12 Rules For Life by Jordan Peterson
12 Rules For Life by Jordan Peterson
Peterson
1-Page Summary
Most humans crave order and meaning in existence, to deal with the terrifying uncertainty
of the world. For much of history, religion served this function (eg being a servant of
God). But as secularism rises, a void remains that is filled by nihilism and empty
ideologies.
Peterson believes that there is real meaning and good in existence. Look at it this way - if
real evil exists (human suffering, especially inflicted by other humans), then good is the
opposite of this - it is preventing evil from happening.
Rule 1: Fix your posture. Others will treat you with more respect.
There is a part of your brain that is constantly monitoring signals to figure out your
position in society. How you see others, and how others treat you, affect how you view
yourself. If others kowtow to you, you elevate your own impression of status. If others
denigrate you, you lower your internal status.
If you slouch, you convey defeat and low status to others; they will then treat you poorly,
which will reinforce your status. (This can be reinforced in serotonin signaling, related to
depression)
Fix your posture to get others to treat you better, which will make you feel better and
stand tall, thus kicking off a virtuous cycle. (View Highlight)
Rule 2: Take care of yourself, the way you would take care of someone else.
Many people are better at filling prescriptions for their dogs than themselves. Similarly,
you may self-sabotage yourself daily - by not taking care of your health, not keeping
promises you make to yourself.
Peterson argues that you do this because of some self-loathing - that you believe you’re
not worth helping. Instead, you have to believe that you have a vital mission in this
world, and you are obliged to take care of yourself.
Nietzsche: “He whose life has a why can bear almost any how.”
Surround yourself with people who support you and genuinely want to see you succeed.
You will push each other to greater heights; each person’s life improves as the others’
lives improve. They won’t tolerate your cynicism, and they will punish you when you
mistreat yourself.
Don’t associate with people who want to drag you down to make them feel better about
themselves.
Don’t accept charity cases by helping people who don’t accept personal responsibility for
their actions. People who don’t want to improve can’t be helped. (View Highlight)
With mass media, it’s easy to compare yourself to the best of every field (looks, wealth,
marriage, career) and think of yourself as miserably outclassed. But modern society is so
complex that everyone has different goals - which makes comparing to other people
pointless.
Drill deeply into your discontent and understand what you want, and why. Define your
goals.
Transform your goals into something achievable today. If it’s not within your control,
look somewhere else. Let every day end a little better than it started.
If you do this correctly, you’ll stop being obsessed with other people’s success, because
you have plenty to do yourself. (View Highlight)
Children test boundaries of behavior to learn the rules of the world. As a parent, your
purpose is to serve as a proxy for society. You must teach the child what is acceptable,
and what isn’t.
Children who receive no/incorrect feedback will learn the incorrect boundaries of
behavior. They will be poorly adjusted and rejected by society, which will severely
hamper their happiness. If you don’t teach children the rules, society will punish them for
you, far less mercifully.
Set the rules, but not too many. Use the minimum necessary force to enforce the rules.
(View Highlight)
Rule 6: Before blaming anything else, think: have I done everything within my ability to
solve the problem?
It’s easy to blame the outside world, a group of people, or a specific person for your
misfortunes. But before you do this, question - have you taken full advantage of every
opportunity available to you? Or are you just sitting on your ass, pointing fingers?
Are you doing anything you know is wrong? Stop it today.
Stop saying things that make you feel ashamed and cowardly. Start saying things that
make you feel strong. Do only those things about which you would speak with honor.
(View Highlight)
Doing good (preventing evil from happening, alleviating unnecessary suffering) provides
your life with meaning. Meaning defeats existential angst; it gratifies your short-term
impulses to achieve long-term goals; it makes your life worth living.
Think - how can I make the world a little bit better today? Pay attention. Fix what you
can fix.
Think more deeply - what is your true nature? What must you become, knowing who you
are? Work toward this. (View Highlight)
Rule 8: Act only in ways in line with your personal truth. Stop lying.
You may lie to others to get what you want; you may lie to yourself to feel better. But
deep down you know it’s inconsistent with your beliefs, and you feel unsettled.
Lies can be about how much you enjoy your job; whether you want to be in a
relationship; whether you’re capable of something; that a bad habit isn’t that bad for you;
that things will magically work out.
You must develop your personal truth, and then act only in ways that are consistent with
your personal truth.
Once you develop your truth, you have a destination to travel toward. This reduces
anxiety - having either everything available, or nothing available, are far worse.
Act only in ways that your internal voice does not object to. Like a drop of sewage in a
lake of champagne, a lie spoils all the truth it touches. (View Highlight)
Rule 9: Listen to other people thoughtfully. You’ll learn something, and they’ll trust you.
People talk because this is how they think. They need to verbalize their memories and
emotions to clearly formulate the problem, then solve it. As a listener, you are helping the
other person think. Sometimes you need to say nothing; other times, you serve as the
voice of common reason.
The most effective listening technique: summarize the person’s message. This forces you
to genuinely understand what is being said; it distills the moral of the story, perhaps
clarifying more than the speaker herself; and you avoid strawman arguments while
constructing steelman arguments.
Assume that your conversation partner has reached careful, thoughtful conclusions based
on her own valid experiences. (View Highlight)
Anxiety usually comes from the unknown. You don’t know what the problem is, or
something vague seems really scary. Specificity turns chaos into a thing you can deal
with.
If you had a cancer in your body, wouldn’t you want to know where it is, what it is, and
how exactly to treat it? Why don’t you treat every other problem in your life with the
same clarity?
Be precise. What is wrong, exactly? What do you want, exactly? Why, exactly?
