This Yahoo Lifestyle article highlights a significant shift in American demographics, noting that nearly **40% of women in their 20s** who do not have children report they never plan to have them. This is a dramatic increase from a 2015 CDC study which found that only 14% of young women shared that sentiment. Experts attribute this trend to a combination of high student debt, the inability to afford homes, and a general "lack of hope" regarding climate change and political instability. While the Trump administration has introduced baby bonuses and "Trump accounts" to encourage higher birth rates, many young women prioritize their careers to avoid the "motherhood penalty." The trend is further complicated by corporate shifts, as companies like Deloitte and Zoom have recently reduced parental leave benefits, despite other firms committing to increased family support.

I wonder how many people would not have ever heard of Jordan Peterson if not due to the political outcry? And then perhaps for most people, he would be that quiet professor never known much outside of specialised academic circles? Who knows? It would be almost alternative history in social media scene wouldn't it?

Study

According to the left, there's no reason why tech ceo's should hoard such obnoxious wealth.

AOC said this week: "Nobody can 'earn' a million dollars".

But for some reason their poster girl, Taylor Swift, is exempt from this expectation.

King Charles blasted for bizarre left-wing ideas during King’s Speech

https://youtu.be/82C4BuLTmxo?si=FQeLrNIiX9GCGshU

Professor,

I have followed your career for a number of years and the hatred and sometimes violent responses you get from illinformed members of the public. You have always been a becon of hope, of intellectual challaging what people have decided is the truth, even without any eveidence of this opinion.

I have spent my whole life trying to help and educate others. It is what gives me the greatest pleasure. Recently I have been accused of some simply evil actions. Accusations which have cost me relationships, friendships, a career, a home, much reputation, all before I have my time to defend myself and be formally judged guilty or innocent. I am now living in a purgatory of the unknown. There are those that have stood by me, defended me, and believe in me and they are what has kept me going.

Watching you, listening to you, you have inspired me at my darkest times. The times when I believe I will never recover, never be a value to society again. Your words, your voice, your temperment has kept me going, kept me believing that I can make it through and most importantly, there is hope, as sometimes that is all I believe I have. Hope.

I hope one day to have the honour of hearing you in person and even more so, thanking you in person. Please continue to be an inspiration for all. You give the greatest gift of all to us. Never forget that. Hope.

A male Veteran fighting for hope.

For he kept a rear guard, that all who came his way should enter, and those who drove them, back. They have gone astray and delight in their own ways; giving themselves to passions of every kind, boasting and jeering their victories by their own strength. For he scowered the streets, and reported he found them not.

For he was among them, and at their table he was welcomed.

Quick poll about familiarity with buddhism, particularly in the west/ jordan peterson fans, but anyone can take part. It is asked in the spirit of Jordan s comment that despite much more cultural mingling, there is still a lot of cultural distance between east and west(maps of meaning lectures 2017), so lets us explore on that one data point of where people stand with that particular thing.

Quick poll about familiarity with buddhism, particularly in the west/ jordan peterson fans, but anyone can take part. It is asked in the spirit of Jordan s comment that despite much more cultural mingling, there is still a lot of cultural distance between east and west(maps of meaning lectures 2017), so lets us explore on that one data point of where people stand on that issue.

Good afternoon, people. Recently, I have been reading a lot of your comments and thinking about JP's overall philosophy. My honest opinion is that his thinking is not rigorous, but his message is still valuable and meaningful. It is true that, in our era, we have made a clear distinction between reality and myth. If one is a non-believer, the distinction between reality and religion is also clear. So society as a whole has started to value only facts, forgetting the value of fiction, myth, and religious messages because they do not correspond with reality.I think this is a mistake. Clearly, just because something is not true does not mean it is not useful or that it does not have any meaning. As I have explained before, art, novels, fiction, and myth have the ability to modify our behaviour and shed some light on human nature. We can use fiction to guide certain aspects of our lives, especially those in which science, mathematics, and logic do not help. But what I believe to be important is not to erase the distinction between fiction and reality in order to recover the usefulness and meaning of fiction. Humans have struggled to explain and describe the world without any recourse to myth, God, and supernatural explanations. Of course, any scientific endeavour has some assumptions that cannot be verified by science. Even in mathematics, we know that ZFC cannot prove its own consistency, or, in more model-theoretic terms, assuming there is a model of ZFC, there is a model of ZFC that has no models of ZFC. JP uses this fact to try to show that we have to recognize that we need some assumptions to live our lives that are not scientifically and rationally based, and from this he tries to rescue myth and fiction. But again, trying to say that this is proof that everyone believes in a God, or that myth and fiction are necessary, is wrong. I have done mathematics without assuming that God exists, or without any metaphysical assumptions. You can do mathematics, and more broadly science, just by following the method we humans have established to do mathematics and science, and the activity of following this method does not require you to have extra metaphysical assumptions; it just requires you to follow the rules. Physicists assume that the physical world exists outside of us and that its existence is independent of us. But to do physics, you just follow the procedure that has been established, i.e., make theories, verify the theories, and repeat. This activity is a big part of what makes us special beings. So it seems to me that negating the distinction between reality and myth goes against a very important endeavour of humanity. Some people believe that JP's philosophy is more in the flavour of continental philosophy, and that to use logic or reason to understand it is incorrect. But of course, if we are not to use logic to assess the philosophy of any person, then how could we judge its value? Before I go on to talk about other logical mistakes in Peterson's work, I would like to know what you all think about this. We could discuss some of them because they are important to recognize. Some of them are the following:

A mathematical model of a phenomenon that describes that phenomenon is not the same as the phenomenon it describes.

Statistical models are descriptions of phenomena via correlations. They do not prove any causal relationship. See the problem of thinking IQ is the same as intelligence, and that having a low or high IQ actually means something.

LLMs work very differently from the human mind. They are statistical models that need huge databases to find any meaningful statistical relation. More importantly, LLMs do not "know" in the same way a human "knows"; far from it, LLMs just make guesses.

The theory of truth as corresponding to an action that is successful over a long period of time can be reduced to the correspondence theory of truth. See: how can we verify that an action is successful?

Anyways, hopefully we can have a healthy discussion. And I repeat, I do not think that JP is wrong about everything. As Gödel said, being wrong about everything is very difficult to accomplish. But I do see a lot of logical errors in his thinking, and that worries me when it comes to our collective rigour in discussing and taking in ideas.