This was posted 1 year 4 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Loading...
  • expired

12 Rules for Life by Jordan Peterson $12 (Was $19.99) + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $39 Spend) @ Amazon AU

19917

Great book especially with his new one coming soon. Beyond Order is being released on March 2nd, 2021.

If you haven’t read this, maybe now is the time? :)

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace

closed Comments

  • +2

    Dude is a griftee and his self help is generic advice anybody's dog could tell you, the only difference is JPB inserts his right wing world view into everything under the guise of 'order'.

    Waste of money even if you agree with his politics.

    • +4

      Seems to be two main criticisims of him in the comments here "his advice is just generic" and "he is dangerous" gives the appearance of ill informed people searching for reasons to discredit him.

      • His rules are generic. His political ideas are separate.

        • +1

          He seems pretty apolitical to me, apart from his initial stance on bill c-16, which once you got past the sound bites, was just an argument against the precedent of what he believed to be compelled speech, he would have similarly argued against a white man in the US deciding he was a "Master" and the government compelling people to call him that.
          How do you decide what is "his" rules, and the rationale behind them, and what is "political" what you do and don't agree with?

          • @tryagain: Climate change denier, opposes gay marriage, anti-gay parenting. That's just off the top of my head.

            • +1

              @Autonomic:

              That's just off the top of my head.

              And I think here is proof of my

              ill informed people searching for reasons to discredit him.

              I did a quick search for comments of his in relation to all of those issues, and found Nothing to support those claims.

              Some he might not be pro, but he is neither against, that is the definition of apolitical.

              Happy for you to point me to (uncut) clips of his to prove otherwise though.

              • @tryagain: You typed "jordan peterson climate change denial" into Google and didn't get any results? There's pages of stuff. If you're not looking to debate in good faith then there's no point continuing this conversation.

                • +2

                  @Autonomic: No, I typed in "Jordan Peterson's view on climate change" as I was looking for his actual view, not someones interpretation of what he said to fit a preconceived narrative.

                  He spoke about issues with modelling, lack of viable solutions, studies that say it's very much a second order issue, but didn't once deny it was an issue or say it wasn't happening.

                  Once again, feel free to post up any (uncut) clips of him to support any of your earlier claims, you might be surprised with what you find if you go looking, and then hopefully not take at face value those that have you those ideas in the first place.

                  • @tryagain:

                    Jordan Peterson's view on climate change

                    I typed this into google and every link is about him being a climate change denier.

                    https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/jordan-peterson-cl...

                    This pretty much covers most of it. He doesn't believe the data or the models. He's a denier. If you want to play semantics then call him a climate skeptic.

                    • +2

                      @Autonomic: Sigh, this is why I said an uncut version of what he has actually said, yes that is a hit piece, written and when one of the first claims he write is that

                      He’s famous for refusing to use the gender pronouns preferred by his students

                      Is so unbelievably wrong, (it's literally is the first question in most interviews and he has said multiple times he has used his students preferred pronouns.) You can know the truth is of low importance for the author.

                      And no link there has him actually denying that climate change is happening. It not semantics it's literally the main point.

                      So again any (uncut) clips to back up any of your three claims.

                      • +1

                        @tryagain: So when he says he doesn't believe the models or trust the data that means what exactly? When he shares straight up denial PragerU videos, you're saying he… Doesn't actually believe what's in them? He's just doing it by accident?

                        • @Autonomic: He says he is skepitical of the models, not that he doesn't believe them, his issue is that the error bars as you get out, say 50yrs are quite big, i.e. in 50 years time, what the models are actually predicting isn't precise.

                          He's just doing it by accident?

                          No, when his comment is

                          Something for the anticapitalist environmentalists to hate

                          Seems like deliberate trolling to me.

                          If you had called him a climate sceptic, not a denier I would have agreed with you, but you didn't, you set the bar a denier.

                          • +1

                            @tryagain: Great. So it was a dumb semantic argument the whole time. There's no material difference between the climate skeptic and climate denier - in both cases you don't believe the science.

            • @Autonomic:

              Climate change denier,

              I agree with you that "climate change" is a political issue rather than an environmental one

              • @heal: Why can't it be both?