In interpersonal conflicts, specify exactly what is bothering you. Don’t let it spiral into an
inescapable cobweb. If you let everyday resentment gather, eventually it may bubble up
and destroy everyone. (View Highlight)
Peterson criticizes the postmodern assertion that gender is merely a social construct, and
that there are no differences between males and females. He disagrees that there needs to
be complete equality, in every behavior and preference, at all times.
Instead, Peterson calls for recognition that inequality does exist. Males and females have
different natural instincts and different preferences, and we shouldn’t deny that they exist.
If we ignore this, we can create policies that force people against their nature, which can
have unintended consequences.
For example, Peterson feels we’re at risk of “feminizing” young boys by excessively
protecting them from danger. Boys by nature are more aggressive. This is biological.
They want to prove competence to each other. They want to inhabit that level of risk that
pushes them to grow. Let boys be boys. (View Highlight)
Rule 12: Life is tough. Take time to indulge in little bits of happiness.
Jordan Peterson is Christian, and he refers to the Bible throughout, but this isn’t a
religious book. Instead, he argues that because similar tenets underlie a broad range of
religions (Christianity, Buddhism, etc.), our human struggles are universal.
However, 12 Rules for Life is based on faith, by which I mean it doesn’t rely so much on
data as it does on principles that make intuitive sense. The book doesn’t use randomized
controlled trials to prove “not lying to yourself is a good way to improve your life.” But
given the complexities in life, not everything can be proven, and often you just have to
act according to what you intuit is best. Thus acting out the 12 Rules for Life requires a
bit of faith. (View Highlight)
Introduction
Most humans crave order and meaning in their existence, to deal with the terrifying
uncertainty of the world. For much of history, this function was served by religion, with
rules handed down by gods and supernatural surveillance of behavior. Despite differences
in the beliefs, all major religions drew on common themes, and the need for rules and
order was universal. The ubiquity of this suggests something biological or evolutionary.
The developed world is moving to greater secularism, as a result of: scientific
explanations of the world’s uncertainty; critical thinking around religion and the logical
In 12 Rules for Life, Peterson argues that there is a right and wrong way to conduct your
life. In contrast, he rejects the ambiguity of moral relativism, the idea that good and evil
are merely matters of subjective opinion and that every belief has its own truth. Moral
relativism tolerates all ideas to avoid being “judgmental,” and prevents adults from telling
young people how to live. It also rejects thousands of years of development of virtue and
how to live properly.
In this vacuum of guidance on how to live, many are drawn to group-centered belief (like
political or national allegiance) or ideologies instead, because it gives them identity,
purpose, and a shared code of conduct. It simplifies the world.
For decades Peterson was bewildered by the question of the Cold War - how could people
risk world destruction for their belief systems? He questioned both the fervor of
Americans and Communists.
He concluded that people adopt shared belief to avoid the negative emotions spurred by
chaos. People are willing to fight to protect something that saves them from the
existential terror of nihilism. (View Highlight)
Take responsibility for your own life. Don’t worry about others' problems - fix your own
first. If everyone did this, many society-level problems would be solved.
Walk the line between order and chaos, where life is stable enough but also unpredictable
enough to provoke personal growth. In other words, push yourself to the limit of your
ability and challenge yourself.
Acknowledge that life is suffering. Your goal is to make progress to avoid suffering.
Overprotective adults avoid discussing suffering with their children, with the hope that it
will protect them from it. This just makes children unprepared to deal with suffering
when they run into it. (View Highlight)
Inequality of ability occurs through natural biological variation - within a species, some
animals are more capable than others. Those higher in ability command greater resources:
Because social status is so important in life outcomes, you try to figure out where on the
social hierarchy you are, you signal that position to other people, and you jockey for a
higher position. Sound familiar? These are deeply evolved, biological behaviors.
Even crawfish do this. Two stranger lobsters, placed in the same tank, will within 30
minutes determine the dominant and the subordinate lobster. Their subsequent behaviors
match their position - one strutting, claws in the air; the other sulking, dejected, prone to
flight. (View Highlight)
When a behavior is common among divergent species, the behavior was strongly selected
for in natural selection and promoted survival in some way.
The function of this signaling and recognition behavior is to distribute scarce resources
Consider the confrontation between two lobsters sizing each other up. At each stage in
conflict, one lobster may yield and opt for subordination. (View Highlight)
Because actual fighting is risky for both parties, being able to non-violently determine the
stronger through signaling is beneficial.
Similar animal behaviors: (View Highlight)
Among animals, females let the males sort themselves out into a hierarchy, then choose
the best individual to mate with.
(Peterson connects this to the romance trope where a large, powerful, aggressive male is
subdued and charmed by the female, as in Beauty and the Beast.)
(Shortform note: How is this helpful for survival, especially in the case of the subordinate
lobster?
Consider an average lobster that refused to defer to every lobster as a rule. In some cases,
it would actually be superior, and the other lobster would back off. But sometimes it
would have its bluff called by a stronger lobster, and it would be injured or killed. So
“knowing your place” prevents injury from conflict, thus promoting survival. (View
Highlight)
Likewise, a supreme alpha lobster would rather avoid conflict, since injury could allow
an inferior third lobster to take advantage of the situation. The alpha also doesn’t
necessarily want to kill submissive individuals, since they could be useful partners later.
The important point is that there is a primordial calculator in your brain (the medial
prefrontal cortex) that monitors signals to figure out your position in society. It recognizes
how others behave around you, and it infers your social standing. Then, based on where
you think you are in the hierarchy, you change your perceptions, values, emotions, and
actions.
If others kowtow to you, you believe you’re higher on the social hierarchy.
If others belittle and reject you, you believe you’re lower on the social hierarchy.
