His publications about psychology may indeed be well supported, and on track, but Peterson regularly gives opinions about all sorts of other things that he has no training in and that are often scientifically false or that leave huge swaths of relevant context out of the equation. For example, we haven't shared a common ancestor with lobsters for 700 million years and a lack of serotonin affects them in the completely opposite way that it affects humans. Lobster say absolutely nothing at all about the "naturalness" of human dominance hierarchies - something that has really only been common for human cultures for the past 5k years or so.
Patriarchy is demonstrably not predicated on merit - it's a Might Makes Right scenario where those holding traditional power make laws and create social structures to keep other people from even having a chance to compete - something that was in evidence a mere 50 years ago in the US where women and Blacks were second class citizens by both law and custom. Peterson waffles back and forth between defending patriarchy as natural and saying there is no such thing. I could go on, and on, and on about all the things he says that are simply false, clueless, biased, or just plain stupid, but I don't have all day to waste on that.
I stand by my assessment that Peterson largely creates an intellectual sounding framework to justify his own insecurities and biases and then peddles them to other men with similar ones, which feeds both his bank account and his savior complex.
I'm quite familiar with Peterson's work and what he believes his "message" to be. Assuming that I don't "understand" him is what men who resonate with him on an emotional level typically say when they can't refute the substance of my critiques.
