I just finished watching the full conversation. Peterson uses a lot of words to say very little. He said he acts as though he believes in a God, but it's unclear to me whether he thinks — as a person with the capacity to reflect on such behavior — that there is actually a supernatural God or whether this act-as-though perspective is entirely a psychological development. He nearly worships Jung, and I saw video of Jung claim not that he believed in God but that he in fact knew that God exists. Peterson sounds like he believes only in the psychological expressed through stories and metaphor, but then he hems and haws about religious and metaphysical claims that are almost certainly false. He plays linguistic games and it ultimately obfuscates his point, and I think that's exactly his goal. When Harris made a comparison to what Deepak Chopra does, Peterson got defensive (as would I) but there is a legitimate similarity in how they express themselves, turning language into a shell game of meaning. Harris, by contrast, even when he's being especially cautious to not say something he doesn't intend, is clear about what he thinks without sacrificing nuance. There are things I agree with Peterson on, like the need for open communication and the difficulties that face our workforce in the coming years, but there's a lot I disagree with. I agree more often with Harris, though I have a couple of points I disagree with him on too, like his ostensible hawkishness when it comes to military action and his excessive focus on religion as the reason for so many problems in the world (though on both points he seems to have softened in the last couple of years).