Right now, University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson is the world’s most-read Canadian author. Given that he also narrates his own audiobooks, it’s possible he may currently be buzzing through more earbuds than any other Canadian voice.
Although he first rose to international prominence as an opponent of gender-neutral pronouns, Peterson’s new book, 12 Rules for Life, is largely his take on what is most “valuable” in life. And it is tearing up the charts, with Penguin Random House already deeming it one of their top performers.
From The Edmonton Journal:
Right now, University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson is the world’s most-read Canadian author. Given that he also narrates his own audiobooks, it’s possible he may currently be buzzing through more earbuds than any other Canadian voice.
Although he first rose to international prominence as an opponent of gender-neutral pronouns, Peterson’s new book, 12 Rules for Life, is largely his take on what is most “valuable” in life. And it is tearing up the charts, with Penguin Random House already deeming it one of their top performers.
. . . .
It’s currently Amazon’s most read (and most sold) nonfiction book. As the unstoppable online force that has taken a merciless scythe to brick-and-mortar booksellers, Amazon generally has its finger on the pulse of what people want to read. And this week, 12 Rules for Life is not only the “most sold” work of nonfiction, it’s also the “most read,” a measure of how many people are currently reading electronic editions of the book. It’s the first Canadian book to rank this highly on Amazon since Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale experienced a 2017 resurgence inspired, in part, by its adaptation as a Hulu series. Most notably, 12 Rules for Life is also Amazon’s number two top-selling book of 2018 so far. The only title to outrank it is Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury, an account of the first months of the Trump White House.
Link to the rest at The Edmonton Journal
When PG looked at the Amazon page for the book , it was ranked #1 on the Most Read Amazon Charts. With 1,278 Customer Reviews, it had a 4.8 Star rating with 1,121 5 star ratings.
PG is always interested in how Self-Help books start. Here are the first few paragraphs of this one.
And another important marketing tool – the Table of Contents:
Canada is far closer to Britain in its free speech implementations and theirs also is fairly far away from the US.
I agree Canada is closer to the UK in free speech than to the US. But relative to the rest of the world, it remains very close to the US and the other Anglosphere counties.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission took the Macleans case in 2008. That was a free speech issue. They dismissed the complaint. It generated lots of interest in the US.
Yeah, almost any hate speech issue the Commission investigates becomes high profile since its a minority of the cases.
I think the closest equivalent in the US is the grand jury, except the Commission is supposed to help the parties work it out first in mediation, and if they can’t then it launches an investigation, and then if not dismissed it refers it to the Tribunal.
The funny thing about the Maclean case was some (not all) people on both sides of the dispute wanted to take it to a tribunal so that they could lose and then dispute it in regular courts, then dispute that all the way to the Supreme court. There was a lot of conflicting interests sticking their toes into the pot.
The thing to remember is that the Commission and the Tribunal do not operate at arm’s length. And while the Tribunal arrogates to itself the power to issue orders and levy punishments as if it were a court of law, it is not bound by the rules of due process. Indeed, the published rules of procedure of the CHRT specifically grant that body the unrestricted right to waive those very rules as it sees fit.
Yeah, it’s a quasi-legal proceeding not a court. But you can appeal to federal courts.
Also I’m not sure I’d say ‘arrogates’ considering its setup through an Act though. At least in theory the Act can be changed and modified to be better whenever Canadians determine it’s needed, like Bill C-16. Or made worse depending on peoples opinion on it. If people dislike it enough they can vote in someone to change it.
Much easier than the nightmare it would be if it was in our constitution. We can’t even get mild Senate reform.
Sounds like a Star Chamber.
Not quite. It’s strange how many quasi-judicial bodies exist when you look around in Canada, I have no clue if its the same in the US. All them rely on the courts ultimately to back, or review, their decisions if need be because they have no real enforcement of their decisions.
Examples are the Ontario Child and Family Services Review Board, the Law Society of Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, etc.
The free speech issue transcends national boundaries. The issue doesn’t change, only the extent to which a nation recognizes the right.
