I think there is a clear distinction between early Peterson, the Canadian psych professor who took exception to a law that impinged on his free speech rights, a

I think there is a clear distinction between early Peterson, the Canadian psych professor who took exception to a law that impinged on his free speech rights, and the wealthy media juggernaught he has become. His early appearances were nuanced and interesting - a liberal professor fighting the excesses of the left, and coincidentally reintroducing Carl Jung to a wide audience! He changed, of course. He started saying nice things about Trump a lot, which is difficult to understand, especially when considered in light of his seemingly wise statements about ego and narcisism. I think it was at this point Peterson became more of a symbol than a man, not a liberal fighting left-wing dogmatism but an actual Man of the Right. Money and fame were at the root of this transition, I believe, as well as a reaction against the extreme vitriol of the left. When it comes to political celebrity, the pragmatic truth is that you've got to be on one side or the other - nuance be damned. (I liked him early on but have long since stopped paying attention.) This piece, by the way, reads like one of a thousand left-wing hit pieces against him, and not particularly well written (In particular the statement "It does help if you are male and Caucasian" sort of gives it away with the performative self-loathing). This piece focuses on Vagueness - but vagueness is part and parcel of the psychological movement - Jung himself was rather vague, and so is most philosophy. To hold Peterson to a non-vagueness standard when his source material is also vague is unfair. If you reject psychology and philosophy, that's fair, but don't pretend like Peterson was somehow introducing vagueness that wasn't there.