I dunno, his "Atheists aren't really real atheists because they don't act like a fictional character like I think they should" claim was pretty dubious. As was his claim to have been unable to sleep for 25 days because of drinking fucking apple cider. And then there's the whole "Lobster brains dissolve and regrow" shit he spewed in his book for which he cites a study and, quelle surprise, the study claimed no such thing. I think Peterson was banking on people accepting the citation itself as evidence without checking the actual study.This is a thread?
So what, he's super tedious and wide-ranging in the points he makes?
It's all absolutely true, even the contentious stuff is true in his qualification of the accuracy of perceived research.
It's only true because he's so tedious and cautious.
The only dubious claim he's made is about the success of his purely carnivorous diet and I forgive him that because it's for his daughter.
Even then, he makes an interesting point about dietary science considering how much diet bullshit is out there and how much we fully understand about what food does to us.
And those are just the ones I remember when sleep deprived.