thought.
Jordan also fails to argue against any research or work that has shown the benefits (for even his readership – white, heterosexual males) if there should be greater equity for all:
https://theconversation.com/fixing-gender-gaps-isnt-just-about-women-men-will-benefit-from-a-more-equal-society-too-94874
He makes many spurious claims including that to engender a more equitable society, according to Jordan, society must undergo a social revolution (118). He uses liberalizing divorce laws as an indicator that liberalizing society has negative consequences...based solely on his opinion...?
See another opinion on this, Alex Klein's article: http://dailycampus.com/stories/2018/3/21/jordan-peterson-puts-facts-aside-to-defend-retrograde-thinking
All this, and I haven’t taken the usual exception to his:
1. Trivializing slavery (which was wrong! But…you know…had its uses – pg. 186 - 187). No Jordan, a combine harvester is useful when farming…not HUMANS who were kidnapped, murdered, tortured, raped, confined, etc.
2. His victim blaming of a rape victim (p. 238)
3. His degradation of those living with mental illness, his friends and other patients (e.g. the 'smell' of his friend Chris, p.294)
4. His mischaracterization of Indigenous peoples as violent (p.291) – despite his first example displaying non-violence
5. His mischaracterization of Quebecois as drunk aggressive people (p.208-209)
6. Or beating (just minimal beating…) your children (Chapter 5)
7. Or how every time he speaks of a terrible regime or mass murder, he uses non-Western examples, e.g. off the cuff reference to the Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang (p. 121). While he does mention the Sandy Hooks serial killers as ‘bad’ (Chapter 6), he spends the rest of the chapter humanizing them (describing their diaries) and decrying the society that has left them feeling unsupported. "How can a person who is awake avoid outrage at the world?" (p. 151). Yep I acknowledge that he states that their murders were terrible. But these few words present little rebuttal for the arguments he makes throughout the rest of the chapter.
8. And finally, chapter 11 where he tells women like myself to be satisfied with raising a family and to leave the career work to men (GFY). See…I waited all the way until the end to put in this comment. Kudos to me.
Finally – and I mean it – finally:
Is anyone curious as to why I’m referring to the author as Jordan?
It’s because he’s misusing his credentials as a Clinical Psychologist (as you can see, he may be an expert clinical psychologist, but he’s way, waaaaay far out of his areas of expertise in this book). My goal is to highlight how much of this book is Jordan’s opinion – but he’s getting a bigger soap box because readers and journalists are conflating his degrees with expertise. Stop giving this author credit where it’s not due. Avoid this book – or like me – if you want to be able to respond to critics or discuss this work as a cultural force (which it is), rent it from the library.
He's very selective with what kinds of work he uses to support his arguments - not providing an understanding of both sides of the argument to let the reader decide for themselves whether the evidence can speak for itself. While I acknowledge that this book is supposed to be for a lay audience, Jordan's use of evidence is so limited, it's like he doesn't think his readers can think for themselves.
Jordan's second biggest issue (which is equal to his misuse of evidence), is that he can't stay in his own lane. He has a PhD in Psychology and is a Clinical Psychologist. It's odd then that he pulls most of his work from the bible or uses examples from disciplines like anthropology. It's not to say that he can't be a discerning reader and critical thinker and use texts outside psychology, but graduate students and academics spend years delving deep into these areas. For example, I take exception to Jordan's use of a few anthropological case studies. First, his brief mention of the !Kung People (who are known as the San people to any contemporary Anthropologist) or his use of Chagnon’s work with the Yanomami people (p. 121-122). His inclusion of both these populations as case studies for murderous traits among hunter-gathers (without any context or discussion from updated sources of these cases), as a reason to acknowledge the pacifying effects of urban settings (this is quite a leap) - demonstrate his limited understanding of this work. Pick up any Anthropology 101 textbook and you'll find evidence of this. For those of you who would tell me to 'stay in my own lane', well, this is it. I have a PhD in sociocultural anthropology and teach Anth 101 every semester.
And it's not just me that takes issue with his misuse of scientific work.
