Originally Posted by ancapailldorcha
I read 12 rules. It's a mix of old school Dad advice, ranting about lefties and likening them to Stalinists and some truly bizarre Grandpa Simpson-esque nonsense about existence.
I also read it. I'm quite big into the area of personal development, and I wouldn't really consider 12 steps to be particularly good. A few good ideas, but most of them can be found in other self-help books or management books going back two/three decades. So nothing particularly new.
And generally when it comes to personal development books, it is the perspective that is different while the techniques remain mostly the same. The score is when you find an author who describes the technique, but does it in such a manner, that it clicks with your personality or general outlook. I didn't like Petersons writing style, and his political ranting at the end, just ended the book for me. All I could think was WTF? Where did this crap come from?
Karl Marx was a notorious antiSemite, even for his time and spent his life sponging off of Friedrich Engels, Padraig Pearse was almost certainly a child molester, Dr. Seuss was a notorious philanderer whose wife took her own life, etc... While it's not hard to find many more such examples, a lot of these people make significant cultural and philosophical contributions. I see none of this from Peterson.
Neither would I, but what exactly are we elevating him into? In terms of personal development, he's not saying anything new. He's simply rehashing other peoples revelations and using a different format to describe them. In terms of current affairs, feminism, etc. he's promoted male rights and sought to reduce the impact of feminism or PC thinking.. but he's hardly charismatic enough to generate a platform to push his beliefs effectively.
I think his achievements match the age that we live in. The age of technology, skepticism, and willful ignorance. A world of social media crusader knights and agendas (from minorities) driving policy for the majority. It's an age of misinformation, and confusion...
So what has he achieved? Very little, except
that he stands out as one of the more reasonable opponents of both feminist/SJW agendas, and PC movements.
I tend to look at the area(s) of male rights/anti-pc, and consider the progression of those who fight against the movements. The first few generations of speakers were muppets. Extremists. Full of hate, bile, or out to trigger responses. Milo springs to mind. Very interesting, but a complete troll. Alienated his supporters as much as his opponents. And there's a pile of other similar speakers who were borderline nutjobs, but still raised the issues that shouldn't be spoken of.... because many of those topics were taboo due to the influence of feminists/sjw aggression. Next we have Peterson, and while he's not perfect, he's a more logical and reasonable face for the movement. And the person who replaces him will be even better.
Personally, I'd imagine Peterson is part of a movement that is evolving. His value is that the movement is moving away from the likes of Milo, or MTGOW and giving a more reasonable image, and far more focus on logical thinking.