Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life • Hacker News Board

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#31

Post by psyc » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 1:58 PM UTC

ayayecocojambo wrote: post #17

danielvaughn wrote: post #9

I'll try to explain why I'm enamored with the guy, though I do try and resist it. I've fallen victim to a few cult followings in my past - Ayn Rand in my teens and then Noam Chomsky in my early twenties. So I know the danger signs of falling into an ideological trapping, and I do see that happening with some of Peterson's fans. But I don't care about the fight against "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" or any of his discussion…

This. i felt same. i feel uncomfortable following a passionate thought leader without being able to critize his ideas. for that aim i find myself in thought-provoking arguments with my lgbti activist friends, which was very intellectually-fun times for me. the thing makes me most uncomfortable about his attitude is what he doesn't say. demonizing 'social justice warriors' and repeating danger of politically correctne…

He clearly condemns fascism, anti-semitism, etc, and is mostly individualist. I believe he doesn't directly address /pol types much because they haven't been literally inches from his face, whereas identity-politics people have been, as well as surrounding lecture halls carrying on and breaking windows to intimidate him and his audiences. He certainly condemns the worst alt-right ideas.

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#32

Post by rusk » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 1:58 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #26

weego wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really that controversial though? I'm nearly 40 and I feel like had Jordan Peterson said a lot of what he says now when I was at University it would have been of almost no note whatsoever. It feels more like his statements are elevated to controversy by how polarised, anti-contextual and narrow the margins of contemporary discourse have become rather than him being particularly controversial. "Enforcing equalit…

> Is it really that controversial though? Yes. > I'm nearly 40 and I feel like had Jordan Peterson said a lot of what he says now when I was at University it would have been of almost no note whatsoever. Whether it would have been controversial in another context is irrelevant to whether it is controversial, which is never an inherent feature of an utterance and always a statement about its relation to a particular c…

> because anyone disagrees that equality of choice and opportunity is the idea

Yes, this is something I've noticed. How when he talks about equality he assumes the premise that everybody is talking about "equality of outcome" rather than "equality of opportunity" which may be the case to a certain extent, but nobody that's actually studied inequality to any serious degree believes this.

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#33

Post by mercer » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 2:03 PM UTC

danielvaughn wrote: post #9

I'll try to explain why I'm enamored with the guy, though I do try and resist it. I've fallen victim to a few cult followings in my past - Ayn Rand in my teens and then Noam Chomsky in my early twenties. So I know the danger signs of falling into an ideological trapping, and I do see that happening with some of Peterson's fans. But I don't care about the fight against "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" or any of his discussion…

I'm not a fan of Peterson, but from the bits I've looked into I find the part you highlight most attractive.

I come from a deeply religious (Evangelical) background, and in some ways, perhaps, my situation is 'worse' than yours because I never left because I felt that it was burdensome. On the contrary! I loved much of it and in hindsight the structure and social life it provided me might've been extra-valuable in light of my Asperger's. I just couldn't believe it, and moved to another city, country, etc.

While I'd like to say I figured it out in the interim, I'm still very much working on that. However, I found that at least on the personal level, zen buddhism has filled a significant part of that void, and if you haven't looked into it I can highly recommend it.

I've not looked into the more social aspect of it, though. That's high on my list. I'm bracing myself for a degree of disappointment, because I often don't really like the 'woo-hoo buddhist types' that I run into who are or claim to be buddhists. But I have no real evidence for that.

Nonetheless, despite my ongoing 'search', I feel zen has provided enough that I feel I can be some degree of content without running back to more 'traditional' religion (and I have considered that, up to going back to an evangelical church).

If you're interested in discussing this further, don't hesitate to send me an email.

