I read 12 rules for life - out of morbid curiosity and found most of the advice to be pragmatic and sensible, but much of the reasoning to be be suspect and quasi-religious. The problem with your reasoning here is that Huberman (who I've never heard of) can give people sugar pills and if they believe Huberman, then they will get better. Sometimes, it is the belief in the thing that matters, not the thing itself. This obviously isn't true for things like Cancer and complex medical conditions, but it might be true for some aspects of depression, lack of motivation, loneliness and other such stuff.

The reason I fundamentally agree with Peterson is that I think he took steps to address a problem facing young people in particular. That cannot be wished away - because his particular brand of hokum-christianity, boot-strap yourself stuff does work for some people. Those people did not kill themselves because of nihilistic tendencies and credit Peterson with that, and with reaching them. The fact it's faulty reasoning, it doesn't work for you or me is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. It saved lives and although it might be an intellectual placebo, it's an intellectual placebo that partially worked. I don't think there was any need to turn it into a cult of personality but hey, that's how it works in the digital age.

Where I fundamentally disagree with Peterson is on almost everything else. I don't mind his stance on compelled language laws - but much of what he throws out into the universe is nonsense. I've got a bit of time for his story theories and evolutionary principles within collective consciousness and creativity - but that's because I'm a writer and I like John Yorke. I think with Peterson, it's possible to take a centre-ground approach, acknowledge both the good he does some people and the bad he does too. I don't put him in the same camp as Tate et al, I think there's a bit more to him.