So, what happens in a very similar Western society is of interest to lots of Americans.
We might also look at how the issue animates the current animosity of Muslims to the US. Muslim scholars see freedom of religion and freedom of speech as threats to Islam. Islam means submission, and the population is to submit to God, authorities, and family elders.
The idea that one may speak freely, in opposition to these authorities is seen as a grave danger. Even worse is the notion of freedom of religion, where one can choose any or no religion. That means anyone can reject Islam. And that means rejecting God.
In the past, these ideas were geographically limited. But now that communications have changed so much, the spread of free speech and freedom of religion is a very basic threat to their idea of Islam.
Same issue, just a different treatment.
My point is that Canada and America aren’t ‘very similar’ at all in terms of free speech and never have been, for good or bad.
Jordan Peterson also isn’t really arguing for free speech as the US considers it (at least in any source I’ve seen), so that’s often misunderstood by Americans.
Secondly, is most of his claims about how he might be fined or imprisoned under the Bill he was originally protesting weren’t factual or at least grossly inflated, so Americans reading that would also be misled unless they were familiar with Canadian law.
My point is that Canada and America aren’t ‘very similar’ at all in terms of free speech and never have been, for good or bad.
Sure they are. Canada is a classically liberal democracy just as the US is. Its free speech implementations are very close to the US compared to the rest of the world. Culturally, the two countries are very similar. This is true of all the countries in the Anglosphere.
Many Americans also follow the various attempts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to control free speech. Why? Because other Americans want to do the same in the US.
Yeah, no that’s my point. Canada is far closer to Britain in its free speech implementations and theirs also is fairly far away from the US.
Also, no, the Canadian Human Rights Commission doesn’t control free speech. The Canadian Human Rights Act limits free speech in federal jurisdictions, the Commission and Tribunals were created by it. Each province and territory also decides what anti-discimination laws apply in their jurisdictions.
The above is why I say Canadians don’t have free speech as defined by Americans because no matter where you are the Provincial or Federal laws apply.
Also, I think what you might be thinking of is the Tribunals. The Commission is just investigative, the Tribunals hear cases.
In actual fact almost all cases they deal with are discrimination in employment, housing, and service issues.
Very few cases of ‘hate speech’ actually happen though they are covered under the same Act. Because of that they also tend to be high profile.
That’s also partly why I find Peterson talking like he’s going to be hunted down and punished exaggerated. He’s so far down the list below neo-Nazi’s, people who want all the gays to be rounded up and slaughtered, Jews expelled from Canada, etc. that if they did liberally apply the laws he’d be case number 500,000+.
At no point have I seen Peterson saying he wanted the Canadian Human Rights Act repealed, I’ve only seen him complain that gender identity was added to it. Maybe I’ve missed some of his comments though.
You are quite right: Canadians do not have free speech as defined by Americans. What we have is speech that the state has not yet chosen to forbid.
To be fair that’s one of my rants about American ‘free speech’. They have a wider range of freedom on it than almost anyone outside of an anarchy but it’s also all decided by the state.
Who decided the Hustler case was parody and covered? The state through the courts. Who decides if something is libel? The state through courts. Who decided after years of legal fees that flag burning was legal? The state. Who could have made an amendment to ban it? Again the state.
Many of those decisions reversed lower courts ruling the exact opposite. Other decisions might have never been appealed due to a lack of funds or drive.
The American government through courts and legislation controls what “free speech” is and isn’t. Its might be the most we, as insane humans, can allow and have a functional society, but I don’t think it’s truly free speech.
Wider than what I have in Canada is an obvious point though.
The case of Islam is interesting because a number of Muslim speakers have been banned from America for spreading hate speech.
This leads to interesting question: should Muslim speakers be allowed to speak to universities criticising the notions of free speech and free expression?
In other words, can the west be tolerant of the intolerant.
And what happens if a number of people in A democracy vote to abolish freedom of speech?
I’m not aware of the US doing it except in cases where they are linked to terrorist organizations. The UK and other countries like Denmark have though. I wouldn’t be shocked if we have in Canada, we’ve blocked various groups and people over the years.
