To answer questions about
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,
please sign up.
Megan
It's also probably because he talks about owning your mistakes and not blaming others all the time. Lots of people want to play the victim card and believe they've done no wrong and that's simply not true.
B Doyle
There is a lot of helpful advise in this book but it is also contains a lot of peterson's political, moral and philosophical views which are highly questionable.
Anja
He can use language in an eloquent way, which conceals how unscientific and subjective his viewpoints often are. I studied both Psychology and Neuroscience and see that much of what he is preaching is too far fetched for the real scientific community. When he talks about archetypes and lobsters, he is talking about his subjective ideas, which he usually arrived at by thought, I believe. Just because he throughs some half-baked evolutional speculations in there and names a few neurotransmitters, (even though I get the impression that he doesn't know much about how the brain actually works, which is fine but then he shouldn't pretend like he knows), it's still highly subjective and speculative. It is totally fine for an academic to write a 'popular science' book for the general public but it is highly unscientific to portray your beliefs and world views as scientific consensus. His content coming in an eloquent rhetorical packaging does not lend it any objectivity. In summary, my main issue with him is: He uses his academic position to preach his personal world views about subject matters outside his area of expertise and tries to sell this as scientific rigour. So if you enjoy the book and it gives you good advice on how to live a better life - good for you. I'd just suggest not to take his 'scientific' theories at face value.
▫️Ron S.
He claims that the natural order places men, and their needs/priorities, over those of women. He even specifies white men. The whole book preaches this in a subversive and outrageous fashion. A lot of people find that deplorable.
Haris Haralabides
I hypothesise that it is because when your world view alters dramatically you tend to have dramatic reactions.
Zein
Hard truths while absolutely never allowing yourself to pander to any group of thought, (outside of science), makes for the most sensitive and irrational types to harbor resentment towards you.
Jeannie Mackenzie
Better to ignore him than to hate him. He cannot abide being ignored.
Tim
Academia, in particular, social science and the humanities are the adopted home for Liberal mid-wits who disregard actual science (the search for objective truth) in favour of culturally mediated empathy, enforced through non-scientific feelings based virtue signalling dogma.
Jordan Peterson challenges their dogmas and they hate him for it. Put it this way, imagine if you were bullied and your only refuge was Psychology. Now imagine if the guy you were bullied by was better at Psychology than you, enter Jordan Peterson.
Jordan Peterson challenges their dogmas and they hate him for it. Put it this way, imagine if you were bullied and your only refuge was Psychology. Now imagine if the guy you were bullied by was better at Psychology than you, enter Jordan Peterson.
Kathleen Verbiest
Because in his eloquent way he actually advocates a world order that is based on patriarchal, hierarchical, machist ideas. And that´s exactly what feminists, antiracists, and everyone who has a bit of feeling for nuance and harmony is trying to move away from.
Even
youtube some interviews. He's been involved in controversy but very few of the hateful comments I've seen seem to come from people who have read the book.
Matt Pfarr
He is a white male who refuses to apologize for being so and challenges the toxic patriarchy ideology. Which is the greatest sin a white male can commit.
XVolR
because he doesn't like social justice warriors, so he gets hate from them
Jason
Generally people like/dislike him because of his interviews.
His biggest weakness is how he pushes religion as if it was fact / truth. Don't pretend to be a scientist and then quote the bible as evidence, be honest and tell everyone that this is a sermon.
He easily destroys most SJW's in interviews.... until he runs into someone who uses logic and reason instead of emotions. Check out his talk with Matt Dillahunty. MD absolutely destroyed him when he pushed religion.
People say that he quotes 'science'. Nonsense. Almost all of his quotes are based on the works of Freud and Jung... both who have been discredited by modern psychological studies. Jung in particular is just considered a mystic.
His biggest weakness is how he pushes religion as if it was fact / truth. Don't pretend to be a scientist and then quote the bible as evidence, be honest and tell everyone that this is a sermon.
He easily destroys most SJW's in interviews.... until he runs into someone who uses logic and reason instead of emotions. Check out his talk with Matt Dillahunty. MD absolutely destroyed him when he pushed religion.
People say that he quotes 'science'. Nonsense. Almost all of his quotes are based on the works of Freud and Jung... both who have been discredited by modern psychological studies. Jung in particular is just considered a mystic.
Dan
Speaking truth in a world full of liars is a revolutionary act.
JBP is Red Skull now (according to Ta-Nehisi Coat, a far-left racial fascist) because he tells people to be responsible for their actions.
