Pretty indefensible take. Life advice is consistent and essential for children. He offers no specific consequentialist net benefit to increased self actualization and ignores the harm caused by a generation of children who aren’t warned about the risks of pregnancy and drug addiction.

Also the quote disparaging providing evidence backed advice specifically felt strange: “Offering reasons, arguments or evidence as if one is in a privileged position with respect to what the other person’s experience would be like for them disrespects their moral right to revelatory autonomy.” Surely the evidence supporting your advice should make it more justified. It’s more reasonable and moral to advise someone to avoid Xanax addiction than it is to control their career path precisely because of the evidence. It’s just so interesting that he’s against advice, but seems especially against what doctors and psychologists would call “good advice.”