I personally think there's a very valuable role 'us' ex-evangelicals/ex-religious folk can play in this growing sense of emptiness that I see all around me, and that I see turns people to various 'extreme' movements that all strike me as rather less-than-stellar (alt-right, extreme SJW, rabid marxists/anarchists/whateverists). I'm still often shocked at how many nonreligious folk around me simply do not understand the sense of community that, among other things, a church can provide. It's like talking to someone who has never been in love!

EDIT: Let me add that I don't immediately have anything concretely against Peterson either, and the article kind of confirms my suspicion that he's a bit like C.S. Lewis, which I consider mostly a good thing. I would not want to deny anyone the positive role Peterson could play in their lives, in the same way that Lewis played a very important role in my life. Peterson makes me uncomfortable in a way Lewis usually didn't, but that could be because my point of entry was, well, being deeply religious.

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#34

Post by y03a » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

sz4kerto wrote: post #7

"But I actually acted as a slightly better person during the week or so I read Jordan Peterson’s book. I feel properly ashamed about this." This is what happened to me as well. Strange stuff, I think it is well worth the time.

A well-timed cat poster can have the same effect. The problem is, if there's little substance to the message, the effect is short-lived. The key to running a good cat poster business is spacing out the shallow messages, you can even reuse them if they're slightly reworded or just spaced far enough apart.

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#35

Post by rainingmonkey » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

psyc wrote: post #8

rusk wrote: post #2

This is a nice even-handed review. It has been hard to get a clear picture of what Peterson is about and I've had to sift through an awful lot of partisan spite-pieces on both sides to try to get to the bottom of what's going on with him. The following paragraph jumped out at me here: "The politics in this book lean a bit right, but if you think of Peterson as a political commentator you’re missing the point. The sci…

In order to get a clearer picture of what Peterson is about, I did the unthinkable and watched a lot of his lectures. My opinion is that he's extremely thoughtful, formidable not so much in original thought, but careful synthesis of the many well-known sources he draws on most, and above all worthwhile. That is I think he says a ton of things that are fascinating (as Scott says, kind of in the Gladwell sense) and thi…

>Peterson isn't making many scientific claims, or even claims as such.

My first encounter with Peterson was hearing his "lobster theory", which struck me as such pseudoscientific piffle that I've tried to pay him as little attention as possible ever since.

I imagine the reason Peterson elicits such strong reactions is because he presents differently for different audiences. As suggested elsewhere in the comments, "he's built his own persona into this gigantic strawman that looks like an ogre to everybody", luring them into attacking a position he never held so that he can appear calm, wise and reasonable in his rebuttal, and take the role of the poor attacked underdog.

He speaks of "postmodern curtural marxism", yet by his own admission, has never debated a marxist. Like the best controversialists, he picks his fights very carefully, preferring to "debate" with campus teenagers than other "intellectuals".

For those who haven't heard it, his "lobster theory" goes:

1. Lobsters are animals with a hierarchical society

2. Lobsters have a "seratonin based nervous system". Humans also have a "seratonin based nervous system".

3. Therefore, a hierarchical society is natural (and therefore best) for humans.

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#36

Post by rusk » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 2:08 PM UTC

psyc wrote: post #31

ayayecocojambo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. i felt same. i feel uncomfortable following a passionate thought leader without being able to critize his ideas. for that aim i find myself in thought-provoking arguments with my lgbti activist friends, which was very intellectually-fun times for me. the thing makes me most uncomfortable about his attitude is what he doesn't say. demonizing 'social justice warriors' and repeating danger of politically correctne…

He clearly condemns fascism, anti-semitism, etc, and is mostly individualist. I believe he doesn't directly address /pol types much because they haven't been literally inches from his face, whereas identity-politics people have been, as well as surrounding lecture halls carrying on and breaking windows to intimidate him and his audiences. He certainly condemns the worst alt-right ideas.

I don't think his critiquing of modern identity politics is necessarily an ideological thing. Like you say he's been embattled for some time over his opposition to the whole "C-16" gender pronouns thing. For better or worse this firmly gained him cheerleaders on "the right" while gaining him vociferous condemnation on "the left".