                • -1

                  @Autonomic:

                  Why can't it be both?

                  It can't be both until debate is allowed. Those that have concerns are shut down. There are so many people with vested interests.

                  • +2

                    @heal:

                    It can't be both until debate is allowed.

                    Denialists persist with bad faith arguments to discredit the work of the majority of scientists and experts who are in broad agreement. The ‘debate’ devolves into a culture war because there are no qualified people on one side.

                    Those that have concerns are shut down.

                    Hardly, they’re in control of government and major media interests, sowing doubt about the science to protect the status quo

                    There are so many people with vested interests.

                    No shit.

                  • @heal:

                    There are so many people with vested interests.

                    In climate change?
                    Yeah, about 7 billion people ;)

      • +3

        When I was younger I watched several hours of his lectures.

        Seems like all his fans' response to criticism is 'oh well you didn't watch enough of him and you're ill informed'.

        There are plenty of video of JBP's OWN in which it is bleedingly obvious this guy's got at best, extremely basic life advice.

        And that's ignoring the very poignant irony that he nearly killed himself with an addictive drug that any psychologist worth their salt would know the danger of.

        Dudes a dolt, that's my opinion and the opinion of many others, I'm glad you find value in his 'teachings', but I didn't and I think his advice is not what someone needs to hear to get their life on track.

        • +2

          "his advice is not what someone needs to hear to get their life back on track"

          What's your alternative advice to do this?

          I'd be interested to hear what anti-Peterson advice is excellent. If taking responsibility for your actions, setting realistic, attainable goals, trying to be a better, more productive person, getting your house and relationships in order, being less angry, and meeting problems head on, are all taken out of the mix, what ideas are you advocating?

        • +1

          He is human, and therefore isn't going to be right about everything. But being wrong about something doesn't make him wrong about everything either.

          I think his most basic advice is also his most controversial as well, that of personal responsibility.

          It actually goes against many messages that some people try to convey, that is society is to blame for all of their ills, and if they can forcibly change society then that will solve their issues.

          He basically is saying that no, you have far more control over your own life, if you accept this then be the best you can be, and that is far better for you and society than you just trying to change society, and furthermore, if you can't even take your personal responsibility seriously and sort out your own life, why should you be taken seriously when try to change society.

          The fact that this very basic idea is so revelatory for so many speak to how pervasive the abdication of personal responsibility has become.

      • +1

        Well said. Basically sums up the morons in this thread that choose to believe what they want about JP instead of what he actually is.

  • +1

    All the salty extreme left wingers and feminists down voting him.

  • +2

    Pop psychology - for simpletons

  • +3

    Jim Jefferies, a comedian, made him look like a fool with the most simple of analogies, that Peterson was stumbling over his answer & had to admit he was wrong. Demonstrates the level of Peterson’s intellect. No surprise then he appeals to conservatives
    Sad that this guy has the title of ‘professor’

    • +3

      I don't think any Jim Jefferies interview can be taken with a motacom of seriousness after Avi Yemeni exposed how he operates.

      • +2

        I am not sure Avi Yemini can be taken seriously since he’s a wife beater.
        That said though, it was disappointing the Yemini interview was edited, because the dingo vomiting the Muslim baby was an absolute pearler of a joke

        • +2

          I am not sure Avi Yemini can be taken seriously

          Don't disagree with that

          That said though, it was disappointing the Yemini interview was edited…

          Apparently he has gone back to being funny in his latest specials, hopefully he has left his woke BS ways behind him. I haven't seen them yet though.

          There was something almost poetic about seeing the attempted hatchet job backfire so spectacularly.

          • @tryagain: Jim Jeffries was always ‘woke’ (a term thrown out cause people hate the subject matter cause it exposes their own bigotry). Conservatives & religion go hand in hand & he’s been ridiculing them since Alcoholocaust, Swear To God, etc
            The problem is now Trumpism & Trumplicans (like Avi Yemini) are such intellectually low hanging fruit that the utter sh1t that comes out of their mouths writes itself.

