• expired

[Prime] 12 Rules For Life: An Antidote To Chaos $10.80 Delivered @ Amazon AU

1180

Its a book, you read it. Discount applied at check-out. Will you read it? No. Will you need it after the chaos of Prime Day? Absolutely!

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.
This is part of Amazon Prime Day sale for 2020

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace

closed Comments

    • +49

      His wife had cancer, which was potentially terminal and devastating to him, unfortunately he developed a physical dependency on prescription drugs. He's only controversial because people don't like to be told to clean their room before they try to change the world.

    • +40

      He doesn't make his money through controversy he talks about how to improve your life and tries to give people confidence based on his experiance. Its actually woke social justice warriors such as yourself that politicize everything he says and try to make him out to be a facist and transfobe when that couldn't be further from the truth.

      • +13

        The irony is that the far left pearl clutchers and the far right both dislike him.

        • +21

          Yeah i will never understand why people like Jordan is controversal to people. At least pick on someone like Ben Shapiro that is right leaning. Jordan is very central and the stuff only gets political in interviews from people trying get a specific answer out of him. None of his talks are political in nature at all.

        • +19

          You know this is all in your head right and some weird persecution complex you have? Show us where he has made a transphobic statement? You won't. What exactly makes him a facist? because he said something you don't agree with?

            • +20

              @Kessler: I saw his comments on c-16, without having read the actual bill. It seems his problem with it was his interpretation (whether accurate or not) that it was making it an offence not to refer to people by their preferred pronouns, which would be legally compelled speech. He has stated on other interviews that he personally would, and does, address people using their preferred pronouns. I'm inclined to agree with him as a bit of a free-speech absolutist myself. I would be similarly against any anti-hate speech provisions including ones intended to protect me, let alone any provisions obliging people to use certain words when talking to me. I think its possible to hold this position without necessarily being hateful or even right wing. It's a classical liberal position and certainly not a fascist one. So if there are any other specific comments of his on C-16 or otherwise that convey a specific hatred towards, or bias against trans people I'm not aware of them.

              I do have some familiarity with the tenets of fascism, and am similarly unaware of any fascist ideology he has pushed. I haven't come accross his conspiracist content either.

              I do find his philosophy relatively banal and uninteresting but probably inoffensive and on balance beneficial to some people. I have heard him say some pretty unscientific stuff on climate change, and agree no one should take anythign anyone other than climate scientists have to say about climate change. In his own field, I do find his obsession with Jung pretty contradictory to statements I've heard him make about empiricism and use of statistics - Jung was far from empirical and certainly would agree his work was even less scientific than pseudo-science.

  • +15

    TLDR: lobsters cleaning rooms

  • +26

    $10.80 is pretty pricey for recycled platitudes from a guy who managed to destroy his own profile in record time.

    • +13

      I think the issue was that he was never looking for the 'fame' he received. And unlike anyone in that position, they go with it. Although I think he is a very interesting man, you could always sense the undertones in the way he spoke, I knew he had his demons from early on… never expected it to turn out the way it did, but at the end of the day, he is only human.

    • +9

      he gives sound advice.

      he is a psychology major, not a medical doctor major.

      it's not his thought the easy way out of any problems, thanks very much to the pharmaceutical industry, is the prescription of benzos by doctors, both influenced by big pharma and the lack of resources in the medical system.

      like any advice, it is to be combined with a broader picture.

      show me someone who is as well read as him, as well informed on his subject matter…

      youtube some of the videos and you'll see he'll destroy the misinformation pooped out by journalists these days.

      • phrase correcton "it's not his fault the easy way out of any problem"

  • +12

    Isn't he addicted to benzos in Russia? 🥴

    • In recovery in Russia because US doesn't offer treatment.

      • +10

        US doesn't offer the treatment he wanted because its banned for being dangerous and ineffective.*

      • -4

        That's a very kind way of saying he's gone against US doctors' advise, to pursue self-treatment in Russia :/

        That worked out so well for him with the Benzos in the first place to treat an autoimmune reaction to food. Definitely someone to take life advice from guys.

        • +5

          If you don't like a person that's fine but why did you neg the deal?

      • https://twitter.com/MikhailaAleksis/status/13153151123710525...

        was. now back in canada.

        https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/the-mysterious-ris...

        and biased articles written by journalists burned by his views. just google the philosophical biases of the authors.

    • His brain is pretty cooked as far as I can tell, and I'm not trying to be funny when I say that. The video of him absent-mindedly playing with a RC car was pretty sad.

