diet coke is literally cancerous (with aspartam and other sweeteners causing increased risk on it) on top that, most sweeteners cause you to crave actual sugar, making you prone to overeating, causing obesitas, which is another big risk factor in getting cancer! -end rant
you know what else makes u crave sugar more then aspartam etc. SUGAR! FUCKING SUGAR yea maybe aspartam will also make u crave sugar but SUGAR ITSELF will make u want even more sugar more then aspartam will. -end ranting to ur rant
Does he look like somebody that is overeating? Yea, so much for that. Also, fucking life is cancerous. Living in fear of cancer fucking everywhere just makes life fucking miserable.
AwoudeX Recent studies using double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in scientific research (these types of studies are like the holy grail of rigorous scientific methodology) have invalidated previous research that indicated any correlation between sweeteners and cancer, also the part that stipulated that sweeteners lead to an increase in sugar cravings. These types of researches are the most devoid of bias. Hence, it is likely that previous research that indicated these ''bad'' effects of sweeteners attained their conclusions because of the side-effect of some bias present in different areas in the carrying-out of the research
Peterson cleaned his damn room, and has slain many a dragon - he can drink as much Diet Coke as he wants! :P I personally wouldn't drink it, but hey this man's taught me a HELL of a lot in a very, very short time.
@MEMEMEET He unintentionally implied people who are good at dancing are also the ones who'll fuck the most and thus, procreate (multiply) the most rapidly.
The left does this all the time. They also do this slight of hand, where they’ll change/expand the meaning of a word in the present and then retroactively apply the new meaning to past uses of said word to imply that people were saying things that they in fact were not saying.
The Bell Curve and other publications prior to 2000 showed a direct correlation between IQ and amount of babies you had: the lower your IQ the more children you would have while the only child families had the higest IQ of all parents. Great example of this; Nicola Tesla. He died with no children and a virgin and gave the world a TON. Great observation. :D -FFM
+Sagrotan You saying Michael Jackson was insane? He did have issues later on in his life, but c'mon- insane? What about Frank Cinatra? Cicero lived in a very different era, I'm not sure whether his words hold much meaning in today's context.
IQ is the ability to dissect a problem and offer a logical solution. Talent is utilizing a gift at its highest potential. Where as IQ can be utilized generically to life circumstances, talent is very specific in its application.
The issue is, if we look at pretty much any IQ test with widespread scientific support the ability to measure problem-solving skills is only a portion of the test. For example, the Stanford Binet IQ test claims to measure Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory. You do have questions that ask you to find relations or go through logic problems but this is only a small portion. How is knowing synonyms to a specific vocabulary word with no text to use in relation to an accurate reading of someone's intelligence? It is widely known and verified that often times people will excel in learning mathematics but have more difficulties learning English or vice versa. These different areas being measured also stem from different parts of the brain when it comes to the ability to learn mathematics vs. linguistics. By this measure, since mathematical ability and linguistic ability do not have strong enough correlations with each other, they fail the construct validity test. Thus, they can't be grouped as Intelligence by his understanding, while they are regularly regarded as forms of intelligence by literally any psychologist. Even in Peterson's understanding of Intelligence, multiple forms of intelligence are being measured. This has always been the case for IQ tests, simply that it lumps these qualities which do have minor correlations together for a singular overall score at the end. The whole theory of multiple intelligences was derived from IQ test score results. In testing IQ tests, it became clear that certain questions would have incredibly strong correlations to other specific questions. People who answered correctly on one math question would be very likely to answer correctly on another whereas their vocabulary or problem-solving questions may not be as strongly correlated. By grouping these even more strongly correlated areas together, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences came into fruition. The fact is, Peterson's construct of intelligence is not based on any construct validity test, it is based on what he does or does not want to consider intelligence. His degree of what is considered a "strong" enough correlation is entirely arbitrary. All criteria talked about so far is what scientists wanted to test using the intelligence tests, however, the main thing linking these things and what I would argue defines the overlapping construct called intelligence is one's neurological ability, which differs from one point in the brain to the next. Thus if I wanted to come up with how many different intelligences there were, I would look at brain activity in regards to different scenarios to try and pinpoint various zones of cognitive activity. You can average these areas of cognition to come up with a general IQ or intelligence, but separating it down into different bits of intelligence is more useful.
