Ask HN: Which books have made you introspect?

513 points by deathWasp271 ↗ HN
Hi all, Nearly an year ago, I faced a life-shattering crisis that completely wrecked my world view. Since then I have rebuilt up from scratch, and I have found that a lot of the things that I used to believe were false. Books such as Man's Search for Meaning have been very pivotal in that regard. What books could you recommend for the same?

388 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 234 ms ] thread
“A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy” by William Irvine has taught me appreciate what I have and take it easy on myself when things don’t go as planned.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0040JHNQG/

Yes, this was another one of the books I read last year. I liked how it separated the world into internal and external. I realized how much smoother life became once I focused on living with an internal set of principles, rather than external expectations.
If you like Stoicism you should try Pierre Hadot's What is Ancient Philosophy and at least the main essay from Philosophy as a Way of Life. He's an excellent writer and you can get other useful perspectives from the other ancient schools. The Epicurean take on pleasure (absence from pain) is helpful as well as the ancient skeptical practice of equipollent dispute.
Yes, I would suggest Stoicism too (I have a page devoted to it: http://pa-mar.net/Lifestyle/Stoicism.html).

Also, I am working on a page on A Philosophy of Loneliness (https://www.popmatters.com/a-philosophy-of-loneliness-by-lar...) and finally I would suggest "Trust the Process" (https://www.shambhala.com/trust-the-process-1598.html)

All these somehow helped me in dealing with personal issues and/or provide some adjustment to my views.

Finally, maybe this one might help, too https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/89200.Pragmatics_of_Huma... (I read it in Italian and many years ago, the current edition is probably updated).

Well if you've read Frankl then I think you should read Primo Levi. The Drowned and The Saved and also If This Is A Man. One could say he came to less easily swallowed conclusions, but I think it is essential reading.

For me personally however I think Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment more or less informed my world-view from a very young age and continues to do so.

Bookmarked.

I picked up Crime and Punishment a few years ago, but had to put it down, due to both foreseeable and unforeseeable circumstances. How would you introduce it if you were to recommend it to someone?

I think introductions can take away from the direct experience of a great book. I think what's important is that since it is a work of literature it has the privilege of not even trying to deal with absolutes. It is an examination of what it might mean to be a moral human being. A kind of huge, entertaining thought experiment.
(comment deleted)
Are You Ready To Succeed by Srikumar Rao
Alan Watt's Wisdom of Insecurity book was enlightening for me. You can read it for free here:

https://antilogicalism.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/wisdom-of...

I second Alan Watt's.

Watch some of his youtube videos as well - they gave me strength to endure through some tough times.

If you like Alan Watts you might enjoy Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice from Shunryu Suzuki.

https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Mind-Beginners-Informal-Meditatio...

If you like that, I'd further recommend the biography of Suzuki, Crooked Cucumber. It's an interesting read.
Thank you very much :) I'll definitely check it out.
And if you like that, I'd recommend "Not Always So: Practicing the True Spirit of Zen" which feels like a continuation of "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind"
Goedel, Escher, Bach - an eternal golden braid. This book is so rich with philosophical content it will change you.
I really struggled to read this. It's so dense, in an almost impenetrable way. Am I the only one? I did some skimming, but never seemed to catch on.
Yeah, it's a struggle. I've attempted to read it twice, and never made it all the way through. Still immensely rewarding though.
It's not just you. I often see it cited in must-read lists, but also found it rambling and impenetrable.

In the 20th anniversary edition I have, the author spends the full preface admitting as much by explaining that people who've reviewed the book don't seem to understand its message:

“Needless to say, this widespread confusion has been quite frustrating to me over the years, since I felt sure I had spelled out my aims over and over in the text itself. Clearly, however, I didn't do it sufficiently often, or sufficiently clearly.”

He then attempts to outline the principle thesis:

“…GEB is a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter.”

“Very personal” is right — the book reads like a fever dream of tangential scribbled notes compiled into an ~800 page tome, only loosely coupled to the notion of how animate things come to be.

It is still interesting and brilliant and challenging and worth skimming if not reading in its entirety, but do not expect it to be instantly enlightening or full of take-aways.

That'll be why you found it so hard. It's not really a book you can 'skim through' at all, but if you pay attention, maybe take some notes and reread the sections you may be having trouble with, you'll start to get the idea.

The great thing about GEB is that Hofstadter basically assumes no prior knowledge from the beginning of the book - he just asks that you pay close attention and exercise your analytical mind. You'll then soon start to notice the patterns, jokes and puzzles in the writing, and how they all relate very closely to the ideas presented in the book.

Note: the book isn't necessarily out to prove anything, and if you're looking for a massive 'aha!' moment towards the end of the book, you'll probably be disappointed. It's just an incredible journey down the recursive rabbit-hole that ties together mathematics, formal logic, linguistics, biology, computer science and loads more all through the extremely deliberate use of language throughout.

It still blows my mind, but requires a good amount of concentration, re-reading and note-taking - which seems fair enough as I can't even imagine how long it took Hofstadter to write!

“You're reading it wrong” seems like a questionable defense of any book to me, in the same way that “you're tasting that broccoli wrong” and “you're listening to Paganini incorrectly” might be.

I only mention this because it hurts to see people waste weeks of their lives trying to appreciate something under duress (be it literature, music, art) or under the belief that the fault is with them rather than simply accepting their lack of any natural affinity for the thing they are studying.

