Take a photo of a barcode or cover
jennlong3 's review for:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos
by Jordan B. Peterson
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.