Could be, I never bothered to think about it that way. I'm not trying to rank-order the two, I was just observing that, to put it a different way, Haidt is easier for me to listen to and follow. A significant aspect of my profession involves distilling detailed results to something one or two steps deeper than executive summary-type material. So Haidt's presentation style is familiar to me. It also means I'm well aware that there's a lot beneath the surface. Peterson is more like what you get if you haul your best scientist out of the lab and throw him in front of an audience. You don't just get the what's and the top-level whys, you tend to get the whys behind the whys and sometimes the whys behind those. So it can be a lot of work keeping up. FWIW, although I don't merit the handle "scientist", my natural mode of technical communication is more like Peterson's than Haidt's.
I like Haidt and Jordan both, so I don't set them in opposition to one another. As an occasional leisure listener, I think they are complementary. While it may be the case that Haidt is the superior intellect, I have no reasonable basis on which to make that judgement. But I'd be very hesitant to bet against Peterson in a complex thinking competition irrespective of his "opponent".
Edit to add: Regarding Pierre Bourdieu, don't know anything about him. Listening to Haidt talk, I don't get the impression he self-identifies with postmodernists, and even if he does, I don't see the point. That he and Jordan may or may not have differing philosophic frameworks behind the subset of their observations that seem to be in agreement doesn't mean much to me, honestly. I'm not motivated to judge one or the other of them wrong, nor am I competent to do so. Whatever differences they have, it doesn't seem to matter much to them--at least Peterson recommends Haidt's latest book on his website.
Edit again to add: one of their talks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqCNTopdBBs