I'm delighted to have stumbled across this video, and I'm glad that your reading of the 12 Rules comports nicely with a video I recently made on this topic titled: "Father Zossima's 12 Rules for Life" :)
Haha, watching this video 5 years after you posted it, and I have to say it aged like fine wine. Back then I was somewhat of a fan of JP (mostly because of his Bible symbolism lecture series), and didn't really notice all the BS he was spweing. I really love how you managed to smell his con right away.
Your point about his lack of humility is really something. Watching his rise to fame more closely you really see how hard he capitalized on his fanbase, at one point he was even selling a carpet shaped like his RU-vid avatar for $2000
I recall in the late 60’s on campuses you were forever hearing about would be swamis. , usually an older person who was good at turning a phrase, latching onto starry eyed young..Esoteric meditation, brown rice diets, odd skirty outfits. One was rotund and god help you ran a camp with mandatory skinny dipping in local river.Watching this it was good training in developing a BS meter. We also concluded that if you want to make some real money, start a religion. As a parlor game we’d set out possible tenets for a make millions scheme for a good laugh. (Jung, a pinch of science, and fear of social change)Just thought I’d bring in a little history. I view this video as a public service announcement
Christopher Hitchens did at least reflect on his success when speaking about how his recognition was growing right when his cancer was diagnosed . I don’t think a comparison of Hitchens and Peterson is worth making unless its in the context of pointing to the shallow nature of Paterson’s thinking.
Yes, he reflected that his success was coming just as his life was ending - but he never questioned the sheer enormity of the success itself, never considered it even the slightest bit insane or even comment-worthy. What I was pointing out in this video is that this says something about a person.
Steve Donoghue I see that however there was no particular reason for Hitchens to do so in the same way as might be expected of Peterson owing to the difference in the ideas and the development of their profiles. I’m not sure that Peterson can be expected to reflect to any extent publicly on his success ether yet I do see what you also appear to be seeing in his mindset witch presents to me as a sort of sinister crusader for some dark ideological arguments that can be dangerous when offered up to the audience he targeted with his book. I do think you did a very good job of criticising the ideas of a man who can be very difficult to pin down.
The entitlement with Hitchens may just arise from his education - although not privileged by birth, the Leys School & Balliol College Oxford can confer a sense of entitlement. The David Cameron Conservative government in the UK was a perfect embodiment of this entitlement, although theirs was also embedded in class
You might want to check out his podcasts with Joe Rogan. You'll be able to see hours of him speaking about how he wasn't prepared for the fame. How he's struggling to handle everything. You'd see him cry when he talks about a mom and daughter thanking him on the street, or about how his daughter has helped him through the process. He's much more human and humble than what you describe.
Thank you! Great - I'd already seen one Joe Rogan show (the one linked by Thunderturtle down below), but I confess, my eyes were probably glazing over a bit by the point when he talks about his reactions to his sudden fame. And you're right: there's plenty of video footage out there that makes him seem intensely human - I hope I wasn't conveying that I didn't think he was - but the heart of what bugs me is a little off to one side of that: it isn't that he's having human reactions to the full ramifications of his fame ... it's that he accepts the fame itself as a normal thing. So we get the spectacle of an academic psychologist writing a collection of sweeping behavioral-philosophical rules for life (or, even more absurdly in Hitchens' case, a political deadline-writer having the gall to re-write the Ten Commandments) - instead of such a figure saying "Well, who the heck am I to be a guru?"
I found it bewildering when you said Peterson had a 'thick' Canadian accent. Maybe compared to the people that usually are in your common earshot but as someone who comes from Scotland, his accent is as clear to me as your accent is.
Interesting video. I loved the way you summed it up. I hope you don't end up fighting off the rabid JP fans! I am never sure whether the toxic views are coming from JP or are just his fans twisting his views. I have encountered an awful lot of JP fans online who think his work shows that women need to know their place and let the men be in charge. I have also encountered a lot of his fans who think if they 'tidy their rooms' and improve themselves they should be granted a hot girlfriend. It does make me wonder if they are just imposing their own desires onto his book or whether this does have roots in his writing. I am not about to read the book and watch 4000 hours of videos to find out!
