Top products from r/JordanPeterson

We found 92 product mentions on r/JordanPeterson. We ranked the 614 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/JordanPeterson:

u/Amator · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

It just came out as a message to Patreon supporters yesterday.

> Hi everyone A couple of things. First, I'd like to welcome my 5000th Patreon, as of today. Second, I want to tell you about what I am doing and my present plans. Here's what I am working on (you can watch the YouTube video instead at But here's the text version. You might be particularly interested in announcement 2.1., my next salvo in the battle for the universities. 1. Launch of new YouTube channel: Jordan B Peterson Clips: This will feature 5-15 minute videos, original and edited from previous lectures, released at the rate of 2-3 per week. 2. Design and pending release of 2.1. a consumer information website aimed at helping students discriminate between courses pushing the post-modern/neo-Marxist cult of indoctrination and those offering a classic education, furthering their ability to communicate and introducing them to the great works of science, technology and civilization. 2.2. The Online Big Five Aspect Scale, which will enable its users to obtain a psychometrically-valid portrait of their personality along the well-established dimensions and aspects of Extraversion (Enthusiasm and Assertiveness), Neuroticism (Withdrawal and Volatility), Agreeableness (Compassion and Politeness), Conscientiousness (Industriousness and Orderliness and, finally, Openness to Experience (Aesthetic Openness and Intellect/Interest in Ideas). In the next stage, we will produce a version of this that will allow pairs of people (parent/child, husband/wife, employer/employee, brother/sister or, simply, friendship pairs) to generate individual reports AND a joint report indicating where conflicts in the relationship are likely to take place and what might be done to bridge the conceptual and perceptual gap. Future plans include adding an IQ test, as well as integrating suggestions for career success (based on the analysis of personality and general cognitive ability). If you go to, you can enter your email address, so that we can notify you when the test launches, and provide you with a 20% discount. 2.3. The high school version of the SelfAuthoring Suite (, a set of writing programs that allows its users to write about and understand their past experiences, current faults and virtues, and future plans. The adult version is four separate programs, one of which – the Future Authoring Program – helps its users create a positive vision and negative counter-vision of the future 3-5 years down the road. The high school version will integrate elements of all four adult programs, and ask its users to attend to their personal development 3-6 months in the future; and, finally, 3. Completion of my new book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, published by Penguin/Random House Canada (estimated release date January 9, 2018). Pre-release orders can already be made at Amazon. Thanks VERY much for your continued support. It has been invaluable while I was defending my words and actions last fall, and over the last months while I planned the Biblical Lecture Series (which has been viewed 1.7 million times) and continued to write, speak and work on the new programs, describe above. There's more to come. Dr. Jordan B Peterson

u/flyscan · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Edit/response: Your comment has corrected a factual error I have made. I'm not Canadian and thus I spoke from assumption based upon a shared British tradition. In this case, it's not the courts being stripped of power, but rather the bill is too vague and divests interpretation to the existing provincial policy. It is these existing provincial policies that are incoherent and ideologically driven. I think parts of my my point still stands thou, this is not a bill that empowers and strengthens marginalized people, it feels more like a token gesture to make politicians look like they're doing something.

As for "cultural elite", my line of thinking was influenced by Harris and Murry's conversation based on Murry's work in Coming Apart, where the experiences of those making decisions are so far removed from the realities of life for the masses that they find it impossible to see society through any ideological lens than their own.

I would also like to say I'm one of these ignorant "cultural elites", privileged with a educational opportunities that my peers missed out on. After a worrying rise of nationalistic/anti-immigration sentiments in our Australian election followed by Brexit than the US Elections, I was lost and confused. The education I received was failing in its translation and the utopia I though should occur never materialized. It was only though a chance encounter with Peterson's JRE #877 that I got the first big "Ah ha!" moment since I read "The GNU Manifesto" and "Manufacturing Consent" as an impressionable highschooler decades ago.

Peterson's lecture series on Personality and Maps of Meaning presented a nuanced, high resolution explanation for our current chaotic cultural and the forces behind them. He then presents a powerful set of steps that the individual can take that are grounded in practical psychology, evolutionary biology and mythic symbolism. For example, after almost two decades of education I have never heard anything as power as his explanation on why students should be taught to write.

Anyway, sorry for the long edit and thank you /u/Statistical_Insanity for braving the down-votes in this partisan sub-reddit. I hope you join /u/yahooyellow in subscribing and continuing to contribute. Lively, honest (and sometimes messy) intellectual debate is truly what the world needs more of.

u/iamwritingabook2 · 0 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Uhmmm, are you sure?

You're here, you can write better then the average Redditor, and have the courage to share with us this piece of news.

Anyway, like someone else commented conscientiousness is just as important as IQ; moreover there are many different types of intelligence which combined for the IQ; find the one where you excel, combine it with your passion, add hard work and you can live a happy life doing something that you love. How smart is that?

Did you do the Self Authoring? Do it. As you do it think about the life of your dreams, which activities would you like to do, both as a career and as hobby, think as wildly and diverse as you can.

As you think about career makes sure you think about the work, and not about the benefits/results.

I wish you best of luck and don't hesitate to post again in this forum; your post and people's comment help other people who didn't have the guts to post but go through similar experiences.

Also, check out this book:

u/unaffectedby · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Looks like I'll be starting with Jung! I have Modern Man In Search of A Soul and The Essential Jung - picked that one up randomly so I hope it's valuable.

As much as I'd love the guide that it seems MoM gives (I'm considering going back to school for philosophy, despite the risk, and would love some extra encouragement to "aim properly"), I can put it aside for now. If tackling Jung and Hegel gives me a critical eye to MoM, all the more reason to hold off.

I respect Peterson a lot, and I'm a big fan, but I always want to be able to look at ideas critically and judge them on their full merits.

Is your knowledge of Hegel and Jung self-taught? I'm currently reading Mortimer Adler's How To Read A Book in order to prepare myself to tackle these texts.

Interesting quote you pulled from the Philosophy subreddit. My interest in Hegel stems from my Christian background. I can't help but feel that Hegel, Jung, and (by extension) Peterson, are touching on a way to bring Christianity into the 21st Century.

u/Pr4zz4 · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

I personally would argue a different logic. But that isn’t to say your direction is wrong. In the end I believe we’d have the same understanding, but using different syntax. It also seems you’re really centered around duality where there’s a perfection and it’s anthesis. Where the archetypes are more of a spectrum. But again, to me, both are trying to explain the same phenomena. It all just depends on how you shape the argument.