      • He put up an interview with his daughter after that in which he seemed quite lucid. Though apparently he got covid after that.

  • +15

    If there's a book I recommend re changing your life, it's this one:

    https://www.amazon.com.au/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/d...

    • This is an amazing book! It is on sale as well

    • Great book !

    • +4

      Really? I've read this cover to cover and I would more rather call it "How to win acquaintances and manipulate people". I've never "won" a best friend using any of the rules in this book. Famous philosophers such as Immanuel Kant said that "rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else."

      The book itself goes into detail on how exactly to treat people as an end. You miss out on a genuine connection because you're trying to change yourself to please someone for validation, or you're trying to attain something.

  • +25

    $0.90 per rule. Bargain.

    • +10

      Yeah Kermit has way more citations and a much higher h-index.

    • +17

      Calling someone with a PhD pseudo-intellectual is pretty rich.

      • +6

        pumpkie is a real intellectual and not just a bitter person who disagrees with the man.

      • +5

        You can definitely be both lol. Andrew Wakefield is exhibit A (The dipshit that lied about Autism being caused by Vaccines, who had his medical licence summarily removed for it). Having a PHD doesn't mean you can't then go and believe a bunch of nonsense. His understanding of Lobsters and their relationship with serotonin is (profanity) laughable. His understanding of Evolution is that of a 5 year old, and he constantly espouses "Facts and Logic" yet rarely applies any of it to his fluffy nonsense way of speaking.

        • His understanding of Evolution

          If you want to understand evolution, read Richard Dawkins.
          This book is not science, but based on clinical psychology, which is notoriously not a hard science.

          • +1

            @manic: Got a masters in Evo Bio myself, but yeah Dawkins is where I started 15 years ago, although I'd recomend Gould over Dawkins for popular reading, as a lot of Dawkins views are now a little outdated.

            • +1

              @ONEMariachi: So what did he get wrong about/how did he misrepresent lobsters' relationship with serotonin? Would be good to finally hear it from someone with a masters in evolutionary biology!

              • +1

                @wojaus: He had it completely backwards, serotonin has the opposite effect on lobsters compared to humans.

                • @ONEMariachi: Ok, so just to be clear - he was saying that lobsters with high serotonin are more confident, less likely to back down from a challenge etc. It also affects the posture of the lobsters - making them essentially straighten out and therefore look bigger and more dangerous (he references that to a 1997 study). And you're saying serotonin actually does the opposite for humans?

                  So he either misread the study, the study itself was wrong, or serotonin doesn't affect humans in a similarly 'positive' way?

                  • +1

                    @wojaus: Firstly, lobsters don't have a brain like humans, they jsut have a bunch of nerves, and the system is far more comparitive to insects than any sort of Mammal. A chemical is just a chemical, and rarely has similar effects on different orders.It is simply a method of transmitting signals. Lobsters and humans are seperated by almost 400million years and using them comparatively in any way shape or form is nonsense. No biologist of any value would do such a thing, as our physiology is so insanely different as to not make any sense.
                    Serotonins major effect on lobsters is to increase aggression(He has then interpreted that however he felt like)- it has the opposite effect on humans- it lowers aggression. Serotonin strengthens the connection between the frontal lobe and the amygdala, which dulls emotional repsonse in humnas towards anger and aggression. Lobsters don't even have these aspects of the brain for it to effect.

                    • @ONEMariachi: The lobster story is for illustrative purposes. It is not there to prove anything, so the accuracy is not important.

                      We are talking about a guy who also uses bible stories to make points. Again, this is not a science book.

                      • @manic: Which is my point. He consistently talks about facts and logic, yet rarely uses any of it.

                    • +1

                      @ONEMariachi: Ooook (just finished re-reading those few pages lol) - first off, cheers for taking the time to engage.

                      I think the issue here is that people (myself included) wrongly remember what is actually said in the book. People THINK Peterson said that serotonin effects humans and lobsters in the same way - and I'm guessing this is probably due to a few things, but partly because he spends a solid few paragraphs talking about how serotonin effects lobsters -.- . But he doesn't say the effect of serotonin on humans is the same as the effect of serotonin on lobsters.
                      The point he was making about lobsters was that even organisms as old and simple as they have dominance hierarchies (and quite long side note; serotonin plays a huge part in lobsters' dominance hierarchies). The main point being that almost all living creatures are hardwired to operate in dominance hierarchies.
                      Further to that, in lobster dominance hierarchies serotonin helps by making the lobster more aggressive and intimidating, and more successful lobsters produce more serotonin. In human dominance hierarchies, the amount of serotonin you have can be affected by your position in the dominance hierarchy (and apparently there is a very basic/primordial part of your brain that constantly monitors your position in the hierarchy). And low serotonin in humans results in lower confidence, more stress and several other negative things that contribute to a shorter, poorer quality life than people higher on the dominance hierarchy with higher serotonin levels.

