Product Details
Gripping, thought-provoking and deeply rewarding, 12 Rules for Life offers an antidote to the chaos in our lives: eternal truths applied to our modern problems.
12 Rules for Life $12 @ Target, Target and Amazon AU Prime
2860
Related Stores
closed Comments
Heard about this book. Apparently it talks about individual responsibility and knocks group identities and victimhood culture that extremist progressives subscribe to. Hence it’s branded as a book for racists and misogynists. Of course everyone is hitler that isn’t part of the assimilation facepalm
Not sure why the downvotes…
extremist progressives
Extremist? His critics are literally on the most mainstream of mainstream outlets.
Neoliberals love identity politics because it makes them look progressive while they continue to subjugate the population at home and carry out war crimes for corporate profit.
I found the book to be good and enjoy his YouTube clips too
I don't agree with a lot of his views but I found the book interesting to read. It wasn't amazing or life changing but still very enjoyable.
Not the best book I have read. Jordan is way too religious for my liking
JP thinks you cannot quit smoking without supernatural intervention… and claims that atheists really believe in a god. I find many of things he claims to be utterly cringeworthy.
He also denies that climate change is man made.
His theological discussions are very contrived and full of esoteric definitions of otherwise well defined words like god, religion, morals and atheist. I suspect this is just to play to his mainstream base.
Let's not forget "truth". For some reason, I sat through a 2 hour YouTube video once, where he and some other guy spent the entire time arguing over the definition of truth.
I'd never heard of him before this.
Spoiler Alert: they never came to an agreement, and I think there's a part 2 lol.That said, if this book has helped people as much as the comments indicate, $12 is a bargain. $1 per rule!
He thinks that the Nazis, who had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles, were an atheist regime. Lol!
I think Jesus was a bit too Jewish for him…
It's certainly not clear cut what exactly Hitler himself believed.
His public utterances are peppered with references to 'God' and 'Spirit'..
From his book Mein Kampf
- Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65)
- And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. (p.174)He also referred to Jews as "Christ Killers"..
When someone tells you that they don't believe in a god it's pretty impolite to tell them that they actually do. Sheer rudeness and arrogance.
Yeah, I tend to get pretty irate when someone conflates my lack of belief in sky fairies with immorality. I can be both an atheist and amoral but they are not one in the same. Just like it is both possible to be amoral and religious.
Lol
How do you solve a problem like Maria…
"You may say, 'Well, dragons don't exist'. It's, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It's a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, 'Well, there's no such thing as witches.' Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn't what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can't help but fall into these categories. There's no escape from them.".. the stupid man’s intellectual
Is this an actual quote from the book? Might give this a miss…
I think it is something he said in an interview he gave to the NYT. But it is probably representative of his writing style. From what I have seen of his speeches he is a fan of linguist gymnastics.
I’ve not read this book, but I am currently reading his philosophical work ‘Maps of Meaning’ - I think it’s the deeper foundation to which he draws the 12 rules (practical). Not an easy read, I think it’s meant to be a University textbook. I’ve also listened many hours of his lectures on YouTube
I highly recommend it.
I also find is so strange that people on the left hate him… he doesn’t say anything remotely upsetting…. I find his motivation so pure, he genuinely wants all people to live a fulfilling life.
He’s literally changed my life for the better. Many young men are so soaked in a culture of entitlement they don’t realise the importance of taking responsibility for their lives and the value that comes from working hard for success… so they act like boys… and give up…. I know I have become a lot more productive and quit playing so many video games from his influence. He’s also lead me to be more reflective, to work harder at my job, live with purpose, spend more time with my wife and family.
Well he doesn't buy into the left's make-believe 157 genders nonesense for starters…..
I mean how dare he!
It's good to hear some of his work has helped people! People get annoyed about him because he's actually said some pretty awful things.
Honestly, from the link you’ve provided, most things are taken out of context - if you read Peterson you’ll understand. I don’t think this criticism is valid at all.
Phew, well with that exhaustive rebuttal I'm certainly convinced that an entire page of comments from him with citations and subsequent debate surrounding them can be wiped clear in one fell swoop by you simply saying that the criticisms aren't valid and/or out of context without providing any examples.
@Pantagonist: Do you really think Ozbargain is the place to have robust political debate….
Take your misplaced, pseudo-intellectual, condescending sarcasm elsewhere mate!
Take your misplaced, pseudo-intellectual, condescending sarcasm elsewhere mate!
This is a weird dummy spit from a person who needed someone whose views regularly fit into those three categories to tell him that he should spend more time with his wife and family.