Have you read “King Warrior Magician Loved”? Which directly dives into the spectrum of each archetype? That might help to see where your idea of forms fit in. (Amazon link at end)

Fun fact: did you know Plato’s forms might have been an inhibiting reason why it took so long for science to discover evolution?

King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine

u/CultistHeadpiece · 214 pointsr/JordanPeterson

>A wave of sexual misconduct allegations about powerful men have exploded recently in the media (e.g., the news, Twitter #MeToo, etc.). A bold social movement has begun with brave women coming forward and being applauded for speaking out and sharing their stories of abuse, discrimination, and harassment. As a result, accused men like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and dozens more have been removed from power and are suffering the consequences.
>In How to Destroy A Man Now (DAMN), Dr. Angela Confidential (a business psychologist, consultant, and human resource professional) empowers women with a step-by-step guide for destroying a man’s reputation and removing him from power.
>In easy to understand terms, the handbook reveals and explains the fundamental dynamics between allegations, the media, and authority as they relate to male misconduct in today’s society. It also unveils and details practical real-world methods for leveraging allegations, media, and authorities to dethrone a man from power.


A comment:

>I agree with JW that this book was written by a man. I have the book, it's a quick read, it is, as JW says, accurate, and having written many articles and essays on this and related topics as an MRA and MGTOW, I wish I had written this book. By presenting it as a how-to for women written by a woman, the author guaranteed that it would rouse controversy, gain attention, and possibly even make lots of money from men buying it to confirm the misandry, from misandrists wanting tips, and from the media looking for juicy headlines. In the process, as JW suggests, it will warn men of just how vulnerable they are. It's a brilliant and provocative strategy. We need to learn from this example and emulate it

u/BadLaziesOn · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

The short link in the submission resolves to the following:


That "ref=..." part is indeed an optional part of the URL, but as far as I know it is not part of an Amazon Affilate system (where someone is getting a few pennies if you purchase through their links). It just shows Amazon where are you coming from, like you clicked it in a promo email, or as a part of this or that ad campaign, etc.

Dr. Peterson used the link in his tweet, which resolves to the following:


That's another ref, plus it shows - among other things - that he searched for "12 Rules for life" and got it that way :)

But is indeed the "clean" URL to the book. But not all people are as precise with these things - or as nitpicking :) - as us.

u/NanashiSC · 196 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Jordan B. Peterson is very careful about the way he speaks (writes) and the words he use. The current translation of 12 Rules for Life in germany hurts his reputation and distorts his message. And as someone who has consumed hours and hours of his wisdom, I feel obliged to speak up against it.

Please support and share. Make him aware, we need a german reprint, with a translation that does justice to the original. Thank you!

@Update: I think a more literal translation of the german version of rule 12 would be: "If a cat runs across your way, stroke/pet it."

@Update: Since some people have argued that "unsympathetic" isn't a good translation of "unsympathisch" (see rule 5) I just wanted to note, that I've tried my best to be as true to the words as possible and therefore decided to go with unsympathetic, but some might prefer "unlikeable" or "disagreeable". Plus I can't simply alter the image.

@Update: Revised image/translation based upon feedback

/u/Hermel: "Good news everyone, a revised translation will be available soon:"

/u/dll22: "I teach translation at a university in China and work for a translation company. Hope these points are informative. (...)"

u/QQMF · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Thank you for sharing this.

Dr. Peterson said this in abbreviated form during one of his Q&A sessions. He emphasizes setting aside the reading after encountering a significant idea and then re-synthesizing it by writing your thoughts on it and how it relates to your existing body of knowledge (i.e. adding memory "hooks" to the new information).

Also, the book How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler dispels the assumption that all reading is equal. Essentially, there are different forms of reading which are suited for different types of material and goals. The passive form of reading most people do is best suited for recreational reading (i.e. magazines or novels) where retention of information is not the primary goal. This form is less taxing, thereby promoting the relaxation/recreation goal. The deeper forms of reading where retention (and more importantly, understanding) is the goal, require a form of reading much different than the "start at the beginning and read sequentially" form to which most are familiar.

The concept of "chunking" is interrelated to all these sources: Waterloo, Dr. Peterson, Adler, et. al. - which is the concept of actively relating new information to existing information. This helps by literally increasing the number and strength of neural connections to the physical site of the new memory, as well as structuring the new memory in such a way as to assign meaning to it. Chunking is also how brains become capable of dealing with concepts of increasing complexity. The vast majority of those who are regarded as super-intelligent in some field do not process more chunks of information than the average person. As an example, Bobby Fisher didn't rely on an extraordinary short-term memory to think so many moves ahead in his chess games; instead, he had synthesized his knowledge of chess so extensively to be able to think of entire sections of the board and entire sequences of moves through time as single chunks of information, whereas a beginner would think about individual pieces during the current turn as chunks. So each are dealing with the same number of chunks, more or less, but if information were ice - one is chunking in terms of ice cubes and the other is chunking in terms of ice bergs, with corresponding "weights" of ability.

u/Hermel · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Good news everyone, a revised translation will be available soon:

Also, I’m a native German speaker and OPs translation from German back to English makes the translation look worse than it is. To pick a random example, “sinnvoll” is the correct translation of “meaningful”. But if I was a German Jordan Peterson, I would have probably formulated rule 7 as “Strebe nach Sinn (und nicht nach Glück)”, which departs from the original meaning, but is much more catchy. Of course, translating a text is always a trade-off between staying true to the original meaning and finding something that sounds good.

u/nestorach · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Online Great Books is a paid community that reads and discusses the great books together. Jordan Peterson appeared as a guest on their podcast in this episode. Enrollment is currently closed but you can sign up to be notified when it opens again.

They basically follow the reading list from Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book, minus the Bible and some of the scientific and mathematical works. You can find the list on Wikipedia too.

Any Great Books reading list is going to take years to complete. Don't be intimidated and don't feel like you need to rush.

u/GameOnForDon · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

ABrokenBeing did say it was how he personally views it so he's not projecting it onto others. I was pulled out of nihilism by Peterson as well, and have to remind myself why. If you watch his videos where he will make these points much more clearly and thoroughly you will see he challenges people to think at the extreme ends, existentialism (everything has some meaning) and nihilism (nothing has meaning). For nihilism he points out that we can prove to most people that life has meaning because everyone will experience pain. It is universal that everything that experiences pain will move away from it and avoid it at many costs. Even a nihilist will avoid something of greater pain than another. So you may stick a knife in your hand to you don't care and ignore the pain, but light it on fire slowly, good luck trying not to react. Hopefully, this is the 'inherent truth' that you're looking for that shows there is at least one thing in the universe that is meaningful. If there is one thing that is meaningful (avoid pain) then you can't be completely nihilistic without deluding yourself.