Sometimes it is worth working to appreciate things that are alien to you to stretch the mind, but other times it's perfectly fine to accept that a cultural artefact just might not be for you; that there is nothing wrong with the way you have been consuming it. It frees you to move on and find something new.

I'm not arguing that OP was 'reading the book wrong', just sharing my experience reading it myself. I personally found it pretty rewarding though challenging, I'm just sharing my experience. I found that taking notes and re-reading sections (along with talking to other people who have read/were reading the book) helped clear up some of the ideas in my head. If somebody gives it a go and decides it's not a book that they're interested in - that's fine, it's not my job to pressure you if you find it doesn't resonate with you personally.
(comment deleted)
I totally agree. I don't think anyone should read, watch, or listen to something because some other group of people defined it as great. I will say, though, that if a sizable group of people define something as "great", you might at least be curious and give it a chance. I took a music appreciation class during a January term in college, and it really opened up the world of classical music for me, and I think my life has been better for it.
It took me about five years of slog, but was at the same time a constant joy and absolutely worth it.
It is dense, but if you want something a bit lighter: slaughthouse 5, hitchhikers guide, a confederacy of Dunces. All great reads with insightful thoughts on life.
It’s the kind of book you need to sit down and deliberately read for a while, rather than snatched moments here and there or while waiting for something else.

Personally I found it very informative and interesting - though not ‘enlightening’. I did stop reading it for a while and found it difficult to pick up the thread again though.

Seconded. Parts of it are kind of impenetrable, or seem like it, but you can feel the love in it and it's so personal while also being so astonishingly wide-ranging… it's like taking your brain on a world tour to see things it never imagined were possible.
I loved this book and it made me think a lot but in what way did it make you introspect?
When I first encountered this book, I was working as an outside hand at a small town hardware store trying to save up enough money at $5.85 / hour to afford to move to go to college. It cost me $10 in gas every day just to get to work, and I am deathly allergic to almost every outside plant in Oklahoma, so it was a miserable few months. At lunch time I would go to the local library because it had air conditioning, and I happened to check out this book. For the next 8 weeks, reading this book on breaks was the taste of escape into the life of the mind.
I personally think Hofstadtler is one of the few people around currently who actually is on the right track to understanding the fundamental nature of consciousness. Although I would recommend 'I Am A Strange Loop' for a more direct dive into that specifically, GEB is great for an introduction to some of the twists and turns of self-reference, feedback loops, etc.
Byron Katie. She's goes extreme in my opinion, but her instrospection method("the work") is very powerful.
I highly recommend 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

This book gave me the courage to take responsibility in my life and start working towards things which are important for myself. As the author once said, you don't get not to pay a price, you only get what price to pay.

It actually gave me the courage to leave Berlin and go back to my country(Romania) which even though is more poor and low in quality of public services, my friends and family are there and they are a priority for me right now.

It also thought me to make small changes in my every day life even though is something as small as cleaning my room. And these small changes give me enough confidence to pursue bigger ones like quitting smoking for good.

I loved the message of self-reliance and "bearing your burden" in the book personally, it really reminded me of Mark Manson's The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck. Could've done without all the religious metaphor but I understand the point of it being there.
Yes, I could have done without the religious metaphor as well, I hope some potential readers will not be put off by this because it really is a great book. Something stayed with me after reading this book and I'm so glad I didn't give up when reading about too many religious analogies.

Peterson also gave a presentation about his book for those who are interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RCmu-HuTg

If you want to understand why he uses religion so much as I did (I've always considered myself an atheist), his lecture series here goes into it in much greater depth: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I...

He's dedicated his life in trying to explain why the atrocities of the 20th century happened and how they can be prevented. I believe he sees our rejection of religion as part of the problem but he understands that the way religion has been presented in modern times (last few centuries) is completely alienating given the rise of science. So he uses science to attempt to give a new meaning to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of western society. I'd say the biggest precursors to his work are Darwin and Carl Jung.

> He's dedicated his life in trying to explain why the atrocities of the 20th century happened

Looking at what he published it seems he dedicated most of his life to researching the effects of alcoholism.

Also would you mind expanding on how he uses science to give new meaning to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western society?

> Also would you mind expanding on how he uses science to give new meaning to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western society?

The first lecture should give you a good idea, but if you're looking for discussion, I'd be willing to have it but we'd be here for hours. We'd have to get into philosophy and define terms like "science", "God", "society", etc. We'd then have to explore psychology and models of consciousness, like Jungian archetypes and Freud's subconscious. We could also cover biology and how some substances trigger spiritual experiences that have positive life-changing effects. All the while, we could relate these discussions to the stories of the Bible or chapters of the Tao Te Ching and why they are both at the very least profound and contagious.

I'll give the lecture a watch. I am more interested in how he approaches the subject. I've had my doubts out Peterson for a while since some of his views seem very regressive, however I haven't watched everything he has said.
I like you. Most of the people criticizing him didn’t bother to watch his lectures or read the book and still act like they know him.
But still that means he wants to believe in something that does not exist. The fact that we depend on God and religion is what actually takes our sight out of what is right in front of us which is family, kids, neighbors, little things, etc. Why do we need to attribute these things to God? Can’t we all be nice to each other without God?
Have you read him? More, are you even trying to represent his position?

