Here's my theory: he doesn't care much for or doesn't think much about the role that political deliberation plays in a democratic society. Research can only every inform political decision-making, not replace it. Research conversations also have forms of deliberation built in.
Instead, he wants HIS take on research (and by Jove we know exactly how flawed that take is) to be what makes political decisions. E.g., in his reading of some of the research, evolutionary biology dictates human hierarchies. That's it. He just needs to say it loud & we're done.
So, he thinks his reading of the research settles it, and we need not pay attention to what other researchers are saying. Don't listen to them. Talk over them. Why not nix those fields who disagree with him altogether, because he says they're wrong. Not much argument needed.
But there's more. He also thinks there doesn't need to be a political argument on the basis of the research that he likes. His take on that research is clear, speaks for itself, politics should follow. So, he thinks the pay gap is an expression of a biological hierarchy.
(Let's set aside the fact that the pay gap is also the product of many many past POLITICAL decisions.) He doesn't allow that regardless of what #JordanPeterson thinks is the absolute truth about the biology of human hierarchies, we can still have a political discussion about it.
For even if we all believed in the truth of lobster shoulders and hierarchies, we can still make a political decision that women should get higher salaries and sit at more decision-making tables.