LauraBristol - Nah! I am sorry but you are exaggerating. I do not believe you. " I have encountered an awful lot of JP fans online" Really? Gosh! What in their hundreds, thousands or millions?
LauraBristol - Yet the caricature of his so-called followers/fans as these entirely dumb one-dimensional is almost certainly not true. And you don't come across the type who frequents politics/current affairs forums. You don't seem to be following on from that to here on RU-vid.
Steve Donoghue - Ha! So who is and isn't a fan? Like Neil Griffiths - I liked his book - Maps of meaning. Was recommended by a teacher. So I came across that book well before the Peterson phenomena hit the streets. I have never been to one of his talks and generally don't follow him. It's after the Cathy Newman interview that I became aware of how big this guy is becoming. And the most fascinating aspect I find is his question of "belief", his Christianty.
I have seen many of his videos and don't see the attraction. He seems like the master of word salads with zero calories. I may check out his book when there are stacks of them for twenty five cents a piece at Goodwill. Overall I agree with just about everything you said except I do believe grifter and conman are applicable to Peterson.
This was extremely insightful. I've been wrestling with my discomfort with Peterson even while admiring some of his stance. This gets to the heart of it. His embrace of Trumpworld and lost religious souls always creeped me out. He never challenged that gravy train.
I have watched quite a few of Peterson's videos. I have had the feeling that he has no sense of humor, esp about himself. Glad you said the same thing. Another person I have this feeling about is Piers Morgan.
Very well observed and summarized. Agree totally. It is no surprise how 'self' absorbed the rules are considering the navel gazing element of his original field.
I have been suspect of this man after I had watched several of his lectures etc. Thank you Steve for pointing out that he is nothing more than an opportunist and in my humble opinion, a few other things I won't mention here. I live in Toronto, so I've been aware of his fame for quite some time. You made so many important observations about what him and others like him do. So I appreciate you making this video and sharing your thoughts.
Thoughtful as always! Thank you. Ironically, I don't know any male fans of Jordan Peterson; I do know a few female fans. ( I'm a fan 🙂) He mainly tells people to focus on fixing themselves bc that's what they have most control over.
I haven't read his book but watched him a lot when he was active a few years ago. I think no matter his political controversies, the fact he's encouraging more people towards spirituality (particularly in his Bible series) should be commendable in an age where lazy atheism is popular, and barely anyone can convince the younger generation to take the time to see how their spiritual views may or may not deviate from religious texts. His audience are the main problem, but they are his audience because they have problems. It's hard to know how much of it is his doing. I think he's more humble and deserving than you suggest, his Joe Rogan inteviews shows his humility, it just doesn't come out in his debates. But perhaps you're seeing something I haven't, but your dissection of the rules as being egoistic are so on point!!
I've always found fault in the advice of ditching any friend that isn't willing to verbally go down on you at a moments notice. And of course the only logical conclusion to follow that up, would be for you to become a friend like that, a constant fountain spewing forced positivity.
LauraBristol - Yes, but I think that is JP is saying also. He really isn't saying that just keep a fawning crowd around you. Rather, that if you have "social friends" that are there for good times only than you need to ditch them. Those who seem to disappear when you need help but are there when they need you. That is how I read it anyway.
This is a great video Steve. I highly agree with your conclusions about his method and opportunism. Though I haven't seen many of his videos, I drew similar conclusions from the ones I have seen. Some of his regressive arguments such as the famous lobster example are just ridiculous. As far as I can see a large amount of people eat up any everything he says uncritically, I think that's the real danger when it comes down to it.
This was a brilliant video, Steve, especially on the broader subject of opportunists. It was nice to hear someone articulate much of what I feel about Christopher Hitchens. He had a brilliant mind, but a habit of passing ridicule off as critique on subjects in ways that would make it easy for people to believe him an authority, when, in fact, he was savvy at identifying people hungry to be given license to indulge in ridicule themselves.
