>>36060511Jungian, sure, but hardly mystical. Even his interest in deconstructing myths is in finding practical meanings in fairy tales. And as for being debunked, even Darwin is debunked. There's nothing special about an influential thinker of the past becoming obsolete as a result of new evidence challenging existing hypothesis'. Doesn't change that they were influential and it definitely doesn't invalidate every idea they've ever put forward.
But more to the point, though, you're really grasping at straws here to justify your bias. Nothing more than ad hom and I genuinely doubt you're in any position to criticize him authoritatively for daring to cite a historical figure relevant to his profession.
It's telling. I am not a cheerleader, I am not saying Peterson is always right or even his citing Jung as casually as he does is good. Whether it's good or not comes down to the ideas he puts forward. However, you're just sperging.