(Shortform note: There’s an interesting experiment where an alpha male monkey is with a
pack of other males, and the submissive behavior of the other males reinforces the alpha’s
perception of himself. But if you put the alpha male in front of a one-way mirror, where
he can’t see the submissive behavior of other males, he lowers his serotonin. The point is,
seeing how others behave toward you is important for figuring out your hierarchy.) (View
Highlight)
Anxiety
Lower status people really live in greater threat, having fewer resources available to deal
with problems and emergencies.
This restricts serotonin secretion, which raises stress levels, makes you more impulsive
and reactive to situations - “you must be ready to survive.”
You jump at more short-term opportunities that appear, not able to put them off for long-
term rewards. (View Highlight)
Finally, through feedback loops, you can become stuck in a low social position. You
behave in a subordinate way, which makes others treat you as a subordinate, which makes
you feel more subordinate, which makes you behave subordinately. Here’s a concrete
example:
One infers low social status from the environment, perhaps through bullying or
controlling parents.
This attracts negative attention from others who treat them as subordinates, which further
reinforces self-perception of low status.
It also promotes stress, which is physiologically costly and can cause impulsive short-
term decisions that lower status.
It also encourages behavior that entrenches the low status, like refusing to ask for
promotions, which continues to reinforce low social status. (View Highlight)
Some experiments suggest that alterations in body language can change mental
perception - smiling makes you happier, adopting power poses can make you feel more
confident. (View Highlight)
This is the beginning of developing self-respect, accepting the demands of life, marking
your space, and standing up to tyranny.
(Shortform note: This is a variant of “fake it ‘til you make it.” Even if you don’t feel
confident, act confidently - others will treat you better, and you will develop real
confidence.)
You might worry that all this posturing will make you a target for attack by stronger
people. Peterson argues that the ability to respond with aggression decreases the
probability that actual aggression will become necessary. In other words, acting
confidently is a deterrent to attack. (View Highlight)
But fake it ‘til you make it might only go so far. Doesn’t this ignore the problem that
there is such a thing as real ability, and that a person’s low social status might be
warranted?
Peterson acknowledges this, but suggests that there are people who specifically prey on
those who behave submissively. This could cause an artificially low perception of status
and make it hard to crawl out of your vicious cycle.
Instead, if you kick off the change by appearing confident, people will treat you as though
you have value. You get positive responses, and this makes you less anxious, which
makes you better at conversation and social interaction. As you enjoy things more, you
will seek it out more, and so forth. (View Highlight)
He uses the Biblical story of Adam and Eve as the origination of seeing good and evil,
and how this original sin carries into us today. After their fall from heaven, they are
naked, ugly, ashamed, resentful - why would anyone care for a descendant of Adam and
Eve?
Also, we know that humans have great capacity for evil, as evidenced by historical
atrocities. This increases loathing for mankind and self. (View Highlight)
In contrast, our pets and our children are faultless - they don’t know any better, they’re
innocent, so they deserve all the help we can give.
The solution is to believe that you are worth helping. You have a vital mission in this
world, you are important in this world to others, and you are morally obligated to take
care of yourself.
You are not your own possession to torture and mistreat, because your being is tied up
with that of others. Therefore, mistreating yourself will harm others.
Look at all the wonders and comforts of the modern world (electricity, running water,
plentiful food), put together by people like you for the benefit of others.
You deserve sympathy for merely being alive and shouldering the burden of existence.
Reject virtuous self-sacrifice - don’t suffer silently when someone demands more from
you than is offered in return. Then you are supporting tyranny. (View Highlight)
In other words, see yourself like you see your pet or someone else. You don’t see their
faults, and you want to care for them. Treat yourself like the same.
This means taking care of yourself, getting healthier (physically and mentally), expanding
your knowledge, pursuing goals you want, articulating your principles.
In the past our cultural leaders were more concerned with survival than with objective
truth, which is why they captured wisdom and subjective experience in stories.
Why are people ashamed of nakedness?
This might be a cultural custom to protect our bodies from harm. Yet we get injured
rarely these days - why does it persist?
It might also be to desist straying from your relationship. There is more temptation when
a person’s body is exposed, and covering it up invites more stability. (View Highlight)
Sometimes, if you feel the person is “beneath you” in status, you may feel like you can
rescue this person. But consider the other insidious, malevolent factors that could be at
play:
While some people may really be capable of improving, some aren’t. People who don’t
want to improve can’t be helped. It’s very difficult to overturn this foundational layer and
Maybe they don’t believe they deserve to be helped, or they don’t go looking for it.
They may want to repeat the horrors of their past, sometimes to feel as though they have
agency over their suffering, sometimes because there is no alternative.
They may want to continue feeling like a victim of life’s horrors, rather than taking
personal responsibility for what’s under their control. (View Highlight)
All of this is dramatized to the extreme, and Peterson recognizes that if the relationship is
genuine and there is sincere desire to improve, then it’s still worth maintaining. But this is
hard to accurately assess, so reflect and see if any of the above elements apply to your
relationship. See if the person you’re helping accepts any personal responsibility - it’s a
red flag if they merely see themselves as the victim of endless external causes.
2) This idea of a savior complex might not apply at all. Instead, you might all be bound
by an implicit contract aimed at nihilism and failure. You’ve all decided to sacrifice the
future for the present. Everyone deliberately wastes time, sets no goals, and sabotages
themselves. No one mentions it, but everyone knows what the game is. If you feel that
you’re ready to adopt a new attitude, then you need to move on from this group.