Also, he wrote a book Maps of Meaning for much, much more information:

u/demiurgency · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I'm paraphrasing Bill Whittle ( who in turn is paraphrasing Thomas Sowell ( so forgive my oversimplification.

If you hold to the following ideas:

  1. That human behavior is infinitely malleable by means of social engineering (social constructionism)
  2. You have a desire to bring about paradise on earth, free from greed, corruption, envy, inequality, and oppression

    You will find that during your pursuit of bringing about your Marxist utopia, inevitably some people will resist your noble goals, holding onto toxic ideas of the past. As long as these people remain, they will spread their traditionalist ideas, and you will never be able to pull out all of the weeds. You may find the most expedient means is to imprison these people and cut them off from spreading their backward-looking ideas. This may be horrible, but since your intentions are so noble, to make a perfect world, the ends justify the means.

    tldr: You can't make a Marxist omelette without cracking a few eggs.
u/Harmacc · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

No, some books I listen to multiple times. I’m on listen 4 for this book which I recommend.
King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine

u/BittyMitty · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Yeah. Here are some of the positive aspects...

Look at this jewel on amazon:

Janice Fiamengo has some concerning points:

u/ushankab · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

/u/Magnificrab a critique is not an ideal starting place for someone new to a subject.

PlzFadeMeBro when you are first learning about something it is best to start from a neutral position and then proceed to sophisticated supporters and detractors. To do otherwise is to risk becoming an ignorant and dogmatic ideologue.

Oxford University Press produces a series of books called Very Short Introductions that provide accessible introductions to different topics.

u/Enghave · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I did some undergrad study in politics and economics, and although centre-left in my politics, have very fond memories of reading Sowell's autobiography A Personal Odyssey, it's little wonder he ended up where he did politically given his insightful and frustrating experiences in his non-academic life.

He's playing to a crowd here, in my opinion his best work is A Conflict of Visions which changed the way I understand personality and political ideology.

Fans of JP will probably get a lot out of Hayek's Road to Serfdom also.

u/HeadBuffKing · 4 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Go read the reviews this dosn't add up

Amazon link:

The book has aparently been out for 1 year atleast


February 28, 2018

This book is not very long, but worth it's weight in gold. Gives a straightforward and easy to apply method to destroy any male contact while minimizing any consequences for the accuser. Is this advice evil? Of course! But if you want morality and virtue, read Jordan Peterson. If you want to get ahead, get revenge, or just break men for fun, read this!

Weird how jbp is mentioned on one of the 5 star reviews 1 year ago.

Take note of what subreddits this is being posed in and and how is book has apparenty been published for 1 year and i can seem to find a single review taking it seriously (i found one that seems to be from an active account)

Why didnt this blow up sooner? It seems like crafted rage bait.

Edit: i looked through the reviwers purchaes while their seems to be a spike in reviews in the last couple days the accounts dont seem like bots, they have purchaes dating back 1 year plus.

u/meszkinis · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

>Loads. Christians tried to destroy classical culture,

Again. Got any proof? On the contrary- countless monks worked in scriptoriums to preserve the knowledge.

>Muslims translated Aristotle and we got it from them.

It's true that the monks also took arabic translations of classic texts and translated them to latin and some of the ancient works reached us via muslims.

>Christians were murdning and tortuirng people for anthing resembeling science

Care to provide some proof perhaps?

>We got the basis for maths and science from them. You can see the geometric designes in their old archecture.

You mean there was no math or geometry in ancient Greece or Rome? If you're talking about our current numerical system then I'm sorry to inform you- it is actually Indian, no Arab.


And who is this Catherine Nixey that I should care to waste my time reading her book? Sorry, but I'd rather trust a real historiam historian Thomas Woods ( )


All that being said: The OP is talking specifically about Scientific Method (, not math, geometry or philosophy. And the scientific method was only developed in 17th century - a few hundred years after an Islamic Golden Age.

u/privied_youth · 5 pointsr/JordanPeterson

looks pretty real to me

The five star reviews are an interesting read.

u/Harcerz1 · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

This one:

He gave a full lecture in Harvard showing students every page of this book(it's on YT). Said he tried to cut out some pages to shorten the lecture but they are too full of meaning to leave ony one out. It's great.

u/EnderWiggin1984 · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I imagine it's something like the book, "Thinking Fast and Slow."

Or "Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind."

Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind: How Intelligence Increases When You Think Less

u/Lucullus_93 · -1 pointsr/JordanPeterson

That's right, I didn't read him. I was made aware of him by a fellow student, and then listened to a few lectures on Youtube over the last few months. But why should I read something that is obviously popular scientific after I didn't like his theses in the lectures? He is a motivation trainer, proof? Read the title for yourself:

u/Excalibur42 · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Perhaps not in the exact same archetypal analysis that Jung, Peterson and Campbell pursue, but Mortimer Adler wrote an entire book about "active reading".

Here's my summary post of that book from a while back..

In particular, understanding certain works of literature, I would say, falls under the category of "coming to terms with the author", as per what Adler describes in his book.

Perhaps even deeper than that, if you presuppose that "people don't have ideas, ideas have people", then working and analyzing within the metaphorical and mythological frame of reference could be seen as a way of getting to terms with an idea itself, to which the author is only a harbinger of.

u/Missy95448 · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

This is a collection of essays that is pretty broad:

The man was genius and covered so much. I have to listen more than once for his writing to make sense to me.

u/confusedneuron · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

As far as the book recommendations go, it would be good if you could qualify what kind of books you're interested in (e.g. philosophy, psychology, history, science, etc.).

Books I recommend:

Psychology (or: On Human Nature)

The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime

Thinking, Fast and Slow (my personal favorite)

The Undiscovered Self

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature


Strategy: A History

Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Marxism, Fascism, and Totalitarianism


Economics in One Lesson

Basic Economics


Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

As always, the list of books to read is too long, so I'll stop here.

u/Badenoch · 0 pointsr/JordanPeterson

That ones not even in the top ten ...... Apparentely "words mean different to you coz you special" brainless.

u/leperLlama · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Try either [toward manhood] ( or warrior, King, magician, lover.

