Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist, professor, and cultural commentator, is one of the most polarizing intellectuals of the 21st century. Renowned for his passionate critiques of political correctness, postmodernism, and what he calls “radical leftist ideology,” Peterson has amassed a massive global following. Yet, it wasn’t a controversial statement or viral YouTube video that brought him renewed attention in academic circles recently — it was a surprising study that upended conventional thinking about his audience and his actual impact on public discourse.
This essay explores that study and what it reveals about the influence, psychology, and perhaps even the misunderstood nature of Jordan Peterson. While many have assumed Peterson’s followers to be a monolithic bloc of disaffected young men radicalized by online culture wars, the findings suggest a more nuanced — and sometimes startling — portrait. This re-evaluation doesn’t just challenge his critics; it also calls into question how society perceives the intersection of intellect, masculinity, and modern ideological conflict.
The Mythos of Jordan Peterson
To understand the weight of the study’s conclusions, one must first comprehend how Peterson became a figure of global intrigue. Initially a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Toronto, Peterson found viral fame in 2016 after publicly opposing Canada’s Bill C-16, legislation that added gender identity and expression as protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act. His concern wasn’t trans identity per se, but what he saw as compelled speech — that people could be legally obligated to use specific pronouns.
From there, Peterson became a staple of podcasts, debates, and interviews, attracting a massive audience to his lectures on mythology, religion, psychology, and personal responsibility. His 2018 bestseller, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, offered practical advice couched in Jungian theory, biblical allegory, and tough-love aphorisms — such as “clean your room” — that resonated with many. Critics labeled him reactionary; supporters saw him as a guide out of existential despair.
The Surprising Study
In 2024, a multidisciplinary team of researchers from the University of Cambridge, the University of British Columbia, and Stanford University published a peer-reviewed study in Nature Human Behaviour titled “Profiles in Influence: The Psychological and Political Dimensions of Jordan Peterson’s Audience.” It was the most comprehensive academic analysis ever undertaken on a public intellectual’s following.
The researchers used a mixed-methods approach, combining large-scale surveys, natural language processing of online content (such as Reddit and YouTube comments), and in-depth interviews with self-identified Peterson followers. What they found defied almost every mainstream stereotype.
Finding 1: Intellectual Diversity
Contrary to the widespread belief that Peterson’s audience is ideologically uniform and overwhelmingly far-right, the study revealed a surprisingly diverse mix of political affiliations. Approximately 45% identified as moderate or center-left. This group was drawn to Peterson’s critiques of identity politics not because they rejected social justice entirely, but because they felt the movement had overreached or become authoritarian in tone.
Even more intriguing, 25% of the respondents reported voting for traditionally left-leaning parties in recent elections. They viewed Peterson less as a conservative firebrand and more as a philosophical counterweight to what they perceived as the unexamined dogmas of progressivism.
This finding complicates media portrayals of Peterson as a leader of the alt-right. In fact, only a small percentage — about 6% — expressed views that could be classified as extremist or conspiratorial.
Finding 2: Psychological Motivations
The study also delved into the psychological profiles of Peterson’s audience. One of the most fascinating revelations was the prevalence of what psychologists term “openness to experience,” a trait commonly associated with creativity, curiosity, and intellectual engagement. High openness is usually correlated with liberal political views, yet in this case, it was common among those who described themselves as centrist or center-right.
In interviews, participants described being drawn to Peterson not because he validated their political biases, but because he challenged them. His discussions of myth, archetype, and meaning filled a gap that many felt had been left by modern secular culture. For many, his appeal was existential and philosophical, not political.
Another psychological commonality was what researchers termed “motivated agency.” This refers to a strong internal drive to improve one’s circumstances. Many fans described personal transformations attributed to Peterson’s work — from overcoming depression and addiction to leaving toxic relationships and pursuing higher education.
Finding 3: Gender and Identity
It is true that a large portion of Peterson’s following is male — approximately 70% according to the study — but that figure is not as overwhelming as often assumed. Importantly, female respondents described their attraction to Peterson’s work in terms nearly identical to their male counterparts: intellectual stimulation, psychological insight, and a sense of order in a chaotic world.
