Disclaimer: I just read through this post and realised it's a bit of a mess to read but I'm tired and I can't be arsed to edit it now, hopefully you'll get my points.
Well she shouldn't interview politicians in that way either, deliberately misconstruing someone's argument to make them sound more extreme than they are is simply dishonest and not at all persuasive to anyone watching. It's rather ironic that she accuses him of being divisive when her entire interview technique seems to be aimed at dividing between her side and the interviewee and putting the other side down. In fairness, politicians are often pretty dishonest themselves in interviews so it may actually be the case that she's just not used to interviewing someone who actually believes what they say.
With regards to the prevalence of left wing views I would agree that the actual crazies are overly represented by the media, but I'm also pretty sure I've heard Peterson mention this too. I'd also say that most of the televised media (in the UK at least) has a strong left-wing bias, whilst newspapers seem to be pretty polarised with a mostly right-wing bias, and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much in between. However the kind of attitude seen by Newman in this interview seems pretty common among left-wing activists, I think pretty most folk with a strong ideology are more interested in "proving" themselves right than testing if they are right. I feel like Peterson does over-exaggerate the dangers of today's far left though. I certainly hope he does.
You're talking about equality between income groups now, quite different from the identity politics which Peterson was talking about. He did discuss it quite a bit in that podcast though, from what I can tell he's generally of the opinion that measures to reduce poverty/the effect of poverty are good (although as he pointed out so does pretty much everyone in the world) but was opposed to minimum income on the basis that he believes people need responsibility in order to find meaning in their lives and a mincome makes it much easier for people to avoid taking on responsibilities (this is idea around responsibility is a huge part of his life advice for young men in general btw). He did agree that at a certain level material inequality is inherently bad for the whole of society, but he also made the claim that inequality was a driver of economic growth, the idea being that necessity is a very strong motivator for driving industrious efforts. Which also makes sense. Plus there is the finding that the vast majorities of wealthy families lose their wealth within two or three generations (70% by the 2nd generation, 90% by the third), which somewhat supports this idea (although I believe this is talking about extreme wealth, I haven't been able to find the study itself easily and I cba anymore.) He's also mentioned that second generation immigrants tend to be more successful than the native population, which he thinks is due to this necessity factor. Tbh I'm not sure what his views are on taxation, but at a guess I would say he's probably not in favour of any kind of radical reform (and personally I am really not sure, the idea of mincome is quite appealing to me, especially considering the shrinking value of lower-skilled labour due to technological advances which I don't expect to slow down anytime soon).
Regarding diversity does indeed seem to be a fair amount of evidence to that extent (although I do wonder whether it may be partly the case that more successful companies attract greater diversity rather than the other way around), and there's nothing to stop business from trying to achieve diverse boards but you would think that perhaps simply having potential leadership-employees perform tasks with the team they'd be working with would surely be the best way to test how well they work within said team? Having diversity targets or quotas just seems like an incredibly lazy, unfair and probably un-productive answer.
As to societal divisions being "hardwired" I think there is an incredibly strong case for there being a significant biological impact of gender on some character traits. The fact that (as far as I'm aware) most recorded societies throughout history and around the world have been patriarchal (or at least certainly not matriarchal) is a pretty strong indicator of this, you definitely couldn't just put it down to chance, although the common argument is that it's driven by physical differences (but I don't really buy this, its not as if the largest most aggressive men are always in power). I've also never actually heard someone say they don't feel like a certain career choice is for them due to their gender, and I don't know where the evidence for this claim actually comes from. I have known plenty of women who wouldn't want to try judo or other fighting sports because they consider them too masculine, but then to be fair I've also tried to coach a lot of women who were (initially at least) armadillo at judo because they lacked an aggressive instinct (some men too, but they were a lot rarer) so there may well be some biological truth to that (there's good evidence that testosterone is linked to aggression and that both men and women who are high up in careers or sports have higher than average levels of it.)
I don't certainly feel like we should encourage gender division as a society, but I'm also not sure how much pressure we should be putting on men and women to reject it. For example I have a hell of a lot of hobbies and interests that are considered masculine, I'm certainly not going to change that in order to make myself less divisive and I wouldn't try to pressure women into taking them up either (I often do encourage them too, they are after all very worthwhile imo.) And I'm not claiming that anyone is going that extreme by the way, and I do feel that strong gender roles are not generally good for the well-being of individuals.
But regardless of how reliant the gender-differences in personality traits are on society you have to admit they are there, and you have to take them into account when trying to determine whether an effect is caused by prejudicial discrimination (not sure that makes sense, but what I mean is that a woman choosing to raise her family rather than focus on her career due to the influence of gender norms upon her personality is incredibly different to a woman being forced to raise her family rather than focus on her career, or even from a woman feeling pressured/coerced into this choice by society.)
I definitely would like to see someone in his field challenge him on the whole "Scandinavia shows the extent of inherent biological differences in genders" thing though. I mean to start with, Scandinavia isn't a country. Maybe I'll email him about it or something.
Clockwork - I'm never going to be able to watch the Lion King the same way again
(why don't we have a laughing smiley btw?)