                      Is any of that incorrect?

                      • @wojaus: Not really no. Humans or mammals in general have an infinitely complex endocrine system over virtually every other order of life, that results in a lot of chemical responses that direct emotion and bodily function. We have 8 major glands that produce all manner of hormones that result in incredibly complex signalling systems to control the vast levels of emotional and bodily responses. Something arthropods do not have, and their chemical signalling system is insanely simple- hence the overarching effect of serotonin on them.
                        Relating the human psyche to just one singular chemical that is produced doesn’t make much sense at all. You could make a similar case with 50 other chemicals that we produce that would likely have a similar effect in lowering of all sorts of function. Our brain is significantly more complex than that. That’s even if we acknowledge “dominance hierarchies” as even being a thing, which you would be hard pressed to minimise social hierarchies within mammals to that simplistic an idea.

                      • +2

                        @wojaus: people don't reply your comment because:

                        1. It's correct.
                        2. They don't want to face reality or whatever ill informed opinion they have already formed and identified with
                        3. It's just as evidence-based as Jordan's book which they have not read and understood.
        • +3

          His understanding of Lobsters and their relationship with serotonin is (profanity) laughable.

          How so, critiques I have seen of this seem to miss the point he is making and end up being a strawman argument. They end up being versions of the "so what you are saying is"

  • +16

    One of the best books ive ever read, would highly recommend.

  • +31

    TLDR?
    "Stand up straight with your shoulders back"
    "Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping"
    "Make friends with people who want the best for you"
    "Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today"
    "Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them"
    "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world"
    "Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)"
    "Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie"
    "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t"
    "Be precise in your speech"
    "Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding"
    "Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street"

    • +6

      Sounds pretty reasonable. And now I dont have to read it.

      • +5

        You actually don't this is the only valuable take away from the book. The rest is a terrible understanding of Evolution, and ham fisted Christianity.

    • Money saved, that's why I love Ozbargain, thanks Wordpickle.

    • I'm happy if anyone finds "Stand up straight with your shoulders back" and it's ilk helpful. I'm not gonna argue. But I'm gonna be cheering anyone receiving that advice who bursts out in laughter.

  • +38

    It's funny how much the left hate this guy. What's even funnier is, no matter how much you critique him, 99% of you would get destroyed by this man in an argument. That's just a fact. I've seen probably all his debates, and not a single one of them has managed to get the upperhand on him. He is without a doubt odd and I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but you can't deny he makes some great points regarding just basic human behavior. And he find's a way to engage the average folk, like me. I think that's what made him very interesting. Neg if you must, please note each neg just builds my power.. lol just kidding, words could not explain how little I care about votes, just my 2 cents.

    • +5

      That was more like a dollars worth, another great ozbargain!

      • +1

        lol! Nice one.

    • +4

      Giving yourself a benzo addiction, brain damage and the rona to own teh left.

      Dude is certainly dedicated to appeasing his edgy fanbase.

      • +2

        But why is what he says edgy? Seems like the shit my grandmother would tell us.

        • +3

          I didn’t say it was. Pretty sure I called it a book filled with trite platitudes.

          But his followers, on the other hand, are the kind of guys with a YouTube feed filled with <ALT RIGHT POSTERBOY> DESTROYS [LEFTISTS|FEMINISM|VIRTUE SIGNALLING|etc] who still think hahaattacklolacopter comments are hilarious and cutting.

      • +7

        See, I don't get the cheap insults. He is very matter of fact. He does carry on a bit, but everything he says, he references from somewhere. Whenever I see anyone disagree with him, it always comes down to cheap and petty insults, which funnily enough he talks about. It's never fair argument as to why you don't agree with what he said, it's just always cheap mud slinging. In saying that, so be it.

        • +5

          When asked to provide evidence that supernatural entities exist Jordan said, "well people have mystical experiences on magic mushrooms".

          He isn't matter of fact, he is the exact opposite. He is a tower of fallacies.