"I regard free speech as a prerequisite to a civilized society, because freedom of speech means that you can have combat with words. That's what it means. It doesn't mean that people can happily and gently exchange opinions. It means that we can engage in combat with words, in the battleground of ideas. And the reason that that's acceptable, and why it's acceptable that people's feelings get hurt during that combat, is that the combat of ideas is far preferable to actual combat."
I'll give you three guesses who that quote comes from.
wow. I'm sorry your parents were so bad they didn't raise you right. Yes, you should spend more time with your wife and family. Saved you $12.
Aussies parents these days. smh.
Thanks for that reminder👍
It's a pretty good summary of simple principles to live by. Beloved by self-help groups. And so much shorter than a book!It may have been written in 1952, but very valid today…
remember what peace there may be in silence
Turn the phone off, sit or walk mindfully, be quietBe yourself. Especially, do not feign affection.
Take that FakebookAvoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
Say NO to trolls.But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
The terrible things our misguided thoughts brings on us!Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
Build Resilience!First introduced to it when invited to an AA Christmas event. Although I rarely drank, I was impressed by the dedication of participants to change & develop. That took me on an interesting journey to challenge & develop myself.
That took me on an interesting journey to challenge & develop myself.
What went wrong ?
Rule 13: thou shalt drink only Voss water.
The comments read like a reddit thread. People don’t seem to realise the more they demonise him, the more popular he becomes. Case and point, a certain Orange tinged man.
For the most part he speaks truth. The book is popular. This a good price. Move on.
While there are some critiques of Peterson's character in the comments there are many valid critiques of his content and writing style. Just because someone disagrees with your viewpoint does not mean it is demonised and just because something is popular, even at a good price, does not mean it is free from critique. Perhaps most importantly, just because someone is popular does not make what they say truth.
That’s true.
I was more referring to empty pejoratives that peg him as a legitimate nazi, misogynist, transphobe. You know what I’m talking about. Admittedly there isn’t too much of it here, but that seems to be the general discourse bulletpoints condensed. By design, everyone is whipped-up in frenzy over this guy. Why? People are seemingly desperate to make him some secret villain. Most of what he says is rather innocuous, especially compared to the heinous labels he’s given. I’ve heard nothing that would lead me to tar someone like him with those weaponised insults.
All I meant was, with left leaning people like me, you lose me when you try and make these people out to be boogiemen. Let the merit of what they say determine it’s worth - you don’t need to exaggerate and contort it.
Look, we all know Ernie can be a bit of a jerk to Bert sometimes but you don't have to call him out like that.
I guess these are discounted since whitcouls banned the book in New Zealand filling the trouble there
Here's a comprehensive summary of things Jordan Peterson has actually said, and things experts have said about the things he's said: https://www.patreon.com/posts/jordan-peterson-17972181
He's a pseudoscientific populist, so if you read his book knowing that you may get more out of it.
The Art of the Peterson
Step 1: Take a completely fatuous and banal statement.
Step 2: Dress it up in confusingly vague words, such that one could infer the statement to be controversial if so inclined.
Step 3: Wait for "SJW" or "emotional female" to accuse you of making controversial statement.
Step 4: Say "I never said that" and sit back smugly as young aimless white guys shower you with money.He "argues" by implication. Like, he'll say "there are biological differences between men and women" (edit to say I shamelessly took this example from the always fantastic Contrapoints and her video on Peterson) which seems innocuous because I hardly doubt anybody would disagree. But it's always said within a context (i.e. gender pay gap) where the statement is clearly meant to imply SOMETHING. I've been involved in competitive debate for close to two decades now, first as a competitor and then as a judge/coach after graduating. Peterson is a textbook example of using slimeball tactics to "win" debates on technicalities without actually offering insightful arguments or persuading people to his point. He basically baits people into making a mistake by handling his logical fallacies incorrectly, so he can make the entire discussion about that instead of the point at hand.
Arguments consist of a claim and warrant. Peterson likes to provide warrants (such as the above statement) without committing to claim, SPECIFICALLY because he wants his opponent to "put words in his mouth" so he can derail the entire conversation into being about leftists accusing him of saying things he never did. Experienced debaters won't take the bait and would instead ask him clarifying questions to pin him down to a specific advocacy: "so when you say that, do you mean that the gender pay gap is a result of biological differences, or do you mean something else?" It's quite clear to basically everyone what his claim really is, but by using a dogwhistle, he gives himself the plausible deniability to avoid having to defend anything (because he's never actually MADE an argument in the first place) and then whine about how the left won't debate him (because he won't let them). And that's also why, TO THIS DAY, there is still a complete lack of clarity as to what he actually believes with regards to certain topics, because he specifically refuses to say what he believes.
tl;dr He's a piece of shit who appeals to those without critical thinking.