Also, from Mulan:

>Be a man

>We must be swift as the coursing river

>Be a man

>With all the force of a great typhoon

>Be a man

>With all the strength of a raging fire

>Mysterious as the dark side of the moon

That's what a man is. Do all that without being Gaston from Beauty and the Beast. It's tough growing up without positive male role models and society so afraid of past masculinity it wants to castrate you but just keep at it.

u/Gentleman__Wizard · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

This won't be helpful but Jung wrote a whole book about it, JP references this idea quite a bit.

edit: Technically Jung didn't write it, it was written by someone else based on his lectures.

u/greatjasoni · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

The "Very Short Introduction" series is usually high quality stuff. They can all be read in a sitting and are written by different authors who specialize in whatever the topic is. Some authors will skip the details to make it easy to read, others will make it denser than usual to cram everything into a short package. The overview is enough to understand works referencing the topic, while also teaching you enough to know what else to read for a deeper dive.




u/justplainmark · 80 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Hi there! Thanks for taking the time to ask honest questions and start conversation. It benefits everyone when we’re able to discuss openly without the vitriol and condescension often found in other places online.

I want to start by stating that I don’t consider /r/JordanPeterson to be a right wing sub. I consider myself fairly left, though more of a centrist than most of my friends. Example: I voted for Hillary in the last election, have mixed thoughts on gun control, dislike the identity politics that have lately become more prevalent on the internet/campuses lately, am pro-choice, and have been openly gay for about 12 years now. I’m more interested in the message that Jordan Peterson promotes than the politics sometimes discussed here. Jordan Peterson all types, so you sometimes get that "lol leftist cucks" garbage every now and then but it's not the spirit of the sub as a whole.

That said, let me try to answer your questions as honestly as I can:

Question #1

I don’t consider universities to be dominated by radical leftists. I consider universities to be places where people can openly discuss their views, learn new ideas, and have their ideas challenged in environments that encourage growth and understanding (and based on your tone and style, I feel we agree on this). However, I disagree with your equating departments like economics, engineering, and law with social sciences like gender studies or social justice largely because the approach to the ideology is very, very different. My understanding is that the objection to social sciences doesn’t stem from the fact that they’re more liberal/left, but that they are more interested in silencing and shaming people who disagree with them than other typical college departments.

Let me give you an example. Imagine a context where a left leaning economics student disagreed with a professor’s take on financial policy, or a visiting speaker’s approach to the foreign exchange market. An objection voiced in class, office hours, or during the Q&A portion of a speaking event would likely spark meaningful conversation where multiple viewpoints are presented. Outside of people rolling their eyes at each other in class, it’s unlikely that fellow economics majors would call for professor resignations, disrupt a speaking event, or openly shame each other for disagreeing.

Generally speaking, Engineering, Business, Economics, and Law majors would not sabotage a speaking event they disagree with, or vandalize campus property in an attempt to disrupt an idea they didn’t like, or barricade a door and imply physical harm to their opponents.

My point is this: the objection is not that the social sciences are left; the objection is that generally speaking, they are more likely to shut down an opponent than listen to them, which is the start of fascism (this is not hyperbole - the forcible repression of opposition is literally one of the tenants of fascism).

Remember above when I said that universities are places where people can openly discuss their views, learn new ideas, and have their ideas challenged in environments that encourage growth and understanding? Social sciences often (not always) stand in stark contrast to this by presenting their ideas with the caveat “agree with me, or else.”

You wouldn’t see this behavior from Engineering, Business, Economics, and Law majors.

Question 2

I mostly answered this in my answer to your first question, but my main objection is that the majority of social science classes actively discourage debate. The links I provided above are a small sample, and I could easily put together a larger list.

Again, you would not see this behavior in Engineering, Business, Economics, and Law classes.

Question 3
>You always seem to be championing traditional social hierarchies/relationships and also the primacy of the individual. But traditional social arrangements placed women in a socially subservient position with greatly diminished options for individual fulfillment relative to males. How do you reconcile this contradiction?

I haven’t seen anyone in this sub champion traditional social hierarchies, nor do I remember any comments from Jordan Peterson in his recent book suggest this. JP talks a great deal about how it’s the responsibility of the individual for self-improvement, but I’ve never heard him suggest that social repression of women was women’s fault. Assuming I haven’t misunderstood your question, is it possible you’ve mis-inferred this somewhere?

>Do you really presume to tell women they'd have more individual fulfillment if they gave up their autonomy and submitted to a backwards social relationship?

God, no. I have yet to see any posts from this sub or concepts presented by JP that would imply women would be happier in a subservient social role. In fact there are plenty of places in his last book that would say otherwise (that subservience isn’t a useful trait). Where are you getting this?

>Likewise with racial minorities.

Nope. No one is suggesting this.

Question 4

>You're always advancing this notion that leftists are gonna impose totalitarian oppression on society any day.

Are we? Where?

>Do you really think that rad-fems are at the cusp of seizing absolute power?

No, but it’s disheartening to see radical feminists discourage conversation, or assume that disagreeing with them is some moral sin that makes me a monster.

Question 5

I disagree with most Evangelicals I meet, and I do consider many of the practices of the religious right to be totalitarian.

Question 6

I have a lot of concern for the group-think of churches, especially ones that tell their followers how to vote and yet don’t pay any taxes. It’s appalling.

One question for you - have you read any of Peterson’s books? I’ll totally buy you a copy of 12 Rules if you’re interested.

u/QueerTransAlpaca · 0 pointsr/JordanPeterson

" it is very easy to understand if one actually knows what capitalism is and how it operates."

Which you obviously DO NOT.

" i did explain why money has a strong tendancy to flow to the top under unfettered capitalism."

No, you did not. You just keep saying it, that doesn't make it true.

"There are reasons why capitalistic countries have welfare and high taxes,"

Welfare is socialism and high taxes are how they pay for the socialism. None of that has anything to do with capitalism. What are you smoking.

Get off the internet and read this:

Seriously, you have NO idea what you are talking about.

u/[deleted] · 6 pointsr/JordanPeterson

This is a decent place to start:

Why ask someone on here to boil down in third person when you can get the info you seek straight from the source?

u/Just_made_this_now · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Curious, where did you get the link from? Unless I'm mistaken, there's a referral in the un-shortened link. I don't mind if it was from Peterson himself, but it's otherwise a dick move of whomever is trying to cash in by using a referral link without being affiliated.

