Group Discussion Introduction for 12 Rules for Life

I just finished re-reading Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life, this time reading it in full, more carefully than the first time, and with the help of having listened to over 100 hours of Peterson’s lectures and interviews this past summer.

I have gathered here three friends for discussion, who have each read this book, and each coming from different religious viewpoints—one Christian, two atheists, and myself a mystic—and from different personality types: On the Enneagram model, a One (Reformer), a Three (Achiever), myself a Four (Individualist), and a Five (Investigator). I’m very interested in seeing how we each of us experience Peterson and his thoughts differently, including what resonates, what irritates, what has been helpful to us, and what we criticize.

My experience reading 12 Rules for Life was expecting a simple, encouraging, practical self-help book I would find mostly irrelevant for my life, and instead got a 370-page intellectual buffet that was often hard work to follow and anything but simple and to the point. Using science, psychology, mythology, philosophy, religion, cultural and social studies, case studies from his clinical practice, and personal anecdotes, Peterson made many claims and opened so many doors to further thinking and discovery. For me, the book was pregnant with portals, which was exciting and stoked my curiosity to learn more.

When someone speaks to a general audience, referencing many different disciplines and making connections between them, covering so many controversial topics with original thinking, making conclusions, and suggesting applications, this on one hand makes him relevant to more people, but leaves a lot of room for debate, error, and criticism. So there are dozens upon dozens of specific ideas we can discuss from the book, both generally or by getting into the weeds, but I’d like to start with the general overarching theme or thread that holds the book together: Order and Chaos / Meaning and Nihilism.

But before we get there, I’d like to start with hearing in general how the experience of reading this book was for you. Would you have liked something more practical, rational, concise, efficient, and to the point, or did you enjoy the cumbersome, meandering, intellectual journey? Was something particularly exciting or annoying for you? Was he too deep and complex, or too shallow and imprecise in certain areas?

The comment section below can be used for discussion.