Ironically the interviewer was a prime example of the sorts of personality traits and flaws which people display which make them more or less likely to succeed in their career. She was extremely low on agreeableness but it didn't come across as controlled or dominant, the biting negative emotion came through and she just looked vicious as Peterson calmly addressed her points.
Another thing which made it hard to take her seriously was how she intentionally said things which are scientifically or logically foolish for rhetorical effect and this is something which I'm sure Peterson is used to dealing with, given that he's a professor. Humans and lobsters share certain biologically determined traits so the origin of those traits is clearly at least partly biological rather than being social, whereas she implied he was telling silly stories about humans being like lobsters. A similar thing was the transgender activist/Mao comparison, you can understand one thing has elements of another even if they are different on some level, he never said that transgender activists were carrying out a genocide. Either she's too mean spirited to argue in good faith and wants to mislead viewers by creating transparent straw men or she is genuinely that intellectually incapable in which case she should be taken off air to limit her public influence. You could switch such bad faith arguing around and reframe it in a White Supremacist context, if a working class White male goes to the pub and says we need to remove anyone who isn't White from Europe you might say he's a Nazi since he's removing his ability to understand a person as an individual and is defining their worth based on their race. Intellectually he is acting like Nazi, the fact he's not actually killed six million Jews isn't a defence to the accusation brought against him.