Gamechamp36O I see the view in which Peterson own understanding of the IQ, my question is given our own scoring of different tests being different and not necessarily to dissimilar if one where to look at Iq, yet I have come across the issue that Iq is not fixed entirely as I’ve had heard an official report saying that a student had taken two different tests at two different points in their life in which the scores were more than 25 points apart, in what way is this possible if not a difference in that individual’s frame of thinking? Was it a charge in consciousness over time or was this person always like this yet somehow didn’t do well as he should have? I understand what might have happened but given it is genuine what is the most probable reason behind this? Ps in regards to iq in terms of scoring it is under my knowledge that every test has a limit, in regards to comparing two different tests their scoring is seen based off the amount done, for instance in a theoretical format where two test one having a maximum of 160 and the other of 200, in both cases 160 and 200 would be seen as the same practical score(suggesting that the misconception is that if you have a score higher on one test then the other then you must be beyond the test with the lower score despite the fact the scoring is completely different, in other words those who say their number being high is simply due that they think it means they did better is false?, as 143 on one test could really be a 115 on another) , is this information correct, as I’m not completely sure this is in fact the case but I’m willing to admit it could be false
Someone explain to me though, u got someone like Einstein who’s mad at maths n physics, but then u got someone like putin who’s very smart socially n politicaly n self awareness. There both intelligent but in different ways, I wanna know pls
I read not long ago that the person who came up with this idea of multiple intelligences was actually writing a book about skills, multiple skills, but realized that the concept was already out and spread so decided to change the whole thing to multiple intelligences, just to make sure that the book would sell well. A marketing strategy that has shown us how some sectors of Academia are ready to swallow anything if it sounds fancy enough.
I personally like thinking of different forms of intelligence since another common word for intelligence is brain power and virtually every skill anyone has is related to the development of neuron density in particular areas of their brains. When somebody makes a change to the lyrics of a song that doesn't necessarily mean the original lyrics were better than the new lyrics. The new lyrics may make more sense to people and help them understand what the song means better. Words mean whatever the speaker and his audience understand them to mean.
Cooking? That doesn't count. I seen Mexicans throw shit in a pot, turns out fine. I had one of those trying to dominate with cooking and she was a bitch so we took away her meat.
With the existence of "talent" as Jordan put it, categorising those talents into types of intelligence does not somehow detract from the meaning of the word 'intelligence'. If intelligence is broadly defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge, then it fits into all of the categories described. A good analogy of this happening elsewhere is the use of the word "memory". We have come to learn and use terms such as episodic memory, semantic memory, or working memory. We have devised the types of memory which in effect are related but separately categorised, yet it has not taken away from the definition of what the word "memory" means. Some people have good working memory while not having decent long term memory and vise versa and we can point that out without diluting the meaning of memory. It's difficult not to see the validity in the fact that there are those who possess extraordinary physical "intelligence" (acquiring and applying knowledge in the realm of some sport, say) but could not perform arithmetics - because this happens; as well as the opposite. It is still a type of cognitive ability no matter how subjective the interpretation of it might be (like say, in art). So why not describe it as a type of intelligence?
I, a PhD in psychology living in China, knew that multiple intelligence and triarchic theory, and the like, are rubbish. thank you Jordan for making it clear.
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes Oh ok, and I guess that single kind of intelligence can be applied to different fields with different results?
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes I'm not any sort of expert in psychology, but what would you say about quick decisions making in a stressful environment? Isn't that some sort of practical intelligence?
@@sidekick8983 that's something you would learn to do according to your personal experience. You're own personal and practical use of intelligence. Anyone could learn those things for them selves or not.
When I was in elementary school, they did a school wide activity based on the idea of multiple intelligences. Each teacher represented a different intelligence, and we all split up to go to the one we thought best represented ourselves. All I remember of the results was that only 3 kids picked Math Intelligence, which seemed low to me, even at the time as a kid. Looking back on it, it was all total nonsense.
People want to subdivide intelligence so that they have a sticker "intelligent" for whatever they do, since intelligence is recognized in society as the ultimate talent. But sorry intelligence is not talent, intelligence is a whole
@@waggawaggaful for some reason I never got updated on this. A whole ability of making links between knowledge. My point was not the definition of intelligencr anyways. My point was to dismiss the idea of multiple intelligence as simple usurpation of the word to gain credit for something elss. If that something else is not given more credit there is probably a reason for it, and twisting words is not going to change it
Someone explain to me though, u got someone like Einstein who’s mad at maths n physics, but then u got someone like putin who’s very smart socially n politicaly n self awareness. There both intelligent but in different ways, I wanna know pls
Excuse me, but he used the word "talent" to describe multiple things. If musical talent and athletic talent were truly both "talent", then there would be a correlation between the two. As it is they are not the same thing, so the word "talent" should not be used to describe them both, since it can only mean one thing. Because this is the way language works, apparently.