There's a lot of confusion, misunderstanding, misrepresentations and vagueness of his work BECAUSE he doesn't actually make any explicit claims, or even say anything profound.
He's a good con artist for sure. Fooled people here and worldwide into buying his garbage.
I tend to think of him as a representation of the cultural frusteration people have with PC activism. Calling him slimey, pos and a con artist makes you sound very unbalanced in your appraisal.
Regarding the writer you quoted, what are these "complete lack of clarity as to what he actually believes with regards to certain topics, because he specifically refuses to say what he believes.", aside from his subscription to Christianity?
I feel people are giving likes to the man behind the book then the deal which truly deserves anyway
I burned through my Negs half way through the first page and I desperately need more!
I'm not a fan of every single thing Peterson says, but on the whole he's right. People who disagree with him and try to get a rise out of him or flat out get frustrated with him are made to look positively silly. He's composed and approaches argument with logical reasoning and foresight.
He's composed and approaches argument with logical reasoning and foresight.
And that's about all he is, in a nutshell.
A cipher who enjoys engaging in the cut and thrust of debate and the mechanics thereof, but who doesn't appear to hold any actual opinions of his own that he's happy to share and back up when someone tries to debate him.
He's another product of the modern trend towards being impossibly mercurial with your views so you never have to admit that you're wrong. You can just debate the semantics, never actually say what you think and claim a pyrrhic victory when people work out that you have no substance and stop talking to you.
Others who you've probably negged previously have already outlined the issues with him that I also have, so I won't rewrite what has already been written.
As with most people, he sometimes makes sense and puts forward fairly self-evident truths that no reasonable person would be able to disagree with. Unfortunately that doesn't excuse the obfuscation and double speak that he likes to engage in the rest of the time.
Ironically he would probably benefit from following rules 6, 8, 9, and 10 in his book a bit more regularly if he wants to be taken seriously by a wider audience.
Ironically he is taken seriously by a wider audience and has had more success than a significant portion of self help books out there.
There's a monumental difference between the content within a debate to what's in a self help book. End of the day it's all about what you take out of it. You can follow him like a deranged superfan or take the elements that applies positively in your own life.
There's much more horsesh*t out there deserving of such strong criticism. Maybe seperating the person, the book and that content within debates would help.
You can follow him like a deranged superfan or take the elements that applies positively in your own life.
Sure, but deranged superfans are generally the reason why certain people think that they have a responsibility to publish their thoughts to a wide audience (see also: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens et al.).
The sort of useful folk philosophy and universal truths that Peterson pens can be found in many places. He is not exceptional in that regard.
The reason why he has the platform he has is because he skirts the edges of controversy and elicits reactions.
Disappointingly, as I stated in my previous comment, instead of using that platform as a launching pad for more robust debate, he retreats into semantics and is painfully shy about sharing what actually he believes and thinks lest it reveal a chink in his impenetrable armour of logic that might threaten his assumed position of authority and infallible reasoning.
Rule #1 Fear God
It's a good book, the rules are helpful and positive. I just found his writing style rambling and verbose. He is more captivating to listen to on TV.
The joyous thing is that he has improved the lives of many. The outcomes speak for itself, not every book is suited to the entire populous.
Over 1,000 hours of debating causes some stupid stuff to come out of Peterson's mouth. He is human. For goodness sake, I don't see many other people with the positive influence he has given to many. It's all about taking elements that can help you as an individual to improve. I think that's better than the majority of nonsense that's out there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas
IMO one of the best videos deconstructing Jordan Peterson's beliefs, it touches briefly on the 12 rules book too.
I agree with some of the things he says (there are differences between the genders) and disagree with other things (you must have kids or your life will be miserable and without meaning).
However, I was pleasantly surprised during an interview with Jim Jefferies where Peterson was expressed support for cake shop owners claiming that religious freedom should allow them to refuse to make wedding cakes for gay people. Jim asked - so was it OK for publicans to refuse service to black people? Peterson says no, that's discrimination, Jim asks so how is it really different to the first question. Peterson admits "maybe its not different" and says something about reconsidering his opinion on the first question.