It’s much easier to fall into vice than virtue. Nihilism is easy - “nothing in the world
matters, there’s no point to doing anything, so why bother?” It’s easier not to shoulder a
burden, not to think, not to care. Pick one or two bad habits and indulge, and you can fall
into a deep chasm, a personal hell. (View Highlight)
Finally, even if everyone’s intentions are good, a negative person’s presence still drags
you down. Studies show that pulling a problematic person into a team lowers the team’s
overall efficacy - in essence, the team falls to the lowest common denominator.
This might be because the high performers may feel resentment at others not carrying
their weight, so they lower their performance to match.
Even if the friendship isn’t a charity case, be wary of people who insidiously drag you
down. They belittle your personal ambition because they’re embarrassed about lack of
their own. They override your accomplishments with their own, real or imaginary. (View
Highlight)
Bad Solutions
People react to high standards in a variety of ways.
The solution isn’t to simply reject all standards. Standards are useful to guarantee a level
of quality (like building bridges) and to keep pushing us up to better things. Being
unsatisfied with your present world is a useful push to improve your situation. But setting
unrealistically high standards can also lead to crushing, chronic self-criticism, where you
feel you aren’t capable of doing anything.
The solution also isn’t nihilism and hopelessness. Don’t think, “there will always be
people better than me, so what’s the point? The world’s going to end in a billion years if
not a million - why does what I do matter?” Peterson argues that this is a cheap trick -
pick a time frame long enough, and nothing matters. This is an unreliable, worthlessly
simplistic way to look at life.
The solution also isn’t to protect people from the idea that they have ways to improve,
and that standards do exist. Throughout the 20th century, American culture took on the
delusionally positive thinking of constant praise for kids. Trophies for everyone, you’re
all special and capable of everything you want to do. This merely blinds people to the
truth, and when reality hits, people are unprepared to deal with it. (View Highlight)
Furthermore, there isn’t a binary condition of “success” vs “failure.” There are many
gradations in between. What matters is whether you can get better, not whether you can
achieve binary success.
(Shortform suggestion: If you’re stuck here, then think more about why you don’t want to
improve. Recall from Rule 2 that you might have self-loathing and believe you don’t
deserve to improve. If so, treat yourself like you would another person, and be lighter in
your judgment of yourself.) (View Highlight)
Next, you’re likely discontent about not having something (like money, a particular job,
an achievement). Drill into your discontent and transform it. What do you want? Why do
you feel this way? (Shortform suggestion: Keep asking why until you can’t answer it
anymore. Then you’ll hit the foundation of why you feel this way.)
As you question yourself, you may realize that there are multiple conflicting desires at
play. List them all out, realize the conflict between them, then prioritize them into a list.
Is the subject of your discontent within your control? If not, look somewhere else. Find
something you can fix.
You may find some of your desires to be rooted in bitterness and resentment. How do you
transform your goal so that you remove bitterness and resentment? What if you didn’t
have to improve yourself at other people’s expense? What if you could achieve your goal,
while also making your friends, even your enemies happier? (View Highlight)
Finally, realize you may have to give up old goals to find a new direction.
(Shortform note: These are abstract pointers, so let’s work through an example in more
detail than the book does. Say you really want your boss’s job. You’re miserable day-to-
day because you can’t stand to see your incompetent boss doing a job that should be
yours. You believe that if only you got your boss’s job, you’d be happy forever.
Then keep asking why you want your boss’s job. You may find a surprising variety of
desires at play:
You want fairness. More capable people should be rewarded accordingly, and it’s unfair
for less deserving people to get more.
You want to do good work with higher responsibility. Why?
Because you want to serve the world, and having a higher title lets you accomplish more.
You dislike your boss as a person. You want to see him fail in return for all that he’s taken
from you.
That’s a lot of desires, and it’s much more complicated than “I want my boss’s job.” You
can only produce a list like this by thinking deeply.
Now that you’ve listed them, you can then prioritize which ones are most important to
you.
Then you can notice the conflicts between them: (View Highlight)
You want to serve the world, and you see yourself as a good person. But at the same time,
you want to see your boss fail. Could you define a new goal, that allows you to avoid this
bitterness?
If getting your boss’s job is within your control and you still desire it, how could you do
so?
If not, how could you achieve all your other goals another way? Maybe by applying to a
new role within the company, or a new job?
While Peterson doesn’t go into his example anywhere near this length, we believe it
correctly applies his thinking.)
While you do this exercise, realize that you’re blind and can’t see yourself honestly.
You’re blind to what goals you really want because you’re focusing on something very
narrow. You’ve obsessed over a narrow goal for a long time, so it’ll take an adjustment
period to see the bigger picture.
In general, you can’t even understand fully how your brain works, since it’s been shaped
What one thing in your life can you fix right now?
Let things in your life at the end of the day be a little better than they were this morning.
Do that for a month, then three months, then three years, and now you’re aiming for the
stars.
Pretend you’re working for your own internal boss. After you finish, the boss complains
it’s not good enough and asks for 10x the work. Would you work for a tyrant like this?
No - make yourself a deal (eg reward for doing something), and feel good about it after
you finish. (View Highlight)
Once you start looking at your new goal, you’ll start seeing new things you were blind to
before - new information, opportunities.
Once you put this into practice, you’ll improve how you feel about your self-worth and
comparing yourself to other people.
You don’t get jealous of someone else’s success, because you know life has a lot of
factors, everyone’s playing their own game, and that person might not have it better than
you.
You don’t get frustrated with your lack of immediate success, since you know you need to
make small steps and be patient.
You’re less obsessed with other people’s success, because you have more than enough to
do yourself.
Furthermore, while it’s tempting to think of them as cherubic angels, they have capacity
for evil inside them. They will not bloom into perfection if left to their own devices. So if
they hit you or yell in supermarkets, and you don’t provide corrective feedback, they’ll
think it’s ok. They’ll learn the wrong boundaries of society. Then when they become
adults, they’ll be poorly adjusted to function in broader society. (View Highlight)
In school, other children will refuse to spend time around a temperamental, unsociable
child.
