I have observed Peterson very closely for a long time and I've come away with two observations: he is a critic of postmodernism but also endorses one of its central tenets, that is, the fact that truth is relative from context to context. Secondly, he is a morally questionable individual whose words cannot be trusted because there is so much variation on what he says, depending on the audience he is talking to. For instance, he once claimed to be a Liberal, and still be a Liberal, and not long afterwards, preach to a conservative think tank that 'conservatives need to start being proud to be conservatives'. Moreover, he claimed to be against mobbing and for the premise of 'innocent until proven guilty', the probing of people's moral character online -- 'witch hunts' -- and then tweeted something very out of character about Brett Kavanaugh. Peterson is like a chameleon, he changes his views according to his audience.
There was a period when Peterson and crackpot Stephan Molyneux were both being labelled 'alt-right', and as the poor souls both felt victimised, they reached out to each other. I know that guilt by association is fallacious, but you certainly would expect that he, in his capacity as a credible academic and clinical psychologist, should have done his homework, to find out who he was dealing with; or perhaps he didn't care, which is equally bad. He says that he despises ideologues, because he has spent his entire career researching them, so it's ironic to find that Peterson, too, is an ideologue. He does what he does because he gets a kick out of, and makes lots of money from, people listening to him speak. This is not the behaviour of someone who is motivated by the search for truth and justice in the world, but rather, a person who is motivated by greed. Don't let the Petersonites tell you otherwise, and I am not criticising conservatives here (separate issue), but Peterson is deeply conservative. I agree that the postmodern left's rhetoric is detrimental, some of it I've witnessed here, but I fear that many of my fellow travellers on the left are being sucked in by his ideas. One of the implicit assumptions in his last book, which I found quite concerning in places, is that we shouldn't 'lay our problems at the feet of capitalism', and he doesn't provide us any insight into how things should progress, or the degree to which we should perhaps lay our problems at the feet of capitalism. That's akin to sending the message 'don't breach this topic', stay at home, clean your room, make something of yourself. All well and good I suppose, but his idea of progress is elusive. He has been found to have favoured the science behind climate change in one discussion, and have rejected it not long after. All the evidence can be found on YouTube.
So I find it funny that we're comparing Peterson, a charlatan ideologue, to Sam Harris, who values reasoned argument and debate -- despite being often wrong himself. Harris, whatever you think about his personality, is always reasoned and methodical in his arguments, he doesn't make an effort to get people to like him, only for them to listen. Maybe because of Peterson's constantly shifting views, we may never know what he thinks on these matters, but we can suspect that Peterson's attitude to the truth is unstable and uninformative. Whenever he is asked if he is a Christian, he cannot give a straight answer, because his rationale for bringing Christianity back into the fray is a pragmatic one, he seems to be ambivalent about the truth or falsity of God, only that the concept will bring about the restoration of order. He shows complete indifference towards the truth in that case, and it's further proof that he's an arrogant ideologue whose views carry little weight. His magnum opus was a vacuous mixture of truism and nonsense veiled under esoteric jargon, it read a lot like a Judith Butler book, who he ironically but rightly accuses of charlatanism.