As for the middle that’s up to the Universities. As for the last, look at the UK’s tightening and expanding of hate speech and where it might be headed and wait a few years to see how it plays out.
This leads to interesting question: should Muslim speakers be allowed to speak to universities criticising the notions of free speech and free expression?
Legally, that depends on who owns the university. A private university is free to disallow anyone they choose for any reason they choose. I have the same control over my living room.
But a public university falls under the prohibition of government suppressing speech. So, at the U of Illinois, the speaker does have a right to speak. At Harvard he does not.
The US government does prohibit some people from entering the country. However, I would be interested in knowing if it has prevented anyone from speaking once legally in the country.
I would also question if anyone legally in the US was deported for speaking against free speech. Senators do it on the Senate floor.
Harvard accepts federal money to provide their services. In some eyes that makes them government agents. Title ix works off that premise.
Several universities are being sued for suppressing speech right now and at least one suit is by a muslim professor.
Harvard does indeed accept money. But it remains their choice to allow or prohibit speech. They may lose the money, but the government can’t compel them to allow speech.
It is a very different situation in at the U of Illinois.
Sure universities are being sued over free speech. Public universities that prohibit free speech are prime targets.
Government always tries to suppress speech, and has to be continually pushed back.
Governments exist to coerce.
The less restraints they face, the more they coerce and the bigger the mess they create.
As for what you said about Muslims, it’s completely right.
To them, freedom and liberty is anathema because everyone must obey gods will so any ideology that seeks to maximise human freedom and sees that as a good thing is automatically seen as corrupted, like self worship.
For more in-depth view, I would definitely recommend checking out this podcast interview
https://youtu.be/K-o9QoSKhMU
Though it is very long and the sound quality is not great.
Sorry to come back to this but Peterson is never discourteous–neither intentionally nor unintentionally. He chooses his words carefully and always critiques rationally. You are conflating some of his followers with him.
No Nate, sorry. Jordan Peterson is NOT a darling of the alt-right or certainly not knowingly. And he is very very far from being Richard Spencer. That is facile and wrong and insulting.
The Richard Spencer nay have been an overstep, but maybe not.
Peterson does have an alt-right fan base. Even MacLeans said so:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jordan%20petersen%20alt-right
Given what Peterson says and who likes him, I would not want him to be the most famous author from Virginia. I would be mortified to share a state with someone with his politics.
What the ‘alt-right’ likes Peterson for is opposing a law that criminalizes the use of any pronoun that the person referred to may choose to be offended by. If you’re mortified by that, you have no business working in an industry whose existence depends upon the maintenance of free speech.
Further, Maclean’s in recent years has become a mouthpiece for the Canadian Left, comparable to the Guardian but without the reputation for reportorial integrity (such as that is). I cannot offhand recall the last time it said anything good about anyone politically to the right of Justin Trudeau.
But here’s the main point, as far as I’m concerned: It is no fault of Peterson’s and no business of yours if some people whom you find unsavoury agree with some of his public remarks. The Communist Party of the U.S.A. endorsed Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s re-election bid in 1940: did that make FDR a Communist? Of course not, and your attempt at smearing Peterson with guilt by association is equally far off the mark.
Consider your sources carefully before you start lobbing accusations.
Peterson is at a minimum discourteous – intentionally so. This is no more a free speech issue than if someone were to claim a right to call all woman “sugar” and the right to misidentify female doctors as “nurse” or “miss”.
“criminalizes the use of any pronoun that the person referred to may choose to be offended by”
That is a gross mischaracterization of the law in question. I would debate the point but it is off-topic from Peterson.
Edit: Tom added the last two paragraphs of his comment after the fact, so I only had a chance to respond to the first para. It’s late for me, so I will come back tomorrow.
This is no more a free speech issue than if someone were to claim a right to call all woman “sugar” and the right to misidentify female doctors as “nurse” or “miss”.
We have that legal right in the US. If we choose, we can call everybody “Gas Station.”
