So, just to clear things up before people start assuming things. I'm not a JBP "fan". I haven't read his books. I do listen to a small fraction of his conversations. I've watched more than half of Leo's videos, and I think they are valuable. My criticism below is in good faith, and I'm trying to be constructive. So, with that out of the way...
I don't think Leo quite understands how JBP frames the world. I'll try to illustrate through one example. In the video, he says:
Jordan Peterson most certainly wouldn't say that value and meaning are relative, and you can choose whatever you want as your god because everything is basically the same. Because, you know, he isn't at the postmodern stage.
In his conversation with, I believe it was Bishop Barren, he explains what he means by God. Identity is layered, he says. So if you're asked "what are you doing right now?", you can answer "I'm moving my hand", or "I'm moving the pen by moving my hand", or "I'm leaving ink on the paper by moving the pen by moving my hand", or, skipping a few steps, you could say "I'm trying to slow down climate change by encouraging people to take action by educating them about climate change by completing a book by writing these sentences by writing these letters by leaving ink on the paper by moving the pen by moving my hand". These layers of justifications keep expanding in scope, always including the layer below as a part. At some point, he would argue, you will hit a point where you can't continue justifying. This is when you reach something like "good" or "happiness" or whatever. That is what he calls "God". He would also argue that this "God" thing is universal. (So people end up acting differently because their lines of justifications diverge due to differences in beliefs, I assume, not because they have a different "God" at the top.) And this "God" is objectively true, in the sense that it has the property that evolution of any social cooperative structure, human or otherwise, will naturally tend towards this point in the game-theoretical landscape. (So as far as I can tell here he makes a bold claim: that this attractor in game theory, fundamentally mathematical in nature, and the top-layer identity, fundamentally psychological, are two aspects of the same one thing.)
Yeah, not exactly stage blue. But I think this is one if not the most important point he's trying to make: that there is value in the universe, in the objective sense. Leo's interpretation is the exact opposite: that value is whatever you assign value to.
As a side note, this isn't the only case of Leo making this very error. In one of the videos about holistic thinking, he claims that a holon can be anything you want. Which I think is wrong. "Men", in particular, an example given by him, is not a holon. Now, there are possible world-states where "men" is a holon. But in our world, as a very obvious example, there are men living in uncontacted tribes in the jungle. Virtually no aspect of "men" is regulated internally to "men". Yes, "men" are gravitationally attracted to each other and whatnot, but none of that is internal to "men".
I'm going to stop here for now, but these examples are no mere nitpicking. I'm using these examples to try to point to a more abstract, more general bias in Leo's thinking.