Putting aside the fact Peterson could have doubled down and said the principle of religious freedom trumps individual instances of discrimination, and that a refusal to serve black people was not based on religous beliefs, Peterson instead acknowledged that he might have been wrong and hadn't thought of it that way.
I gained a fair amount of respect for Peterson during that interview (which is different to agreeing with him on everything). If someone is willing to rethink and change their beliefs based upon discussions, then that person is worth discussing things with. I don't see the same willingness to admit faults and errors in thinking from many other commentators on either side of the right/left divide.
Yes, it's easy to give an interviewer what they want, but did he actually change his beliefs??
Well, I wouldn't know, indeed, it may be impossible to know.
But given Peterson's perhaps excessive rigidity on only speaking things which he wants to rather than feels compelled to by the public or popular opinion, I'd say that admitting his line of thinking may be incorrect carries more weight than when coming from your typical interview subject.
I didn't expect there would be an answer to that…
As with well skilled politicians, they know some sign of uncertainty can get more approval as others hope they will change their view…
In psychology, I was taught the appropriate answer is "it depends". I don't think that's this authors answer, which seems the opposite. He seems to hold very rigid answers in a field that has a lot of uncertainty.
@INFIDEL: Yeah mate, it depends. But I still have an opinion, and I even said what my opinion depends on.
And when you studied psychology, did they teach you what you now think? Or are you able to form opinions which don't even need to be prefaced with "it depends".
Or are you being a little pedantic, the same way my statement "I like cheeseburgers" really needs a qualifier "my liking of cheeseburgers depends upon whether they have been smeared with dog excrement".
@ozbjunkie: "It depends" makes things too complex for those wanting a simple solution to complex problems! But it helps in understanding those problems, to find an appropriate solution.
Uncertainty is something many avoid, preferring the certainty of "Rules", even if they're just made up. But the reality of uncertainty is exciting for me. I learnt a lot from a Professor of Uncertainty.
All studies socialise you into the way that field wants you to think about it & communicate. You learn it's language. But that doesn't stop you going beyond those confines.
Probably all activities (sports, trades) have their own way of thinking & communication. (To learn how to do some household plumbing, I needed to learn new terms, how to talk with plumbers, learn new skills, ways of thinking, etc.)
As with most people we may be changed through learning & meeting others with different thoughts, but my thinking is much the same now, as before my degrees.
But it taught me to be more sure of what I thought, to understand it, before telling others what to think or how to live their lives - as this author is doing.
Even after many sessions thoroughly getting to know a successful client, I never told them how to live their lives or make changes. I always learnt about them & built up their skills & abilities to find their own unique solution. They always surprised me with the wonderful solutions they found. I lacked their personal experiences to see the possibility they chose.
(I commented elsewhere in this long deal about helping a sales rep very easily become State Manager of a Multinational.)In understanding research, you need an open mind, looking for any faults & ways to take the understandings further.
In solving a problem, you need to understand it first before finding an appropriate solution. Too many jump to conclusions first.
It depends reminds us we probably don't understand, yet.
As this author hadn't fully considered his view which was being challenged, he hadn't considered it depends - there may be other ways to view their strongly held opinion.
My professors sometimes asked for my advice & discuss ideas from a different point of view. I was employed by a uni just to talk with researchers from a range of disciplines, helping them see their field differently.
In my work & studies with another Uni as an undergrad student, I sat my lecturer down & explained my new ideas in the field - he almost exploded as it was a breakthrough. For the lecturer it opened a new window on the field. Researcher overseas used my simple idea.
It depends keeps the mind open to possibilities beyond your current understanding.
As for the politically adept interview subjects… (following on from previous comment)
At other times, they are publicly rigid in their views to gain support from their group. (As this author needs to appear rigid in his beliefs to publish a book about "Rules". No room for uncertainty when selling a book of Rules!)I had a Minister of Government as a client - opening up to me. The show to the public is often just that - a show to win them support. Privately he was was wonderful.
@INFIDEL: Happy for your success, but it's pretty irrelevant to my opinion on Peterson expressed above.
@ozbjunkie: Didn't expect or want you to change. Same with every client I worked with.
There are lots of different opinions on OzBargain.
It would be very boring if we all thought the same😉I find I learn far more from people with very different beliefs & experiences. (I'm lazy, but worked well with sports people - some training for the Olympics.)
I was interested in what you wrote about the author questioning their strongly held belief, as he is a psychologist - with otherwise rigid beliefs.
