If Peterson is so vague, trivial, cliche (as those two snark reviews claim), would he have odds to be so influential?

Stemming from his psychological background, Peterson speaks in a proactive language of participatory living, rather than in an armchair, observational language accepted as academically objective. Similarly, Marx said:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.

Ironically, Marx was rather just talking, while the Rockefellers, Carnegies were prototypical examples of changers at the same time. To understand the impact of Peterson's elaborate, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unintelligible theory, some CBT, NLP-ish (or say Baptist) exposure is a bonus.

There is really much discussion on post-modernism on the so-called Intellectual Dark Web. Peterson's vantage is not the most accurate or interesting, but it touches the practicable impact and counter-resonance well enough.

How to learn to stop worrying and love Peterson? Here is one starting point. Listening through that BBC interview without much prejudice is fitting.

P.S. I remembered #3 mention here.