Peterson is at a minimum discourteous – intentionally so.
There is no law against discourtesy, nor should there be. The law is not an appropriate instrument for dealing with persons who choose to make asses of themselves.
The alt-right also like ice cream and pizza too, does that mean its bad?
I’m not a fan of Peterson but just because some people like pieces of his work doesn’t mean his work is alt-right.
Frankly one of my problems is that he sensationalizes and distorts an issue most Americans don’t understand or care to understand about Canadian law.
He also is being revered as an expert on many things he’s never studied or taught by people who want to use his opinions elsewhere as fact.
the alt right? give a credible link for proofs, seems in order.
And, thanks Wayne re the last two paras.
I find the ‘famous #1 author’s’ ‘interpretations’ of old tales, overly christianized and with personal associations to himself alone although he overreaches that his interpretations are for everyone.
There’s an old old patriarchal trope about the fairytales of beauty and beast and sleeping beauty, and others that they MEAN a woman or man doesnt want to wake up, is ‘unconscious’ or wants only love, etc.
Those creaky tropes are rampant in the old Jungian circles among the elderly analysts as it reflects THEIR world view from long ago in the 50s etc.
The author is in devotion to Jung who wrote during a time when women didnt even have the vote in switzerland, and had really odd ideas about men and women such as men are king warriors and women are mother maiden and crone, etc. Which is a complete flattening of the richness of any human being.
I know plenty of women warriers and some male queens too.
I felt like the book couldnt make up its mind whether to be a christian treatise about ‘better behavior to feel better’ or just a mishmash of concepts the writer doesnt appear to have more than one inch depth in.
Overall, Im not keen about books meant to ‘improve people’ . More interested in the kind of book in this genre that allows reader to find effective science based evidence of ‘helps’ instead of soft prompts, even tho it appears his t of c could be a list in the women’s section of the old farm columns in newspapers.
Sorry, just not my cap o tea
Frankly one of my problems is that he sensationalizes and distorts an issue most Americans don’t understand or care to understand about Canadian law.
The issue was important enough for the framers of the Constitution to include it in the First Amendment. While the specifics do deal with Canada, the issue is alive and well in the US as people attempt to eliminate free speech. That would include books, too.
I can rant an hour on how ‘free’ speech is in the US. But Canadian law and the constitution never laid out an exact parallel and attempts to apply American law concepts don’t work success many underlying constitutional frameworks are different.
I’ve often seen American friends posting stuff about Canada law or healthcare and almost all of it is distorted.
Hmm, those sources making the alt-right references seem a tad… Alt-left?
???
What alt-left? There are leftist movements but none substantial that call themselves alt- left in the US. Alt- right was a movement and even if it’s been hijacked in the last couple years it had fairly clear boundaries. Hate it or love it, it had a meaning.
Note the question marks.
The term has been used sporadically to describe the leftist extremists suddenly “legitimized” and featured by the mainstream media after the last election. People and groups publicly calling for a military coup, presidential assassination, etc, many in the media and entertainment industries and even congress. All tolerated because of the first amendment.
Just because you don’t believe it exists doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Try this one:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/why-the-alt-left-is-a-problem
My point laid around the ‘substantial’ and ‘movement’. It just seems a lazy grab all term compared to alt-right.
I also find the articles blurb linking it to Clinton (instead of her type of Democrat or other feature) kind of weird.
Did I use those terms?
I said tbey “seem a tad… Alt-left”.
As in “not quite mainstream” sources.
That meet with your semantic approval?
As for the alt-left attacking Clinton, what else do you expect? She bills herself as “centrist”.
No different than the alt-right going after Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio as not “true” conservatives.
Left or right is meaningless at tbe extremes, thry just blur into a rabid anti-everything populism.
I wasn’t attacking you, I’ve just seen the term thrown out lately a number of times with no clear definitions except the speakers personal one. Under one definition someone like say Kyle Kulinski would be in it, under another he wouldn’t be.
