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

If "influential" = "right", we're in trouble. Trump, for instance, doesn't have an ounce of wrong about him, anywhere.

Without wishing to insult you, there are an awful lot of dickheads around believing in all sorts of crap. Notoriety is no proof.

I used to be afew. I'm still not many.