Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.38 AVERAGE
3.38 AVERAGE
Far too much scripture, misogyny, and anti LGBTQ+ ideas to be helpful to anyone. Aside from the standard generic self help fluff and occasional fun anecdote, this book is trash.
Terrible advice. Only looks at short term actions and reactions not a long term health. Uses historical theology as a justification.
A clinical psychologist should not be writing a self help book. The extreme behaviors of the mentally ill being used as a mirror to healthy individuals looking for direction is not helpful. The book also prefers to cite works of fiction and character over historical or biographical information. There are better and more on point books out there.
Like any self-help book there are some useful takeaways
Some of his assertions were a bit of a stretch and he made some disagreeable assertions at some points (weird gender role discussions, overly theological)
Some of his assertions were a bit of a stretch and he made some disagreeable assertions at some points (weird gender role discussions, overly theological)
This is not your typical self-help book. It’s a dense volume in which Peterson ruminates on his “twelve rules of life” by making reference to psychology, theology, philosophy, poetry, history, evolutionary theory, sociology, and literature. (On the literature end, he draws heavily from the Bible, fairy tales, Faust, and Dostoevsky.) Because all of these topics intrigue me, I found the book an interesting read overall. However, Peterson has a tendency to circle round and round before landing on his conclusion, and this approach can grow tedious. Some of his ruminations seem more tangential than others, and they don’t always reconnect seamlessly with his point. He also has a tendency to repeat in one chapter a concept he has already outlined in a previous chapter. I think this would have been a much better book if he shaved off maybe 75 pages worth of material. I found some passages of the book motivating, some moving, and some just plain interesting, but there were also times when I became a little bogged down.
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
I enjoyed with most of the rules, and Peterson's style can even be enjoyable sometimes, but for something set up like an internet article (12 Rules to Get Your Life in Order!), it is frustratingly opaque and distracting. Did definitely learn multiple somethings. Thanks Jords.
Good listen, but I'll need to buy the book; some lessons were harder to absorb on audio while driving, but the narration was great
Was way too wordy. Half way through the first chapter we covered 25 different things and I had already forgot what the stupid rule was. The foreword stole my patience for the rest of the book. I'm all for conversation but there is really something to be said about being short sweet and to the point. I gave up at the end of the 1st chapter.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Where to begin?
The book says "Chaos is the domain of ignorance itself" and "Chaos [is] the eternal feminine." The book is titled as an antidote to chaos. The authors contends that one should precise in their speech. How then, precisely, should I take the idea that chaos == domain of ignorance itself == eternal feminine and that we apparently need an antidote to it? Are we just letting that one slide? Anyways...
You know when people say something that you agree with, but you find their reasoning for saying that thing to be disputable? That's what this book is in a nutshell - "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today. Something something Cain and Abel. Something something Satan. Therefore, aim to improve upon who you were before." Like shit, if I wanted to hear someone proselytize, I'd head down to my neighborhood church. But the rules themselves are par for the course in terms of self-help and are generally amicable.
There's a certain danger in ascribing truth and wisdom to people like Eric Harris. An 18-year old sociopath with various run-ins with the law who hated girls who wouldn't sleep with him and thrived off the idea of lording over people isn't some sage scholar, and most definitely shouldn't be treated like one.
It takes some amount of guts to say that one should be able to rephrase another person's argument in such a way that the individual would support it and then go on to provide four (a whole four!) men who have contributed in some way to female reproductive health (such as through the invention of birth control, period products, etc.) as proof that a patriarchy doesn't exist. I, personally, am not familiar with anyone who defines a patriarchy as "a system where no man anywhere, ever, has helped a woman anywhere, ever". So, I'm not particularly sure what JBP was hoping to accomplish with that line of argument.
"Maybe your misery is your attempt to prove the world's injustice, instead of the evidence of your own sin, your own missing of the mark, your conscious refusal to strive and to live. Maybe your willingness to suffer in failure is inexhaustible, given what you use that suffering to prove."
The book says "Chaos is the domain of ignorance itself" and "Chaos [is] the eternal feminine." The book is titled as an antidote to chaos. The authors contends that one should precise in their speech. How then, precisely, should I take the idea that chaos == domain of ignorance itself == eternal feminine and that we apparently need an antidote to it? Are we just letting that one slide? Anyways...
You know when people say something that you agree with, but you find their reasoning for saying that thing to be disputable? That's what this book is in a nutshell - "Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today. Something something Cain and Abel. Something something Satan. Therefore, aim to improve upon who you were before." Like shit, if I wanted to hear someone proselytize, I'd head down to my neighborhood church. But the rules themselves are par for the course in terms of self-help and are generally amicable.
There's a certain danger in ascribing truth and wisdom to people like Eric Harris. An 18-year old sociopath with various run-ins with the law who hated girls who wouldn't sleep with him and thrived off the idea of lording over people isn't some sage scholar, and most definitely shouldn't be treated like one.
It takes some amount of guts to say that one should be able to rephrase another person's argument in such a way that the individual would support it and then go on to provide four (a whole four!) men who have contributed in some way to female reproductive health (such as through the invention of birth control, period products, etc.) as proof that a patriarchy doesn't exist. I, personally, am not familiar with anyone who defines a patriarchy as "a system where no man anywhere, ever, has helped a woman anywhere, ever". So, I'm not particularly sure what JBP was hoping to accomplish with that line of argument.
"Maybe your misery is your attempt to prove the world's injustice, instead of the evidence of your own sin, your own missing of the mark, your conscious refusal to strive and to live. Maybe your willingness to suffer in failure is inexhaustible, given what you use that suffering to prove."