          • +1

            @knackers: Look, personally, I don't believe in God. Moreso Agnostic than Atheist. But I would be ok with either title. If you want to use one example to discredit everything he says, go ahead, but that is very naive and unfair. I don't take one loose reference and say 'A-ha!', gotcha! Which ONCE AGAIN, he talks about, if you care to listen. If you want to make things that simple and have your whole opinion based on one reference, that's your right. I think that's very unrealistic. God and religion is the foundation of most cultures, and is incredibly complicated. I don't believe in God or the supernatural, but who am I to say that it is FACT they do not exist? Do you have any idea how big space and time is? It's not that far-fetched to think there are supernatural entities out there, it really isn't. You should also research the link between psychedelics, Religion and human evolution, there certainly seems to be a link there.

            • +1

              @snagseb: A drug induced hallucination is evidence that a drug induces hallucinations, nothing more.

              Anthropomorphized supernatural entities was our first attempt to explain the origins of naturalistic events (earthquakes, lightning strikes, thunder, floods). The existence of Zeus becomes less plausible(not more) as we expand our understanding of the universe.

              • @knackers: Of course. I’m not saying drugs created god or anything. But drugs have a play in how the mind works, functions and evolves and how we evolved as humans - or so it is believed by many recent studies. They have used hallucinogenic drugs to treat serious addictions and with much success. We are on the cusp of using drugs like MDMA for PTSD and counselling as normal treatment. Drugs have a bad rap. And they are bad if abused. But in certain controlled conditions they can be very beneficial.

                I agree with what you’re saying. But the latest research suggest that in at least some cases those explanations were under the influence of psychedelics or other drugs. It’s an interesting and plausible study that is being believed more and more. Again, doesn’t make it true, but doesn’t rule it out.

    • +11

      Exactly. Those trying to discredit him because of his illness are literally kicking a man when he's down and probably didn't like him before he got sick anyway.

      • +2

        100%

    • +6

      JP. "you cannot quit smoking without supernatural intervention"..
      Matt Dillahunty made him look like a fool.

      • +5

        Matt Dillahunty made him look like a fool.

        The only people who he makes look like a fool are those who drink his kool-aid.

    • +15

      "99% of you would get destroyed by this man in an argument. That's just a fact." - hahaha my sides

      Let me guess, you also enjoy youtube videos like: "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS stoopid LiBRuls"

      Peterson is just a man who has a superficial knowledge on everything, but an expertise in nothing.

      • +6

        Well he is an academic.

        • +6

          and a clinical psychologist

      • +9

        Well at the end of the day it's just my opinion. Happy to see any evidence to counter that? He has gone up against some fairly good foes and each and every time, he has left them with egg on their faces. Is that not true? Are you able to show me otherwise? I am happy to view anything. To say he has superficial knowledge is a bit insulting and just plain wrong. It kind of just proves what I said earlier. You simply don't like the guy, which is fine, but to shit on his qualifications is not justified.

        • +3

          Not qualified to shit on his qualifications, but I read an interesting article about him:

          https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-d...

          The author is a declared leftist, but still, I find his arguments interesting. Worth a read, or at least a skim over it.

          • +3

            @catchthemall: I only skimmed over it. But from what I gather, I have read similar opinion pieces before. There may be a touch of truth to it, but I also personally don't buy it, only because I actually watched the videos that made him famous, well before he was even remotely famous, and he wanted no barr of it. You could say he carries on a little, but that is, I think part of a troubled mind… he is without a doubt troubled, and I think those demons are part of his passion when he deliveres his message, and what make him the person he is. We all have our demons. I don't believe he has an ounce of bad intentions and just kind of fell into the position he did. In saying that, I can see where this article gets is viewpoint. I'll try and go over the whole article later tonight, thanks for sharing.

        • +2

          I'm not going to do the work that you so clearly need to do yourself - if the only videos you click on are labelled "JP DESTORYS DUMB LIBRULS", obviously you're never going to see him get trampled in a debate

          I'm not shitting on his qualifications - I'm shitting on him stepping well outside his narrow qualifications to spew pseudo-science, lies and conspiracy theories. The views he expresses are not based on facts, evidence or even reality.

          One having a PhD doesn't magically grant one expertise in every subject imaginable, nor does it give one the right to peddle psuedo-science and conspiracy theories as truth.

          • +5

            @Kessler: You have no interest in debate. You are already judging me and what you think you know about me and my viewpoints. So I am not going to bother going back and forth because we are changing no minds today. Have a good one.

      • +1

        Peterson is just a man who has a superficial knowledge on everything, but an expertise in nothing.

        The fact that something so demonstrably wrong, and yet gets so many upvotes is sad. He is an academic and has been for a long time, if they aren't experts in their fields I don't know who is.

