12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

Walking around B&N I noticed this book and thought I'd check it out from the library and give it a read. The “12 Rules” have a much different tone than books I usually read which got me interested. Things like “Don't bother kids when they're skateboarding” and “pet a cat when you encounter one”. What I didn't realize was just how religious it was! In every chapter somehow the story is turned back to The Bible. It was during this book that I realized that using Libby I could skip chapters. That worked great for this book where skipping would just fast forward to the next rule.

AUDIOBOOK

This book had great ratings, but I just couldn't get into it. I listened to about 10% and the only takeaways I got were that he started writing this book by answering questions on Quora, and he spoke alot about crabs, or maybe it was lobsters, and their mating process. Unfortunately, this book started out rough and I gave up.

A lot of people I know have read this book or have strong opinions (in both directions) on Jordan Peterson. I tried to take the information as it was presented without reading through the lens of “what so-and-so would think of this”, but sometimes that was difficult.

On the whole I enjoyed it. I thought Peterson had some valuable observations about culture, history, psychology, spirituality, all sorts of things. I didn't feel that most of his opinions were revolutionary to me - I have already heard most of his ideas in different forms. In that respect this was not a life-changing book.

Peterson is a good writer. I found myself highlighting and saving quotes all the way through, not because I agreed with everything he said, but because he captured an old idea in a poignant or clever way. A lot of this book is clearly his opinion, and it comes across as such. He isn't afraid to say what he thinks, sometimes caustically, which is refreshing.

Peterson put a lot of his own personal history into this book. If you care to know who he is, and how he came to be that way, you can find out by reading 12 Rules for Life. He has endured some tragedies, lost friends to suicide, intently studied the dark parts of history (Soviet Russia, the Holocaust etc.), and come out fairly whole. Despite heavy references to Christianity, God, and the Bible I would categorize this as a staunchly secular book.

He proposes a worldview that is moral and emotional, not at all austere or intellectual as many modern philosophers tend to do, but without the accoutrements of religious tradition or mysticism. It is an attractive modern worldview for modern times, but personally I am left unsatisfied. It would take a much longer review and a much closer reading of 12 Rules to pinpoint the source of my dissatisfaction. Perhaps it is something in me that craves the mystical and transcendent explanations for life, despite their caprices and inconsistencies.

12 Rules was a worthwhile read and provides fodder for many excellent campfire conversations down the road.

Walking around B&N I noticed this book and thought I'd check it out from the library and give it a read. The “12 Rules” have a much different tone than books I usually read which got me interested. Things like “Don't bother kids when they're skateboarding” and “pet a cat when you encounter one”. What I didn't realize was just how religious it was! In every chapter somehow the story is turned back to The Bible. It was during this book that I realized that using Libby I could skip chapters. That worked great for this book where skipping would just fast forward to the next rule.

I downloaded this audiobook after it came up on one of my favorite podcasts, Malcom Gladwell's Revisionist History. Gladwell spoke to the concept of developing one's own “12 Rules for Life,” which apparently became highly popular as a result of Peterson's lectures/this book.

Being an unabashed lover of rules, self-help books, and academics lauded by Gladwell, I thought this would be right up my alley. And on the face of it, the rules are inviting – from “Stand up straight with your shoulders back” to “Be precise in your speech,” to the less conventional “Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street.” But I struggled from the outset: firstly, this book is all over the GD place. I had such a hard time following; if I stopped paying attention for a few moments (as I often do, typically because I'm listening while doing something else, like driving or cross-training) then I would get super confused. For example, how did we go from talking about taking care of yourself like you would a dear friend to how the cultural narrative of Adam and Eve explains our shame of nakedness? Where's the connection I missed?

This book is a pejorative and wholly overwrought polemic. Though some points of his made sense to me, they were completely lost in a mixture of his own personal experience, the work of other psychologists, scientific literature, summaries of books and historical figures, and long explanations of cultural narratives (often within the same sub-heading, and often fairly unrelated). But it REALLY lost me in Chapter 11 when he went on a neo-patriarchal rant, trying to get the reader to feel bad for poor privileged white boys now they they are underrepresented in college (among a slew of other stupid reasons)? Fuck that, dude.

I still like the idea of having 12 rules for life, but not in the way this book presents. I'd recommend listening to the episode of Revision History instead.