Here's one without it and also Amazon donates a portion of your purchase to a charity of your choice:

u/etzpcm · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Using the internet archive you see the page as it used to be. On April 23 there were over 2000 reviews.

u/loamfarer · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

One of those books was '12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos' and will be out January 2018.

u/TecnoPope · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Has anyone read The Screwtape Letters ? Ben Shapiro has been talking about it for a while.

u/hotend · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I believe that he has mentioned this book.

u/hibou_confus · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Your first link seems to be a fake one. The true one is here.

u/CerebralPsychosis · 6 pointsr/JordanPeterson

I would like to summarize JBP's position. Capitalism is not the best system but it works. It sucks on certain cases but it works. Also socialists ( most of them but a few are genuine caring individuals driven by compassion and horror at the poverty of the people. Most hate the rich , also George Orwell commentated on that in his book road to Wigan pier.) They seek to correct a system without correcting themselves first which proves they cannot correct the system. Also poverty is declining due to capitalism and it allows for creativity and a system which is in tune with natural law of inequality and the 80/20 rule.

as long as there is income and output there will be hierarchy and inequality. Humanity is corrupt and it will have corruption in every human endeavour.

also any system which tries to work against the natural law fails and falls short for numerous reasons.

Socialism cannot work in a psychological way due to human nature.

by the way , not my position , just a summary ( plenty of paraphrasing )

here are references

here are some of Jordan’s looks on economics.

u/arbenowskee · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

The sad part is that you are boasting with someone else's accomplishments. And bringing in the "superpower" part just confirms that you need to work on yourself. I suggest you read this book.

u/phindingphilemon · 2 pointsr/JordanPeterson

A lot of good points and excellently argued.

You may be right as regards the timeline here. Like I said, although I poke my head in every now and then, I do not follow Peterson as closely as I used to, so exactly when he realized he would have the kind of public support he has garnered, I am not in a great position to say. I take too your point about Peterson being in a somewhat sheltered academic post and I think that explains a great deal. When I see Peterson post random dregs from academic journals on Twitter with the caption "Look out biologists! They're coming for you next!" I often wonder 'what in the world is this guy on about?' I think a good corollary to the axiom 'to the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail,' is 'to a man confronted with nails everyday, it starts to look like a pretty good idea to keep a hammer handy.' Perhaps if I was a more or less permanent fixture in the machine of academia, I would begin to feel a similar kind of overwhelm in response to the type of moral confusion of which college campuses seem uniquely capable of producing these days.

As far as the Alexander quote, I'm not sure how you wouldn't define someone feeling that 'their very right to exist is being challenged' as an activation of the underdog archetype. In fact, from an adaptive standpoint (in case you couldn't tell from my glowing recommendation of Stevens, I subscribe to the biological paradigm of the archetypes), I would argue that this is exactly what the underdog archetype was evolved for. In the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness, consider what happens to the individual that underestimates his enemy (i.e. assumes overdog status), and then to the individual that overestimates his enemy (i.e. assumes underdog status). And the adaptive advantages of assuming underdog status aren't restricted to the individual. If you want to whip up an irrational, violent mob, the standard way to begin is by convincing them that they are under attack from a bigger, stronger enemy. There is clearly some utility in feeling that one's 'very right to exist is being challenged,' as well as some dangers to not being conscious of the processes taking place. If I think a lion is challenging my very right to exist, its good to be aware of my handicap. If I think that a Professor that refuses to call me Ze or Zir is challenging my right to exist, it is the same archetype, maladaptively projected. One gets the same feeling that they are under attack but they are profoundly confused as to how dire the objective situation really is. (Or, put bluntly: they are unconscious).

Similarly, I have to also disagree with your assertion that "Nobody vocal is ever motivated by fear of their fellow man." The fear may be unconscious, but as far as I'm concerned, where there is aggression, there is unconscious fear, exactly for the reasons I outlined above.

EDIT: Re-reading your comment, that remark about Alexander being a 'creative writing visionary type' jumped out at me and reminded me of another 'creative writing visionary type' that I happen to have learned an awful lot from. I guess I'm giving away my username here but I'm assuming you already had that one figured out ;)

u/urgulburgle · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

> I mean that's why cultures form isn't it? Norms are established and enforced either through societal/cultural pressure or law.

"I am free, and you are my slave." Yup, nothing to see here!

> It was long. That's kind of a red flag right there.

564 pages.

> Apparently, police should ignore statistics and focus their limited resources more on people who aren't actually committing the majority of crime. Yeah - that makes a lot of rational sense doesn't it?

Are you encouraging police to go after people of color? Because that would be unconstitutional, right? Altho I guess that doesn't matter once we decide "black people are bad"

>I've tried to figure out what an institution would look like if all the alleged "systemic" racism was removed.

not like this

> nor do I know in what way it's specifically "white"

u/WingerSupreme · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

What is your definition of "majority"?

And I know some sources I listed are garbage, I said so in my post. I was pointing out that if you want to put up trash, there's trash on both sides.

Ignoring the fact that you still don't understand how google's algorithm works, you have now shifted from "mainstream media" to "most media" to "media that is higher up in the google results" to "media that is viewed by more people, even though it's really just one video"? And yet you still try to use the words "majority" and "most"? You know those words mean "more than half" and "the majority of" (which again, means more than half) right?

So when you post 6 links (of which 1 is not even remotely saying what you're claiming, 2 are not media sources, 2 are inherently biased and 1 is the CBC video) and then I post countering links to MacLean's, Toronto Sun, Huffington Post and Post Millennial (along with other garbage links because you seem to prefer quantity over quality), all of which are actual media news sources, what do you mean by the words "majority," "media outlets," and "sources" because...I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

I'm going to sleep, but I do have to question if you actually listen to what Dr. Peterson says or just follow him because "Fuck SJWs." The fact that you assumed I was a detractor of his simply because I'm challenging your statements makes me believe it has to be the latter, because it seems like you believe everyone who is a fan of Dr. Peterson is also in the "Fuck SJWs" camp.