Talent means to be naturally good at something without being taught. Musical talent means you're naturally good at music while athletic talent means you're naturally good at athletics. See there's your correlation . Talent is field specific while intelligence is not, you're either intelligent or you're not. Seriously it wasn't that hard to understand.
Yogesh ok, so let's say you're intelligent but what does it really mean? If you're intelligent overall, then you must be intelligent in everything if you put the practice into it and yet that's not the case.
Going by his logic of "if dancing was a form of intelligence then good dancers would be good at quick multiplication", then it would also be true that possessing one "talent", such as dancing, would mean you would also possess other "talents", such as sculpting or composing music. Not even a remotely compelling argument.
I disagree with JP on this, and a lot of things, but its cool to have him around to question things to make sure I believe them. I just dont think its a good Idea to take too much stock in what any one man says.
Holy shit, I just went and looked and you are so right. It basically says "Literacy is just about whatever you want it to be". It's not about "knowledge" and "skills" it's about being able to "express thoughts and emotion". I shit you not. Wow... just, wow.
My suspicion is that Indigenous education outcomes are so poor they are reinventing these terms in an attempt to raise their grades. It's such a sad method, believing that they aren't capable so they broaden terms until they have no meaning.
Yup, people have such a prejudice against stupidity. Aboriginals are the least intelligent people on the planet I believe; they average at 65 or 68 I think. Rather than admit the truth and adjust our expectations regarding them we just cover it up and 'lower the bar' so everyone can succeed... and then we have no longer have a metric by which to measure aptitude and education becomes worthless. But hey, I guess that's better than admitting an uncomfortable, not-politically-correct, fact. It may be shocking to some, but we are not equal. Equality of opportunity has been redefined to mean equality of outcome or equality of representation. But equality of outcome or representation mandates inequality of opportunity, or in other words, is discriminatory and ultimately harmful to society. It seems this simple truth is lost on a great many people. You can see the same thing in motion in Europe with the refugees in the education systems there (IQ's average 80-85 in most of the countries they come from), and yes, it is sad.
I'm having a hard time agreeing with Peterson on this one. I mean, both Einstein and Shakespeare were geniuses; but I'm pretty sure that Einstein would have a far greater IQ score than Shakespeare if both took an IQ test. Does that mean that Einstein was far more intelligent than Shakespeare? I don't think so. Shakespeare is one of the most brilliant minds ever.
Also your assumption isn't necezsarily correct. Shakespeare may have well been as intelligent as Einstein, we don't know. What if Mozart went into physics? We don't know. But people have different interests and talents.
“I’m pretty sure Einstein would have a far greater IQ score than Shakespeare if both took an IQ test” Are you sure ? Did Shakespeare ever take an IQ test before to validate your assumption? Do you have any evidence or logical reasoning to justify that assumption at all or are you just guessing?
“Multiple intelligences" go beyond "talents" because they are also the ways in which we learn differently. They are our learning strengths. Howard Gardener was pointing out that students can learn curriculum in their own way and not just one way. Some can learn multiplication by being told how to do it, others by working it out themselves, others by manipulating shapes and beads by hand. Multiple intelligences require multiple teaching strategies. It makes teaching a classroom more effective. Maybe Peterson doesn’t see this because he is teaching psychology in university where the students are all strong in literary/verbal intelligence where they learn by listening to lectures and reading. Many people, however, do not learn easily that way and instead need to figure things out by working with their hands or by watching a demonstration, for example.
None of what you've written has anything to do with "multiple intelligences", 2x2=4 whether you use your fingers, write it down, use beads, or do it in your head. Various teaching techniques doesn't imply multiple intelligences.
We use various teaching strategies to give students a chance to learn according to the strategy that helps them the most. This is what Howard Gardner meant by multiple intelligences. We learn most naturally in different ways.
