This is true for people who make Peterson the end of their intellectual journey. _But this also holds true for any and all philosophies._ Whatever stink you're detecting on Peterson's followers doesn't necessarily translate to his ideas. Terrible annoying assholes can still speak the truth - we have to evaluate Peterson's ideas on their own merits, which at the very least the NYT article attempts.

All that being said I don't really "get" Peterson. I find his YouTube videos to be rambling and incoherent as he wanders and flits between topics that appear to be only tangentially related. (Though occasionally I'll detect some interesting nugget of an idea).

Initially this seemed to my mind to be a weakness and flaw but now I think it's actually the core of this appeal. His style requires listeners to make the connections on their own, to bring themselves into the lecture as active listeners. A searching young man primed by ennui will make those connections and will self-initiate into Peterson's philosophy, the listener will take ownership of the ideas. This contributes to the perceived clannishness of Peterson adherents.