Teachers will run out of patience and focus attention on more pleasant children, causing
your child to fall behind.
Parents will refuse your child’s presence at their playtimes.
If these habits persist into adulthood, employers will fire them; relationship partners will
reject them.
And this problem can get worse throughout a child’s life. An early poor social experience
can set up a vicious cycle of chronic maladjustment - a maladjusted child will act poorly;
she will receive negative feedback from the world, often without understanding why; she
will withdraw and feel rejected, causing anxiety, depression, and resentment. This further
receives negative feedback from the world. This can last for a lifetime.
Shielding your child from corrective feedback is in effect crippling them in the long run.
And early exposure matters - a child not taught to behave properly by age 4 will have
lasting social difficulties.
Teach Your Child What’s Acceptable and What Isn’t
As a parent, your purpose is to serve as a proxy for society. You teach the child what is
acceptable, and what isn’t. (View Highlight)
Think not about having your child avoid all pain, but rather to maximize their learning at
minimal cost. In other words, some amount of pain early on will save a lot of pain
throughout the child’s life. Don’t protect your kids - make them as competent as you can.
Teaching children the rules should be done with both rewards and punishment - leaving
one out removes a tool from your toolkit (most parents omit punishment). Punishments
and negative emotions are natural, evolved reactions to events - sadness and shame train
people to avoid the situation that led to those painful emotions.
Also, a good reward program requires continuous vigilance, since the behavior needs to
be reinforced quickly with the reward. The right reward structure doesn’t work if it’s not
correctly applied continuously with the child. (View Highlight)
Before blaming the universe for your misfortunes, first consider - what personal
responsibility did you have in your misfortune? Did you do everything within your power
to improve your situation, or did you passively sabotage yourself by letting bad things
happen to you?
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn served as a Russian soldier in WWII. He was then arrested and
imprisoned by his own people. He got cancer. His misfortunes seemed out of his control.
Then he wrote The Gulag Archipelago, at great risk to himself, to expose Soviet prison
camps and the flaws of Lenin’s thinking. He realized his unquestioning support of the
Communist Party contributed directly to his misery, and he decided to correct his
mistake.
Look at it this way - if your suffering is your own fault, then you can actually do
something about it. If, in contrast, it’s entirely the universe’s fault, then reality itself is
flawed, and you are perpetually doomed, and you have absolutely no ability to change
that. Which worldview would you rather have? (View Highlight)
Often, disasters could have been prevented with the right mindset. Peterson argues lack of
preparation is a sin. When times are good, we get complacent and forget our
commitments and responsibilities. Then when disaster strikes, we omit our personal
responsibility in causing it. We may learn our lesson temporarily and make empty
promises to improve, but inevitably we forget, and so the cycle repeats.
The New Orleans flood, Peterson argues, could have been prevented with legislation
passed in 1965. By Katrina in 2005, only 60% of the work had been done. In contrast, the
Netherlands protects its borders with dams built to withstand a once-in-10,000-year
storm.
Before blaming the universe, or a political faction, or an enemy, put your own house in
order. Have you taken full advantage of every opportunity available to you? Are you
working hard at your career? Your relationships? Outside of work to improve yourself?
(View Highlight)
Are you doing anything you know is wrong? Stop it today. Stop when you feel when an
inkling that you should stop. Stop saying things that make you feel ashamed and
Of course, we know this is what we shouldn’t be doing. We know we should be doing the
hard things today to make our lives better in the future. We should suppress our
immediate impulses to bring future rewards, like studying today and putting off partying
to build the career we really want.
One obstacle is our powerful biological instincts - they kept us alive in the Stone Age, but
they’re counterproductive today (overeating 100,000 years ago helped us survive a period
of famine; today it leads to obesity). But on a higher conscious level, it’s hard to answer:
why? How do we define what’s good and worth doing, and what isn’t?
In 12 Rules for Life, Peterson tackles it this way: it seems intuitively true that certain
things can be defined as Evil - most abhorrently, conscious human malevolence.
Auschwitz, mass shootings, enslavement, knowing torment of others - these are all things
most people believe are bad, even without having to read a philosophy book. You likely
believe the world is better off without these things happening. (View Highlight)
If there is such a thing as Evil, then Good must be the antithesis of Evil - Good is
whatever stops Evil from happening. Good alleviates unnecessary pain and suffering.
In the most extreme of cases, literally fighting evil is good - as typified in the Union’s
antislavery stance in the Civil War, and the Allies’ anti-Holocaust stance in World War II.
But all actions exist on a spectrum, and resolving even little bits of bad are good. This
could mean counseling a friend to get out of a bad situation. This could mean improving
your own health, so that you have more ability and time to do good. This could mean
empowering others to do good - even by helping people understand what good and evil
are, like Peterson is doing.
Doing good has Meaning. When you act with Meaning, you will attain more security and
strength than would be granted by a short-sighted concern for your own security. What
you do will matter to you. In turn, you’ll feel better about your existence, and the evils
and injustices of the world are more tolerable, because you know they can be overcome.
If you’re the type to bemoan your existence, Peterson argues doing good is the salve - by
doing good, you are compensating for the sins of your existence and those of humankind.
Meaning is the mature substitute for expedience. Expedience rejects responsibility; it
doesn’t have the wisdom or sophistication to look ahead and plan carefully; it has no
courage or sacrifice; it’s the easy way out. Meaning regulates impulses and recognizes the
value of making the world better. By providing deeper meaning, Meaning gratifies all
impulses.