            • +1

              @Boogerman: You seem to be convoluting wokeness with antitheism, he stuff has always contained the latter but not the former. Avi Yemei is no intellectual, but still very easily owned Jim.

              Jim is only funny when is his ranty coke head self, anyone who takes what he says seriously would have to have diminished mental capacity, I think the issue was coke lead to diminished mental capacity which lead to him taking himself seriously.

              • @tryagain: Jim Jefferies writes stuff that, even on his best days, Bill Burr couldn’t come up with
                Noah making the door too small on the ark was one of, if not the sharpest line in comedic history
                BTW, Jim owned Avi with the dingo Muslim baby joke. So much so, it went over Avi’s shrunken head

  • +1

    I'm happy to read what he has to say about personality psychology but that's about it.

  • Notice the morons in this thread bagging out Mr J.P. don't actually make relevant points against his thoughts, beliefs or lessons.

    They've just read the headline of some slanderous article written by another cukk and blindly followed it.

    It's shows when they try to silence, dismiss and force compliance by calling him " alt right ", racist or whatever.

    Also on a larger scale, if these same recreationally outraged cucks can't shoehorn him into an existing dismissive name they'll make one up like " alt right, TERF etc ". This way they don't have to respond to the argument, just continue to try silence and dismiss them with name calling.

    If you ask anyone to define " alt right " they usually can't without saying " racist ". It's the cukks way of calling someone racist without having to point to an example of said racism.

    :)

    • Peterson is trained in psychology.
      Would you like to know what scientifically peer reviewed psychological research has found about the relative average IQ levels of conservatives cf progressives?
      :) :) :)

      • So it's ok because their smarter in general?

        Ok, solid argument.

        • If voting was weighted by education level & IQ, conservative governments would cease to exist

      • That seems odd.
        Don't African Americans have far far lower tested IQ levels than white Americans, yet they overwhelmingly vote Democrat? Having a quick google shows that they make up 11% of the vote and of that demographic, 90% of them voted Biden.

        • Google Scholar is your friend.
          Then again, science & conservatives aren’t typically used in the same sentence

          • +2

            @Boogerman: Says the guy using Google.

            If you disallowed the lowest IQ demographic from voting, then conservative Republicans would run the free world for the rest of our lifetimes. Agree or disagree?

            • +1

              @TruthNuke: the fact is that IQ can be raised in months or lowered, it is a measure effected by environment.

              • @petry: Wrong. You cannot turn a person with 82 IQ into 165 IQ. Yes, IQ is affected by nature & nuture. Can the 82 IQ get a PhD in biology? Yes, but it’s a hell of a lot harder for them than a 165 IQ.
                It’s why IQ is correlated to academic achievement

                • +1

                  @Boogerman: no its a fact - you can look up the research - and i never said anyone including you could just turn into an intellectual either - that's your simple wild invention to denigrate.

                  • @petry: And the facts are, as confirmed by scientifically peer reviewed research (and there’s more than one study on the topic - I should know since I studied it) is that Progressives score higher on IQ tests, on average, than Conservatives. They also have higher average levels of education

                    • @Boogerman: Sudden change of tact heh? if you know how environment can drive up scores in a relatively short period of time then why did you falsely state that this fact was wrong?

                      lots of people get quite high academically using rote alone and hard work, and other things which do not include high IQ.

                      That's also a fact.

                      • @petry: No change. By your own words, the 130IQ can become a 155IQ
                        Doesn’t change the research that your average conservative voter is less intelligent

                        • @Boogerman: But i have made no comment on that only that changes in environment can drive up IQ scores.

                          The racist stuff i leave to those committed to eugenics by force.

                          • @petry: Well, it’s well known due to racist America & a history of slavery, that black people are less well off. It’s a fact that poor nutrition in childhood results in lower IQ. So the oppression of blacks by whites has been a cause of their lower average IQ. That gap has been narrowing as America is slowly dealing with its racist culture (BTW, Australia is just as racist & oppressive as America)

            • @TruthNuke: A 2013 survey of over 13,000 science PhD holders in America, found only a very small minority vote republican. Not surprising with their denial of Covid19

              • @Boogerman: There's far more low-IQ individuals voting Democrat than there are PhD holders voting Democrat.
                If you lopped off these low-IQ individuals from the lower percentiles of an IQ distribution graph, the Democrats would never win an election.
                African-Americans and Latinos are the 2 least educated and least intelligent demographics in the USA and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Look at any electoral college map with their votes removed.

