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

[EgoDeath]

I recommend that Contrapoints' video though.  It's really witty.  Fun stuff!

It may very well be, I just don't have the time to watch a 20 minute, let alone 55 minute video right now, doing some other things.

Even still, I'd rather hear people's personal opinions or criticisms of Peterson, if they have any. Not just be referred to some video that is supposed to encapsulate their ideas.

[robvalue]

Sure, Hugo and Jake are primarily entertainers and their style of comedy isn't for everybody. I still find them to be very intelligent and perceptive, and I agree with most of the points they make in their videos. I understand that someone who finds them annoying isn't going to be able to sit through it.

[bennyboy]

Sure, Hugo and Jake are primarily entertainers and their style of comedy isn't for everybody. I still find them to be very intelligent and perceptive, and I agree with most of the points they make in their videos. I understand that someone who finds them annoying isn't going to be able to sit through it.

My issue is that I think Peterson is very careful with his language, as I consider myself to be.  When people summarize, they tend to filter out nuanced language and focus on key words; and in this case, that's a dangerous thing.  I've found that in most cases, where people think they have Peterson dead to right as a bigot, or a sexist, it's because they aren't actually breaking down the syntax and accepting it as it actually means-- but because it has keywords which trigger them, they don't say, "Ohhhh, that's  what he actually said."  They are more likely to accuse him of double-talk, moving goalposts, and so on.

But it's even worse when say a dozen Youtube hosts with similar triggers and views arrive at the same conclusion-- then there seems to be a kind of convergence, because surely all those people couldn't be wrong.

Peterson's language is extremely dense.  I don't think it lends itself well to the kind of summary these guys are doing. I found the Contrapoints video infinitely more valuable (and entertaining). Zhe was great!

[The Grand Nudger]

He's not careful with his language, at all, lol. OFC he trucks in sexist and bigoted tropes. He's a traditionalist. People aren't misunderstanding him, that's his entire brand.

[robvalue]

I have to agree; in this book at least, I don't see it as careful. Quite the opposite, it's transparent. He's clearly a very intelligent person, but like many others, he's not half as clever as he thinks he is. If I didn't know he was supposed to be a psychologist, I'd never believe it from this book. I think this is just him without the filters.

What he is careful to do though, is to insert double-speak and get-outs. Again, not as careful as he thinks though. He has missed a few.

I point you to his bond-villain-like confession in his introduction. If you don't know what I mean, I'll do a little video on it. He just can't help himself.

This is, again, just my opinion and my interpretation.

[Bob Kelso]

Yeah, the whole villainous, r/iamverysmart, confession in his introduction (or his “Overture”, fucking please...) immediately rang alarm bells for me.

[bennyboy]

He's not careful with his language, at all, lol.  OFC he trucks in sexist and bigoted tropes.  He's a traditionalist.  People aren't misunderstanding him, that's his entire brand.

Maybe you would mind showing which passages in the book under this, the SECOND attempt at discussing the book, you take exception with? I really want to keep this thread about specific passages from the book-- let the first one be the dumping ground plz.

[robvalue]

Yeah, the whole villainous, r/iamverysmart, confession in his introduction (or his “Overture”, fucking please...) immediately rang alarm bells for me.

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.

[bennyboy]

Okay, let me forge ahead on my own.  I'll pretend that everyone here is so for a civil debate, and is willing to read at least small portions of the text and comment on them specifically.

From Chapter 1: "STAND UP STRAIGHT WITH YOUR SHOULDERS BACK"

LOBSTERS—AND TERRITORY

If you are like most people, you don’t often think about lobsters—unless you’re eating one. However, these interesting and delicious crustaceans are very much worth considering. Their nervous systems are comparatively simple, with large, easily observable neurons, the magic cells of the brain. Because of this, scientists have been able to map the neural circuitry of lobsters very accurately. This has helped us understand the structure and function of the brain and behaviour of more complex animals, including human beings. Lobsters have more in common with you than you might think (particularly when you are feeling crabby—ha ha).

Lobsters live on the ocean floor. They need a home base down there, a range within which they hunt for prey and scavenge around for stray edible bits and pieces of whatever rains down from the continual chaos of carnage and death far above. They want somewhere secure, where the hunting and the gathering is good. They want a home.

This can present a problem, since there are many lobsters. What if two of them occupy the same territory, at the bottom of the ocean, at the same time, and both want to live there? What if there are hundreds of lobsters, all trying to make a living and raise a family, in the same crowded patch of sand and refuse?

Other creatures have this problem, too. When songbirds come north in the spring, for example, they engage in ferocious territorial disputes. The songs they sing, so peaceful and beautiful to human ears, are siren calls and cries of domination. A brilliantly musical bird is a small warrior proclaiming his sovereignty. Take the wren, for example, a small, feisty, insect eating songbird common in North America. A newly arrived wren wants a sheltered place to build a nest, away from the wind and rain. He wants it close to food, and attractive to potential mates. He also wants to convince competitors for that space to keep their distance.

This is just the intro.  He mentions lobsters 71 times in total.  I'm assuming there's no problem yet?

The intent is clear enough. Peterson wants to show that hierarchies are a result of an evolved interaction among individuals and the environment. Does anyone actually disagree with this? Does anyone here actually think that the power structure is just a social convention?

[Bob Kelso]

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.