Ask yourself - how can I make the world a little bit better today? Aim upwards. Pay
attention. Fix what you can fix.
Even more deeply - what is your true nature? What must you become, knowing who you
truly are? How can you make the world a LOT better, if only you made certain changes in
your life? Something valuable, given up, ensures future prosperity. (View Highlight)
The greater the change you want to make, the greater the sacrifice might be. Inverting the
question - what is the greatest sacrifice you can make, that of what you love most - and
what good will come of it? In so doing, you change the structure of reality in your favor.
The above is his main point in the chapter, but Peterson also discusses two other topics:
The Historical Rise and Fall of Meaning
Self-sacrifice and delayed gratification have been part of human teachings for a long
time, and the discovery of its utility goes back even further. Picture in the Stone Age that
a tribe brings down a mammoth, and they engorge themselves until they can’t possibly
eat any more. But then they have leftover food. They learn that they can go through the
labor of preserving the food today for the benefit of having food tomorrow. Even better,
they can give this food to a neighboring tribe and expect a return of favor in the future.
(View Highlight)
These sacrificial behaviors promoted survival, and they gradually became ritualized and
dramatized, customs inherited through generations. They became enshrined in moral
narratives and religious texts, like the Temptation of Christ. Wandering through the desert
for 40 days and nights, Satan tempts Jesus with hedonism (relieving hunger by creating
his own bread), egoism (jumping off a peak and relying on God to save him), and
materialism (ruling the kingdoms of Earth). Jesus rejects all these temptations of evil and
(Shortform note: In one interpretation, these temptations are different paths for Jesus to
become a Messiah by demonstrating supernatural powers. He can easily alleviate physical
hardships; he can relieve Roman oppression by seizing the kingdoms. Jesus rejects these
options - he wants to undergo his trials without powers that ordinary humans don’t have,
in effect becoming a practical role model for humans. Instead of making bread for
everyone, he sets an example of a practice that can forever solve the problem of hunger
for everyone - rejection of immediate gratification and the temptations of evil.)
Despite its tremendous influence, Christianity had a few problems that limited its reach in
the modern day:
It failed to sufficiently address the problem of suffering in the present day (“why would
God allow this atrocity to happen?”), which helped give rise to science and alchemy.
People felt Jesus had already died to relieve all of mankind’s sins, thus freeing people
from personal moral obligation. (View Highlight)
Nietzsche argues that humans killed God, and they would have to invent their own values
in the aftermath. However, ideologies like fascism and communism filled the void
instead.
In 12 Rules for Life, Peterson argues that the individual must be constrained and molded
by a disciplinary structure before she can act freely and competently. As secularism rose,
a void in disciplinary structure grew; filling it was nihilism and susceptibility to new
utopian ideas, like fascism. Hence he wrote this book to provide a reworked structure for
people to follow. (View Highlight)
On a deeper level, you may lie to yourself about what you want. You might have a dream
life envisioned by your younger self, without probing carefully into whether you really
want it (career and retirement goals are common examples here). You may entertain ideas
about what you really want, but deceive yourself into thinking they’re impossible to reach
or undesirable after all. You then act in ways that you paper over with more lies, but deep
down you know it’s inconsistent with your beliefs, and you feel unsettled.
Beware of the big lie (in Hitler’s terms) something so large and audacious that you cannot
accept someone would intentionally fabricate it. This could be about who to blame for
your faults, or what you should do with your life. (View Highlight)
Your lie may begin with protecting yourself from reality. You may believe reality is
intolerable and must be distorted. You want to avoid that short-term pain. But after a
certain point, the lies take on a life of their own.
First you start with a little lie, then support it with further little lies.
Then you distort your thinking to avoid shame of those lies.
Then those lies become necessary and become ritualized into unconscious action.
The longer you lie, the more you believe it, and the harder it is to undo.
All the lying may work in the short term, but ultimately you will run into failure. If you
betray yourself, if you act out a lie, you weaken your character. If you have a weak
character, adversity will bulldoze you. By failing to react the first time, you’ve already
trained yourself to tolerate things you disagree with. (View Highlight)
This leads to bitterness. Because you are avoiding pain and fabricating your world, you
are likely to avoid personal responsibility for your failures. You will blame the world as
unfair, and other people as getting in your way. It’s not hard to take this one step further
to believing “they must be stopped,” and another step further into revenge.
All this applies to many levels of existence. You may be lying to yourself:
Clearly telling lies to yourself leads to bad outcomes and misery. What do you do? (View
Highlight)
Once you develop a personal truth, it gives you a destination to travel toward. It gives you
a personal code of conduct to act by. Having a personal truth reduces anxiety, because
having either everything or nothing available are far worse options.
Step 2) Act only consistently with your personal truth.
Speak in a way that makes you feel strong, not weak. Act only in ways that your internal
voice does not object to. A lie spoils all the truth it touches, like a tiny drop of sewage in
a bottle of wine.
Are you doing anything you know is wrong? Stop it today. Stop when you feel an inkling
that you should stop. Stop saying things that make you feel ashamed and cowardly; start
Stand up for your beliefs. If you say yes when you want to say no, you weaken your
resolve and become habituated to violating your beliefs. You will lack the strength when
you really need it. Instead, when you say no, you transform yourself into someone who
can say no when it needs to be said. Nietzsche said that “the strength of a person’s spirit”
is “measured by how much truth he could tolerate...to what extent he needs to have it
diluted, disguised, sweetened.”
Step 3) Keep an open mind to new information and keep adjusting your truth.
Be willing to learn from what you don’t know. While tradition is a good start, it may no
longer apply if the circumstances have truly changed. Putting yourself in new situations
will literally grow your brain. Transform your values as you progress. (View Highlight)
From the deepest level, it means defining what you want to do with your life, and shifting
your time and energy to achieving progress in that direction.
