Grāmata, kā jau padomdošanas grāmata - tur kritiķim ir jārunā par formu. Bet pat ar tik vienkāršu un retorisku lasāmvielu JP pamanās izvilkt savus kritiķus dienasgaismā, lai tie rakstītu muļķības, tādējādi atmaskojot sevi:

"Peterson’s advice is primarily directed towards, and has resonated with, a very particular audience: those predominantly white, straight, cis, and otherwise privileged men who fear being surpassed by their historical subordinates – people of colour and white women, among others – and losing their loyal service."

- kas nav nopietni, un uz ko vēlīgais kritiķis noslēdzot piebilst:

"Peterson might have done a good thing by reaching and trying to talk young white men out of their unwarranted resentment, which is the predictable result of social norms changing for the better and the fairer. Some historically subordinate group members can sometimes now compete with and defeat the historically dominant person, who may subsequently have to master the art of losing gracefully. This might have been said with the candour, and sometimes ruthlessness, which Peterson clearly prides himself on being capable of elsewhere. Unfortunately, when it comes to this morally important battle, Peterson shrinks from conflict, and thereby avoids provoking – or improving – his readers."

Kritiķa snobisms un resentiments, "smugness" gāžas ārā pa visām porām, un pasaka visu, ko par šādām un līdzīgām "kritikām" un to vērtumu vajag zināt. Kas atkal ilustrē Pītersona pointu, selektīvi noklusē vai pat nezina, ko viņš par šo saka, un ir identiski visām internetos par hitiem kļuvušajām intervijām, kur JP n e k o n e d a r o t sagrauj savu pretinieku, jo tas uzsāk "so you're saying.." spēli. Vaji.