That critics gloss over all this by only saying that Peterson is shallow and incorrect is a shame. He’s not even wrong because his argument is not even making normative statements that could be proved or disproved. To say that the critic judging him didn’t do a good job is fair. However it seems like missing the point. If you have a test and get partial credit for showing your work and your answer is wrong and the work you show is wrong, it is hard to see where an instructor could award any points for an attempt. Nor do I see it as a failure of the instructor to not show their work on this when grading. I think Hitchen’s razor works best here.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Edit: punctuation
(edit: oops, this was to comment on the wikipedia article you posted)
So, it seems to me this critique of Peterson's Boogymen of cultural Post-structuralist Neo-Marxists (or something like that) comes down to "He didn't use the right words to describe what he's talking about." as opposed to "What he's describing doesn't exist" or what I seem to smell in the most muddy of critiques "He's a dangerous idiot".
In addition, looking at this article:
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-jordan-peterson-slavoj-z...
The author says:
"He then proceeded to stumble his way through Marxist philosophy with such a shallow assessment as to be laughably incorrect."
But then doesn't back it up with anything. And shallow doesn't mean incorrect.
So it seems to me that his detractors are grasping at straws.
Again, a hearty shrug from me.
Though, looking at the work from Andray Domise, the author of above, like his articles and his TED talk "TEDx Toronto: Colour Coded: race, gender, and representation in video games" He seems very very occupied with group identity.