    • He is super charismatic and a great speaker, but he also speaks with absolute conviction on every topic, even things that he doesn't know much about. I wish he would just stick to human behavior because he often misinforms his massive audience.

      Also if you watch any of his vidoes on Youtube make sure you do it in incognito or Youtube will start recommending nothing but Skynews, Trump and owning the libs videos.

      • That's fair. There are some things he says where I think, better of not saying anything. I think that comes down to just being human, we all like to think we know more thant we do. Since he just kind of fell into the spotlight, he was possibly to open and inexperienced.

        As for Skynews and Trump, well, depends what side of the fence you're on I suppose. Some people may think that's not so bad :)

    • +1

      he destroys them as what he says is based on FACTS and EVIDENCE.

      maybe people simply take up an opinion sheerly because it is convenient, he takes up an opinion because he is informed….

  • +8

    "How many misogynists does it take to change a lightbulb?"

  • +3

    Just here for the comments sections

  • +11

    I'm not sure this guy is qualified to give life advice.

    • +13

      Then don't read it.

  • +17

    Just posted a deal, I haven't actually read it. I didn't expect my phone to blow up with so many opinions, just like to share deals if people are interested. This community would benefit more if people spent their time posting bargains as opposed to pushing their opinions thinking they are facts…
    I do welcome opinions, just understand that everybody has different thoughts and we should welcome healthy debate, as opposed to negging an opinion that differs from yours. I like philosophy, the good, the bad, the ugly. Anything to make you think…

    • Hear Hear!

    • +1

      Well said! Leave your emotions at the door :)

    • +1

      Hey, the comments section is a forum too! People are free to exchange thoughts and ideas (hopefully with minimal ad hominem attacks).

      Hope you're able to turn off notifs from this post though. Would be kind of an annoying situation…

  • +10

    A great listen and a terrific read . Why can’t we just listen to people and enjoy what they bring without resorting to make ourselves “feel better “ by belittling them ?
    You don’t have to agree with all of it but next time you sit at a dinner with friends or family ; While they gossip , provide 1 word answers , spin yarns about basic facts , just understand there’s nothing wrong with listening to smart / informed people

    • +6

      The best philosophers if they lived today would no doubt be diagnosed as having some form of mental illness, so a person's life choices just not determine their thoughts on life. Nietzsche is my favourite philosopher and he didn't exactly lead a healthy life…

  • +12

    I bought this book a few months ago and I wanted to see what all the fuss over Peterson. Thought I would see his views before I judged him at least, turns out he's not nearly as controversial/far right as I thought he was (from just reading the book)

    His views are really rational/common sense in many ways. He essentially tells you to not take criticism from people that you wouldn't take advice from amongst a whole lot of other useful tips, and he's also seems pretty well qualified. There is a fair bit of philosophical theology in there, but only from the perspective of understanding how morality developed over the ages.

    Really interesting book, I hear a bit about his 'outspoken views' but there's not really pontification that I could see in there. Certainly doesn't come across as a controversial figure in the book, not sure what all the hate is about tbh. Then again I've only really read this book, and saw the Q and A he was on ages ago….not much to go on.

    Is the book a bargain? Well I bought it for $12 while it wasn't on sale sooo….

    • +11

      How dare you take an informed position, that's not how it is done nowadays.

    • +3

      From what I understand, the hate started not from the captain obvious stuff in this book, but because when Canada passed some law about gender identity, he said he wouldn’t go along with it to someone, and that someone dobbed him in to Teh Authoritehs.
      This promptly became public which resulted in the inevitable twitter storm and doxxing pile on, yet he refused to grovel and apologise.

      And the rest is history.

      • +4

        Ohhhh I see. That's interesting, he just comes across as a crusader for freedom of thought, but also tells you how to not lose yourself with all that freedom.

        So basically how to develop moderate, balanced views that are mostly devoid of that irrational, corrupting anger (anger toward religion, anger toward women/men etc things that have a corrosive effect on society). How to not become so angry with the world, and subsets of people within it and I think trying to centre our prejudices is such an important trait that needs active, lifelong work and these ideas seem to give folk a 'guide' on how to do that.

        Twitter is a really strange place btw, I don't understand it. Seems like a place where angry people go to digitally punch each other. I just prefer to follow things that make me happy on instagram and leave it at that. The world is being 'assaulted' by news these days that has no bearing on our lives, or the lives of those we love so I much prefer to watch antiques roadshow and escape to the country in my comfy pants, your life will improve 10 fold!

Login or Join to leave a comment