You’re not motivated to learn if the learning strategies that are being taught to you are not working because they don’t relate to your way of learning. MI is not debunked. It is the leading philosophy in elementary education. If you tried teaching a class of seven year olds you would see that not everyone learns the same way. Teachers have to remember that there is more than one way to learn otherwise they will not be helpful to many of their students. Guide students through differentiated processes of problem solving and when they start to learn they will more likely become motivated to keep going.This helps unmotivated students.
One of my grad school professors told a story in our human abilities class that Gardner (the guy who argued for all those different types of intelligence) didn’t do it for scientific reasons, but because he saw the appeal and profitability of consoling kids’ parents if their kid wasn't displaying much traditional intelligence, as it just meant that they needed to figure out which of the other “intelligences” they possessed and focus on that. I think the quote from the prof was, "it's okay if your kid is dumb as a rock, if he’s good at sports it means he’s high in kinesthetic intelligence and should pursue that instead."
I guess he was emotionally intelligent. I could argue unless there is a mental issue, eg down syndrome no one is "dumb" in traditional intelligence. You just cannot teach everyone the same.
I think that what we define as "intelligence" in todays world has more to do with what skills we as a society value the most. Today, we value people who have a higher degree of skill in maths, physics and chemistry. These skills are critical to our race that is obsessed with conquoring the universe, improving the world around us, generating wealth and the automating tasks (I understand it's a bit more complicated than that). However, if we look at the history of humanity, there was a time when athleticism or the ability to sing or dance or draw was far more valuable than what society values today or at least were considered noble endeavours, far more the work of any scientist.
@@noneofyourbeeswax371 You're not wrong that intelligence is a culturally-bound concept with different meanings across different cultures and time periods - and one historical and broad operationalization of it s simply the ability to adapt to one's environment (which would therefore include things such as athleticism, social skills, musical ability, etc.). But this isn't really about what society values but rather many of the things Gardner and some others refer to as types of intelligence are more aptly considered talents or skills among modern intelligence researchers/psychologists. If you expand intelligence to encompass any skill then that bastardizes the concept and warps discussion concerning it. This is not to imply talents aren't important on their own merits, just that they aren't intelligence. See the Cattell-Horn-Carroll hierarchical model of cognition for the theory with the most empirical support and acceptance among intelligence researchers.
Actually the example he brought with musician being good at dancing and thus at mathematics is exactly what general intelligence stands for, it's viewed as one cognitive ability that underlies all other forms of intelligence. Meaning that if ure good at mathematics than u're likely to be good at dancing because u're generally intelligent. However multiple intelligences' theory is complete opposite of this notion, it offers more egalitarian view at intelligence, meaning that everyone can be intelligent but in different ways. U can be mathematically intelligent but u may lack linguistic intelligence. And to me this theory sounds more believable, because general intelligence is just fixed so it's like u're either stupid at everything or smart at everything.
@@andybaldman That's not what intelligence is. You can be cognitively disabled and still become a top ballerina dancer with enough practice. You can train certain dogs to "write" by having them memorize specific patterns, but that doesn't mean they actually understand the concept of literature and written words or language.
I see the word "intelligent" more like a verb in practice. Can play your hand very well in one area while being retarded in another. If you work with engineers you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
@jonebeak3603 @@Harvest133 As per this video,people who are intelligent and if they do not practice solving problems or use their intelligence then they won’t be considered intelligent enough. They have the TALENT, which is not utilised. So, using their mind and logic, which we call ‘practice’, is important. Same way when a person has other talent let’s say dance or music or athletic and practices then why that can’t be named as intelligence. Not everyone who is good at dance or music, practices or utilises the talent and reason for that is the narrow minded approach to intelligence. The person who is good at academics, only that person is considered intelligent….why? In real world these so called intelligent people aren’t running the world, each and every profession has it’s important then what is the problem in accepting other intelligence as intelligence not mere talent.
iq is the highest predictive because it measures 2 things: -the ability to recognize patterns -the ability to solve problems now you take a person with high iq and a talent for dancing, he'll have a higher chance of recognizing the patterns that lead to using that talent on the road to success, and will be able to overcome more problems on that road. there's one big other factor that enhances these abilities enormously: the ability to form new memories and recall them at will, but this one is nigh impossible to measure in a single test. i've seen this guy and his multiple intelligences bullshit and it's nothing more than giving people that aren't intelligent a participation trophee.