It means defining what kinds of relationships you want with people, and reconstructing
ones that don’t meet your wants.
It means doing something about things you disagree with in the world - how a country is
moving, a policy your employer enacts, how you see a stranger treat another stranger.
It means telling your friend or partner what you really think, at the expense of a conflict
for a longer-term gain.
What do you do when you don’t know what to do? Tell the truth. At the very least, you
will be trusted for being honest, and you’ll feel the strength that comes with authenticity.
(View Highlight)
Thus, many people prefer to talk to a listener. They organize their brains with
conversation.
Thus rises the classic stereotype in how men and women treat conversation differently.
Women want to converse as a mode of thinking, going over their day and struggles
they’ve faced. In response, men want to design efficient solutions and move on. Rushing
this process robs the speaker of their ability to think, and it signals that you dismiss the
importance of what the speaker has to say. Instead, the speaker feels a need to formulate
the problem in conversation. They need to be listened to and questioned to ensure clarity
in the formulation. Only then is there a problem that is solvable.
As a listener, you are helping the other person think. True listening is paying attention and
accepting what the person has to say.
Sometimes, you don’t really have to say anything - the person solves her own problem
merely by speaking aloud. Just by giving sympathetic responses, you signal that you
value the speaker, that her experiences are important and deserving of consideration.
Other times, you serve as the voice of common reason, helping ground the person and
revealing what the other person is ignoring. (View Highlight)
In effect, we stay sane by talking to other people. People who listen and engage in
conversation help us figure out our problems.
(In connection with Rule 5 about parenting, Peterson argues this is why parents have an
ethical obligation to raise their children to be socially acceptable - a child who is rejected
by society reduces willing conversation partners, which can lead to madness.)
If you listen without premature judgment, people will tend to trust you and tell you
everything they’re thinking. (View Highlight)
Trying to jockey for status in the social hierarchy - a game of one-upsmanship in telling a
better story or appearing to have a better life.
Monologues enforcing one’s viewpoint without opening paths for replies. These are often
meant to shut off thinking in the listener.
Absentmindedly thinking about what to say next, rather than addressing what is being
said
Stubbornly disregarding what is being said, out of fear of changing your opinion (View
Highlight)
Sound familiar? We all do this at one point or another, often to great discontent.
Here is the most effective listening technique: summarize the person’s message. Say
something like, “let me make sure I have this right - what I’m hearing is __.” This has
very helpful effects:
You take the time to genuinely understand what is being said, rather than skirting over it
on the surface.
You give the person a chance to correct what you said, or emphasize something you
didn’t. This improves your understanding of the other person.
You extract the moral of the story, discarding the meandering paths that are a natural
consequence of thinking aloud. This forms a successful, lightweight memory for the
Assume that your conversational partner has reached careful, thoughtful conclusions
based on her own valid experiences. Assume that they want to engage with you as a voice
of reason, not oppress you. Reflect their viewpoints back to them, and only then share
your own viewpoint.
Other Tips for Conversations
A tip for resolving arguments: When you argue with someone and reach a dead end, take
time to separate and sit alone. Each person should think, “What have I done to contribute
to what we’re arguing about? I made a mistake somewhere, even if it’s small or far
away.” Then when you get back together, admit your mistakes.
Good lectures are actually conversations that happen to be given to many individuals at
once. As a public speaker, you should talk with individuals. Make eye contact with a
specific person, note her confusion or acceptance, and modify your conversation
accordingly. Then switch to another audience member. (View Highlight)
Specificity turns chaos into a thing that you can deal with. If you have a vague unease,
you will struggle with it until you define it explicitly and give it a concrete form. Once
you precisely identify the issue, you will likely realize that you were far more afraid than
you should have been, and you now have a specific target to confront.
If you have a cancer somewhere in your body, wouldn’t you want to know where and
what it is as soon as possible, so you can do something about it? Why don’t you treat
every other problem in your life with the same urgency and clarity?
Give structure to the chaos through specific speech. If you speak carefully and precisely,
you can make order from the chaos, develop a new goal, and navigate to it.
Precision sorts out the uniquely terrible thing from all the other, equally terrible things
that did not happen. If you have a pain in your abdomen, you start with a vague set of
terrifying possibilities. Then you go to the doctor, who collapses the possibilities into a
single, clear diagnosis. You feel less anxiety, certain now that it’s addressable, and you
laugh at your previous anxiety. Why are your other concerns and problems any different?
(View Highlight)
You cannot move in life without aiming at a direction. Random wandering will not move
you forward. It will make you disappointed and frustrated and resentful.
Be precise. What is the problem, exactly? What do you want, exactly? Why, exactly?
Endure the sharp pain of specificity and confrontation instead of the chronic vague dull
ache of negligence. Once you identify it, things will get better.
Interpersonal Conflicts
Many issues of this sort have to do with interpersonal relations, particularly with your
romantic partner. Communicating what you really think risks immediate negative
emotion - resentment, jealousy, frustration, hatred. So it’s easy just to pretend you’re a
saint, try to move on, that “it’s not worth fighting about.” (View Highlight)
In a marriage, there is little that is not worth fighting about. Do you really want an
annoyance tormenting you every day of your marriage, for the decades? All it takes to
invite disaster is to do nothing.
The longer you wait, the more the little problems form a thick interrelated cobweb. Each
small unresolved resentment piles onto the next one, aggregating into a ball of hate.
Sometimes the person you resent is totally unaware that you’re resentful. You behave
Focus the argument only on the specific thing that is bothering. Both people should
promise just to solve just that one issue - the other problems will have their due time, so
don’t unearth them or get distracted.
