/lit/ - Literature

>>19356117
His only academic book (outside of the research papers) is Maps of Meaning. The other two books are pretty much mass-market self-help books. I'm not going to argue that Maps of Meaning is seminal or anything--he worked pretty hard on it but it isn't exactly groundbreaking shit. After I took his personality course I was done and didn't bother with the smaller course he had based on Maps--my gf at the time took it and liked it a lot though.

The textbook we used in the personality lectures is pretty fucking based though (pic). It's been out of print for a few decades (Peterson licensed it for the class) but you can find it on Amazon. I got mine for around $8 back when I took the class.

>>18925956
>>18925970
(Pic) is the textbook we used for the course. It's great and if you can get your hands on a copy I highly recommend it (it's out of print...Peterson licensed it for the course but I bought my copy for $8 on amazon instead of paying the $200 or $300 bucks).

Anyway, his other influences are there. If you're familar with psych you'll notice the influence of people like Carl Rogers, Ludwig Binswanger and Medard Boss coming through in his worldview and how he interacts with others). Rogers is an especially huge influence on how he interacts with people (even if he doesn't reference him very often in public).

>>18913051
The following texts are used in gateway courses (they're 2nd year so they serve as a general introduction toward specialization).

>Sensation & Perception (Wolfe, Kluender, Levi)
>Human Development (Kail, Cavanaugh, Ateah)
>Abnormal Psychology (Nolen-Hoeksema, Rector)
>Learning and Memory (Gluck, Mercado, Myers)

Pic is the text Jordan Peterson used for his section of Personality of Personality. It's honestly a great textbook but it's dense (and out of print...I got my copy for $8 on amazon instead of shelling out the $300 licensed version Peterson used). Some of my books are in storage (e.g. I'm missing my Bioloigcal/Anatomy text...but you're probably more interested in the less sciency stuff anyway).

We used Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Psychology (Farrell) for a 4th-year seminar I took...it's very light and you'll probably find it interesting (you should d/l or pick that one up to start with).

The first-year survey text I had was Psychology: Themes & Variations (Weiten, McCann). It's decent but probably too broad for your interests.

If you want a comprehensive intro to the field, go with the 2nd year ones above. If you want a general/philosophical intro, go with (pic) and Farrell. If you want a really broad intro with the various subfields available check out the first year text. (Note: Stay away from social psychology shit because it's mostly nonsense).

>>18830449
Pick up (pic). It's the text Peterson used when I took his section of Personality Psych. It's been out of print for decades but you can usually find it on Amazon (I got mine for $8 instead of paying $200+ for version Peterson had licensed for the class). It's dense but it's an easier intro into Jung (and a bunch of other psychologists) than going straight into primary sources.

>>18728875
Man & His Symbols and Modern Man in Search of a Soul.

For Peterson, the text he used to teach us about Jung was pic. It's a great textbook and Peterson stole a lot from it for his book Maps of Meaning (i.e. diagrams).

I took his class at university (Psychology of Personality). Only the first half of it is actually on YouTube (the second half was actually a lot more technical). The exams were based around the readings he had curated for us; I was actually pissed about that because the lecture shit in the first half of the course, the part on YouTube, had little to do with the content on which we were tested. He may reference those that OP mentioned most frequently in public...but they aren't his central focus as an academic.

That said, people on here know him as a talking-head (i.e. mostly through media appearances). As far as that goes, he's pretty high calibre (I'd rather watch someone like him speak for an hour than most of the people who appear on shit like Real Time with Bill Maher). There aren't very many people who could continue to book appearances on talk shows, geared toward the general public, while frequently referencing reference the people OP mentioned. Just because you're smarter than most of the people who hear his message, those he gears it towards, doesn't mean you have a deeper knowledge of the history of psychology, the clinical practice of such, and the philosophical roots he draws from as they specifically relate to his field.

Peterson is a psychologist first. The public figure shit is new and he's leaned into being a self-help guru (probably due to the same altruistic motivations that lead him to become a clinical psychologist). He also decades of experience as a working research scientist.

The fact he was able to take advantage of 15 mins of fame and turn it into a late-life career centered around being a public intellectual is pretty impressive if you think about it.

(Pic is the textbook from PSY230; if you want to know other major figures who have influenced him, start there).

>>18124282
I had Peterson as a prof when I was in university. He was pretty well known on campus before he blew up internationally.

Most criticism of him is midwit level nonsense; a lot of it ignores his phenomenological tendencies and/or mischaracterizes such. That video references such as if it were something he's moved on to which is pretty stupid...we spent like 2-4 weeks on them in PSY230 and they were heavily treated in the textbook we had in the class (pic).

I'll reply to this message with a better book to read if you want to do some diligence and take apart some of his ideas.

(FYI: The second half of PSY230 isn't on YouTube; that was the more technical part of the course that dealt with psychometric measurement and breaking down the Big Five model. In that section, he said blacks have low IQs (but framed it in terms of social programmes not being suitable to address it and help them)).

The textbook was great btw. It's out of print but you can find it on Amazon fairly easily (he licensed it for the course...the version the UofT Bookstore sold was abridged for the course and over $200...I got mine for $8).

>>18051679
Thanks. Here's the textbook we used (pic). It's been out of print for decades (he licensed it for the class and condensed it into a course reader). It's actually a great textbook (you can get it online...I got one for like $9 instead of paying the $200+ the U of T Bookstore was charging for the abridged reader). (Aside, I never took Maps of Meaning but my gf did (I read a bit of the book the course is based on because she had it)...he aped the diagrams in that book from this one (they're better in this one though)).

>>17980696
I see you fall into the C category with a dash of D.

C)
He doesn't reduce religion and metaphysics to psychological processes; he frequently cites Mircea Elide as a chief influence (hierophanies). Regarding his views on metaphysics, his main source of inspiration is Carl Jung. Neither of these points toward an assumption that religion/metaphysics are "purely psychological processes."

As far as his supposedly arguing that people should work soulless jobs; as a clinician, he's influenced by the applied phenomenology of Carl Rogers as well as the daseinanalysis of Ludwig Binswanger and Medard Boss. I'd like to see you reduce their work to the championing of soulless work as the sole source of a meaningful life.

D)
There's nothing wrong with using animal models in science. In fact, the research he was doing at the time I had him as a prof involved studying pleasure/reward circuits in mice. His most famous use, lobsters, is just used to draw attention to the fact that the structure regulating dominance behavior (i.e. formation of hierarchies) has existed "longer than trees have." This isn't an argument in favor of a specific political or social system, that's extemporaneous to what he's getting at. Rather, he's asserting that social structures will have to accommodate such drives in some form. He isn't using biology the same way as Deepak uses Quantum Physics.
_________________________________
I took his class at University before he blew up. The pic is the textbook that was used (it's out of print but he licensed it into a course reader). He drew heavily on Part III of the book (Kantian Models in the Phenomenological Outlook); which is the Rogers/Binswanger/Boss stuff (Jean Piaget's and George A. Kelly's constructivist models are also covered in that section). What's available of his lectures on YouTube is only the first half of the course and isn't that representative of all that we were taught.

If you want to write me off as a fanboy, you can go ahead. In reality, I had to listen to the guy 4 hours a week for 4 months and spend hours reading shit that he himself curated. I have a pretty solid idea of him (and know where to be suspicious...the correct answer was E).