[annamargot]

For me, Peterson has a message/messenger dissonance. I like a lot of his thoughts on self improvement and psychology, but find his delivery and tone off putting at times. He can come off patronizing and condescending and in interviews often seems a little too emotional when challenged or asked about arguments critical to his.

I prefer reading articles like this where I can get the message without the messenger.

[Cancan82]

I find his delivery to be so verbose that you get lost in an almost waterfall-like wall of words bashing you over the head. Maybe he is smart, but it’s odd to me that so many people find him popular when he is so long winded.

[stanrivers]

That's an interesting point you bring up - the message / messenger piece.

Now that you say that, I think it is true that for MOST general ideas that he shares when he is not in the limelight, people tend to connect with what he is saying. But when you get him into the political settings and people want to harsh how things like gender differences or government structures, that is where people get super polarized.

I hear a lot of people actually also enjoy the way he presents information. Out of curiosity, do you think the emotion comes from a feeling of "having gotten caught? Meaning he is sharing ideas but is going too far away from his domain, and thus is getting challenged by those who know more? I've noticed the same thing, but can't tell why it happens?