Peterson has frequently commented on the insanity of the public attention he has received and how it has impacted him both professionally and personally. Hitchens also made various references to his own experience with fame, though in a drier and more ironic manner - fitting for an Englishman. There's nothing wrong with seizing an opportunity.
I went back and found it. Granted, it was a mail-haul, but the first 10 minutes of the video is devoted to a discussion of Jordan Peterson. He sounds like a putz to me. You posted the video on May 12th. It was called something like “In Which I Take a Break from Jordan Peterson.”
Great to listen to your views. Most eloquent. Insightful. Intelligent. Balanced. Nice critique of the person and the writing. Interesting to apply same critique to C Hitchens. If JP was a woman with that whiney voice and his mish mash of tangential ideas, amphetamine and benzo sustained... She'd be laughed out the auditorium. However, like you he has an ability to voice everything in his complex high functioning brain (mind). I'm on the fence about him. His agent and publicist saw the money potential. Some of his university talk recordings sound profound. But how students take notes and stay on track listening to such a mish mash of thoughts, is curious to me. All wannabe celebrities are opportunists. However, the doctrine of 'tidy one's room is an debatable catalytic for life success🌞
I have no desire to defend Peterson, but having been in therapy myself, this is just how therapists project themselves. Balanced, without demonstrable shows of anxiety, that they (unlike the analysand) are in control at all times. Presumably it forms part of their training through their own analysis. My only encounter with him is I have one of his earlier publications Maps Of Meaning which purports to examine the roots behind the drive in the human race to form stories, which as a writer obviously appealed. However, a mere 27 pages in and it seems like a standard Jungian, collective unconsciousness argument, which I find limited and besides, can never get past Jung's rabid anti-Semitism. I'm still on page 27. Finally, those rules which suggest a father is doling out may just have caught on to its audience because we now are among the generations of children of divorced parents. Strikes me as the same motivating factor as the Harry Potter books back in the day, when Harry's parents are both taken out of the picture very early. Seems the white middle classes, who are not immune from family break-up, want a father figure to guide them.
I don't know, I have a therapist and she comes across nothing like that, she comes over as human and just like everybody else, flaws and all. But that might be why I like her and find her most helpful to me.
He's got good points, but it's all based on old psychologists, the bible, and existing philosophical ideas. He's just someone who was catchy in rephrasing it all. You see this all the time.
Very interesting and different take on the phenomenon that is Mr. Peterson, thanks for the thoroughness. I see your points and while the "entitlement" argument could be absolutely true (would explain why it's quite hard to really "like" him), I think some other commentators made some legit points, that other reasons could feed into that impression as well (belief in destiny, depression, social awkwardness, the very late career breakthrough etc). Like most, I haven't quite made up my mind about him. In general, I think that it's a good thing, that he brings back mythology and archetypes back into discussion. And of course, it's important that more people stand up for what they're thinking and reject the language and thought police, which has become pretty unbearable. His lectures are more interesting than his writing, and yes, his arguments turn (too) often into stories, which can get quite a bit long-winded, repetitive and over-associative. BUT: Everyone who says he's a pseudo-intellectual and/or a hack has certainly never read any Eliade, Jung etc. and just doesn't know what he or she is talking about. I noticed that 99% of the times people who call other people pseudo-intellectuals, it kinda falls back on them, or is it just me?
This comment section is like the comment sections on every other Peterson video. Peterson's fans ignore criticism by claiming the reviewer doesn't understand Peterson because Peterson is much more intelligent and speaks on a metaphorical level. No matter who criticizes Peterson, even if the person is another accomplished academic, they make the same claim. Peterson has a PhD in psychology - not religion, not philosophy, not chemistry, not computer science, not literature, or any of the other fields he speaks about. He is not an expert on every subject. He's not even the most accomplished person in his own field. Yet his fans think he knows everything. Peterson passes off his opinions as fact. His former boss at Harvard had to reprimand him multiple times for not distinguishing between the results of scientific studies and his own opinion in lectures. He misrepresents multiple philosophers, notably Nietzsche. He misrepresents post-modernism. He redefines the word truth to mean "something that helps you survive" in an odd, relativistic, pseudo-Darwinian way. He relies on Jung, although academic psychology doesn't consider Jung scientific anymore because his views were not falsifiable. Jung, like Freud, is now taught more from a historical perspective. And he speaks in such an opaque way that anyone could find something they like in his lectures. Contrary to popular belief, speaking in an opaque, verbose style doesn't mean someone is more intelligent than others. Many of the most intelligent people in academia speak and write in a clear, concise manner to accurately convey their thoughts.