I don't think you have to fully understand or agree with him. In large, I don't. Your paragraph, though, is a gross deliberate misunderstanding of his view. :(

I actually read the book. Not sure what you mean by deliberate. I am being very clear. Instead of trying to bridge the gap or modernizing religion and continue to spread the myth in some shape or form, can’t you not use religious references to state your arguments?
You represent him as taking religion over family. This seems counter. And a false divide. Rather, he seemed to push to use religion to strengthen self. Strengthen self to strengthen family. Strengthen family to strengthen society.

Again, I don't necessarily agree. In large, I think he is familiar with a different nihilism than I am. I grant, however, that he probably knows the topics better than I. I certainly plan to dive deeper on it. In large because I disagree.

> But still that means he wants to believe in something that does not exist. [...] Why do we need to attribute these things to God? Can’t we all be nice to each other without God?

I might be wrong but it doesn't sound like you've really read his material beyond 12 Rules for Life. It doesn't necessitate believing in something that does not exist but it will at least leave you with a deep respect for your subconscious and for the collective subconscious. That's enough to understand the value of religious stories. Once you're there, belief in God is your own business... it's not even clear if he believes in God and I'd say it's barely relevant.

Whether or not you believe God exists, ideas and stories about gods are part of the foundational myths of our society. Properly interpreted, they shed light on how the subconscious works.

You might try reading the book Sapiens by Noah Yuval Harari. Among other things, it shows how intersubjective realities such as human rights, religion, and money make civilization work, whether or not the objects of those stories 'exist'.

So many people want to take away all the doctrines that make Christianity distinctive and then turn around and still call it Christianity. I can't understand the point of this exercise. What exactly does he think is the point of Christianity, if he doesn't believe in God?
He reframes religion (specifically Christianity and the Bible) as a symbolic guide to living as opposed to a historical text that should be taken at face value. i.e. God is a symbol for the greatest good. Christ is a symbol for the human ideal of that greatest good.

In his view, the value of the Bible is not as a pre-scientific historical account of the world. Instead, it's a survival guide for generations of people (who had no concept of science anyway) told in story form.

When I look at his religious metaphors in that light, they seem relevant and meaningful in the context of his 12 Rules.

How does viewing God and Christ as symbols for the greatest good make sense? If they existed and were anything remotely resembling what the Old and New Testaments describe they were incredibly immoral and psychopathic at various times.

I think we stand to learn quite a bit from reading the Christian bible, but I didn't walk away feeling like anyone should emulate the behavior on display.

You remember how Ryan Holiday got pretty famous quite a while back? I like Jordan Peterson, but I fear that he's the same kind of phenomenon. He's just curating all these sources, and we view him as a genius and a pancea for our anxiety ridden young adults.
Nothing wrong with curating sources, is there? Yes, in large he is sharing his learnings from studying old sources. Mostly religious. Not all Christian. But mostly.

I think he would be delighted if he got more people to go to the sources. I could, of course, be wrong.

Not neccessarily anything wrong with him. It's just our tendency to flock to these figures to the answers of our problems, and perhaps they fix a couple people for a five year span, but a new generation washes in, and another guy will get his shine. Information doesn't fix anything. He's just cashing in.
Another commenter said Peterson is not an empty self-help guru. I suspect the only difference between the "real deal" and an "empty self-help guru" is how much we like the person.
I suspect that there are no real deals out there at all. Or if they are out there, they aren't writing books about it or recording youtube videos to redpill us.
This comment is leaving me with some pause. Quite frankly, I didn't even know the name of the author, and would have stared at anyone blankly that said it. Still would, oddly.

I did enjoy his reading of his book. And I will admit that I found some of the ideas more compelling than I would have thought seeing them on paper. In particular, the religious overtones are somewhat offputting to me, on paper. Will see how I feel about them after a few day's reflection.

To the point of this post, however. If he his being pushed as a savior of some sort, I agree that is misguided. However, based on their merits, many of the arguments were compelling and I'm interested to see where they can be taken.

So, to that end, I'm not sure what the criticism "he's just cashing in" has to do offer here. What, exactly, are you accusing him of? Successfully presenting his arguments? Is that really such a bad thing?

I am not accusing peterson of anything. I'm just trying to predict the future. He seems like an icon. Something long lasting. He's just another figurehead, and anyone could have filled his place. This is just tides turning. This is just a hiccup in the universe. He will go away, he will try to stick around, and it will be ugly. But he will fade away. He will go mainstream. It won't matter. This is just entertainment. It's not real help. It's not therapy. It's not a fix for the underlying issue of our society and our males.
You accuse him of "cashing in." If that is meant as a value free statement, my apologies. You then state that "he seems like an icon. Something long lasting."

Oddly, he just seems like an author, to me. If he is a figurehead, I missed that there was a movement. Is there more subtext to this? I assumed he just had a good seller. Oddly, many people can and do lay claim to that honor. It neither diminishes nor distinguishes it.

I just finished the audible of this. The emotion in his voice for some of the more laden sections was tough. I confess I was almost in treats for the section of his daughter's health.

I have not reformulated my understanding of the rules. Definitely plan to.

Regardless, I second all you put here. Good luck on your decisions!

Life changing and powerful. Simply no other book will make you as introspective as this.

IMO The next closest thing - in terms of creating introspection - is a psychedelic / psychotropic experience with accompanying ego-death [1].

