Thanks for the thorough response Josh! I'm gonna ask for some clarifications here so that I can make sure I'm understanding your points:

"For instance with neurology, his analysis of lobsters and serotonin is just off. There are 17+ serotonin receptors in the body (depending on the latest science journal and whether or not it has reclassified one or two)."

Could you point out what his analysis about lobsters and serotonin was? Your second sentence leads me to believe that the point of contention is about the number of serotonin receptors.

"For as much as we have studied serotonin, we don’t know that much about it and the argument that the higher the serotonin level in the lobster the happier it is and dominance increases this is simply a projection on the situation. It isn’t a confirmed theory in the slightest."

I don't believe Dr. Peterson's argument is suggesting that lobsters will be "happy" with higher serotonin levels. It is positing that lobsters with higher serotonin levels will be more aggressive and willing to fight for territory and food, which will lead to more mating opportunities. This is relevant because, as Dr. Peterson quotes in his first book, "humans and lobsters share similar structures and neurochemistry necessary to process information about status and society" (albeit lobsters much more primitive). He's also crafting a hypothesis based on numerous scientific studies about lobster behavior and their neurochemistry (all in his book's citations), so I wouldn't necessarily say that he's preaching this message as if it were the final, objective truth. As my scientific knowledge is fairly limited, I will avoid any further discussion on the specifics of neurochemistry and simply mention that his bigger message of the entire chapter is to claim that:

1. Hierarchies are not solely social constructions - they have a biological basis (he uses studies involving birds, wolves, chimps, and lobsters to back up his claims)

2. Arguably the more important message of the chapter, which is neglected because everyone seems to get caught up on the lobster point: standing up straight with your shoulders back is important because it suggests a courageous attitude toward the burdens and hardships of life.

Rather than cowering and avoiding the challenges that life presents you, you must contend with the demands of life voluntarily. You must respond to challenges rather than run away from them. He suggests that the more you voluntarily confront your fears and work to improve on your insufficiencies, the more you will be able to take on demanding tasks. He encourages people to accept that life is suffering and to refrain from becoming resentful and bitter despite the pain that arises from that realization.

The Contrapoints video is very entertaining to watch, but it definitely will take me some time to digest and listen to the rebuttals and points of disagreements. Thanks for linking this though - it'll surely be a learning opportunity.

The two following articles by you and Pinchbeck are more articles that I will have to dig into more deeply. I've been working through this book called Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks and although I've found it rather difficult to process, it has given me a slightly better understanding of the history of postmodernism in the West. If there are any other books you've read on the topic that you found helpful, please let me know so I can take a look at them.

We've also stated that he isn't a perfect man, and he never claimed to be. Who knows how sudden popularity would affect us? Who knows how numerous unjust, unfavorable interpretations and twists of your words would affect us? We'd like to think that if we were cast into the spotlight, we'd handle everything perfectly and act in a manner that pleased everyone. Those two articles that you've linked definitely show Dr. Peterson as a flawed individual and strips him of the "messianic" persona that people project onto him. But isn't it also fair to see the people who share praise about him? What about the millions of people who buy his books and listen to his lectures? What about their anecdotes, and how his uplifting messages have brought positive change to their lives? I'm not saying we should disregard the criticisms, but we should also not neglect the good that he has brought.

"The deadening of his emotions with benzos when his wife was diagnosed with cancer and needed him the most is just another symptom of this."

As Dr. Peterson preaches individuals to adopt a Herculean responsibility against the tragedies of life, he decidedly shouldered for himself an equally heavy burden: to be able to practice what he preaches. So while your criticism is understandable, I believe it is quite uncharitable. It's easy for us to judge another when we don't have to go through what they are going through. Perhaps he set the bar too high, even for himself. Perhaps we should have some sympathy for the man who is dealing with personal problems and believed that he could not bear with it through his own will. We don't know what the extent of his suffering was, and we will never know. Who is to say we would have stood strong and upright if we were placed in his shoes?

My response is not to "defend Dr. Peterson's honor to the death." Rather, I'd like to see it as a way for us to see both sides. I come from a perspective where I believe Dr. Peterson has done more good than harm, and I share some of the reasons why. I see that you come from a perspective where you believe he has done more harm than good, and you share some interesting points that I clearly have been ignorant of.

I consider myself a curious person, and I like to explore different ideas. I also like to be practical, so I look for ideas that I believe, if applied, will genuinely help my life get better. Personally, I believe my life has definitely improved ever since I've incorporated his advice. I don't idolize the man, and I don't believe his hypotheses and claims are irrefutable. But if they help me live my life in a manner that I find to be proper, and it helps me find purpose and stability in these chaotic times (also the experience of millions of other people), I believe the man should be listened to carefully and with attention.