After reading 12 Rules for Life I can tell people REALLY love nitpicking Peterson's words as they see fit.

The biggest atrocity Peterson is guilty of is, well, saying things that are not all that profound or interesting. But bigoted? Racist? Right-wing extremist? What world are people living in?

Mostly, 12 Rules consists of solid advice. Basically, get your shit together and live a good life. Once again, maybe not the most profound message we've ever heard, but when do self-help books ever really teach us anything we don't already logically know?

If Peterson is guilty of being some charlatan that is ripping everyone off and is just in it for the money, then so is every other self-help author that's ever existed.

I choose not to see the world in such a cynical way.

I think people who write self-help books are generally individuals who think they have information that can be useful to others. I've definitely gotten some use out of 12 Rules and would recommend it to a friend to read. Some people just really need to lighten up.

(September 23, 2018 at 12:13 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(September 23, 2018 at 9:12 am)bennyboy Wrote: First of all, as a psychologist, I would assume he would know that the field is very heavily against spanking.  He does qualify it, though-- extreme case, etc. etc.

I sense he's more of a philosophical psychologist (he talks about Jung all the time, or Nietzsche) than a child psychologist.  I'm pro-spanking to a degree, but only if I'm the one doing it, because I'm so wise and all that.  But those OTHER guys-- well, the literature is pretty clear.

I don't think he's necessarily advocating going further than spanking, at least based on the quoted material you gave.  I'd interpret that as-- sometime's, nothing you can do is going to bring a kid in line.  I wouldn't be surprised, though, if he talked about the benefits of really roughing a kid up. . . like, if they were really asking for it.

The only way I can see to interpret this in a way other than advocating escalated physical punishment is if he's saying sometimes spanking just doesn't work. In such a case, he seems to be out of options entirely, since he's already said this thing they've done is so bad that it requires physical punishment yet it's not going to work. So if there's a more effective non-physical punishment, why weren't we doing that in the first place?

I think, from the structure of the paragraph, he is escalating from physical punishment 1, to 2, to 3, to 4. I'd love to hear his clarification here, because I think he's written himself into a corner.

To be honest, I didn't know how completely the field of psychology seems to be set against spanking as a discipline method until I just googled it.  It seems pretty overwhelming, tbh.
I find the passage a little ambiguous-- certainly I think you could see it as him advocating more (what could that possibly be though?) OR as him saying even the best intentions of the parents sometimes aren't enough (for example if the kid has grown up with too little structure).  Does the passage not give any more hints about it?

Well, in the interest of Bennyboy's commendable effort to re-rail the Jordan Peterson book thread back to the actual topic, even if it did take opening an entire new thread, here's Hugo and Jake touching on a subject that's really close to my heart:





They make a damn good point (specifically around 54:00) about the basic problem with the sort of child discipline Jordan Peterson seems to advocate: that even barring the inherent cruelty in physical discipline, it doesn't even work the way it's supposed to: Hugo says "it never taught me not to do the thing, what it taught me to do is to lie and hide things so I didn't get in trouble because I feared the punishment because it would invoke pain."

If they're interpreting it wrong, bennyboy, please show me where it's wrong.

No, I don't think they have that wrong. I think that Peterson doesn't specialize in child psychology, and isn't aware of the literature about spanking's ineffectiveness.

The only caveat is this: how are they defining good and bad results? I think they are measuring things like anxiety, with the view that anxiety is bad because it's unpleasant. Obviously, a child who's spanked regularly will have more anxiety than a kid who is let free to do whatever he wants. But will that latter actually be more effective in adult life, especially in tough times?

So that's the only thing I'd say if I were to argue: how do you define whether something "works"?

Definition of what "works." Why does something exist? Why do we do a thing? Physical discipline: people do it to instill in their children so they understand boundaries, and rules. Now, after establishing its purpose, one must ask: is it actually effective in that aim?

As I mentioned earlier, in Hugo's case, "it never taught me not to do the thing, what it taught me to do is to lie and hide things so I didn't get in trouble because I feared the punishment because it would invoke pain."

By this standard, no, it does not work.

As for the other effects, which go beyond mere anxiety, well, here's a meta-study going into more detail, about the effects, including increased antisocial behavior. So, Jordan Peterson's advocacy for the more physical forms of discipline is, at best, misguided.

Also, here's a particularly extreme case of what it can do. It's extreme, but a plausible extention of the violence begetting violence inherent in corporal punishment.

Yeah, I'm not gonna defend spanking. And I don't think it's really a central theme for Peterson, anyway.

(September 23, 2018 at 10:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Yeah, I'm not gonna defend spanking. And I don't think it's really a central theme for Peterson, anyway.

Not a central theme, but an illustration of the major problem with Peterson and this book in particular: it's basically repackaging old reactionary ideas as "common sense" reaction to the problems of today, when they do nothing but rebuild the conditions that make them exist in the first place, and his approach is working because he alternates between making banal statements that can, in fact, help improve others, and then making remarks that are so ambiguously phrased that they can either be treated as common sense or provocative right-wing talking points, so that when people object, he has an easy out, claiming others are misrepresenting him. And that's why the infamous Channel 4 interview with him went the way it did.

12 rules is a chatper header of a title for deepities that introduces modern white supremacy to a disaffected audience of incels.

LOL - get wrekt!

(September 23, 2018 at 6:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 23, 2018 at 12:13 pm)robvalue Wrote: The only way I can see to interpret this in a way other than advocating escalated physical punishment is if he's saying sometimes spanking just doesn't work. In such a case, he seems to be out of options entirely, since he's already said this thing they've done is so bad that it requires physical punishment yet it's not going to work. So if there's a more effective non-physical punishment, why weren't we doing that in the first place?

I think, from the structure of the paragraph, he is escalating from physical punishment 1, to 2, to 3, to 4. I'd love to hear his clarification here, because I think he's written himself into a corner.

To be honest, I didn't know how completely the field of psychology seems to be set against spanking as a discipline method until I just googled it.  It seems pretty overwhelming, tbh.
I find the passage a little ambiguous-- certainly I think you could see it as him advocating more (what could that possibly be though?) OR as him saying even the best intentions of the parents sometimes aren't enough (for example if the kid has grown up with too little structure).  Does the passage not give any more hints about it?

Nope. The chapter as a whole though, and Peterson's repeated fixation with physicality, makes me think he is very likely referring to harsher striking. I shudder to think what it is. Once you get up to chapter 5, you'll have to see how it appears to you.

Yeah, okay.

Let me catch up.