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death

I like the principles in the book, but it could have been edited down to about a 1/3rd the length. It reads like transcriptions of his lectures, rather than something intended to be prose.
For some reason I am repulsive towards 'self-help' books. I always have a feeling that you just cannot sum up all the things to be "happy" or "content" or whatever in one book. I have seen numerous people who read inspirational quotes/books but the act the opposite way. I feel it is very difficult to change how the internals of a person work, reading a book will definitely push you in the right direction, motivate you, elate you, change your mental models[0]. But to bring those changes in your actual life, seems quite difficult and time consuming. Can your "mental model" be modified just by reading 1-2 books ?

I am interested to know, how often when you face a situation, you stop and think, oh I read this and that in a book, I should act this way instead of my natural intuition to do the other way.

Given the limited experience with life I have and the fact that I haven't read any of the self-help books, I am willing to change my perspective regarding this. Will give a shot to '12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.'

[0] => "It’s Okay to “Forget” What You Read" https://medium.com/the-polymath-project/its-okay-to-forget-w...

>> I am interested to know, how often when you face a situation, you stop and think, oh I read this and that in a book, I should act this way instead of my natural intuition to do the other way.

This of course won't work.

But reading a book, finding a usefull tool in it, and practicing it until it become a part of your skills is possible.

This is absolutely true.

The way to change behavior is to actually change something and consistently practice that change.

It requires a great deal of commitment. Progress is generally slow. Set backs happen.

But if you actually change something and make it a diligent practice eventually it will be part of who you are.

There are a huge amount of people that read/share/talk about feel good life change quotes/books/etc that are doing nothing more than playing psychological tricks on themselves while avoiding the hard discouragingly long process that is required to make actual changes.

> For some reason I am repulsive towards 'self-help' books.

I wouldn't classify 12 Rules of life as a typical 'self-help' book because Peterson is not a self-proclaimed self-help guru without any substance.

If you check his career section on Wikipedia you'll find out that "Peterson's areas of study and research are in the fields of psychopharmacology, abnormal, neuro, clinical, personality, social, industrial and organizational, religious, ideological, political, and creativity psychology. Peterson has authored or co-authored more than a hundred academic papers. Peterson has over 20 years of clinical practice, seeing 20 people a week, but in 2017, he decided to put the practice on hold because of new projects."

And he doesn't try to sell you the idea that life is beautiful and amazing, he actually agrees that life is tragic and brutal.

> I always have a feeling that you just cannot sum up all the things to be "happy" or "content" or whatever in one book

I agree to that. You cannot sum up all the things which make you happy or more content, but you can follow principles which increase the probability of success in what you want to do, such as "be a bit better tomorrow in some minor way"[1]

> I am interested to know, how often when you face a situation, you stop and think, oh I read this and that in a book, I should act this way instead of my natural intuition to do the other way.

Not every time, but more often than before reading that book. For example, I've read Feeling Good: The new mood therapy(another great book with a self-helpish title) and after reading that book I really started to put in practice some exercises in that book which by now they became almost automatic. For so much time I was a victim of cognitive distortions and now I finally found a way to beat them. And not only me. [3]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz2tYGt0_As

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood-Therapy/dp/0380...

[3] https://blog.ncase.me/nicky-reads-feeling-good/

Well, there's also the fact that many of our problems are external, and can only be solved by interacting with others and making real change; your attitudes and lack of optimism are not the actual problem.
I use so-called self-help books to find philosophies I resonate with but didn't know about. Basically, I improve my strengths by reading about principles I share with an author who has thought about it longer than I have.
I really think happiness is just a result of our brains filtering out unpleasant facts, we learn that the whole childhood; how can you be happy if:

1. the whole nature is based on preying on the weak, and that's mandatory for survival; right now some animal "kid" is being eaten alive by some predator without "empathy" of any kind

2. at this very moment some person that might be relatable to you in some special way (like a perfect fit for a friend or partner) is having a really bad day, like dying-bad

3. the amount of sophistication in cheating each other might be one of the main factors in developing many forms of language, behavior or even science

4. health statistics aren't about others; they are all about me and you, we all are going to end up in one category or the other; often we have no say in it as our destruction is already programmed inside us

5. whatever you worked on hard all your life can be gone from one moment to another; earthquake, volcanic eruption, storm or even divorce can strike any time

6. even if you dedicate your life to something amazing, become rich, respected, adored or die a heroic death before you turn a villain, at best you will be a short, quite pointless remark in the history notes; however most likely you will be as important as a dust speck

7. excitement of novelty wears off quickly if you become a hedonist; going ascetic to lowest lows so that you can reach highest highs again will become pointless at some point as well and nothing will move you anymore

8. even if you believe in afterlife, vast majority of religions will tell you that almost everyone ends up in some sort of hell or won't make it to the "next stage of game"

If you frame happiness like that, then yes, it'll be hard to be happy. But happiness, I think, is not an objective state that you get to when all your expectations, desires and wants are met. That's just the story our primitive animal brains tell us, but the reality is that happiness is an inner mental state, and the influence that external factors have on us is just our own imagination.

We choose to be unhappy. By fixating on our wants, our worries, our anxieties, or desires, by refusing to be happy unless everything is exactly what and how we want, we don't let our body and our mind be. I think it's only when we let go of our destructive thoughts, when we let go of what has been and what will be, and just live in the present, in the moment, that we can experience a real state of happiness.

It sounds esoteric and counter-intuitive, I know. But just consider the thought. I personally find this to be more and more true the older I get.