AwoudeX The problem with your use of the word "intelligent" is that you're misunderstanding what IQ tests measure, which isn't in fact the ability to solve problems but merely specific types of problems requiring verbal and mathematical skills. Computers with artificial intelligence have enormously larger memory storage capacity and data processing speed than a human brain however if you've ever tried to have a conversation with a computer answering machine on a telephone I'm sure you'll agree its usually much easier to explain anything but the very simplest sort of problems to a human being. There are a lot of different online tests that spambots can't pass but human beings can.
@@jimscribner8314 Computers are way smarter and better at solving problems and recognizing patterns because of their computational capacity their limitations to do those things on a abstract level is what puts us on a higher level than them but see how Machine Learning goes and how DeepMind is dominating every field better than humans . He does have a point A person with higher IQ can or fluid intelligence have a potential to become way better than someone who jstu have a talent for that particular area because he has better ability to reason and to learn to spot patterns and solve problems i guess that is the thing that sepperate us from animals and why we are way better.
as a teacher, I actually see evidence of the existence of multiple intelligences. Kids who "get it" quickly in math class are not the kids who learn movement patterns quickly out on the pitch. If these had to be correlated like JP says, we would not need to define them as different intelligences in the first place. When I adjusted my teaching methods according to these differences between the two types, as an example, I saw very good results and got great traction.
As a student, I agree. I'm someone who learn languages very easily. I've seen classmates who are really good at learning Maths quickly but suck at learning languages no matter how hard they try.
This is about the only thing I have ever disagreed with him on. I know many Engineers and Scientists who can't learn new languages or understand emotions. I don't see how this is different from saying some people have Linguistic Intelligence that otherwise very Intelligent people don't have.
Intelligence is measured by IQ and IQ is a measure of how quickly you take in new knowledge and apply it. Talents or skills are a very specific application of your intelligence. You have fluid IQ and crystallised IQ. Fluid IQ is what allows you to learn new things quickly and it starts to decline at about 24 or 25. What talents you develop depend on what skills you put a lot of effort into practicing. Those engineers and scientists can't learn new languages or understand emotions because they only ever practiced being good at engineering or science. There are plenty of people with high IQs that are talented at many things at a very high level.
IQ test questions do not in any way test one's ability to understand emotions in depth, to create etc. Maybe some of the questions do test skills that are transferable into other intelligent areas that aren't purely mathematic/logical/spatial, but most do not. Intelligence is defined as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." Social sciences, psychology, the arts etc can be taught and are somewhat knowledge based subjects, but they do not use the same skills that subjects like mathematics do. However questions in IQ tests do not represent emotional/creative intelligence much whatsoever. THEY ARE forms of intelligence. If a toddler painted an amazing picture, or if a toddler hugged its parents because it could tell they were feeling upset despite them hiding it quite well, you would think this toddler is intelligent. The point is that IQ tests specifically do not test these areas of intelligence and do not cover the entire scope. Not all people who test as having a high IQ are creatively adept, and not all that are creatively adept will test as having a high IQ - because IQ tests are flawed.
Jordan Peterson's theories could also be called rubbish. Why does he talk about things with which he has no lived experience? I have been an educator for 35 years. I've seen in the lives of children in the classroom that Gardner's theory is a reality.
This seems to be more a English lesson than psychology. The English language is constantly evolving, as is the studies and understanding of psychology, I guess it's only natural that they are going to clash sometimes.
Apart from the fact that reducing what Gardner called "Kinesthetic Intelligence" to "being good at dancing" is a bit disingenuous, why would a good dancer be necessarily good at multiplication for both kinesthesia and logic to both legitimately be kinds of intelligences? There are some scientists who are not so great at multiplication, and/or other mathematical skills.
If anybody is confused with what the definition of intelligence is, it's Jordan. A simple google search yields "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." Notice how it doesn't specify what knowledge or what skills. Therefore, if someone wanted to say they had a high dance intelligence, it would not contradict the definition of intelligence. They are simply saying they have a high ability to acquire knowledge and skills particularly dance knowledge and skills.
Intelligence allows one to aquire knowledge and skills in ANY domain IF desired. A highly intelligent person would be able to surpass any other "normal" person in whatever domain they compete. Due to lack of physical training, social interactions of the classical high-IQ persons, some try to invent other "intelligences" besides the normal one, to describe people who have good skills, but can't really be considered intelligent in most of the other domains.