See if you listen to the man, you'll understand one of his major points in debates is that you can't take one person's view on one subject and paint them with a giant brush. Look at how people treat him - he makes a comment on the gender pay gap or forced language and all of a sudden he and everyone who listens to him must be a transphobic misogynistic alt-right asshole. We both know that's wrong, so why do you assume anyone who isn't "Fuck that bitch for her tweet and fuck the media for not railroading her" must be a Peterson-detracting SJW?

Your refusal to admit for a second that you were wrong, and the incredible mental and linguistic gymnastics you are partaking in, makes me think maybe you need to take a deep intrinsic look and figure things out. I know a book that could help you out, if you need a copy you can borrow mine.

u/winnie_the_slayer · 7 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Peterson is missing the elephant in the room, IMO. The real enemy is not neo-marxism, it is neo-calvinism. Barbara Ehrenreich wrote about this to some extent, and I think it is culturally in America's collective blindspot. Here I am defining neocalvinism as the idea that "work will set you free," or similarly "work will get you to heaven." JBP pushes this as "sort yourself out."

Notice that JBP never talks about Wilhelm Reich or his ideas. Adam Curtis covered this issue in the century of the self. Reich wrote a book The Mass Psychology of Fascism which, in a nutshell, talks about how fascism/authoritarianism is a fear-driven attack on sexuality. Notice how in US politics, since the cultural/sexual changes in America driven by them damn librul hippies on the left, the right has gone increasingly more insane, fanatical, disconnected from reality, authoritarian, and violent.

JBP's solutions to psychological troubles are usually about establishing more order through willful action and understanding. This is one version of "work will set you free." Notice the nazis had "arbeit macht frei" (the same phrase in German) at the gates of Auschwitz. Thanks to folks like Peter Levine,Lowen,Perls,etc., the psychotherapy world is now understanding the neurobiological underpinnings of the phrase "lose your mind and come to your senses." JBP once stated that catharsis does not heal old wounds, coming to understand what happened is what heals. That is the basis for his self authoring suite. The problem there is that the catharsis piece is necessary, as that brings memory fragments from the hippocampus into consciousness in the frontal cortex. See Bessel van der Kolk's The Body Keeps the Score.

The point of all this is that JBP seems to be politically and ideologically on the right, as are his followers. Notice how he attracts Trump supporters, far right types, nazis, etc. He disowns the nazis but doesn't seem to try to understand why this happens. The nature of his work is repressive of vulnerability, of existential terror of mortality, of sexuality and spontaneity.

Notice how the right believes so much in rugged individualism, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," "I'm not responsible for my fellow americans because everyone should be personally responsible for themselves." Humans don't work that way, humans are social, our nervous systems respond to other people's pain whether we are conscious of that or blocking it, we need social contact. "Sorting oneself out" requires a positive relationship with another person (see Carl Rogers, object-relations theory, Allen Schore, etc) yet JBP and his followers seem to think they can think their way out of this by themselves, and that any particular "truth" is more important than getting along with others. Using "the truth" as a cudgel to attack/berate others is a particular pattern that Freud would have recognized, and seems common among JBP and his followers.

u/psychonauticusURSUS · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

So I thought a bit about these comments while I was lifting, and before I address your post point by point and where I agree, and where I disagree, I wanted to say the following. It seems to me that you want to paint Jordan Peterson as being all bad, that he has no redeeming qualities or ideas, and everything about him is repugnant. You seem intelligent to me, so surely you see the problem with this type of thinking, right? Almost no one (I said almost) is ALL bad or ALL good. I like AOC, but I could tell you things I don't like about her. I support Bernie for president, but he has some policies I don't care for. I like Joe Rogan, but there's many things he says I really don't like. I love my dad, but there are things I don't like about him. Do you see what I'm getting at? Virtually every single thing I'm pointing out to you about why people like Jordan Peterson, you're trying to negate and say he's all bad, then you're left confused as to why millions of people adore him. I just wanted to address that beforehand. You seem to be approaching the subject with it already made up in your mind that everything about Jordan Peterson is bad.

>It's not even an "overgeneralization", it's just a completely absurd, out of thin air idea that is grossly misogynistic. He's claiming to read the minds of millions of women and suggesting that they are all masochists that want to be... I dunno raped and killed, I guess... but fundamentalist Muslims? It's just ugly on so many levels.

Aren't you taking his comments a little too far? I mean... he didn't say that. You're just putting words in his mouth and taking his comments further than they actually were. Big Dick Bernie (viva la revolucion) once penned an essay about a woman fantasizing about being raped. Are we going to nail him to a cross for a lifetime for that?

>But that doesn't discredit his work on social justice. That's just a personal failing between his marriage agreement with his wife. There's not really much to talk about there. Same story with Clinton and his blow job. Something like that should have little to no bearing on orthogonal areas of his life.

No it definitely does not discredit his work for social justice. It just adds to my earlier point about the complexity of people, and how no one is all good or bad. It's not completely unrelated, because it speaks to MLK's character, and that's what we're talking about here - people's character. So just like Peterson may say some stupid shit about feminism, or environmentalism, it doesn't have much to do with his work in psychology.

>You're equivocating. It's one thing to think that the world is flat, it's another to think that women can't think for themselves and should be subservient to men.

This is quite confusing to me. You think someone saying the earth is flat would have MORE credibility than someone saying women can't think for themselves? By the way, you're going to need to source that. I have listened to hours and hours of Jordan Peterson's lectures and podcast appearances, and I have definitely never heard him say anything close to what you're asserting here.

>One has very clear socioeconomic downstream effects, while the other is just nonsense. Not only is Peterson a pseudointellectual, he's also mean and unethical in his statements towards women, LGBT and other minority groups.

What has he said that disadvantages minority groups? On this claim I'm going to have to say the following: you're either lying, or you're misinformed. Again, I have listened to hours and hours of him talking, and I have NEVER heard him say a disparaging or mean thing about minorities. In fact, his writing program helps minorities more than it does whites. Here's a piece that NPR did on him about this topic before he became the scary alt-right boogie man:
"He co-authored a paper that demonstrates a startling effect: nearly erasing the gender and ethnic minority achievement gap for 700 students over the course of two years with a short written exercise in setting goals."

So, here NPR is espousing this neat little writing program that he published an academic paper on and how it helped close the academic achievement gap between minorities and whites, and you're telling me he's "mean and unethical towards minority groups". Do you see the lack of congruence here? It doesn't add up.

>How do you know? Based on what you said above, it sounds like there's a whole lot you don't know about his record.