A strange field to choose if he doesn't want to listen to the views of others, but tell people what to do.My guess is he would be very unlikely to change that belief, but rather defend it further after the interview. In the past, I've helped people whom have been in cults - it's very hard to change strongly held beliefs.
Thanks👍
@INFIDEL: Well you might think you have helped people who have been in cults. But really, it depends. How do you know they really changed their beliefs? Plenty of people say one thing and really believe another blah blah blah.
@ozbjunkie: Wonder why I stopped long ago?
Same with people with dependency issues - I had no obvious success. As you say - they would say one thing because that was expected, but fight any change. I didn't follow that clinical psychology path, like this author apparently did.But successful (interesting & well paying) clients with relatively minor issues - they became far more successful with little help from me. Plus, I learnt so much from them! But my advice was always the same - take it easier. So that's what I now do😉
Thanks, OP.
I bought one in Target this morning.What’s the youngest age group this book can be read by?
Sons12th birthday is coming up. Sounds early, but imagine if you yourself knew then what you know now.
I want him to grow strong and confident as we all do for our children.
Have you read it yourself?
Have you read my question? Would I be asking it if I already read it?
Better to encourage him to think for himself, than to believe in another's regurgitated stories justifying their beliefs.
In university teaching, I met few students who could think for themselves. They were so used to being told how & what to think. They could not go beyond the borders of what they were taught.
Encouraging thinking, questioning, and a simple joy in life's complexities & uncertainties is a great gift. As things inevitably change, he will be better prepared.
The "Rules" have been around for a very long time as simple guidelines of how to get on with people & do better. It's just repackaged in a popular format.
Believing in another's Rules rather than understanding for yourself, has been the basis of religious & political groups since people first wanted certainty & control over why things happen the way they do. And that's been a very long time.
If you want to encourage creative thinking that requires a different set of skills. I'm glad I had a rebellious streak as a child/teen.. I can lean on that independent thinking when faced with a new challenge/problem in my role as a design engineer. Curiosity may be intrinsic to all kids but many parents try their best to stifle it. Never be afraid to say, "I don't know, let's find out". Teach him to think critically and to ask questions.
I like you already👍
I ran a business based at my uni - to develop creative thinking & problem solving through play - in adults.
Play is an overlooked skill in adults. One manager developed a new market estimated to be around $300M for their traditional business - in 5 minutes play on my office floor.
Knowing you don't know is a great ability. Being brave enough to admit it in this competitive environment is admirable. It acknowledges a need to know & understand more.
But independent play as a child builds confidence & problem solving skills hard to beat!
Anyone know where to get a “free” copy?
Free? Try your local library - mine has 90 copies with 14 available. ebook also available.
Thanks
search for "ebook bay"
Thanks
Audible … Peterson will even read it to you
https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/12-rules-for-life-an-an…
If you don't like it, .. you can 'return' the book to Audible and they'll re-credit you for another
Thanks
Found a copy on reddit too
See what Owen Benjamin thinks about him on YouTube
Just act like a Lobster, apparently. Haha.(no really, the author gets his "ideas" about humans from Lobsters - the guy's a nut).
Likely a simile, metaphor or analogy highlighting our inherent lizard brain. Something that is done in literature all the time.
Nope. literality direct comparison between human sexuality and lobsters… He gets laughed at a lot by biologists. He's a Psychologist, not a biologist, when he moves out of his knowledge base, he's no more an expert than me or you. And is absolutely able to make stupid leaps of logic and reason.
It's based on the biological science of how physiology has feedback mechanisms that influence neurotransmitters IIRC
No, it's not. He's making assumptions, he's not a biologist. He's picking one animal out of trillions and using that as an example because he can make it fit his one argument. That's no science, and you're doing yourself any benefit following that nonsense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0…
"plenty of animals live together without the need to assert dominance over one another. It seems as if his discussion of lobsters illustrates far more about his own worldview than it does about human behavior, but he’s the psychologist, not me. Peterson tells his readers to draw inspiration from an animal that can’t stand interacting with its own species outside of sex. I say life is so bizarre and beautiful that there’s inspiration to be found everywhere."
summed up well, from someone who is actually an expert in the field.
Did you unironicly quote a washington post article? Whats next, huffington post?
Putting my comment in here to harvest negs from the alt right ozbargain brigade
I refer to rule 11:
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
Enjoy your skateboarding with the alt right😀
Although I don’t agree with everything Jordan has to say but I thought that everyone should read this book. I agree that popular thought these days is very biased and needs a real shakeup. It’s not a warm fuzzy, feel good book.. it will challenge the way you look at the world.