I think it doesn't sound counterintuitive. The thing that's counterintuitive is that we're not in this state all the time (myself very much included).
Wow that's quite a depressing list, how long have you been curating it?

Assuming you won the birth lottery (no terminal illness, overall healthy, work in tech given you're on HN), then you are in the top echelon of society and success.

There are many things to be happy about e.g. volunteering to give back, settling down with a significant other, starting a family (or not), traveling the world, cooking, fixing cars, shooting guns, etc. While you partake in these activities (hobbies?) you can get lost in them and for brief moment, nothing else in the world matters i.e. your list. This gives you something to look forward to and a routine away from existential ideation.

Humans are social creatures and we've evolved this way. Generally speaking the majority of us derive happiness from the ones we care about in this weird thing we call life. Thanks for sharing the list!

All your points are true and I agree with them. When I raise similar viewpoints to some people they tend to regard me as pessimist, but I actually feel quite stable and happy with my life. I'm curious how do you feel or deal with the facts you listed here?

In my view, searching for happiness is a bit pointless in a world where everything is temporary and brutal in many ways. But there are things which you know you can avoid to not make your life a living hell(Peterson's words) such as doing excessive drugs and alcohol. As Charlie Munger used to say once is much easier to try to not be stupid than trying to be smart. I totally agree with that. After avoiding things which will make you miserable for sure, it all comes down to probability: it's still probable that life will f*ck you up in a grand way no matter how many good things you did. Just hope for the best and be very grateful if you're life is not a living hell now. Meaning is very important. Life itself is meaningless but we get to decide what it will mean in the end. When I decided to leave a good career to move back to a poor country because I wanted to be close to my family I gave a meaning to my life, which is "family is important to me and I will prioritize it no matter what".

Lastly, Peterson book is not about searching for happiness, is just a readme manual about dealing with chaos. Some ideas are not necessarily mind blowing, one can find good tips in stoicism, buddhism or whatever religion or philosophy. But his book can be a start.

If I read a 300 page book and it has even just one sentence that somehow speaks to me and makes me introspect or reconsider or change some mental model I have, I absolutely find it with while. Sometimes the one encounter is enough to cause change (though sometimes it takes a while for my brain to change/adapt), and sometimes it takes multiple encounters with the idea.

IMO any book can be categorized as "self-help" - most business books I read, psychology books, biographies, etc, I read to enjoy, and the best ones (the ones I tend to enjoy the most and remember) are those that I'm changed by (ie. improved) in some way.

People get too caught up in labeling things instead of trying it out and seeing it works for you. You can read (for example) a celebrity gossip magazine and finish with great personal insights - the probability is just low - but if you do, awesome! Same goes with "self-help" books.

I also think it's highly dependent on timing. A book one year may have no meaning to you in one moment but be life changing in a future moment. It's the difference between reading things applicable to your situation now vs future need - the former approach is generally much better.

This is how I feel about this book (12 Rules for Life). I was actually just thinking about his 'Tell The Truth' chapter just last night. It's such a simple concept, but if you find yourself lying, even to yourself, you find that ultimately it snowballs into a worse problem in the future. Even if this is all I got out of the book (which it isn't) it's absolutely worth the read.
Do you really need a 300 page book to tell you that you're not fortunate enough to be the first person in recorded history that doesn't ever lie to other people? Do you need it to tell you that you're also not the first person in recorded history to be free of bias (self-deception)? What do you think about the linked article's assessment of the summary of principles? This is the first time I've heard of this guy and the princicples, along with everything else the author quoted sound just as vapid as he suggests.
I'll add a recommendation for the condensed audio version of "Maps of Meaning" available on his podcast. From Amazon's blurb on the book: "A cutting-edge work that brings together neuropsychology, cognitive science, and Freudian and Jungian approaches to mythology and narrative, Maps of Meaning presents a rich theory that makes the wisdom and meaning of myth accessible to the critical modern mind."
This book was not worth the hype for me; I read the whole thing, but regret purchasing it.

- It sorely needed an editor. Echoing other's sentiments, it could have been < 1/3 of its length. The writing style was rambling, overly emphatic, and arguments were often not coherent.

- It used a gratuitous amount of Bible quotes, which

  1. weren't necessary to make his point,

  2. were often referenced as if they were data, and how people actually behave, rather than anecdotes/fiction
I got suckered into to buying the book because the author is a compelling public speaker. I enjoy his lectures.

In retrospect, though, part of what makes him a compelling public speaker are his highly emotional arguments, which don't seem to be founded on great reasoning, and therefore make for a bad book, since we have more time to be critical about arguments when reading.

Peterson is very good at speaking and lecturing (practice makes perfect!) and I enjoy his work. That said, his tack is largely an updated stoic philosophy. A good idea, don't get me wrong. Still, if you liked his book, I'd go back and read more about stoicism. Here are some suggestion, but if anyone else has others, please chime in:

https://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Thrift-Editions-Marcus-Au...

https://www.amazon.com/Senecas-Letters-Stoic-Thrift-Editions...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

> updated stoic philosophy

No, it's not. Stoicism has much more depth and the Stoics would not agree with Peterson on many things. Stoicism also doesn't need to be updated.