                • @TruthNuke: The latest election (2020) showed a stark difference in college education & voting. Educated people overwhelmingly voted Democrat. Hence the city/country divide.
                  IQ score is predictive of academic achievement (a fact that has been known for several decades now). That is, the higher the academic achievement the greater the likelihood of a higher IQ

                  • +2

                    @Boogerman: Yes I agree but you're cherry picking one end of the spectrum. I'm presenting the other side of the argument.

                    The most educated people vote Democrat. However, the most uneducated people vote Democrat too. What do you have to say for that?

                    • @TruthNuke: The city/country divide was a stark difference in both the 2016 & 2020 elections. That is, city people, on average, have higher education (& therefore likely higher IQ) than country/rural people. The bulk of the city votes went to democrats, the bulk of the rural votes went to republicans.

                      • +2

                        @Boogerman: Yes, correct. Most people with PhDs live in urban areas and they mostly vote Democrat.

                        You're still ignoring my point though.

                        Look at the least educated cities in America. Most of them are in California and New Mexico near the border. They all vote Democrat.
                        Look at Detroit for another example - they have the worst education system in the country and they have by far and away the lowest percentage of people living there with a college degree. Yet almost 95% of metro Detroit voted Democrat in the 2020 election.

                        Why are all these uneducated, low-IQ individuals voting Democrat?
                        Do you think the whole picture isn't quite as simple as "smart people vote democrat, dumb people vote republican"?

                        • +1

                          @TruthNuke: He never addressed your initial like of questioning because it showed a pretty simple flaw in his thinking. Instead of paying his dues or allowing acknowledgement of your presented data he choose to look the other way. Pretty standard practice.

                          It should be pointed out that policies determine what people will vote for (most of the time.. but this election it was more about if your for/against trump.. thus Biden got all the default votes from trump haters. Doesn't mean people like Biden, they just hated trump).

                          As Dem voters predominantly reside in cities the issues the party supports and fosters wouldn't necessarily align with those in the rural areas.

                          • @vash5: No, the peer reviewed research shows that lefties are more intelligent & educated than righties
                            Guess what it says about atheists v religious? Hee hee
                            Facts are a b1tch, that you can’t dodge

                            • @Boogerman: If that's your stance so be it, you are welcome to it. I don't equate IQ to voting outcomes because that has not been a consistent outcome in the elections of the past.

                              We should also note that education standards have been dropping in the US for a while. Also life expectancy has dropped recently too.

                              Tell me, what impact do you think educational institutions have on people if the vast majority lean left with little to no discord to opposing ideas.

                              • @vash5: See, the problem is you create a false equivalence. This false equivalence mentality is ubiquitous in society today. It’s so common to the point you’ll often hear people say ‘I can believe whatever I want to believe”. It’s why simpletons can accept Donald Trump’s statement that “there were bad people on both sides” in Charlottesville. False equivalence.
                                Do I believe, in very simple terms, left v right is just a preference? Nope. One has higher levels of critical thinking applied, the other has lesser levels of critical thinking applied.
                                Critical thinking requires effort. And millions couldn’t be bothered, because thinking leads to anxiety & stress as it dawns on people that problems are complex & there aren’t simple solutions

                                • @Boogerman: Thanks for your reply but you missed of forgot to respond to the following question:

                                  Tell me, what impact do you think educational institutions have on people if the vast majority lean left with little to no discord to opposing ideas.

                                  Also, you raise an interesting point with your last response when you said..

                                  See, the problem is you create a false equivalence. This false equivalence mentality is ubiquitous in society today.

                                  Based on your above logic, what's to say your view on IQ and voting trends aren't a false equivalence??

