Reader TTS

I think the issue here is that Jordan Peterson is speaking of group generalizations that are usually true, rather than group generalizations that are axiomatically true for all individuals.

I think you can further refine it by understanding that the societal dominance hierarchy is not in fact, monolithic, but has local hierarchies that might not always be along the same axes.

While certainly falling in love is highly personal, I’m not sure if we can really say it is mostly random. Chance may indeed play an oversized role in who we have the opportunity to meet,

but the things that draw us together once those opportunities are granted do follow some broad patterns, and I think Jordan Peterson illustrates that pretty well. Now, could he caveat

himself a bit more? Certainly. He does go out of his way to do so in most every case I’ve seen (for example, talking about generalized increased neuroticism or agreeableness in women as a

*general* statement, not a axiomatic one), but a lot of time, if you’re not listening carefully, those caveats can fly by under the radar. That all being said, my arranged marriage (arranged

through eHarmony 14 years ago) worked out much better than anything I stumbled across on my own :) Hat tip to Dr. Neil Clark Warren for his work on his arranged marriage algorithms!