Following one of the rules in the books, which is to tell the truth I decided to be as honest as possible whilst reviewing. A lot of the content within the book resonated with me and has given me a lot of food for thought about my life and how I'm living it. Around half way through the book I decided to read some reviews to get a general feel from other people who have read it and I found that much of my concerns and opinions were shared. The book has a lot of good inside of it but also has a lot misinterpretation and skewing of stories and quotes to fit an argument. That being said I feel I'm a more compassionate, understanding and thoughtful person through reading it which is why I would recommend it to anybody looking for a little guidance through this journey we call life.

Jeg ville lese 12 Rules for å gjøre meg opp en egen mening, Peterson får skryt og kjeft fra de forskjelligste kanter, og kritikken om at han er en filosof for Alt-Right krevde av meg at jeg måtte sette meg inn i hva han faktisk står for.
Saken er at Jordan Peterson først og fremst er psykolog, og i de kapitlene (eller reglene) som bygger på hans hovedkompetanse, så er det svært mye bra. Det er mer enn en selvhjelpsbok, med forankring i gode historier og grundige kunnskaper. Men med en gang han trer inn i det politiske, blir kritikken fra venstresiden og fra feministene relevante: Kritikken mot feminismen og det venstrevridde (i hans øyne) akademia oppleves som mildt sagt problematiske og kaster mørke skygger over resten.

Etter å ha lest boken tar jeg avstand fra de som mener at han har en protagonist for Alt-Right, men ser at de som vil kan lese noen av reglene hans i den retning. Jeg tror derimot at det som utfordrer folk - meg også - er at han tar et ganske så solid tak i de mørkere sidene ved livet, og våger å si det samme som Paulus gjør i Romerbrevet: “Det gode som jeg vil gjør jeg ikke, og det onde som jeg ikke vil gjør jeg”. Å stirre mørket inn i øynene er ganske smertefullt, og humanister vil ha problemer med å svelge det fordi det ikke passer inn i et (for) positivistisk verdensbilde. Løp og les? Nei, men du kaster ikke bort tiden heller. Men du må tåle at han kan være litt moralistisk av og til, og at han skriver mange flere ord enn det han hadde trengt.

J'étais tombé par hasard sur ce livre lors d'une visite dans une librairie anglaise et la couverture m'avait intriguée. La lecture fut laborieuse, principalement car le style de Peterson est extrêmement dense et qu'il faut lui laisser pas mal de temps pour voir exactement où il veut en venir. Le livre est rempli de rappels à la bible, tout en ne se transformant pas non plus en plaidoyer chrétien, au contraire il m'a donné à redécouvrir certains textes sous un autre angle et à mieux les comprendre.

Ces 12 règles sont effectivement importantes, et très bien pensées. Très loin d'être un livre de “self-help”, ce livre est une profonde réflexion philosophique sur notre place et notre impact dans le monde mais aussi sur la portée de nos actes. Si le personnage de Peterson a pu paraitre très sulfureux à travers plusieurs articles (principalement parce qu'il s'attaque aux chaires post-moderniste qu'il désapprouve totalement), j'ai pu découvrir un personnage posé, calme et profondément humain à travers ces nombreuses pages et j'en retire énormément. Un bon voyage, mais un voyage exigeant.

“You need to determine how to act toward yourself so that you are most likely to become and to stay a good person.”

Das Buch befriedigt das Bedürfnis nach Halt durch naturalistische und mythologische Begründungen: Der Autor fundiert seine Argumente stets mit bio-psychologischen oder mythologischen Prämissen. Es werden also entweder psychologische und evolutionsgenetische Befunde genannt, oder die “Bibel” bzw. andere “archetypische”, mythologische Schriften.

Dies hat zuweilen etwas Erfrischendes. Endlich mal weg von dem weichgespülten Ratgeberzeug. Aber letztlich wirkte es dann doch arg gezwungen “episch” und pseudo-tiefsinnig: Das ständige Beharren auf die “Gefahr des schrecklichen Chaos” und das wir es bändigen müssen...

Insgesamt wirken die zwölf Regeln sehr willkürlich und alles ist unsystematisch und unstrukturiert. Die Regeln sind nur Anlass für spontane Gedankenausflüge des Autors. Die fehlende Offenlegung der letzten Prämissen (die man somit selbst heraus kristallisieren muss) wird nur überdeckt durch den gezwungen-epischen Tonfall des Buches, der als Glasur über allem liegt.

Es ist also schön mal etwas anderes als den üblichen Konstruktivismus zu hören. Letztlich ist das Buch aber kein Ausbruch aus dem bürgerlichen Zeitgeschehen, sondern eine bürgerlich-konservative Rückkehr zu den alten Dingen, die Halt geben: Bibel, Christentum, Mythologie. Der Naturalismus ist dann das moderne, wissenschaftliche Äquivalent dazu – die “Rückkehr zur Natur”.