One by one, you reveal and solve each issue. You clear the cobweb that was once
impenetrable.
(Shortform suggestion: As you discuss, keep asking why. You can’t clean out a dental
cavity without digging out all the rot from the very bottom. Maybe she finds his laugh
annoying (why?), because she doesn’t want him to be happy when she isn’t (why?),
because she thinks he held her back from her ambition when they agreed to focus on his
career, but she now regrets it (why?), because she saw how it ate at her mother and ruined
her parents’ marriage, and now she feels guilty about not being stronger as a person.
Now she sees it’s not really about his laugh, but about far deeper issues. These issues are
hard to fix and take time - but it’s far better to know what the issue is, than to ignore it
and try to pretend it doesn’t exist.) (View Highlight)
When the world doesn’t work properly, you have to peer into this complexity. This is
chaos. Chaos provokes anxiety. When your car breaks, you have to figure out what’s
Peterson decries the nihilism in this approach, the rejection of all categorizations as done
only for power reasons. Surely power and corruption play some role in hierarchies, but
they aren’t necessarily the only role or even the primary role. And believing this idea may
be counter-productive, if it limits cooperation and contravenes biological roots evolved
over millions of years.
There is a perverse logic to the argument that all hierarchy is socially constructed. Its
believers desire for all inequalities to be eliminated, on the basis of fairness. But - IF
some inequalities are hard-wired into our genes, or have functional purposes (like
identifying the spectrum of skill), or result from free will (females may, given completely
equal environmental treatment, just enjoy nursing more than males do), THEN proposing
obliterating these would sound unreasonable. It would mean opposing free will, or
overwriting biology.
In other words, find someone who insists that all hierarchies are artificial constructs, and
you’ll see someone who cannot stomach the idea of inequality in any sense.
Accepting Inequality
Instead of bemoaning a narrow hierarchy, instead celebrate the complexity of culture that
allows for a large number of games and successful players. Different people can have
very different levels of success in different dimensions, and so one’s outcomes can’t be
compared to anyone else's outcomes. Trying to compress everyone into completely equal
outcomes - regardless of biology, behavior, and personal preferences - may be
destructive. (View Highlight)
Within gender, Peterson maintains there are clear biological differences between men and
women - men tend to be more interested in things while women are more interested in
people; men are more disobedient and women are more agreeable. The variation among
individuals is very high - the most [adjective] of one gender is more [adjective] than the
average person of the other gender (for instance, the most aggressive female is more
aggressive than the average male), but by and large, the general trend is true.
And in societies with more social freedom (like Sweden) the gender imbalance in certain
professions is magnified. For instance, the imbalance of males and females in engineering
is greater than it is in the Middle East, where there is less social freedom. The implication
The idea that gender is a construct used to exert power has led to continuous (Peterson
calls unfair) attacks on men. Men’s accomplishments are considered unearned due to their
privilege by being born males; their ambitions make them plunderers. Men are attacked
as oppressors, when there is little historical evidence that the patriarchy was deliberately
designed by men to subjugate women and assert dominance.
Instead, Peterson considers another biological possibility - that women, by nature of
sexual specialization, have to bear children; and that when they get pregnant, they need
more protection than usual. In a time when humanity faced many more existential threats,
with a higher probability of death and higher risk inherent in unwanted pregnancies,
different legal treatments of men and women may have arisen. (View Highlight)
This also explains why women tend to prefer mates who are at equal or higher social
status levels, while males are more indifferent (this is true across cultures).
This leads to the depletion of possible mates for high-status women. Women who have to
care for infants don’t want an adult male baby to look after as well.
This also explains why women tend to prefer mates who are at equal or higher social
status levels, while males are more indifferent (this is true across cultures).
This leads to the depletion of possible mates for high-status women. Women who have to
care for infants don’t want an adult male baby to look after as well.
Peterson decries the neutering of male independence for the sake of gender equality.
Instead of being independent, boys raised this way become socially weak and dependent
on parents. Still, their natural urges remain, and they’ll lash out in other ways, like
adhering to violent, fascist ideologies. “Men have to toughen up. Men demand it, and
women want it.”
Modern parental overprotection robs men of this opportunity. Don’t remove risk from life
- let children optimize for it and improve their competence. Let boys push against
authority and toughen up and do some seemingly dangerous things. Hence his rule:
“Leave children alone when they’re skateboarding.”
(Shortform note: while he discusses men and independence, Peterson doesn’t complete
the argument to discuss how society should raise girls to suit female natural instincts.)
(View Highlight)
Another response, which only partially mitigates the suffering, is to acknowledge that
limitation is critical to making existence meaningful. When Superman was created as a
comic book character, he had infinite powers and could overcome any situation. This
became boring. There was nothing for him to struggle against, so he couldn’t be
admirable; no lesson for him to learn, so he couldn’t grow. In response, the writers had to
make him weak to kryptonite to make his stories interesting.
Peterson could have wished for his daughter to have an indestructible metal skeleton, or
an inhumanly high threshold to pain. But then his daughter would be changed to a
different person, even a monster. What can be loved about a person can’t be separated
from their limitations. (View Highlight)
There are also coping mechanisms for dealing with suffering. Promise yourself that you’ll
only worry about a problem at a specific time of day (not at night, or else you can’t sleep)
then promise not to think about the problem outside these scheduled times. This
conserves your strength and allows you to deal with the rest of life, which doesn’t care
what problems you’re facing.
Finally, notice little bits of goodness that make existence tolerable, even justifiable. See
the girl splash happily into a puddle with her rain boots. Enjoy a particularly good coffee
or book or conversation. Pet a cat when you run into one. (View Highlight)