Here is a review article from Psych Central (written by John Grohol who is a white, male psychologist and PhD - I give his identity characteristics to acknowledge that Dr. Grohol is arguably one of the target readers for Jordan's book). Dr. Grohol discusses each chapter (rule) and the worth (usefulness - or in this case, a lack thereof) of this book as a 'self-help' book:
Book review: 12 Rules for Life by John M. Grohol: https://psychcentral.com/lib/book-review-12-rules-for-life-an-antidote-to-chaos/
I've read some comments responding to other 1-star reviews and people are say, “well you don't understand this book because you haven't read the original book: Maps of meaning!!!” Ya, well, check out Paul Thagard's abysmal review of that book as well - Dr. Thagard is a Canadian philosopher and cognitive scientist with a PhD in Philosophy (thanks N. R.). He breaks down Jordan's misuse of even the psychological theory he includes: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/hot-thought/201803/jordan-petersons-murky-maps-meaning
Have more questions about Jordan's pseudo-scientific claims? Me too - and so do these people:
Jordan's use of evidence is extremely skewed when looking at his work comparison of animal to human behaviours. For example, his comparison to lobsters is seriously misinformed (check out this article by Leonor Gonçalves who is a Research Associate in Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, UCL):
https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489
Or Bailey Steinworth's article on the presence of hermaphrodite sea species:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/04/jordan-peterson-needs-to-reconsider-the-lobster/?utm_term=.361310fa9783
It's a fact that Jordan conveniently ignores examples in the animal kingdom that would disprove his theories. Why for example, does he focus on only certain behaviours of Chimpanzees (not providing a more holistic overview) and ignores Bonobos (another hominoid - close relative of humans) as suitable comparisons?
See Dr. Frans de Waal's work on this: https://www.ft.com/content/da283f36-3f9e-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44
Or check out this article by Dr. Eric Michael Johnson:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/the-better-bonobos-of-our-nature/
He likely doesn’t do this because he's NOT AN EXPERT in these areas.
You're likely going to @ me because I'm providing only ‘contrary evidence’ to Jordan's. Well, I acknowledge that Jordan's work does pull from real existing work; HOWEVER, as mentioned above, he misuses and avoids the context of these studies (i.e. he doesn’t include what other scientists in their field think about the work he’s using).
For example, check out this piece on whether and why human females may prefer larger dominant males (by Beatrice Alba):
https://theconversation.com/women-show-sexual-preference-for-tall-dominant-men-so-is-gender-inequality-inevitable-98159
I appreciate this article because - like anthropologists - it uses a biocultural perspective to understand this phenomenon.
This, like many of Jordan's ideas, are so much more complicated than what Jordan lays out. And if you think that he didn't have time to discuss his arguments more holistically, I can tell you that his editors were ASLEEP on the job - that there was lots of room to include any and all of the rebuttal work. If Jordan really wanted to make his case, he needed to provide all the data and let the reader decide whether they agreed with his evidence.
Okay, if that's not enough (hey, if you've made it this far, congrats!) perhaps maybe you could question this book for the way Jordan lumps together the 'liberal left' into a bucket of postmodernism. To describe this group – which must be what…hundreds of thousands of people – if not millions – he uses 1 citation (and even that citation - from its title seems only to cover postmodernism up to the 1970s and not beyond - that is 50 - fifty - years ago and surprise...a lot has happened).
In any case, these Pomos are the 'big baddies' of his intended readership. He argues that Pomos are trying to change the world as we know it - to open up a playing field that has historically benefited from colonialism and contemporary systemic racist infrastructure - to let others in. He connects this thought with the idea that Pomos are ruining universities with their social revolutionary speak promoting equity for all - and yet doesn't address the fact that the first goal of post-secondary institutions is to teach critical thinking.
If they're teaching critical thinking, then students and graduates will be able to think *gasp* for themselves.
Post-secondary institutions have freedom of speech policies in place so that individuals from many walks of life and experiences can discuss their various ideas (although Canadian universities still struggle to bring in diverse voices considering the majority continue to hire and promote white, heterosexual men: https://www.ualberta.ca/arts/faculty-news/2018/march/political-scientist-malinda-s-smith-leads-the-fight-for-equity-diversity-and-inclusion).
This broad brush that Jordan uses to paint ALL universities (in Canada anyway) everywhere as left-liberal elite powerhouses is simply not true. Attend at administrative or faculty meeting and you'll see that there is a great diversity of thought.
Jordan also fails to argue against any research or work that has shown the benefits (for even his readership – white, heterosexual males) if there should be greater equity for all:
https://theconversation.com/fixing-gender-gaps-isnt-just-about-women-men-will-benefit-from-a-more-equal-society-too-94874
He makes many spurious claims including that to engender a more equitable society, according to Jordan, society must undergo a social revolution (118). He uses liberalizing divorce laws as an indicator that liberalizing society has negative consequences...based solely on his opinion...?