I mean, his 12 points are pretty stock Stoicism, with a 21st century spin. By my reading, he's not entirely stoicism, true, but he sits in the adjacent seat. If he is this popular with (as I see it) his re-skinned stoicism, then the conclusion that 'stoicism needed an update' is not unreasonable, as it seems to resonate better with the re-skin than without. Caveats, obviously, apply.
I think its unreasonable. Popularity and quality are often at odds with one another.

Adam Sandler has earned people more money from movies than almost anyone. That doesn't mean Anthony Hopkins needed an update.

The way he talks about religion, I think he's way into Jungian archetypes and psychoanalysis and shit.

I originally thought his critique of postmodernism/continental philosophy and stuff was interesting, reminiscent of chomsky

His thesis on alcoholism is interesting, clearly he's atleast a decent psychologist. Reminds me of my aunt, psychologist at U. of Missouri, really interested in carl jung and religion.

IQ testing and personality tests always seemed broken to me. What is IQ measuring? Personality tests seem like arbitary categories. All of this is based on frequentist statistics (factor analysis), wonder if there's a bayesian perspective but I have no idea what i'm talking about honestly, especially compared to Peterson.

I can't stand his economic views, they're similar to Joe Rogan's "classical liberal"/market fundamentalist views. I like Kevin Carson's word: vulgar libertarianism:

"Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term 'free market' in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get [a] standard boilerplate article… arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because 'that’s not how the free market works'— implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of 'free market principles.'"

Peterson is openly "way into" Jungian archetypes and psychoanalysis and shit.
Sorry to hear that. While I agree that the book could have been shorter I'm honestly curios about two things:

1. Do you regularly apply some of these rules in your life?

2. What arguments were not logical in your view?

This[1] is worth reading.

"Jordan Peterson's popularity is the sign of a deeply impoverished political and intellectual landscape"

[1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-d...

I'm sorry but the first paragraph is very unfair and not true in my opinion.

You can figure out for yourself, watch this debate and tell me if Peterson is the type of person described in the article.

https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8

I promise I'll read your full article beyond the first paragraph :)

I recommend reading the whole article.

Things are busy at work today, but I'll check it out when I have some time. If you could point me to a shorter clip within the almost 2 hours video, I will be more likely to look at it.

You can watch anytime at least the first 20 minutes. I just wanted to give a counter example to the first paragraph of the article which describe him like an opaque person who doesn't listen. I particularly like this debate because it shows he can have a decent conversation with a well known atheist and he actually listens to him. That's why I find the first paragraph really off which makes me having some doubts about the whole article. But I will read it nevertheless.
He did not came particularly well off in that debate.
I think both had their good points at times. Anyway, the debate shows a man different than the one described in the article. That's why I posted it
The article mentions that interview and concedes Peterson comes out stronger there.
I think both had strong arguments at times.

Quite fascinating discussion, like watching a match of intellectual boxing :)

The author of this article either didn't actually read 12 Rules for Life or already made up their mind before going in.

> Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say.

The irony of this is that the author himself has nothing of real value to say. (See, I said it so it must be true)

I won't lie: My first reaction was to say "This is BS" to a lot of what JP writes and talks about - particularly biblical references as an atheist.

But then I realized much of what he is saying is true - and it personally hits my ego in such a way that the reaction is pretty much revulsion/dismissal.

Can it be written more concisely? Probably. But he is an academic afterall...

FWIW: If you enjoy his lecture style / cadence - try his Audiobook version. I would likely have a tough time with reading his book - but the audiobook format delivers like his youtube lectures, which IMO are very well done.

The Bible is data. It's a collection of texts with its own [secular] field of study.

Peterson's thesis is something like the following: that the early biblical stories constitute a kind of dominant eigenvector of human cognition and experience, what you get when you iteratively retell a story over a hundred generations.

To dismiss this as anecdotes or fiction is very much to miss the point of what Peterson is trying to do.

It's hard for me to see why this logic points to the Bible and not the Odyssey or the Iliad, about which we could say much the same things (especially the Iliad, which shows clear marks of some parts of the story being much older than others). Or frankly any very old text with pre-literary roots.

I am certainly pro-Bible, but in the terms you're putting it here it doesn't seem especially compelling.

It doesn't uniquely pick out the Bible, except to the extent that Western civilization was shaped far more thoroughly by the Bible than by Homer.
> It sorely needed an editor. Echoing other's sentiments, it could have been < 1/3 of its length.

So like every self help book ever?

12 Rules for Life reads like a skilled astrologer would write: many vague clouded truisms, lots of exceptions, covers pretty much all bases.

No wonder people are getting insights out of the book. It is practically impossible not to!

1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Mostly the bits about how our society is mostly built on collective fictions.

2. Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse

I remember being very moved reading this, but I can't quite remember why.

Looks like it's time to re-read it.

Siddhartha is such a great book. I actually read it slower just to enjoy it for a longer time :)
Read it long ago, one of those books that just sticks with you. Easily one of my favourite works of fiction. Hesse has such a bizarre writing style but it is a very deep book.
> Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

I couldn't follow him in all his conclusions, namely the hunter gatherer worship, that things were in a sense better for them.

But it's probably in the top 3 books I've ever read, best in the last 5 years.

> I remember being very moved reading this, but I can't quite remember why.

I think it's the unfolding of someone who sought knowledge and enlightenment throughout his life and the feeling of impotence he felt when sharing knowledge that can only be transmitted/obtained through life experiences.

You have to live life in order to be enlighted. He always "knew it" in reality, but he didn't have the life experience to really know it.

