Peterson's 12 Rules for Life v2.0-- actual book discussion

[robvalue]

I know, right? I just can't figure out why he would do that. Trying to generate more controversy and attention? Does it get him off to wave it about under our noses, thinking no one will notice? It just ends up making him look stupid. Harris noted he says 90% wise, useful stuff (in general), and 10% "not so much". That may be the case, but the 10% is really awful. Straightforward lies, horrible ideas, dishonesty, evasion, and so on. This book... is not 90% good stuff however.

It's one more reason why I am less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on particular passages.

If I had to venture a guess I think he’s definitely one of those people that thrives on controversy. Not just ego wise either, but monetarily speaking as well.

Yeah. I think the bottom line is the bottom line, and maybe this was just as calculated.

Okay so far, we've got, in my estimation:

1) Villanous introduction: point standing

2) Conflation of mythological ideas of "chaos and order" with actual gender: point standing

3) Hitting children beyond spanking: point contested, paragraph is poorly written, on hold

I'll be happy to add in the absolutely useless, irrelevant religious preaching and Christian stories for debate, like in my recent humorous video. I don't know how that can be defended.

[bennyboy]

Okay. . . it's starting to look like nobody is actually wanting to discuss the book after all. Peace out.

[robvalue]

Okay. Does anyone else want to contest any of the points made so far? I think the "smacking" thing is valid point here, and if he didn't mean to imply going beyond smacking, then he wrote the whole chapter in the worst way possible to express that.

[Bob Kelso]

Okay. . . it's starting to look like nobody is actually wanting to discuss the book after all. Peace out.

Book discussion typically warrants thoughts on the authors intentions does it not?

When you’ve got an introduction that not only smacks of smugness but damn near screams “I’m an egotistical provocateur!” You can bet your bottom dollar someone’s going to talk about it.

[robvalue]

I made a little video for people who are wondering what the living fuck a "villanous intro" is.

---

Okay. . . it's starting to look like nobody is actually wanting to discuss the book after all.  Peace out.

I'm discussing the book, and having a bit of fun at the same time

[EgoDeath]

Has anyone else actually read the book?

[bennyboy]

Okay. . . it's starting to look like nobody is actually wanting to discuss the book after all.  Peace out.

Book discussion typically warrants thoughts on the authors intentions does it not?

When you’ve got an introduction that not only smacks of smugness but damn near screams “I’m an egotistical provocateur!” You can bet your bottom dollar someone’s going to talk about it.

Okay. . . so have you read the book?

[bennyboy]

Okay, so I just finished the first chapter, entitled Stand Up Straight with your Shoulders Back.

Let me list my ideas about it:

1)  It's very interestingly written.  The way in which he humanizes lobsters and lobsterizes humans is humorous (Who's your daddy?), and the points he is making have very little to do with all the shit that's been said by the hysterical assholes critiquing the book.  I mean. . . do people even know how to read?

For example, I've seen a fair bit of rage about the 350 million-year number.  People rage on about false equivalency, and how seratonin affects lobster brains differently than humans and so on.  They claim that lobsters and humans diverged 700-800 million years ago, as though he was actually pointing to lobster--> human evolution as a source of power hierarchies.

He said nothing of the sort.  He's simply saying that power hierarchies are built in to biology right from the start, and that it is our biochemical response to winning and losing (which are actually evolved responses meant to minimize harm to individuals in conflict) that is involved in things like clinical depression.  That, after all, is the point of the chapter.


2)  It goes far beyond a typical (I'm thinking Anthony Robbins) style self-help book.  There's rather a lot of talk about clinical psychology (surprised?), and about how instinctive success and failure mechanisms can be interacted with to good effect.  It's not just a bunch of made-up woo, and clearly so.


3) His actual advice about keeping your shoulders back is really him saying, "These instinctive mechanisms can be overcome if we understand them-- and in order to function well in life, it's important that we overcome them." Keep in mind that he's a practicing psychologist, and his main job is to empower people who feel they have too little power over their lives.


I'll reserve judgment on the women's issues and the spanking thing until I get to those chapters-- but based on the responses I've seen to chapter 1, and what chapter 1 actually says, I think I'm almost ready to confirm my suspicions-- that his critics lack either the ability or the willingness to understand what he's written, and they're using his work as some kind of masturbatory trigger: "Just stand there Peterson, I'm. . . almost. . . at my. . . favorite memes about. . . the unfair. . . oppression of. . . the little guy.   Gaaahhhhh!"

---

I made a little video for people who are wondering what the living fuck a "villanous intro" is.

Haha, I noticed that, too. However, given how things have actually played out, I'd say it shows a pretty fair awareness of the state of things. I'm liking your videos more and more, though. If you tag them right, I'd wager you might actually get a significant number of hits! I'll make you a deal-- if you promise to keep making videos (and if you want it) I'll make you a slick animated intro like the pro sites have.

[Bob Kelso]

Book discussion typically warrants thoughts on the authors intentions does it not?

When you’ve got an introduction that not only smacks of smugness but damn near screams “I’m an egotistical provocateur!” You can bet your bottom dollar someone’s going to talk about it.

Okay. . . so have you read the book?

Skimmed, don’t own a copy myself. With all the talk going on about it I had intended to check it out more fully. I won’t say my skimming and checking of reviews have left me with a full grasp, (how could it?) I’m just not interested enough to read it in full. Chiefly because of his steps, presentation, or his couching things in vague (and not so vague) religious themes.

The chaos from femininity talk is particularly off putting. Even as an allegorical device.

[bennyboy]

The chaos from femininity talk is particularly off putting. Even as an allegorical device.

Well, he is pretty clear about minimizing that as a symbolic reference, and it's not his own idea. It goes to both Apollo vs. Dionysus, Yin/Yang, and also to the writings of some of the authors he's mentioned a lot, like Jung and Nietzsche.

Even in just normal speak, we can all identify personality traits that we'd acknowledge as generally feminine or masculine, without investing in stereotyping.

For example, I'd say that a caring instinct, especially for small helpless things, is generally a feminine trait-- wouldn't you? That doesn't mean that all women are caring or that no men are caring-- it's just acknowledgment of a pretty easily-observed gender difference overall.

The problem is that some parties will immediately trigger-- talking about how I'm imposing a patriarchal view, or how gender expression is a rainbow, or whatever else their personal world views require hysterical shouting about.