See another opinion on this, Alex Klein's article: http://dailycampus.com/stories/2018/3/21/jordan-peterson-puts-facts-aside-to-defend-retrograde-thinking
All this, and I haven’t taken the usual exception to his:
1. Trivializing slavery (which was wrong! But…you know…had its uses – pg. 186 - 187). No Jordan, a combine harvester is useful when farming…not HUMANS who were kidnapped, murdered, tortured, raped, confined, etc.
2. His victim blaming of a rape victim (p. 238)
3. His degradation of those living with mental illness, his friends and other patients (e.g. the 'smell' of his friend Chris, p.294)
4. His mischaracterization of Indigenous peoples as violent (p.291) – despite his first example displaying non-violence
5. His mischaracterization of Quebecois as drunk aggressive people (p.208-209)
6. Or beating (just minimal beating…) your children (Chapter 5)
7. Or how every time he speaks of a terrible regime or mass murder, he uses non-Western examples, e.g. off the cuff reference to the Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang (p. 121). While he does mention the Sandy Hooks serial killers as ‘bad’ (Chapter 6), he spends the rest of the chapter humanizing them (describing their diaries) and decrying the society that has left them feeling unsupported. "How can a person who is awake avoid outrage at the world?" (p. 151). Yep I acknowledge that he states that their murders were terrible. But these few words present little rebuttal for the arguments he makes throughout the rest of the chapter.
8. And finally, chapter 11 where he tells women like myself to be satisfied with raising a family and to leave the career work to men (GFY). See…I waited all the way until the end to put in this comment. Kudos to me.
Finally – and I mean it – finally:
Is anyone curious as to why I’m referring to the author as Jordan?
It’s because he’s misusing his credentials as a Clinical Psychologist (as you can see, he may be an expert clinical psychologist, but he’s way, waaaaay far out of his areas of expertise in this book). My goal is to highlight how much of this book is Jordan’s opinion – but he’s getting a bigger soap box because readers and journalists are conflating his degrees with expertise. Stop giving this author credit where it’s not due. Avoid this book – or like me – if you want to be able to respond to critics or discuss this work as a cultural force (which it is), rent it from the library.
Buena lectura. A ratos un poco pesada, pero buena en general.
Llegué a este libro después de ver la entrevista del autor con una conductora feminista (Cathy Newman).
Me hizo pensar en cosas que no había pensado, es un revoltijo de psicología, filosofía, historia y consejos de un padre sobre la vida. A ratos es muy doctrinal y alguno podría etiquetarlo de arcaico. Algunas propuestas pudieran considerarse incluso como machistas, por lo que hay que tomar las cosas buenas e ignorar las cosas malas.
Algunos capítulos me gustaron más que otros, por ejemplo "Stand up straight with your shoulders back", "Make friends with people who wants the best of you", "Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them", "Tell the truth, or at least don't lie" y "pet a cat when you encounter one on the street".
Es básicamente consejos de sentido común a la antigua. Una especie de faro de seguridad en lo que algunos calificarían como tormenta de los tiempos actuales.
Seguramente lo recomendaría a algunas personas. Definitivamente no es una lectura fácil.
Llegué a este libro después de ver la entrevista del autor con una conductora feminista (Cathy Newman).
Me hizo pensar en cosas que no había pensado, es un revoltijo de psicología, filosofía, historia y consejos de un padre sobre la vida. A ratos es muy doctrinal y alguno podría etiquetarlo de arcaico. Algunas propuestas pudieran considerarse incluso como machistas, por lo que hay que tomar las cosas buenas e ignorar las cosas malas.
Algunos capítulos me gustaron más que otros, por ejemplo "Stand up straight with your shoulders back", "Make friends with people who wants the best of you", "Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them", "Tell the truth, or at least don't lie" y "pet a cat when you encounter one on the street".
Es básicamente consejos de sentido común a la antigua. Una especie de faro de seguridad en lo que algunos calificarían como tormenta de los tiempos actuales.
Seguramente lo recomendaría a algunas personas. Definitivamente no es una lectura fácil.
Before there's outcry - hear me out.
It doesn't matter where your view lies on the political spectrum. But Jordan Peterson's main points aren't about conservative or centralist views - they're all about how to live your life to the full. That life is hard and suffering exists, but we can find meaning in suffering (just like Viktor Frankl says).
It doesn't matter where your view lies on the political spectrum. But Jordan Peterson's main points aren't about conservative or centralist views - they're all about how to live your life to the full. That life is hard and suffering exists, but we can find meaning in suffering (just like Viktor Frankl says).
Goodness, what a waffler, plus quotes the bible a lot.