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

[bennyboy]

[Kitan Etos]

I'm not going to talk about the book specifically, just what it signifies in general when referencing self help books.

I believe these types of books are in lieu of the comfort religious ideas bring to theists, just a secular version. No less flowery or cognitively harmless. The basic foundation behind any of these types of books can be precisely summed up with: a lie I told myself and am now selling to others.

[robvalue]

[bennyboy]

All I can say to that is to keep reading. As usual, he's setting up something that sounds reasonable, and will later start abusing it. He descends fairly quickly into literally assigning chaos to women, and order to men. If that isn't something that is considered sexist, if not misogynist, then I would just have to agree to disagree.

He's echoing Jung and Nietzsche, and much of the literature in modern psychology as well.  That's why when you see him in interview with female academics, they are much more likely to nod knowingly than to flip out when he says this stuff.

But yeah, I'm still just going through the intro.  Just an observation that maybe some of the criticism comes because people don't know the background behind some of the terminology.

--edit-
Okay, I though I got that byte, but here's the very next paragraph:

Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trivial form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering. Chaos is what emerges more catastrophically when you suddenly find yourself without employment, or are betrayed by a lover. As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, it’s presented imaginatively as feminine. It’s the new and unpredictable suddenly emerging in the midst of the commonplace familiar. It’s Creation and Destruction, the source of new things and the destination of the dead (as nature, as opposed to culture, is simultaneously birth and demise). 

So he's for sure talking about that symbolic dialectic.  He mentions yin/yang the next paragraph.

He does a conflation of symbolic representation and actual women in men's life when he talks about how the scorn of a woman is one of the most chaotic things a man can experience.

Not taking what you've already read, and just looking at it so far, would you say that from a male perspective, a female doesn't normally represent a force for chaos?  Cuz I've had girlfriends and marriage, and plenty of chaos

[robvalue]

Erm... well sure, they can be, but so can men. And women can be just as good at creating order. It's a ludicrous connection to try and systematically apply to genders.

What's actually happening, in my opinion, is Peterson is (probably unwittingly) projecting himself all over the book. He's clearly experienced hurt and rejection from women, and he's taking it out on the text. This book is really a study of his psychology, more than anything else.

---

I'll throw this in, copied from the other thread, in case anyone wants to try and defend Jordan "whack a mole" Peterson here.

P141 in the book, chapter starting, "If your child is the kind..."

"...

If that fails, being turned over a parent's knee might be required. For the child who is pushing the limits in a spectacularly inspired way, a swat across the backside can indicate requisite seriousness on the part of the responsible adult. There are some situations in which even that will not suffice, partly because some children are very determined, exploratory, and tough or because the offending behaviour is truly severe.

..."

[bennyboy]

What's actually happening, in my opinion, is Peterson is (probably unwittingly) projecting himself all over the book. He's clearly experienced hurt and rejection from women, and he's taking it out on the text.

Eh.  That's far from clear.

---

If that fails, being turned over a parent's knee might be required. For the child who is pushing the limits in a spectacularly inspired way, a swat across the backside can indicate requisite seriousness on the part of the responsible adult. There are some situations in which even that will not suffice, partly because some children are very determined, exploratory, and tough or because the offending behaviour is truly severe.

It seems that you are quite certain that spanking is always wrong, and that anyone recommending is therefore revealing an abusive nature.  Is that your intent?

[robvalue]

Sure, my projection idea is just a hypothesis. I'm not claiming to have evidence for that. But from the book as a whole, that is what I get from him.

About the spanking, I think it's debatable whether it's wrong. That's not the issue here. He is advocating going further than spanking. That is what worries me. What could he mean? He doesn't say. But I find it hard to imagine any situation where "more than spanking" is a suitable punishment, even if we allowed spanking for the sake of argument.

[bennyboy]

Sure, my projection idea is just a hypothesis. I'm not claiming to have evidence for that. But from the book as a whole, that is what I get from him.

About the spanking, I think it's debatable whether it's wrong. That's not the issue here. He is advocating going further than spanking. That is what worries me. What could he mean? He doesn't say. But I find it hard to imagine any situation where "more than spanking" is a suitable punishment, even if we allowed spanking for the sake of argument.

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.

[Deesse23]

Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trivial form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering. Chaos is what emerges more catastrophically when you suddenly find yourself without employment, or are betrayed by a lover. As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, it’s presented imaginatively as feminine. It’s the new and unpredictable suddenly emerging in the midst of the commonplace familiar. It’s Creation and Destruction, the source of new things and the destination of the dead (as nature, as opposed to culture, is simultaneously birth and demise).

Is it only me or is this Deepak Chopra-grade BS?

Chaos is not "unexpected. Thats BS equivocation. Later he tells us that chaos = unpredictable? Now, which is it? This guy is so full of it (and full or deepities).
Arbitrarily assigning *chaos* to being feminine? Why? Because its BS. I am not impressed, not at all.


He is nothing but Deepak Chopra V2.0.

[robvalue]

Sure, my projection idea is just a hypothesis. I'm not claiming to have evidence for that. But from the book as a whole, that is what I get from him.

About the spanking, I think it's debatable whether it's wrong. That's not the issue here. He is advocating going further than spanking. That is what worries me. What could he mean? He doesn't say. But I find it hard to imagine any situation where "more than spanking" is a suitable punishment, even if we allowed spanking for the sake of argument.

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.

---

Chaos, by contrast, is where—or when—something unexpected happens. Chaos emerges, in trivial form, when you tell a joke at a party with people you think you know and a silent and embarrassing chill falls over the gathering. Chaos is what emerges more catastrophically when you suddenly find yourself without employment, or are betrayed by a lover. As the antithesis of symbolically masculine order, it’s presented imaginatively as feminine. It’s the new and unpredictable suddenly emerging in the midst of the commonplace familiar. It’s Creation and Destruction, the source of new things and the destination of the dead (as nature, as opposed to culture, is simultaneously birth and demise).

Is it only me or is this Deepak Chopra-grade BS?

Chaos is not "unexpected. Thats BS equivocation. Later he tells us that chaos = unpredictable? Now, which is it? This guy is so full of it (and full or deepities).
Arbitrarily assigning *chaos* to being feminine? Why? Because its BS. I am not impressed, not at all.


He is nothing but Deepak Chopra V2.0.

Yes, he is absolutely full of it. He talks an awful lot of bullcrap.

---

PS: Well, I said "spanking" is debatable, but it seems the overwhelming evidence is that it's a harmful and ineffective practice. That doesn't surprise me.