As GP points out he's not so critical of his alt-right cheerleaders. Perhaps we would like it if he took some responsibility for his more regressive fans but I don't think he sees that as his problem. Maybe that's fair enough too. Maybe he just sees himself as a guy who's "speaking the truth" moreso than "a leader".

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#37

Post by psyc » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 2:14 PM UTC

rusk wrote: post #36

psyc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He clearly condemns fascism, anti-semitism, etc, and is mostly individualist. I believe he doesn't directly address /pol types much because they haven't been literally inches from his face, whereas identity-politics people have been, as well as surrounding lecture halls carrying on and breaking windows to intimidate him and his audiences. He certainly condemns the worst alt-right ideas.

I don't think his critiquing of modern identity politics is necessarily an ideological thing. Like you say he's been embattled for some time over his opposition to the whole "C-16" gender pronouns thing. For better or worse this firmly gained him cheerleaders on "the right" while gaining him vociferous condemnation on "the left". As GP points out he's not so critical of his alt-right cheerleaders. Perhaps we would li…

I think this is all spot-on. Polarization itself makes for a lot of confusion, and many accuracies being tossed out the window for politics. Someone recently opined on the problem of having 'the wrong fans' like this: if the KKK likes a tax law that benefits them, does that make the authors and other supporters of that tax law white supremacists? For some reason people are a lot more sensitive when it's about ideas. Especially lately, when there seems to be so much fear that thought might cause atrocities, since it precedes them.

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#38

Post by rusk » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

rwj wrote: post #18

psyc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to get a clearer picture of what Peterson is about, I did the unthinkable and watched a lot of his lectures. My opinion is that he's extremely thoughtful, formidable not so much in original thought, but careful synthesis of the many well-known sources he draws on most, and above all worthwhile. That is I think he says a ton of things that are fascinating (as Scott says, kind of in the Gladwell sense) and thi…

Second this. It it ridiculous how much discussion about Peterson exists, and how little of it actually discusses his ideas.

Well that depends on which of Peterson's ideas you are talking about. You can't just say "oh his teachings are fine" and that means that none of the publicity machine around him is of any consequence. There are very much two aspects to Jordan Peterson. What I came on here to say (and have since stayed for the discussion) is that that other aspect to him really isn't as sinister as people make out. I think he does play it up for publicity though. Would you not agree?

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#39

Post by hnarn » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

>Jordan Peterson is a believer in the New Religion, the one where God is the force for good inside each of us, and all religions are equal paths to wisdom, and the Bible stories are just guides on how to live our lives.

It's hard to take a reviewer seriously when they make a statement like this, that is blatantly untrue ("all religions are equal paths to wisdom"). Peterson is known to be very critical of Islam, and has gone as far as saying that it's incompatible with western values (paraphrasing).

Re: Book Review: Twelve Rules for Life

#40

Post by ayayecocojambo » Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 2:29 PM UTC

psyc wrote: post #31

ayayecocojambo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. i felt same. i feel uncomfortable following a passionate thought leader without being able to critize his ideas. for that aim i find myself in thought-provoking arguments with my lgbti activist friends, which was very intellectually-fun times for me. the thing makes me most uncomfortable about his attitude is what he doesn't say. demonizing 'social justice warriors' and repeating danger of politically correctne…

He clearly condemns fascism, anti-semitism, etc, and is mostly individualist. I believe he doesn't directly address /pol types much because they haven't been literally inches from his face, whereas identity-politics people have been, as well as surrounding lecture halls carrying on and breaking windows to intimidate him and his audiences. He certainly condemns the worst alt-right ideas.

sure he is. he could have make criticism about alt-right with exact same harshness and might not say too much thing about leftists without too much changing his stance. this bothers me since i believe raising nationalism is much bigger threat than a couple thousands of university students. (although 'political correctness' is also a raising problem)