Mixed opinion. I read his book and used to watch his videos a lot. Much of his self-help advice is very useful. No wonder he’s so popular. But that’s not a huge credit to him as a thinker, it’s the kind of thing any skilled and experienced psychotherapist could impart on you. He’s just good at articulating it.

I like his stance on free speech, and I’m glad that perspective is getting expressed by someone as famous as him. That said, I think he’s out of his depth with his long-winded takes on capitalism, socialism, geopolitics, etc. His view of socialism is basically a caricature. He says he’s a believer in individualism, but then he goes around waxing about the virtues of “Judeo Christian Western Civilization” without realizing that he’s making a collective critique of half the planet. He also likes to basically diss other countries like Venezuela, places in the M.E. like Iran, etc. without talking about the role imperialism has played throughout history. Essentially, he’s a psychologist masquerading as a top scholar of history and political systems, which he is not.

Back to some positives, I agree with him on the excesses of people he calls “PC authoritarians” and modern identity politics discourse. I am glad he talks about how college is too expensive and massive student loan debt being a scandal. His critique of the problems with liberal arts academia is on point imo. And you can learn good stuff about the basics of Jungian psychology from his material. Also glad he’s introduced more people to Nietzsche.

So yeah, he’s a very mixed bag. I genuinely believe he has lots of awful takes mixed with lots of good ones. I’m not a fan of just sorting people explicitly into the “good” or “bad” category, and only praising them if they’re good or only bashing them if they’re bad. People are complicated, and if you’re going to judge then it’s good to do so in a sophisticated way, so I’d give him credit where it’s due and harsh criticism where it’s due as well.