kayumochi
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2015
- Messages
- 376
Having read both Napoleon Hill and Peterson I would respectfully disagree. His book 12 rules for life could certainly be said to have some elements of this as the practices that make one successful in the west are basically the same now as they were in Hills time. Although I would say his book is less about being successful in the way Hill writes (mainly financial success) and more about finding a purpose to sustain you through life.
However the majority of his work is not focused on self help it is much more in the psychology field. His books maps of meaning is in no way "success literature".
Also the fact that he is a clinical psychologist means that much of his work will take on the air of success literature as he has spent much of his clinical practice trying to improve people's lives as a clinical psychologist is want to do.
I think it is wrong to simply dismiss him simply as a "modern day Napoleon Hill". It makes me think that you have not watched many of his lectures or read much of his work beyond the snippets put forth in the MSM (apologies if this is not the case)
I am not dismissing Peterson by comparing him to Napoleon Hill. That is a compliment. Hill spent 20 years studying high achievers and I suspect put as much into his work as Peterson has put into his. I know little of what the MSM has said about Peterson but what I have heard sounds reminiscent of what journalists say of Hill and every other self-help author - they are dismissive. I am not. Nor am I dismissive about Peterson. If one applies oneself wholeheartedly to either Peterson's or Hill's work I have no doubt that one's life can be improved. It is you who is dismissive - to the self-help body of literature.