But his main contribution, I think, has been helping young men take responsibility for their lives through his lectures and his book, which actually makes some use of his expertise in psychology.
I don’t understand how he’s helping young men take responsibility. I’ve read excerpts of his book where he tells his readers to cut off their friends because people that need help are usually exploiting you. He also says that our culture needs to allocate enough women to satisfy all the creepy men that are bitter that no one wants to fuck them. He blames sexual harassment at least in part on women wearing makeup to work. He says that men can’t deal with “crazy women” because they’re not allowed to use physical force against them, which he says is a prerequisite for respecting someone, which implies that you can’t fully respect women.
I haven’t read his book, but I’ve never heard him say any of the things you claim he’s written and I can’t imagine the book being as popular as it is if it did say those things. Can you provide a couple of excerpts?
The stuff on friendship was the only 12 Rules for Life example. The rest were from interviews. I listened a reading of that chapter so I was only able to find a few select online that illustrate the creepiness of it. Here’s a couple:
“They are dragging you down because your new improvements cast their faults in an even dimmer light… when you dare to aspire upwards, you reveal the inadequacy of the present, then you disturb others in the depths of their souls, where they understand their cynicism is unjustifiable.” - Jordan Peterson in reference to “bad friends”.
“But Christ himself, you might object, befriended tax-collectors and prostitutes. How dar I cast aspersions on the motives of those who are trying to help? But Christ was the archetypal perfect man. And you’re you. How do you know that your attempts to pull someone up won’t instead bring them–or you–further down?” - Jordan Peterson on why you shouldn’t be Christ-like and help the suffering.
“Maybe you are saving someone because you’re a strong, generous, well-put-together person who wants to do the right thing. But it’s also possible and, perhaps, more likely that you just want to draw attention to your inexhaustible reserves of compassion and good-will.” - Jordan Peterson on why people that want to help people are actually just selfish bastards. (I think this is the most despicable statement of his on the subject. It implies that helping people shouldn’t be done if it’s done out of an attempt to show your good-will. Maybe that’s less impressive, but you’re still helping someone.
“Before you help someone, you should find out why that person is in trouble. You shouldn’t merely assume that he or she is a noble victim of unjust circumstances and exploitation. It’s the most unlikely explanation, not the most probable,” - Jordan Peterson on why you shouldn’t help the lowly peasants (This might be the most despicable of his quotes, actually). - more:
“It is far more likely that a given individual has just decided to reject the path upward, because of its difficulty. Perhaps that should even be your default assumption, when faced with such a situation.” What an elitist asshole.
One more:
“Maybe your misery is the weapon you brandish in your hatred for those who rose upward while you waited and sank. Maybe your misery is your attempt to prove the world’s injustice, instead of the evidence of your own sin, your own missing of the mark, your conscious refusal to strive and to live.” - Jordan Peterson’s version of “Let them eat cake!” That statement sounds so creepy. No wonder one of his critics likened his writing to motivation for school shooters (which is a reason why he’s suing that critic, by the way; so much for free speech).
I don’t even like calling him an expert because, as you pointed out, he either ignorantly or fraudulently misuses words all the time. Everyone’s a nihilist to him, or post-modernist, or a neo-Marxist, or some other term that he’s using completely dishonestly. He conflates nihilism and post-modernism all the fucking time and he seems to believe that post-modernism is inherently communistic, which is the most imbecilic take on the term I’ve ever heard. He has no understanding of recent human history. He claims that Nazism was an atheist and anti-theist doctrine, which is an abject lie, and he seems to think that the U.S.'s behavior during the Cold War was justifiable if no humanitarian, which is incredibly absurd. Those are just my problems with his dishonesty, I could write a whole book about all the problems I have with his self-help philosophy.
I do think he has some interesting insights into psychology, but the rest I agree are kind of inane ramblings.
Maybe. I admittedly haven’t read his stuff on psychology other than what bounces in and out of other things he’s said or written.