Men impose a code of conduct on each other when they work together. Do your job. Pull your weight. Stay awake and pay attention. Don`t complain or be sensitive. Stand up for your friends. Do not suck or sniff. Don`t be a slave to stupid rules. Do not be, in the immortal words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, a girlie man. Don`t be dependent. Not at all. Never. Period.

The harassment that is part of acceptance in a work team is a test: are you tough, entertaining, competent and reliable? If not, leave. It`s as simple as that. We don`t need to feel sorry for you. We don`t want to put up with your narcissism, and we don`t want to do your job. But the story of the golden calf also reminds us that without rules, we quickly become slaves to our passions – and there`s nothing liberating about that. In another mostly negative review, Andrew Anthony of the Guardian wrote: “Seen in the most favorable light, Peterson`s rules are an attempt to locate people in society, to recognize systems and structures that have been around for a long time and, instead of trying to demolish them, to encourage its readers to find their most functional position there.” Anthony criticized the fact that “the problem arises when his hodgepodge of common sense dictates. are themselves considered a kind of gospel.” [14] Peterson`s initial interest in writing his latest book, 12 Rules for Life, grew out of a personal hobby of answering questions published on Quora; One of those questions was, “What are the most valuable things everyone should know?” to which his answer included 42 rules. [6] [7] Peterson`s interest in writing the book stemmed from a personal hobby of answering questions posted on Quora; One of these questions was, “What are the most valuable things everyone should know?”, to which his answer[12] included 42 rules. [6] The original vision and promotion of the book was to incorporate all the rules entitled “42”. [13] [14] Peterson explained that it is “not just written for other people. This is a warning to me. [7] The Telegraph`s Suzanne Moore rated the book four out of five stars, saying Peterson is “the best at telling stories about his clinical practice” and, like his predecessor, finds the book to be “hokey wisdom combined with good advice.” Moore also said there was “not much for women here,” nor a “real analysis of how power works” and that “the rules really aren`t up for discussion.” [9] The book is divided into chapters, with each title representing one of the following twelve specific rules for life, as explained in an essay.

The Guardian`s Hari Kunzru said the book collects advice from Peterson`s clinical practice with personal anecdotes, accounts of his academic work as a psychologist and “a lot of intellectual history of the variety of `great books`,” but the essays on menstruation are explained in an overly complicated style. Kunzru called Peterson sincere, but found the book irritating because he thinks Peterson didn`t follow his own rules. [86] In an interview with Peterson for The Guardian, Tim Lott called the book atypical for the self-help genre. [7] The book consists of twelve chapters, the title of which suggests “Rules of Life.” Instead of despairing of these differences in moral codes, Aristotle argued that although specific rules, laws, and customs vary from place to place, what does not differ is that people in all places have a natural inclination to make rules, laws, and customs. To put it in modern terms, it seems that all human beings are so indeliblely concerned with morality through a kind of biological endowment that we create a structure of laws and rules wherever we are. The idea that human life can be free from moral concerns is a fantasy. Essentially psychological in their intent, the rules of both books are told based on specific episodes of Peterson`s clinical experience. In addition, Peterson said these rules were “explicitly formulated to support the development of the individual,” although they may also prove useful at “levels of social organization that involve the individual.” [8] Ron Dart, in a review of The Ormsby Review, saw the book as “an attempt to articulate a more meaningful order of freedom as an antidote to the unpredictable […].