                        • @TruthNuke: You struggle to grasp the concept of ‘average’. So let more put it another way, your average Democrat voter has higher IQ & a higher level of education than your average Republican

                          (As for your Detroit education is bad example, then rural Michigan is drawing on cave walls)

                          • @Boogerman: Yes, I agree with that.
                            I apologise - I forgot you used the word "weighted" in your original post.
                            I was more asking for your thoughts on the fact that Republicans would landslide every election if say only people with an IQ over 90 could vote.

    • Thank you, using cucks makes it easy to find the (profanity) of the world.

      Silence by name calling,. by calling them cukks, wow I do hope you see the irony here but I feel it may be lost on you.

      Alt right doesnt mean racist, for sure it can and often does include racist beliefs (as do most conservative leaning groups). I see if get hit with the racist flag by being anti-globalist, which in itself is racist as they think invisble lines somehow make people different.

      But hey, you do you.

  • +1

    This was $14 for ages then $12 for a similar length. It hasn't been RRP since it landed. Not a deal.

    • So ypu reason for negging is that it is the equal cheapest it has ever been.

      And if you think things are regularly sold at RRP please hand in that OzBargain badge.

      • +1

        This is Ozbargain. Not Oz-repeat-bargain, Oz-nearenough-bargain, Oz-makemefeelgood-bargain or Oz-bumpmystats-bargain.

        Seems to be a current trend pandering to the inability to save an item to one's Amazon wish list and set an alert or monitor it regularly.

        It makes it difficult to distinguish genuine bargains and encourages laziness.

        • Yes you have posted a deal for 25% off @ Moo on 3 occasions. So for the second or third time we all should have negged the deal???

          I sense hypocrisy.

    • Thank you for actually posting about the deal!! 😊👍

  • -2

    guy's been using anti psychotic medication for so long he's deeply addicted, and people take anything he says as worth thinking about?

    seriously? Just because mentally ill people say and do things doesn't require attention to the content, because they are just indicators of the severity of their condition, and the treatment being received.

    one would reasonably conclude that without his meds he would be totally ignored.

  • +2

    Anyone left of centre is a left wing nut job, anyone right of centre is a right wing conspiracy theorist. You are all bonkers. I counted the pejorative uses of "left wing", "right wing" and variations (eg "SJW", "RWNJ") in this thread just out of curiosity (with my favourite being "left wing fascist", lol). Those insulting the left wingers (12) beat those insulting the right wingers (2). Time for the ever-invaluable xkcd: https://xkcd.com/386/

    Learn to have a laugh at yourselves, you filthy animals.

    • +1

      thanks for confirming the clear right wing bias of those throwing insults around on this site.

      • +2

        Haha nice try but fail. i just checked one of your other comments on this thread. Didn't need to look futher.

        'You seem very opinionated, but either poor at communicating, else, uneducated, on these types of medication'

        • How intellectual of you to forget to post who wrote that to insult me …. i can only assume that you're having trouble thinking up your own words to be rude and insulting

          'Anyone left of centre is a left wing nut job, anyone right of centre is a right wing conspiracy theorist. You are all bonkers. I counted the pejorative uses of "left wing", "right wing" and variations (eg "SJW", "RWNJ") in this thread just out of curiosity (with my favourite being "left wing fascist", lol). Those insulting the left wingers (12) beat those insulting the right wingers (2). Time for the ever-invaluable xkcd: https://xkcd.com/386/

          Learn to have a laugh at yourselves, you filthy animals.'

          this was what i commented on - clearly you didn't like it or the other cult members

          • +1

            @petry:

            How intellectual of you to forget to post who wrote that to insult me …. i can only assume that you're having trouble thinking up your own words to be rude and insulting

            No need to be sarcastic, rude and insulting. That's 2 out 2 for insults. I didn't read what you were replying to in that comment. You are the one that attributed insulting comments to the right. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy.

            • @heal: 'Anyone left of centre is a left wing nut job, anyone right of centre is a right wing conspiracy theorist. You are all bonkers. I counted the pejorative uses of "left wing", "right wing" and variations (eg "SJW", "RWNJ") in this thread just out of curiosity (with my favourite being "left wing fascist", lol). Those insulting the left wingers (12) beat those insulting the right wingers (2). ' was posted by Rusty McMusty above as you know.

              and 'You seem very opinionated, but either poor at communicating, else, uneducated, on these types of medication' was posted to me by @MasterScythe

              You knew that because you do the same thing over and over again on this site.

