Interesting, can you add some depth to that statement? I enjoyed the book, and found it useful in illustrating many cognitive biases.
I've gone on to read more of his work and agree the data is from, "WEIRD societies: Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic." (i.e. a lot of small study groups from ivy league schools) -- but nevertheless found the book enjoyable and useful
I really enjoyed it to but agree with GP that it falls down. Initially, he sets up a system around our pattern matching, biasing, etc. but as the book progresses I felt it got more and more hand wavy. Lots of the examples didn't really fit the plot of his system but he implies that the system still holds. Also, lots of the studies like the marshmallow test have failed to stand up. We take a single study of proof when it is usually no more than an indication. The conclusions are really just a data point. Perform the same test 100 times with different scientists and participants and look at the data again. Instead we take one test and cut the data to fit and then publish.
I became excited with Jordan Peterson's first videos and bought his book "12 rules" when it came out. I skimmed it and... I'm literally using it as a footrest. Peterson is a powerful speaker but has little content.
Older books:
(a) Have stood the test of time.
(b) Typically arose in a time where intellectual celebrity fermented in core intellectual circles first, and only then popularized.
Kahneman and Tversky have their share of technical contributions but were catapulted to thought leaders (and Nobel-Sveriges Bank prize winners) due to classic tokenism: someone from psychology or behavioral science had to win. The same just happen to someone two rungs below their level, Esther Duflo.
If she comes out with a popular book, don't buy it. Read Polanyi's "The Great Transformation", if inclined to left-ish ideas, or Richard Powers' novel "Gain", otherwise.
I too was enamored by Peterson when he first came to prominence, but he quickly lost steam for me. I've read some of his influences, and they're much more interesting.
I've gone on to read more of his work and agree the data is from, "WEIRD societies: Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic." (i.e. a lot of small study groups from ivy league schools) -- but nevertheless found the book enjoyable and useful