Die Geisteshaltung ist letztlich eine liberal-konservative: Es darf wieder Mann und Frau als primäre Kategorien geben, außerdem die Kernfamilie und die Religion. Der Mensch kann wieder durch die Natur geprägt sein, Wettbewerb ist gut, Kinder brauchen Grenzen (gegen den Hang zum Antiautoritären) etc... Alles irgendwie am Leitfaden der Unterscheidung von Ordnung und Chaos - nicht wirklich hinreichend begründet, sondern, wie gesagt, rhetorisch überdeckt.

Es könnte sich lohnen das Buch genauer zu analysieren, um zu sehen, was es über den Zeitgeist und die Bedürftigkeit der Menschen aussagt. Aber den Zeitaufwand ist mir das dann doch nicht wert.

Peterson is like an Old Testament fire & brimstone preacher, masquerading as a modern psychologist. So only a few thousand years out of date with his worldview. Having said that he occasionally does have a useful thought. I liked the chapter heading of “treat yourself as someone you are responsible for helping”. Great idea. But he gets lost in the poetry of his preaching and like most of the bible ends up with some great rules to live by but fuck all insight on how to put them into action. This book is a recontemporised set of commandments with accompanying sermon but notwithstanding he is so old skool he forgets that the devil is in the details.

Jordan B. Peterson is definitely a marmite figure. Half the world seem to regard him as an irredeemable bigot while the other half some kind of modern prophet. I don't subscribe to either camp, but this is a review of his book, not his character.

What I would say, however, for any reader who is thinking about picking up the book, is that the portrayal of Professor Peterson in the media, good or bad, is not a very good indicator of what this book is like. Many of the topics he is famous for (like the infamous lobsters or his views on sex-based behaviour differences) do indeed crop up, but they are distinct passages and do not constitute the main themes of 12 Rules.

12 Rules for Life sets out to use a combination of science, philosophy and literary analysis to bring time honoured wisdom about how to live well to a modern audience. Each of the 12 rules is really an essay grouped, some more loosely than others, around the rule set out in the title. Some of the rules are more direct, while others are illustrations of broader points Professor Peterson wishes to riff on.

Overall, I thought that that was quite a compelling premise. By taking well-worn wisdom and expressing it through biblical analogies and Jungian archetypes, I found that the book did make me stop and consider concepts that are usually so ordinary that they slip into the background.
As an example, everyone knows lying is bad from the age of four. But exploring truth-telling concerning our self-concept, life in gulags, marital collapse and the ‘life-giving truth of the word of God' (to name a few of the takes in the book) provides enough context to actually spend some time thinking about the role of truth-telling in our lives and in the world more broadly.

Speaking of truth-telling, that leads me onto the book's main weakness. In the sense of the word as ‘a scientifically provable proposition', I'm not sure how ‘true' much of the book is. In particular, most of the book presents the alternative to sticking to the rules as some form of extreme disaster, often literally described as hell. I'm no psychologist, but I'm also always naturally a bit suspicious whenever figures like Freud and Jung are bought up.

I don't think this would matter if the book was presented a little differently. If it was sold as a set of essays ruminating on ancient wisdom and poetic truths, for example - i.e. truth as the way we often experience the world not what is necessarily objective - then I'd be on board with much of what is said. The exaggeration would be artistic license and to ask for data would completely miss the point. However, Professor Peterson frequently alludes to his clinical psychological practice and at times to various studies in biology and psychology which suggest that the book sees its truths as ‘scientifically' true rather than true in some more artistic sense.

Overall, I thought this book was perfectly fine. I enjoyed it somewhat and I do think it made me consider how I move through the world a little differently. I would recommend readers don't take the book too seriously though. Jordan Peterson is a very charismatic speaker for sure and has some interesting ideas in this book and elsewhere. But he is not the messiah, some would say he is just a very naughty boy.


Looking for an alternative? I'd recommend Feline Philosophy by John Gray which I think touches on the same overall theme of living a good life but does it better, in a shorter form and with way more mentions of cats.

I fully expected to give this book five stars. I saw rave reviews for this author's other work. I read the twelve rules and they sounded sufficiently serendipitous. What went wrong?

I think I'm not the best audience for this book. Peterson works with people who are deeply troubled in his job as a psychoanalyst, and perhaps these people need some strong rules to avert chaos. I'm not deeply troubled, and I like a little gentle chaos in my life. I'm pretty sure than others who find life confusing and intensely difficult would love to pull these ideas into their mindsets and allow their boats to stop tipping over.