Hey there,

Sure you can say that his self help and intellectual ideas form his political opinions. Thomas Sowell has a book on this called "The Conflict of Visions", where he states that your political stance may be determined by what you think man's fundamental nature is without "society" (ex. Hobbes vs. Rousseau, evil vs. good). He called it the constrained (tragic) vs. unconstrained (utopian) vision, where the former believed man to be unchanging and self-interested, while the latter believed man to be good (Noble Savage) and believed that man had potential to become morally perfect.

Dr. Peterson doesn't necessarily fit neatly into either one of these categories. Yet there have been countless attempts by critics and media outlets to place him neatly into the "constrained" category with a negative undertone that seeks to discredit and undermine his efforts in helping people fix their lives. Usually this comes from people who haven't truly contended with his work - it's easy to make assumptions about something you don't know. I'm not saying he's right about everything and I certainly don't agree with everything he says like a doting disciple, but when people are being disingenuous and intentionally misrepresenting what he said, I feel the need to jump into the discussion.

That being said, I'm having a hard time understanding what your point is, but I'm definitely interested in finding out. Would you mind clarifying what your fundamental message was?