              Nothing you have written in your attacks on me has been true, and you know it - it just shows that nothing you post on this site can ever be believed.

              • +2

                @petry: Sorry that pointing out your hypocrisy felt like an attack.

                • @heal: still buzzing around heh

  • +1

    Plus one for a great read and for a great speaker who has been through hell and back.

    Look forward to his next book and the forums on the chapters.

    • -2

      not as good as Hitler though although he is taller

      • Take it easy mate….

        • I am, and he is taller, but also on meds - I left that out because i didn't think you'd like that fact.

          • +1

            @petry: you're odd

            • @diddy50: Why because hitler was a great speaker - hated communists - took meds and was shorter - you don't see the similarity? He fought in a war as well, as opposed to becoming an addict.

              Your man even said 'Communism is responsible for more death and destruction than Hitler and Nazi Germany.' didn't he?

              Still not seeing it?

              • +4

                @petry: Jesus Christ Petry mate get off the internet.

                You sound like you should be yelling at people on the street.

              • +1

                @petry: Strange comments

                • +1

                  @Circly: Strange dude. I think he should also be on the meds. He once labelled me an Isis supported for absolutely no reason.

                  • @nub: nope i didn't but the truth is no interest to you…and the fan boys abusing so many in this thread….

              • @petry:

                Your man even said 'Communism is responsible for more death and destruction than Hitler and Nazi Germany.' didn't he?

                Why do you think he said that??

  • +2

    I don't get all the hate on Peterson besides the fact that a lot of his supporters are in the Trump demographic. He himself as a person is like any other person with flaws. I actually really dislike how anything slightly right of center is demonised in today's internet culture. What happened to agreeing to disagree? Trump at least deserved a lot of the hate for jumping head first into divisive politics with his dangerous rhetorics but from what I've seen, Peterson has tried to be nothing but civil in spreading his beliefs. I don't agree with him on a few things either (religion, being vocal on topics outside his expertise) but imo religion is one of those things that should be respected as many people who believe in it do so because of moral reasons and in any culture that should be highly regarded. I don't see anything wrong with people believing in religion as long as they aren't trying to force their beliefs onto others. Even if his politics isn't perfect at least he has helped a lot of young men improve their lives and that's more than most can say they've accomplished.

    • How many has he harmed? Any idea - you know those who took his personal views too far?

      • Trump harmed far less than any of his predecessors in the last 50 plus years. He's still a shit person though.

        • you are entitled to your opinion even if it is completely factually incorrect.

          • @petry: So the bombs from all the other presidents did less harm? I guess that means the lives of developing countries mean little to you, compared to all the triggered snowflakes.

            • @nub: ohh so your incorrect statement is based only on bombs dropped? How quaint.

              • @petry: Go ahead and enlighten me on how trump killed less. I'll admit you're right if you have the data.

                • @nub: but you only count deaths caused by bombs dropped - its your incorrect belief based on outdated weaponry and a very strange view of how modern wars are fought.

                  • @petry: So has Trump gone around assassinating 10s of thousands himself? Lulz. I think you've forgotten your meds for today, or maybe you're just opinionated and clueless as others have pointed out. Goodnight.

                    • @nub: so personal attacks are your go to to defend your bizarre view of trump based solely on his use of bombs… how novel..

                      • @petry: Took a page from your book. If you backed up your claim I would've admitted defeat, but you responded like a child, so I did the same.

                        • @nub: so where did i personally attack you? please enlighten….

  • +2

    To all the criticism that this book isn't anything new. Yes exactly, it isn't. Many life lessons are not new ideas. Just like the barefoot investor, it is a basic book on concepts that have been around for a long time. It explains them in a way that is easy to understand and relatable. It's basically the barefoot investor of self help, nothing new but very focussed on the fundamentals. If you want advanced monetary insight or morality ethics, neither the barefoot investor or 12 rules for life are the books for you. Hell, you can tell by the titles.

Login or Join to leave a comment