Have you paid any attention to any of the other Intellectual Dark Web folk? One that has a similar origin story is Bret Weinstein. I doubt that he's achieved the success of Peterson, but he podcasts regularly.
I came across peterson on youtube, and his videos led my to his book, which in turn led me to reading again. I'm thankful for that. Though, his demeanor in interviews and his podcasting and his writing certainly holds a tone of self-importance. 12 rules for life is not a good book, even for a self-help book. It's verbose and excessively tangential. He also carries himself very differently now than when he used to do youtube videos just for educational purposes - the fame has definitely corrupted him.
I'm now learning a GREAT deal about his fans -- mainly that they're intolerant of having their hero criticized even in the general terms I used in this video.
wait! where'd that comment go that stated that he did include women because he held seminars on how to help women be more assertive when asking for raises or less overtime? did you delete that one Steve? cause I have a few TOTALLY non-aggressive, non-assertive words to reply to that.....grumble, grumble...
Steve Donoghue And we already KNOW a lot about his critics. Character assassinations, falsehoods, slander, misrepresentations, ideologically possessed....no substantive critiques of the scientific claims he makes, no good arguments against his views, just same old same old.....opportunist, charlatan, alt-right, Christian extremist, fascist, hateful, misogynist, racist, homophobe, transphobe etc. etc. Blah blah blah....It's pathetic.
What I consider the real book story is how much attention "!2 Rules" gets compared to another self-help book from this year. The real question, for me, is, Why is this book treated as a phenomenon while "Girl, Wash Your Face," which also uses Christian thought to support its assertions and I believe has higher sales, is almost ignored by the critics? Nobody has made a 33-minute video about it. There have been, no reviews in any publication with the worlds "New York" in its name. Part of it is the content, but part of it is that Petersen is a scholar, which means he must be treated more seriously and is viewed by some as a sort of dangerous traitor. Another part of it is that Rachel Hollis' book is "for girls." The people covering Petersen's book, including you, have little experience with this genre. And this happens all the time with all kinds of books, such as popular political books. The critical class considers these books unworthy of their attention, so when they do encounter such a book, it shocks them. But if you are actually reporting on what people read and not just doing service to the bookish, you need to cover these books and do so in a serious manner. Sorry for the lateness and length of my comment. I'm not being critical of you, because you do cover a wider spectrum of books than most, but it is something that's been bothering me for a while now.
As you can tell from the title of the video and its contents, I'm here neither "reporting' on Peterson nor 'covering' his book. But I've read Hollis' book and watched its attendant phenomenal reception, so if you think I should make a video about it, I'll certainly consider it.
I think your time would be better spent making a video of that graphic novel collection :). Like I said, you do a much better job than others. I was going on less about particular books than the general coverage of books that people actually read. It's something that's bothering me for a while and I'm sorry I used your post to get it off my chest.
While I have my own reservations about the man I think you're being a little too hard on him. It is a self-help book. Self-helps are written to help you not others. And perhaps his nonchalance, which makes him seem like an opportunist, is genuine humility. He also takes anti-depressants which may have a diminishing effect on his emotions.
His emotions certainly don't seem diminished on any other subject. And his reaction in interviews when his fame comes up is never nonchalance - it's entitlement.
Steve Donoghue - "when his fame comes up is never nonchalance - it's entitlement." The thing I really find puzzling is why you have concentrated so much on this! Why? The Peterson phenomena has many intriguing aspects to enquire, but this? Nah.
