Why would he publish in academic outlets? Why is that the place of "proper discourse"? No one except academics reads those things. And if he has the ability to reach a far greater number of people through the outlets he has chosen and therefore maximize his reach, why would he ever choose the academic route instead? When you factor in the money from the non-academic route, the case only gets stronger.
And for Peterson in particular, it makes even more sense. He claims academia has been corrupted - particularly the social sciences, like the one in which he is engaged. If you were him, why would you ever write a paper for corrupted academics to denounce you? That's like asking why someone doesn't try to speak at a RNC event and try to convince everyone in the room to switch to the Dem stance on immigration and abortion. It would never happen. Seems to me that Peterson has made rational choices given his set of claims and alleged beliefs. His strategy seems entirely sound as far as I can see. I'd also say that he doesn't shy aware from attending any speaking event or being a guest on any show. He's even said things about how his attendance in potentially adversarial discussions/debates is an important function of the way he does things because there's value in discussing things with people who disagree with him. There's little value, or at least far less, in going on a program that is an echo chamber. I've seen him throw himself into many situations that I would describe as hostile or adversarial. Doesn't seem like he's avoiding any sort of proper discussion and he seems more than willing to defend his statements.
I would be genuinely interested in some details about the alleged misrepresentations you stated. If you are willing to share, I have an open mind and admit to not having studied most of those topics at great length so if Peterson is misrepresenting them, I would love to hear the details. I am particularly interested in how he might be misrepresenting the law, as that is something I do study (although not Canadian law).
And for Peterson in particular, it makes even more sense. He claims academia has been corrupted - particularly the social sciences, like the one in which he is engaged. If you were him, why would you ever write a paper for corrupted academics to denounce you? That's like asking why someone doesn't try to speak at a RNC event and try to convince everyone in the room to switch to the Dem stance on immigration and abortion. It would never happen. Seems to me that Peterson has made rational choices given his set of claims and alleged beliefs. His strategy seems entirely sound as far as I can see. I'd also say that he doesn't shy aware from attending any speaking event or being a guest on any show. He's even said things about how his attendance in potentially adversarial discussions/debates is an important function of the way he does things because there's value in discussing things with people who disagree with him. There's little value, or at least far less, in going on a program that is an echo chamber. I've seen him throw himself into many situations that I would describe as hostile or adversarial. Doesn't seem like he's avoiding any sort of proper discussion and he seems more than willing to defend his statements.
I would be genuinely interested in some details about the alleged misrepresentations you stated. If you are willing to share, I have an open mind and admit to not having studied most of those topics at great length so if Peterson is misrepresenting them, I would love to hear the details. I am particularly interested in how he might be misrepresenting the law, as that is something I do study (although not Canadian law).