I've read his book, I've listened to every appearance he's made on Joe Rogan, including the one with Brett Weinstein, I'm listening to the audiobook version of 12 rules for life, I watched his Munk Debate appearance, I've listened to hours and hours of his U of T classroom lectures that he's posted on youtube, and I'm about halfway through his lecture series on the psychological significance of the bible. All of this over three years more or less. I have a very, very solid grasp of what JBP believes/thinks and what he doesn't. A much more solid grasp than you do, I'm willing to wager, based on the facts I've just laid out in this paragraph.

>He also denies climate change, despite not having ANY background in the field. None. Not a single day spent as a climate change scientist or a related, interdisciplinary field. Not a SINGLE shred of credibility on the issue... and yet he PROCLAIMS that climate change is a hoax. This is another enormous red flag regarding his ability to intellectualize on wordly matters.

Again, this is another completely unfounded claim, that I have NEVER heard come out of his mouth. This is beginning to get tiresome to have to repeatedly address things that you're claiming he has said or done, that he has actually never said or done.

Here's what wikipedia says on the matter:
"Peterson doubts the scientific consensus on climate change.[129][130] Peterson has said he is "very skeptical of the models that are used to predict climate change".[131] He has also said, "You can't trust the data because too much ideology is involved".[132][130]"

While his take on climate change IS bad, there is very clearly a world of difference between "climate change is a hoax", and "I am skeptical of the models being used". Surely you can agree that those positions have worlds between them, right? So, here again, you have made strawman characterizations about him that I have again demonstrated are wrong/fabricated/whatever. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not lying, and that you've been mislead.

>Oh, come on. His self help book is just repackaged ideas that you could find on any Tony Robbins tape. His academic work in psychology is not particularly offense but, from what I understand, is not particularly remarkable to other psychologists (there's a fairly large thread about this in the AskPsychologists sub). What is so brilliant about him?

Well, when you consider that going by academic citations, which is a fairly good metric for evaluating an academics credibility and success, he is in the top 1% of the world's publishing social scientists. I mean, regardless of ANYTHING else about his academic career, surely you can acknowledge that being in the top 1% of publishing social scientists by academic citations, is pretty impressive.

Have you read his book? Because at this point its starting to seem more and more like you've actually consumed/read/listened to very very little of his work, and you've let other people characterize his works for you, and you assumed those characterizations were accurate. See: the other examples in this post where I have demonstrated that you inaccurately characterized him.

If you continue to mischaracterize him and not take a good-faith approach to analyzing his works, you're going to continue to fall flat on your face in understanding why his book sold over 3 million copies in two years, why thousands of people are attending his lectures, and why millions of people are tuning into his video and audio content.

If you want a dense psychology work from him, check out his book "maps of meaning".

It's a much denser, more complex philosophical/psychological work. 12 rules for life was not written for Cambridge or MIT professors. Or even general lower level academics. 12 rules for life was written for the common person. IMO, he does a solid job of synthesizing some of the great ideas from a selection of the great thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries (Jung, Freud, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and others), while bringing them into the 21st century and making them easily digestible for the common person, while adding his on take on top of it all. What do you feel is more reasonable: that it's just "tony robbins" self-help fake motivational bullshit, or the complex and nuanced view of the book I've just given? Come on.

u/Chisesi · 23 pointsr/JordanPeterson

First off, I don't think it's helpful to take the hard position of "there is a war on boys/men" unless you can thoroughly argue that position. A "War" implies aggressors and defenders which puts people you're trying to convince on the defensive. Even if you believe it's true, taking such a hard position without having your arguments air tight just defeats your purpose. Even if you do have your arguments on point, it's easy for people to use a strawman to say you think women are oppressing men. Even worse they will take you as saying women seeking equality oppresses men, or that you're saying men are powerless, then dismiss your claims based on that misunderstanding.

I would recommend making a softer assertion along the lines of "the well being of men has been declining in the Western world." That softer claim is much easier to defend, just look at suicide rates, incarceration rates, education stats, life expectancy rates etc. Take an approach that is closer to "we are all int his together so we should all want both men and women to do well and right now men need help." That triggers the leftist desire for collectivism and cooperation.

Tucker Carlson is running a Men in America segment every Wednesday this month about how men are in trouble these days. He provides a ton of stats and statistics on the topic. I'll edit this if I can find links to the segments.

March 7 Tucker: Something ominous is happening to men in America

March 14 Tucker: Washington not worried about male wage crisis

With any of these books, I highly recommend looking up video interviews with the authors to get more information and to see how they condense their arguments.

The war against boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers.

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters Paperback –
by Helen Smith PhD

Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 Paperback – January 29, 2013
by Charles Murray

The gender gap stuff has been going on since the 1970s. Economist Thomas Sowell, student of Milton Friedman, has been explaining how asinine the claim is for decades. Here he is dismantaling it back in the 1970s.

[Here is another take down from more recently.](
) This interview covers his book Economic
Facts and Fallacies, the chapter Male-Female Facts and Fallacies would be a good resource for you to read and take notes on concerning the pay gap myth. Here are some good quotes from that chapter.

>“History shows that the career paths of women over the course of the twentieth century bore little resemblance to a scenario in which variations in employer discrimination explain variations in women’s career progress.”

> “The proportion of women in professions and other high-level positions was greater during the first decades of the twentieth century than in the middle, all before anti-discrimination laws or the rise of the feminist movement.” Further, “There is no pay gap for full-time workers 21-35 living alone,” and, “As far back as 1969, academic women who never married earned more than academic men who never married.”

>In another study, from 2005, “Among college-educated never married individuals with no children who worked full time and were from 40 to 64 years old, men averaged $40,000 a year and women $47,000.” What, then, explains cases when the numbers tilt the other way?

Here is a transcript of the above interview. Here is a good one...

>Interviewer: Well, you're right. I'm gonna quote you again. "Among the many factors which influence male-female economic differences, the most elusive is employer discrimination."

>Dr. Sowell: Yes, that when you correct for all the various factors such as the number of hours worked, the continuous employment versus taking a few years out to have children and so on, you take all that into account, the differences between men and women become quite trivial. If you look at the academic world or as far back in 1969, women who were
never married and earn higher incomes than men would never marry. They became
tenure professor at a higher rate than men who would never marry. And then later on if
you look at the general population, if you take the women who are past the childbearing
years and they work continuously, their incomes were higher than men who would work
continuously and so on. So the difference is that not that the employer is paying them
differently, but that they have different characteristics.