I explained why I concentrate on this, yes? Why I concentrate on this is one-half of what I talk about in this video! (And surely I myself get to decide which parts of the Peterson phenomena I myself find intriguing, right?)
Steve Donoghue - True! But for me, it is what you've not touched on which explain some of the questions you have raised. I think his supreme confidence is derived from his religiosity - belief in his own myth-making. It seems he believes this to be his fate rather than just his entitlement. In short "Messiah complex".
Just wanted to add a few clips regarding Jordan's view of his fame. I'm sure there are way more concrete examples but usually his interviews/lectures run for hours s it's hard to find. These two are the ones I watched last and remembered. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9Xc7DN-noAc.html 2:26:52 (and onvards) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iRPDGEgaATU.html 1:23:07 (and onvards) Regarding the Canadian policy, case of Lindsey Shepard ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vpFUvfAvKs4.html Anyhow, as always love the rants :D
Lol! When it comes to speaking about his belief in God that is when I find him to be at his slipperiest. But I do not think he is a pseudo-intellectual.
How psychologist can say that morality, even intelligence come from some kind of deity, flip flopping his idea how religion affects different aspects of our lives.
Thanks for making this Steve, it’s my favorite video of the week for sure. I think you have read JP well, I am also suspicious of how he conducts himself (what you mention about being an opportunist), however I don’t know if that’s just the persona that he puts on publicly, I couldn’t say. I have liked and agreed with Peterson ever since I first heard about the whole transgender scandal. I haven’t seen absolutely every single one of his videos but I have seen a fair share of his lectures, on psychology and on other topics. I find myself agreeing with him pretty much on everything. Oh, I particularly love his analysis of “Pinocchio”. Now I haven’t read his book but these rules sound quite good to me. From my viewpoint, they seem a little psychoanatically influenced which is very good considering that psychoanalytic treatment today is very costly and difficult to find in certain areas. I do have to say I am, after all, a 26 year old white male. Well, Mexican. Does Mexican count as white? OMG who am I????????
Hey Juan, I just subscribed to your channel and have been binge-watching your videos ever since none of which would lead me to believe that you're a JP fan. He is a full-blown misogynist who actually came out in support of and justified the Incel demands. His following is equally rabid but you seem like such a lovely person. Ah well, I suppose the lesson here is that nice people like him too
I can readily attest: Juan is indeed a lovely person - one of the loveliest on BookTube! And for what it's worth, I think it's fairly obvious that Jordan Peterson is also a very nice person - generous, affable, even to a certain extent open-minded. And lord knows, I've interacted with MANY of his fans who also wonderful people! I think the whole subject is more complex than simply a question of nice people & not-nice people - and one of the things about Peterson that I find most refreshing is that he clearly sees that and never disrespects it.
@@saintdonoghue Out of respect for you I shall give the subject of Jordan Peterson another and a more thorough go, but so far I have to warn you all I hear is misogynist dog whistling.
Well, he's definitely worth closer study as a phenomenon (I don't think I'd say he's worth closer reading as an author, particularly this bestselling book), but I worry about using "dog whistling" in this case! I don't think Peterson himself is a misogynist, and if for the sake of argument we say he's not, then he can't be dog whistling, can he? I think we need another term - what's a term for somebody who's used by others to dog whistle? If that makes any sense?
How are you going to start the video off on such a wrong note. He said if anyone asks he would consider being polite right but when you make things into law now you’re using compulsion. So you start by saying wow he said he would never say this ever. Shame.
The first draft of JP`s book read, "if you come across a cat on the street, kiss it with passion on the lips...and mean it." His editor advised against it. I kid you not.
Jordan Peterson said it himself that he found an opportunity to make money from what's happening to him. He doesn't deny it in one of his Joe Rogan interviews. The things listed in his books are nothing new, and these are things that people should remember despite all of the wokeness going on.
Hee - I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that none of the dog-people (and probably none of the cat-people) watching this video are grossed out by that ...