What’s more surprising is how many women cited Peterson’s emphasis on traditional masculinity as a positive influence on the men in their lives — brothers, partners, sons. Rather than finding his views misogynistic, many women saw them as a desperately needed cultural intervention in an age of confused gender roles.
This challenges the prevailing narrative that Peterson’s popularity is solely driven by fragile masculinity or male grievance. While he certainly addresses male suffering — particularly the crisis of meaning and status — the appeal of his ideas appears to transcend gender binaries.
Finding 4: The Misunderstood Intellectual
Another key insight of the study is that Peterson is rarely understood as merely a self-help guru or anti-woke commentator by his most devoted followers. Instead, many see him as a philosopher in the tradition of Carl Jung, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, or even Dostoevsky.
Respondents expressed appreciation for Peterson’s ability to connect abstract philosophical ideas with concrete life advice. His lectures on biblical stories, for instance, were cited as helping people understand the psychological functions of myth, irrespective of religious belief.
Rather than rejecting science or academic rigor, many followers pointed to Peterson’s empirical training as a psychologist as a key reason for their trust in him. Even when they disagreed with his political opinions, they valued his commitment to evidence-based reasoning and intellectual integrity.
A Polarizing Figure for Polarized Times
So why does the popular image of Peterson remain so negative in many circles?
The study addresses this too. It found a significant gap between those who had read Peterson’s books or watched his full lectures, and those whose knowledge came primarily from secondary sources such as media headlines, Twitter, or short video clips. The former group tended to have more nuanced — and often more favorable — views, while the latter were more likely to see him as a reactionary caricature.
This aligns with what media scholars call the “information fallacy”: the belief that all relevant opinions are informed. In Peterson’s case, the chasm between perception and reality seems unusually wide, fed by ideological echo chambers on both the left and the right.
Moreover, the study showed that criticisms of Peterson often rely on selective readings or straw-man arguments. While he has made provocative statements — on gender roles, hierarchy, and political correctness — many of his most inflammatory moments are isolated from the broader context of his work, which often emphasizes compassion, personal growth, and intellectual humility.
Implications for the Culture Wars
The Peterson study has important implications not just for how we understand him, but for how we think about public intellectualism, polarization, and the psychology of ideological affiliation.
It reveals that influence is not always about agreement. Many followers expressed partial alignment with Peterson’s ideas, even when they rejected his politics. What they valued was his rigor, his refusal to simplify complex issues, and his encouragement to take life seriously.
This suggests that intellectual discourse is not dead — it’s just moved to unexpected places. The popularity of long-form podcast interviews, YouTube lectures, and online seminars shows a hunger for meaning that goes far beyond viral outrage or ideological conformity.
At a time when many institutions — universities, media outlets, even governments — are accused of either censorship or ideological capture, figures like Peterson fill a vacuum. They speak not just to political anxieties, but to moral and existential ones.
The Limits of the Study
Of course, no study is without limitations. The authors acknowledged that their sample, while large and diverse, may still skew toward individuals already engaged enough to participate in such research. It also did not include non-English-speaking populations or younger fans on platforms like TikTok, where Peterson’s quotes are often decontextualized.
Still, the data points to a broader truth: the need for a more balanced, evidence-based understanding of controversial figures in the digital age. Whether one agrees with Peterson or not, the study challenges us to look beyond labels and listen more carefully — not just to him, but to those who find value in what he says.
Conclusion: A Study Worth Noticing
The surprising study on Jordan Peterson’s followers is more than a demographic report — it is a mirror held up to our assumptions. It reminds us that influence is complex, that ideology cannot always be inferred from association, and that people are often more thoughtful than the media gives them credit for.
Peterson may not be the hero his fans believe or the villain his critics portray. But he is undeniably a figure who touches deep psychological chords, articulates unspoken fears, and calls for personal responsibility in an age of collective blame. This study invites us to move past the noise and ask more interesting questions: Why do people seek meaning through public intellectuals? What voids are being filled? And what does it say about our times that one of the most controversial thinkers is also one of the most widely read and watched?
In a world awash in opinion, perhaps the most surprising study is one that simply listens.
