Scott Alexander reflects on reader comments about his review of Jordan Peterson's '12 Rules for Life', discussing interpretations of Peterson's philosophy and its impacts. Longer summary

This post summarizes and reflects on various comments made in response to Scott Alexander's review of Jordan Peterson's book '12 Rules for Life'. The comments cover a range of topics including Peterson's philosophical approach, his views on meaning and suffering, his impact on readers, and comparisons to other thinkers like C.S. Lewis. Scott provides his own thoughts on these interpretations, discussing ideas around the nature of meaning, the role of inspiration vs truth, and the merits of Peterson's approach to self-improvement and politics. He also considers how Peterson's ideas might be viewed from different philosophical perspectives. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews Jordan Peterson's 'Twelve Rules For Life', finding it surprisingly insightful and impactful despite some philosophical criticisms. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Jordan Peterson's book 'Twelve Rules For Life', finding it surprisingly good despite initial skepticism. He compares Peterson's writing to C.S. Lewis in its ability to make clichés feel meaningful and impactful. The review analyzes Peterson's ideas about order vs. chaos, his grounding of morality in the alleviation of suffering, and his approach to psychotherapy. While Scott has some criticisms of Peterson's philosophical foundations, he ultimately sees Peterson's work as a positive force, albeit one he's not personally drawn to join. Shorter summary

Scott clarifies that he supports free speech for all, but criticizes deliberately seeking controversy when choosing speakers to defend free speech principles. Longer summary

Scott Alexander clarifies his previous post about 'Sacred Principles As Exhaustible Resources', addressing misunderstandings. He emphasizes that he's not against defending controversial speakers like Charles Murray or Jordan Peterson, but criticizes the process of deliberately seeking out controversial figures to test free speech principles. Scott argues that while free speech should protect everyone, the political process of defending it should strategically choose sympathetic test cases to build public support, similar to how the NAACP chose Rosa Parks. He warns against deliberately seeking out the most controversial figures as test cases, as this can harm the cause of free speech in the long run. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that overusing free speech to defend controversial figures may lead to a backlash against the principle itself, potentially depleting it as a societal resource. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the potential negative consequences of invoking free speech to defend controversial speakers or ideas. He argues that while free speech should protect unpopular views, repeatedly using it to defend offensive content may lead to a backlash against the principle itself. The post compares respect for free speech to a commons that can be depleted if overused, especially in the context of growing partisanship. Scott warns that associating free speech primarily with conservative causes could turn it into a partisan issue, alienating liberals. He suggests that to preserve free speech, it should be invoked to defend liberal causes as well, preventing it from becoming solely associated with controversial right-wing figures. Shorter summary