A) a humanist can believe in a God, obviously B) "Oh my God" is standard exclamation meaning "amazing," not a protestation of personal religious belief, obviously
I’m not a Peterson fan by any means, but I must point out that you misstated his views right off the bat. He did not say he would not under any circumstances use preferred pronouns. He said he was against being compelled by law to do so. He also said he likely WOULD use them if asked by someone sincerely. I point this out not to defend him or take a side, but because there really is an important difference between your description and the reality of his rise to prominence.
No one will remember Peterson's name in five years. The last big psychology book was Women are from Venus and Men are from Uranus. Does anyone remember that ?
Chris Kunkle I do ... it was a load of garbage. Can't remember the guy who wrote it though. This guys has a lot of young men who are mixing misogynistic view points, entitlement sentiments and this book into on unholy toxic cocktail. That's when things become an issue.
Squirrelly wow. Not bitter, don't blame men for anything going on my life. Therefore there isn't anything pathetic going on here. However your comment really does say volumes about you.
I'm disappointed in you, Steve. This was an unconvincing hatchet job of Peterson's 12 Rules. You lack respect for the intelligence of your audience. The most charitable I can be towards you is to say that you didn't understand a single chapter. The more cynical observation is that you did understand but are here obfuscating. You simply saying, based on your specious power of inference, that he hasn't showed the kind of humility you insist he show in incontrovertible ways is not compelling in the slightest. Not only is it pop psychology -- as you're helping yourself to his mental states -- but what gall to criticize a man based off such flimsy evidence, such self-serving bias, let alone the gall to expect your audience to pretend as if you had such a power. And what are we to do with your sophomoric reading skills? You can't seriously ask that we go along with your slippery slope arguments. By the way, Peterson's following is largely based off the demographics of RU-vid, which is young white males. Guess who else's core audience shares that same demographic? Yours, genius. Peterson advises that you treat others as if they knew something you don't, which is clearly, obviously, plain as day, a dictum to treat them with respect, to listen to them, to be of the attitude that they have something to teach you. Your interpretation: "And don't assume this about anybody you're not talking to." LOL...what gibberish. And after they share what they know, you say the implication is that "You can suck them dry and discard them." You forgot to add "and kill them, especially the women." What a joke.
No it’s just that he’s quite a bad writer. He needs to reach the less intellectual and make them understand, if he can’t do that then he’s a bad writer!
@@wbrown5165 Only morons need Vox Day to tell them what Peterson is saying. You don't understand Peterson, which is why you run to someone else, basically saying, "Please, explain this to me because I don't understand it." So, now, how do you judge Vox Day if you've already admitted you can't understand Peterson? You can't. All you are doing is regurgitating Vox Day. You remain clueless about Peterson, as it should be -- because Peterson is not for idiots (like Steve here).
Very Harsh! There are plenty of good people that have come to like him. To share a stage with Stephen Fry? That is an achievement! What kind of opportunist? He who grabs all the opportunities coming his way or the one who's deliberately exploiting others? To refer to him as an opportunist with negative tones is harsh and I think unjustifiable. He has faced some utterly ridiculous and appalling press coverage, despite his many admirers. And on the whole, he has handled it pretty well. I don't think his literary output can or should be judged upon the 12 rules book. But rather on the other book: "Maps of Meaning". And I didn't fail to notice that you missed out a compelling aspect [to me his most intriguing aspect] of Jordan Peterson - his faith in Christianity and God. He has been very reluctant, obfuscatory and evasive on the subject. And it has certainly been his toughest challenge - going up against the Atheists. Yet, he has given this cool persona to being a Christian believer which so many people have failed to do. I mean someone like Dr. William Lane Craig must surely be staring up at envy at this guy.
