thoughtexplorer

Thanks for the example. Let's break that down.

"It's a very rare woman who at the age of 30 doesn't consider having a child her primary desire."

Evidence shows this to be the case. It is rare.

"And the ones that don't consider that, generally in my observation there's something that isn't quite right in the way that they're constituted or looking at the world."

I see how that sounds sexist, but he says the same thing about men that don't want kids. It's also important to note that he qualifies the statement as "generally", not as a rule. Acknowledging there are exceptions. It's not the case for everyone.

He says that men are misguided for prioritizing work or money over kids. He actually makes the point that women are better at recognizing what leads to happiness, fulfillment and meaning. Which is family. That's his understanding based on decades of observation and research. But again generally speaking and there are exceptions.

He doesn't discriminate against men or women. There is no evidence of that in his hundreds of hours of lectures or interviews or books.

His wife and daughter would also disagree with the sexist claim. As well as his many female patients who he has helped with their careers.

> But please, tell me more about what goes on inside my own head.

I didn't mind read. You literally typed out a common dismissal. The sexist comment is also that.

True true. But can't you just keep using that logic all the way back?

Obviously Google doesn't place values over profits. Let's be brutally honest here. Nor do the employees.

Are the employees that make $200,000/year donating the extra income to those in need or are they buying things to engage in lifestyle inflation like most people? Are they going to quit Google and work for a non-profit?

Ironically your comment indicates that you are in a bubble. You reflexively dismissed them by saying "red pill", which is precisely what your bubble tells you how to react to anything that says "Jordan Peterson".

That's not your own thought and it's not an honest or meaningful rebuttal to the OP. Take your own advice by watching some full length Peterson lectures with an open mind. You may find that you've been mislead.

It makes sense to base things on probabilities, but it also makes sense to play it safe in some cases.

The upside of it predicting him/her is minor and doesn't outweigh the times that it gets it wrong.

"Do you want to meet [name || them]" or simply "Do you want to meet" works well enough usually.

What does that mean? What will they say or do to the family?

> Telling a laid-off auto worker to switch industries is not a very fair thing to do.

But we do that all the time and with good reason. Blockbuster employees and coal miners for example. At some point the jobs no longer make sense.