Then again it's not between us and them or you. It's between you and your former self and who you will become.
JBP is Red Skull now (according to Ta-Nehisi Coat, a far-left racial fascist) because he tells people to be responsible for their actions.
Then again it's not between us and them or you. It's between you and your former self and who you will become.
Todd Kman
Markus. That is an interesting site that has a definite anti Peterson slant to it.. I think the more balanced perspective is that he is challenging the foundation of what many on the left believe and they don't like it. He is off with some of his analogies and comments but he has valid solid base for his perspective. He thinks and analyses and comes to conclusions less based on his personal bias and more on what he finds. I think this provides a fair assessment of Peterson. https://www.thinkspot.com/feed/single...
Markus
I think this might be a good starting point to answer your question: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_...
Dennis
Victimhood is the new Goldrush and Peterson advises anything but that and promotes silly ideas like taking responsibility. He's also an advocate for men, a lot of young men look up to him, he is the defacto internet dad.
He first rose to prominence in 2016 when he opposed Canada's Bill C-16, a controversial piece of legislation that he argued would compel speech by legally requiring the use of preferred gender pronouns. Critics, particularly from progressive circles, viewed his stance as transphobic, while supporters saw it as a principled defense of free speech.
His perceived political leanings draw quite a bit of ire.
Although Peterson denies being far-right, many of his positions (e.g. criticisms of feminism, marriage, social justice movements, identity politics or basically anything woke) have resonated with conservative or anti-woke audiences. His alignment—intentional or not—with these groups makes him a target for critics on the left, who view him as reactionary or regressive.
He's highly critical of academia and the Left.
Peterson frequently criticizes universities, postmodernism, and Marxist ideologies in academia, which has alienated many academics and students. He’s accused of oversimplifying or misrepresenting these complex fields, which draws sharp responses from scholars. He accurately represents them, which is the problem.
Peterson’s speaking style is intense, philosophical, and at times moralizing, which can come off as patronizing or grandiose to those who disagree with him. His seriousness and emotional delivery invite mockery or skepticism, especially in internet culture but imho the emotional delivery humanizes him.
He's internet famous and gets chewed up by leftist media pundits and of course the legacy leftist media. His rise was fueled by YouTube debates and viral interviews (like the one with Cathy Newman on Channel 4). These moments often portrayed him as combative, which helped create a media narrative of him being a divisive culture warrior, attracting both admiration and disdain.
The tailored clips by leftist youtubers and legacy media have probably done the most damage, but more and more people are watching his longform podcast and discovering they were mislead. Without a doubt these converts are adding significant numbers to his subscriber and watched video count.
He first rose to prominence in 2016 when he opposed Canada's Bill C-16, a controversial piece of legislation that he argued would compel speech by legally requiring the use of preferred gender pronouns. Critics, particularly from progressive circles, viewed his stance as transphobic, while supporters saw it as a principled defense of free speech.
His perceived political leanings draw quite a bit of ire.
Although Peterson denies being far-right, many of his positions (e.g. criticisms of feminism, marriage, social justice movements, identity politics or basically anything woke) have resonated with conservative or anti-woke audiences. His alignment—intentional or not—with these groups makes him a target for critics on the left, who view him as reactionary or regressive.
He's highly critical of academia and the Left.
Peterson frequently criticizes universities, postmodernism, and Marxist ideologies in academia, which has alienated many academics and students. He’s accused of oversimplifying or misrepresenting these complex fields, which draws sharp responses from scholars. He accurately represents them, which is the problem.
Peterson’s speaking style is intense, philosophical, and at times moralizing, which can come off as patronizing or grandiose to those who disagree with him. His seriousness and emotional delivery invite mockery or skepticism, especially in internet culture but imho the emotional delivery humanizes him.
He's internet famous and gets chewed up by leftist media pundits and of course the legacy leftist media. His rise was fueled by YouTube debates and viral interviews (like the one with Cathy Newman on Channel 4). These moments often portrayed him as combative, which helped create a media narrative of him being a divisive culture warrior, attracting both admiration and disdain.
The tailored clips by leftist youtubers and legacy media have probably done the most damage, but more and more people are watching his longform podcast and discovering they were mislead. Without a doubt these converts are adding significant numbers to his subscriber and watched video count.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more
Instead, he's promoting personal responsibility as the diamond i ...more
May 31, 2025 03:59AM · flag
May 31, 2025 05:32AM · flag