Peterson's relationship with Christianity is infuriating. For the most part, he treats religion as a useful body of myths/illustrations/archetypes, "more real than real," as he says, but not functionally different from Homer or Ovid. That's a perfectly fine position to take; it would even be compatible with any private religious convictions he had. And his "Biblical Series," for all its digressions, is still immensely enjoyable. But his squeamishness about direct religious questions seems way too severe for someone in his position. And I'm pretty sure it's not just his distaste for positivism; he'd probably answer straight if somebody asked him whether he believed in a "literal Pinocchio" or a "literal Raskolnikov." It's only with a very specific religion within a very narrow faith tradition that he becomes, as you say, "reluctant, obfuscating, and evasive," etc. The question of whether someone 1.) believes in the existence, corporeal, supernatural or otherwise, of a Being called "God" and 2.) believes that the Bible or some other text uniquely reveals some truth about this being, is really a very simple one at heart. There's only so many times a person can say "it's a complicated question," or "it depends what you mean by truth" before they have to admit they're being dishonest. I suspect - though I could be wrong - that he's afraid of what might happen to his reputation in some circles if he laid out his exact, unfiltered thoughts on Christianity. I haven't kept up with Peterson for a few months, and haven't seen his debate/conversation with Matt Dillahunty, so somebody correct me if he's clarified this. But I'd really like someone to hold his toes to the fire on this question until he gives a straight answer. I can appreciate nuance, but I have no patience for the kind of cowardice that causes people to willfully hide their convictions behind sophistry.
Hah! Well, if it's unfair to judge somebody's literary output by their latest book that's been translated into every language on Earth and sold 250 million copies, then we live in an unfair world.
Steve Donoghue - Lol! I'll tell you why it is unfair. It's a cod psychology self-help book - which the author freely admits it is as such. And it isn't his best work and neither is it meant to be. Like every other artist, he too deserves to be judged by his best work. And I would love you to review THAT book! "...sold 250 million copies..." Surely not that much!
He signed it, didn't he? He cashes the royalty checks, doesn't he? And he writes right there in that 'cod psychology' book that a) people shouldn't lie, b) people should be precise in their speech, and c) people should never choose the expedient over the meaningful, right? So how does all that add up to him writing a book he doesn't really mean? (also: I was low-balling the sales-estimate...)
Steve Donoghue - It is not so much he doesn't mean it. I think he does. He absolutely does. But it is not his best work. This leads to mismeasure of the man. I am not saying this book shouldn't be judged, but rather for someone like your self, his other work seems far more appropriate. I think he drives his hubris from his religiosity - he believes in his own myth. I think he sees it more as his fate than this being entitled to this.
He is a spook. No one gets rich and famous in this world without being one. Infamous at best, but not famous. Not promoted continually. His "pushback" is clearly orchestrated. He made a deal with the devil (UN) to essentially Christianize young men ideologically, if you catch my meaning. We can't have extremists cropping up to put up any real resistance to tyranny.
I can understand why someone would not like this book. I also think there are some valid criticisms of Peterson. However you have mischaracterized him. The questions here are simple. Does Peterson want to help people and has he helped people? The answer is undoubtedly yes. The dude literally spent years as a psychologist and professor. Also the way you dive into someone of the rules is very disingenuous. Of course the rules are self focused. The only person you can change is yourself. However he REPEADTLY says through out the book that the reason you get yourself together is so that you can offer your family, your community and the world your best.
How can someone not be a self centered narcissist and write a book like that? Every self-help author is one, i suspect. An opportunist, no doubt and you are right about his demographic. Cant say his book made me any better.... But he did arrive at the birth of cancel culture, when Universities became places where debate was closed, and that factor created the environment for him to thrive. So for that i can overlook his flaws...