>Interviewer: So, the central variable and explaining economic differences between men and
women is not employer discrimination, not the rise of feminism, it's that women--it's
child rearing, marriage and child rearing, that's the variable.

>Sowell: Yes.

>Interviewer: As that varies, a woman's arrival or participation rate in higher level occupations
varies with that, that's—


>Interviewer: Okay. Now in principle, you note, family responsibilities could be perfectly evenly divided between fathers and mothers. But that isn't the way it has worked in practice.
Quote, I'm quoting you again. "Since economic consequences follow from practices
rather than principles, the asymmetrical division of domestic responsibilities produces
male-female difference in income." Question, what are the policy implications of that?
If we become fixed on eliminating male-female income differences, is it the case that the
only choice, the only route for doing that is to involve the government in redesigning the
very nature of the family?

The Pay Gap Myth and Other Lies That Won’t Die

Thomas Sowell takes down the gender 'wage' gap


Milton Friedman - Case Against Equal Pay for Equal Work - Professor Friedman explains how support for "equal pay for equal work" helps promote sexism.

This is an interesting argument but to fully understand what he is referring to you need to understand that minimum wage laws have traditionally been used as a way to oppress weaker social groups.
If there is any work where being a man or being a woman makes an individual more qualified for a job or better suited to the job, then the only power the unsuited party has is to offer to work for less money. If you insist on equal pay though you remove that one economic incentive the less desired group has to convince someone to hire them, they cost less.

This is captured well in the generally true claim "No man hates another more than he loves himself." You can be the biggest racist or sexist in the world but it's very rare for that prejudice to be motivating enough that you would see your business where you derive your livelihood and the security of your children fail just to spite someone. There are so many examples of very racist people putting their prejudices aside in order to hire minorities simply because it's cheaper to do so. Establishing equal pay or minimum wage laws completely removes the economic incentive to put your own prejudices aside. They remove greed as a motivating factor for giving people opportunity.

Economist Walter E Williams has written a book on this called South Africa's War Against Capitalism based on his study of the country during apartheid. Milton is making a similar argument against equal pay as Williams did concerning minimum wage. Williams point was that if you have racism in a society where people are irrationality predisposed not to hire a certain group, then the only power that group has to get a job is to offer to work for less. That's why white, racist labor unions have always been the ones to push minimum wage laws when confronted by a minority population competing for jobs. You saw the same thing happen in the US when black men moved North and competed with white laborers for railroad jobs. The white unions pushed for our first minimum wage laws which removed the economic incentive from employers to hire minorities.

If you take the feminist argument seriously, that there is rampant sexism in certain industries, then it makes no sense to force those industries to pay women an equal amount. Rather than hiring them despite their sexism because they can pay them less, those employers will simply stop hiring women altogether because they hate women. To me this shows the irrationality of the claims that feminist make about sexism being the cause of a lack of representation in certain fields. It's not because of sexism but because of self-selection. In countries with higher levels of gender equality you see even higher rather of self-selection in jobs. There are far more women in tech in countries that rate low on women's rights. Russia for example.

Economist Walter E Williams - Minimum Wage as a Racist Tool 2:20

u/LimbicLogic · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Two main neurological players for PTSD (which is different than trauma, as far from all who experience a traumatic event end up with PTSD) are the amygdala and hippocampus. The first is responsible for the fear response and the second is responsible for putting things into chronological order. During moments of extreme stress (trauma) these two parts of the brain stop "holding hands," leading to flashbacks and intrusive thoughts, which are the hippocampus' way of trying to sort out an event or set of events it's not able to given that things haven't been sorted out because of the overload provided by the traumatic event. This is why retelling is paramount for recovery, ideally in narrative form where the person writes out and/or visualizes in session what happened.

The body viscerally keeps track because the events aren't processed given the broken neurobiology mentioned above, but it also does it through state-dependent recall, or the idea that getting into a certain emotional state recalls thoughts and memories. Given that people with post-traumatic stress usually have sympathetic nervous systems that are very sensitive and/or more or less constantly running (even to the point, especially with developmental abuse, that cortisol -- the sympathetic nervous system's braking system -- runs low, allowing norepinephrine, epinephrine, and other stress hormones to run amok), they're much more easily put into anxious states and sensitive to anxiety-arousing stimuli. This in turn puts them at an increased risk for having memories and thoughts, or even full reliving of the event (flashbacks).

Until your brain can make sense of the trauma the body so desperately wants to forget, it won't be able to forget it. All anxiety is theoretically resolvable through exposure, which is the opposite of what we're naturally inclined to do when we're anxious, which is to avoid. So people with PTSD constantly have these reminders from their broken hippocampi that are attempting to make sense of what happened, which takes the form of nightmares, flashbacks, and instrusive thoughts, which can happen randomly or because of being triggered by day-to-day events (e.g., a person with PTSD gets into a screaming fight with a significant other, which opens up intense anxiety, which leads to flashbacks related to their earlier physical abuse trauma), but because they don't know any better (nobody with this condition naturally does) they pull away from these reminders rather than trying to map them out through writing or visual retelling.

Helplessness is also another major player in trauma, and is probably why three times as many women as men develop PTSD from a traumatic event; women have more sensitive sympathetic responses than men (probably largely if not entirely from the SNS-sensitizing nature of estrogen). Helplessness often presents as the freeze response during the trauma and days, months, or years later after it happened when it's being involuntarily recalled. Treatment usually isn't complete, or doesn't go anywhere near as fast, until the person is able to create a sense of power over their helplessness-inducing traumatic event; according to neuroendocrinologist Robert Sapolsky, stress feeds on lack of prediction and control, and this is what you want to try and restore to the traumatized person. This can mean going to martial arts courses and feeling the full-body empowerment that comes with holding your own against sparring partners, practicing rape prevention techniques, or especially recreating the memories of trauma as part of exposure through visualization (close your eyes, take deep breaths, tell me what you see when X happened) and having the person fight back and/or take control of the situation.

Like /u/swiftevade linked, I also highly recommend Bessel van der Kolk's The Body Keeps the Score, an absolute masterpiece of trauma, exploring both PTSD and developmental trauma (i.e., repeated child abuse). van der Kolk has a truly eclectic approach to treating trauma, and it's nice as a therapist to hear someone not ride the cognitive-behavioral therapy bus everywhere. He's also a psychiatrist who knows a lot about the neuroscience of trauma.