I’m wasn’t shocked that people on the left attacked Clinton, my point was the blurb tries to define anti-Clinton sentiment as one of the two components of alt-left…so now that she’s essentially gone then is the alt-left is essentially gone?
You mentioned advocating violence against Trump above, so if someone on the left likes Clinton but wants to try and blow up Trump are they alt-left? They obviously nutjobs but I just find like many political terms they are vague and different people throw random groups into it.
Whereas movements like the Tea Party, alt-right, Black lives matter, Antifa you can tell who identifies as it and they have some common core.
And yeah, I find the extremes have a lot in common.
Peterson does have an alt-right fan base. Even MacLeans said so
We might remember Obama had lots of Antifa and communist fans. Should we highlight that and ignore all his other fans? What do these two fan groups tell us about Obama?
This is going to be really embarrassing for Canada if it does happen.
Jordan Peterson is a darling of the alt-right. It would be like having Richard Spencer be the most famous US author.
I admit, I have not heard any of his talks or lectures, other than the one with the reporter who made a bit of a fool of herself. In his book, he sounds more like a Social Democrat (using the German political sense) than whatever alt-right is, and certainly not a white-separatist/ white-nationalist like Spencer.
But again, that’s just his book and one video, not his on-line classes or other talks.
I really think your comment should be flagged and removed from TPV, or you should do the right thing and remove it yourself.
It’s quite the drive-by smear. I don’t know how he is being portrayed in the American media, but if that is your conclusion, it must be pretty warped.
Look up Lindsay Shepherd and what happened to her when she showed a clip of a tv show with Peterson in the class she was teaching. No-one could ever accuse her of being alt-right, and she was subjected to a vicious witchhunt.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording-of-wilfrid-laurier-reprimanding-lindsay-shepherd-for-showing-a-jordan-peterson-video
I’ve watched at least twenty of his talks on Youtube and have not heard anything raving or vicious or illogical, even. I’d rather judge him on what I read or hear from his own lips, which so far, hasn’t been weird, racist, sexist, etc.
“PG is always interested in how Self-Help books start. Here are the first few paragraphs of this one”
Those first few paragraphs are from the (~17 page) introduction by Dr. Norman Doidge–just to be clear that one is not reading Jordan Peterson’s words at that point in the book.
I’ve noticed for the past few weeks he’s been right in the most-read. I’ve never read him. I have seen several YouTube videos by him. It’s funny that I read an excerpt on the posture thing while I’ve been trying to get hubby to fix his slumping posture. IT’s not easy to change that.:D
#1 isn’t about fixing posture it’s about facing reality head on, and how physical posture is part of that.
It really is a pretty good book.
But posture is also about one’s attitude…the physical and mental can affect one another. 😀
Rule 4, imho, is excellent.
Rule 5 seems terribly difficult to do and detrimental to the people the parent would seek to control. And, I don’t know, but if I had children, I think trying to follow this rule would make me hate my offspring pretty darn quickly. Not only that, this rule would require the use of shaming and manipulating the children, and, well, those methods of dealing with children’s misbehavior don’t sit well with me. Using them would teach the children the wrong way to treat people. Children, after all, learn a lot of their social behaviors from their elders, especially their parents.
Rule 6 is pretty impossible. There’s always going to be someone or something bad/unwelcome in one’s past or present. Also, “perfect” is entirely subjective.
Rule 11: Except when they’re skateboarding in a “No Skating/Skateboarding on the sidewalk” zone.
Rule 12: Has this guy forgotten that some people are allergic to cats?
The rules are not that they seem on the surface. Number five is about setting boundaries for the child, so that they don’t turn into appalling brats who run wild and who refuse to accept adult authority, or who become “that kid,” the one who makes the news for all the wrong reasons. If you do not like it when your child hits you, for example, then do not let them get into the habit of hitting you or anyone else. If you do not like tantrums, then don’t reward tantrums.
Number 12 is about taking time to enjoy things in life, be it petting a friendly cat, or watching a happy dog play, or stopping to admire a sunset.
I read the book, and found some very useful things in it. But it takes patience and concentration, because he makes his points through archetypes and stories.