I really enjoy the simultaneously laid back and yet fiercely opinionated - and funny - way you describe books (or any number of things), but I couldn't disagree with you more on your description of Peterson's success being an "accident" or "random chance". He obviously rubs you the wrong way, but his success was no accident in the sense that he somehow stumbled into it. "Unexpected" would be much more accurate because his success was in fact, directly the result of his being incredibly brave and taking a stand against his government forcing him to speak in a certain way. Notice he was alone in this, and yet his act of bravery revealed that there were a great many people who felt exactly like he did, but were afraid to say so in public. He has spoken at length about the precarious position he was put in where his job was by no means secured, even if he had tenure. He was regularly getting notices and letters that his job was in danger while being called a transphobe and a Nazi - not a feeling one can easily dismiss as not a big deal. Opportunists don't jump at the chance to be excoriated and smeared by many on the Left, they back down and find a safer way to make a fortune. The Woke Left for lack of a better word, puts people at risk for losing their jobs if they push back against their incredibly simplistic ideas. People are justifiably afraid of challenging the status quo too publicly. You've noted the symptoms of this yourself when you point out that book awards have nothing to do with quality but identity politics or noting how J.K. Rowling herself has also ludicrously been smeared as a transphobe and a "nazi" for refusing to go along with the now common-place phrasing like "birthing people" rather than "women" or "mothers". These are not words "evolving" as the Woke enablers claim. This is top-down (academics, mainstream media, and now the Biden administration itself) imposition of changes in language enforced by word police who'll call you a bigot if you don't conform to these overt distortions of language. As for the idea that he's an opportunist who isn't deeply committed to what he's saying, all the evidence just points to the contrary. If anything, you could accuse him of zealotry and taking himself too seriously for your tastes, but certainly not being opportunistic in the way you describe. He's also angry because he's had it with the unchallenged and unexamined and fascistic ideas of the Woke Left in particular and I don't blame him at all. As for the idea that he is primarily talking to white males - not actually true, but even if he was, so what? He speaks to women and minority males all the time and more than half his students were women when he was teaching. Many of his clients were also women and he told them exactly the same thing. "Stand up straight" - he used to counsel very successful women to be more assertive. He was telling professional women to "lean in" before Sheryl Sandberg did. In any case, do you have concerns about someone who speaks only to women? Only to black males? Is the assumption that any speaker who is popular primarily with white males is inherently problematic?Were the messages of Bernie Sanders problematic because he had a mostly white "Bernie Bros" group of males who fiercely defended him? And Peterson has repeatedly made it clear that his rules are not just about "you", but about you, your family and society itself. He talks about responsibilities to your family and society constantly. I mean if he had written the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", you would accuse him of being selfish. "See, it's latent in the statement: it's still all about you! Your gauge for what is right is still based on how YOU want to be treated." You don't like the man, fair enough, but in my opinion, you are approaching him with a great deal of motivated reasoning (which is why you choose to talk about his rules in the second half of the video in your own way and completely ignore his nuanced explanations and context of what he actually means) and painting a picture of him that only works superficially to fit the conclusion you already have of him - a conservative who by "random chance" stumbled onto success by taking a stand against the Canadian government and the Woke college administration where he worked. Having said all that, I still like your reviews. Keep them coming.
Steve Donoghue "He's an opportunist because he isn't humble enough." No. He's VERY humble and very grateful for all of the success that has come his way. He mentions it constantly and gets overwhelmed with emotion at times. He's sure of what he says, is well researched and very articulate with his speech. He sees a problem with society and aims to help and address it. The fact that he has many supporters and followers means that his message resonates with many people, and many people want to support his efforts, future projects and getting his message out. He's made a lot of money....good for him. That isn't evidence of disingenuity. Sorry
There are quotation-marks around "He's an opportunist because he isn't humble enough," but there's no such quote in my video. And I never refer to him as disingenuous.
Steve Donoghue Way to dismiss the point. LOL And yes you imply that he's disingenuous, by referring to how much money he brings in and by mentioning a certain demographic that his message resonates with. Now YOU'RE the one being dishonest and disingenuous.
It didn't happen by accident. It happened largely because of the lies and toxic nature of our modern age. He speaks the truth and people are drawn to that. I hope the hundreds of books you have behind you contain some Hans Christian Anderson. Jordan was the boy who mentioned the Emperor had no clothes.
Another self-serving, entitled huckster who doesn't deserve the extra publicity. And petting stray cats on the street isn't usually a good idea in my opinion.
Stray cats on the street don't tend to WANT to be petted, do they? I'm no cat expert, but most street-cats seem even more misanthropic than, well, all other cats ...