Elders knowledge won't do it - you can't live/experience life through others experiences/knowledge.

After some age, I think we tend to relate to this because we recall people trying to pass knowledge to us and it never clicked until we lived such events. After that, everything gets a new dimension.

The final, moving message of the book comes down to "live in the present." Something we hear 50 times a day from friends, commercials, videos, etc. But I think Siddhartha communicates and brings the reader on a journey that results in this realization the most effectively out of every piece of media I've ever consumed
Glass Bead Game by Hesse put academia, and system building of the mind in general, in perspective for me.
I second Siddhartha, I think it's the closest I have come to understanding "enlightenment" (whatever it may mean for each person). Give it a try.
Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse is also a great read, dealing with feelings of meaninglessness and how they relate to one's identity.
Hesse us one of my favourite novelists. I'd also suggest Knulp as an interesting read, though not very on-topic in this general thread.
The Enchiridion of Epictetus is one of the main books of stoicism.

It has really changed the way I see life and face adversity.

It is very short and easy to read, despite being quite old, and contains actual down to earth wisdom about life

It somehow goes quite well with the teachings of Frankl, if you replace "God" by meaning.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45109/45109-h/45109-h.htm

> With regard to whatever objects either delight the mind or contribute to use or are tenderly beloved, remind yourself of what nature they are, beginning with the merest trifles: if you have a favorite cup, that it is but a cup of which you are fond of—for thus, if it is broken, you can bear it; if you embrace your child or your wife, that you embrace a mortal—and thus, if either of them dies, you can bear it.

Some of the advice is sublime, like this. (And some isn't, but it's a book worth reading.)

I modernized a public-domain translation of Epictetus and had a nice printing done for my nephew's graduation. It's an amazing book on how to live.

Marcus Aurelius's Meditations reads like the daily thoughts of someone attempting to live according to Epictetus's handbook. (Obviously, they're both Stoic works, but they make a better pairing than that alone would make you expect.)

The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus.
Flowers for Algernon, without a shadow of a doubt, had a huge impact on how I regard intelligence in others and myself, and it also put the pursuit of success into a new context for me. Lastly, it made me evaluate the prospects one has going into life, with respect to what is (and isn't) under once's control.
Honestly, "Flowers for Algernon" is the most frightening story I ever read. It made me realize that whatever intelligence I have right now I got basically by accident and that I may lose it at any time. There's nothing I can do to prevent this and - in case it happens - (EDIT: in the end) I won't even recognize what I lost. The only thing I can do is to leave some kind of a mark on the world, right now, before it happens. It turned out to be a great motivation for doing creative stuff - in my case, I chose to write things, blog posts, articles, pet project write-ups, things like this. Definitely one of the most impactful stories I've ever read.
> I won't even recognize what I lost

Alzheimer's victims know what they lost, until rather late in the disease. It's part of what makes it a hell.

My maternal grandparents both went that way. Apparently long after they were both essentially 'gone' the nursing home staff would occassionally find them in the main living area, late at night after everyone was meant to be asleep, dancing together. Clearly something of their former selves remained.
If a "life-shattering crisis that completely wrecked my world view" means a breakup definitely read "No More Mr. Nice Guy" from Robert Glover.
I hung out on the forums for that book for a while. Helped me on my path, there were a lot of hard but important truths there.
Meditations - Marcus Aurelius
Maybe you can start from scratch with the root foundation of your personnality. Sometimes we don't understand why we react to some situations.

So, I did this Myer Brigg online test at 16personalities.com

I red the description of my personality and it was like reading in my head.

I bought the longer version and it really helped me better understand myself.

Hope it can help you too.

ENTP

I just want to add something.

I, too, took a lot of personality tests 4-5 years ago. Briefly got a bit obsessed with them, particularly MBTI (Meyers-Briggs). The problem with these tests is that they play on the archetypes that we would like to be. Also, the minutia of being a living person can not be captured by a system with so few inputs.

Anyhow, I still think it was very helpful, because it got me started on a track. Exploring intuition vs. sensing, thinking vs. feeling got me thinking about who I was, and how I respond to things. I wouldn't have been as rigorous was it not for the fact that I constantly thought about what my 4-letter combination was. I've probably thought I was 8 of them during my studies. Always an intuitive, though.

What I think is particularly bad with these tests are the way they highlight the personality's shortcomings or dificulties. They are portrayed as the opposites to the good parts of the personality, that you already resonate with. Since you resonate so much with the good parts, you can sort of logically repulse the shortcomings as "that's just the way I am", and then sort of brush it off. At least I found it to be the case.

Anyhow, I recommend the MBTI still, since it is what got me started on this track, and I've never been the same after spending the past 5 years introspecting.

Like you said it's a good starting point. I wouldn't take all that is written for granted, but hey! We are at least 2 that agree that there is something to start your introspection in there. It's very easy to read also.
It’s better to think of MB as a menu than as a deterministic thing. Many people shift between different types depending on context.

For example, I’m a solid, hardcore ENTJ at work but a sensitive-flower INFP at home — it’s hard to get much more diametrically opposed than that.

IMO the “intuitive/sensing” dimension is the only one that is close to “innate” since it just describes how you make inferences and decisions. The rest change based on context.

It’s almost better to look at the “16 personalities” as the different mindsets people can come from. MB tests are useful, but take them with a grain of salt. It’s not some innate thing that you can’t change.

