12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

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.