I think it's essential to realize people have different ways to behave and that's fine. That said, MBT has a lot of negative things about it.

While the wikipedia page of MBT succeeds in hiding the critique to the end it's luckily there [1]. 'Psychometric specialist Robert Hogan wrote: "Most personality psychologists regard the MBTI as little more than an elaborate Chinese fortune cookie"'

Katherine Briggs and Isabel Meyers (a mother and daughter) should be considered as literary authors at most rather than psychologists [2][3]. Katherine apparently had a lot of ideas about personalities in general and she wrote them down. But it's not like she did massive field work or performed anything that could be recognized as credible research.

Luckily some enterprising consultants recognized her work was easy to sell. The rest is marketing...

People find comfort in lot of things. I don't mind people turning to charlatans like horoscope readers if they know what they are getting into.

MBT is entertaining fiction that is marketed by profiteering consultants as an actual psychometric tool. Fiction can be valuable in understanding the world but it is not a scientific instrument. The fact that it is marketed as such makes it very distasteful.

The only well respected psychometric model that has not failed in one way or another that I'm aware of is the five-factor model [0].

The main problem with MBT is when people think they can use it in some structured manner. The marketing around is so solid it succeeds in fooling some people into actually employing MBT consultants. People in actual workplaces have suggested forming teams based on a balancing made through MBT analyzes.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Cook_Briggs

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Briggs_Myers

Seneca's Dialogues, I can't recommend them enough
Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Just a simple premise of looking at ourselves from the eyes of another species opens up a lot of introspection about every action by mankind that we take for granted.
The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle. Promoting “breathing” without thinking and not taking your thoughts too seriously has got me through a lot of emotional turmoil and “life situations”. Incredible even 5 years later.
I completely hated this book.
Why so? It appears to be in vogue at the moment but it doesn’t seem to be saying anything novel.
As you allude to, the basic idea is the same stuff you've heard if you've read anything about "mindfulness." Basically a lite Buddhism -- a lot of your unhappiness comes from a constant spigot of unbidden thought you can't shut off and you can improve your life by learning how to shut it off and be absolutely focused in the present moment, through exercises like meditation. I think this is a bit oversold but not bad.

But that's not really enough to have a media empire and series of books, so the book is larded with all kinds of ridiculous claims, including risible Biblical exegesis, an attribution of various historical atrocities live Kristallnacht to a failure to like In the Now, an extended discourse about how living In the Now can make menstruation a rapturous experience rather than a painful one, and obviously bogus claims about how living In the Now will actually cause the molecules of your body to spread out and make your body less dense.

I found Mr. Tolle's visualization of the pain body an extremely helpful tool to get me through extreme stress time and again.

I think these things, when moving beyond basic limbic system hacking like deep breathing, are highly personal, so YMMV.

I agree it has the tepid undertones you imply, but did not devalue the book since the one tool it provided me with has served me so well.

I'm glad it worked for you. All the talk of the pain body and the egoic mind just fell flat for me.
"All the talk of the pain body..."

The point with these therapeutic visualizations is to try how they work, personally, as an actual tool to solve a concrete dilemma. As such it does not matter how useless they sound in written form. Human mind has these psychlogical switches that just seem to work in specific situations. For example of a pathological "switch", the gambler is lured by an unpredictable sequence of loss and reward. Which to most people sound extremely silly, until they try it out themselves, and are totally hooked. Therapeutic switches can seem to have equal power to deal with ones emotions and pain.

For me, visualizing my pain as a separate entity that fed from my suffering allowed me to conceptualize my internal pain in a way in which I could observe and deal with it better.

It's like how some yogis speak of energy flows and whatnot - which is completely inconsequential hogwash and do not matter just as long as the movement and breathing techniques do their very physical work on the human body.

The problem with presenting functional techniques as deeply linked with an esoteric philosophy, a religious movement or (in Tolle's case) a guru is that the technique is often used as a token hook just to lure the person to follow the movement or philosophy.

I will say that meditation is one of the few things that felt good when I had a head injury.
"If you're so smart why aren't you happy?" by Raj Raghunathan. Very practical book on being happy rather than pursuing happiness.
The Three Pillars of Zen by Roshi Philip Kapleau
Wherever You Go, There You Are by Jon Kabat-Zinn - great book about mindfulness written in a style that's very easy to digest.
Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great
I have learned things from some of the ones mentioned. But I also have one that is a bit different than the others here so far.

In 2001 I came down with a heart condition. I was 42, had two young kids, a good job, and basically did not know what to do. Spent a lot of nights up at 2 am. I read through the Aubrey-Maturin series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey%E2%80%93Maturin_series. On their face, they form an adventure series of historical novels (they fit into a category that Great Britian has, naval fiction). But it seemed to me then and still seems to me now that they are literature, an extended meditation on what it means to be a man.

In any event, they fitted my circumstances. I learned a great deal. They helped me. (I advise starting with the second one, Post Captain.)

Interesting - those are the books that the "Master and Commander" movie is based on. I liked that movie, is it close to the books?
I enjoyed the movie a great deal I thought it was as true to the series as was realistic for a hollywood enterprise.

But I don't think a person would get much sense of the books from the movie, just as a person would not get all that much sense of an Austen from a hollywood version. (BTW, that's why I suggest the second book in the series for a first try. It is much more like the rest of the series than the first book, in my opinion.)