I think you're the one trying to invent your own definition of intelligence, I just looked up one on google and it makes perfect sense and you don't have to invent an intelligence to say someone has high dance intelligence. It's also not true that a highly intelligent person could surpass any normal person in whatever domain. I'm sure if Albert Einstein tried as hard as he could, he could not compete in competitive sports like the NFL, no matter how much physical training he had. No one's inventing any intelligence, I'm using the definition given I googled "intelligence definition." Now if you want to go into semantics about what intelligence means I'm not going to talk with you anymore.
Albert Einstein would be highly competitive in plenty of sports, most of them are not all about physical strength. You're comparing a 60-years old Einstein with teenagers, don't do that.
Personally, I prefer the definition of intelligence being : The ability to understand our surroundings, and make accurate predictions based on that understanding. IQ attempts to measure this, and I would say does a pretty good job. I think being artistic is correlated to intelligence (as you need to understand artistic devices and tie metaphors, symbols, etc into them), but it is not completely different ball game warranting a distinct form of intelligence. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would understand that the exact definition of intelligence is controversial. A "googling" of the term will not solve this issue, as it will just describe mainstream meaning. Psychologists are interested in the mechanisms behind intelligence. Which is why plenty are against MI as it has zero scientific evidence supporting it, and it conflates different mechanisms (ability to become a good foot ball player results in a completely different way than somebody being able to solve problems. Industriousness/persistence and having fit parents is not what we think of when we think of intelligence)
intelligence is the ability to logically understand something. It often has to do with the logical understanding of the syntax of numbers and words. intelligence also has to with mechanical understanding, such as with car mechanics, carpentry and electricity. but just because someone is better than you at something, does not mean that they understand (or that they are more intelligent) in that field. A 70 year old foot ball coach may not be better at football than an 18 year old kid, but the 70 year may know much more about what makes people a better foot ball player.
So based on this argument of validity of construct....you shouldn't use the word "intelligence" for both dancing and multiplying because the two don't correlate...then you also shouldn't use the word "talent" for both "cooking" and "dancing" since the two also presumably don't correlate....
The problem is that if the meaning of the word intelligence was never correlated with how most human beings have always used the word, then it was already missasigned to begin with. The idea of multiple intelligence is based on what people feel intelligence truly is, and how the word is used in life. Who got to choose the meaning of the word? Even Alfred Binet, when he invented the IQ test, said it is not a measure of human intelligence. What many overlook is that when people refer to someone as intelligent or stupid, then that has a powerful psychological impact. The word is valued highly in society. So, it is important to get the meaning correct in what it means to the majority of human beings. I believe that with a word carrying such weight, it is better for society that it is broad, and people believe that it is something they can work and improve on. We have seen the results of people who believe they can improve their IQ, their IQ score raises more than those who believe it is fixed. Think of the benefits when that mentality is applied to life.
Gardner NEVER said that one person has all intelligences at the same level. Do YOU have the same ability to do math and the same to write? Of course not. Your point does not make sense! All the intelligences are not on the same level, and you would know that if you actually read Gardner's book!
Genuine lazily informed question. I looked up the definition of intelligence and google gave me this "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." So under this definition, wouldn't being extremely talented in some area or another be a manifestation of intelligence? I think Peterson's understanding of intelligence is that it's directly related to IQ and obviously a boxer of notable proficiency probably wouldn't do well on an IQ test. However, saying that someone who consistently wins in a such a dynamic and competitive sport using technique as opposed to raw athleticism and physical attributes strikes me as someone who possesses some form of intelligence. Someone tell me why I'm wrong.
What jordan is identifying as "intelligence" is just a set of talents. Redefining intelligence is the point of multiple intelligence. It is taking the virtue of "intelligence" and showing how it applies to a wide range of characteristics. So that way a person can be respected and learned from even if he cant multiply 68x17 in 2 seconds in his head. Unfortunately you cant just lay it out plain, you have to wrap new ideas up in hardcover for anyone to listen. It's like how it's easier to sell a dog than give one away.
the intelligence needed to do a variety amount of things from winning a competitive fight to creating an oscar award winning film to a successful hostage negotiation to building a successful hockey team, all encompass different forms of intelligence and skill... this might be one of those points where jordan sucks at, lol according to dr todd grande
HMMM seems like he's playing semantics. It's called multiple intelligences precisely because they are different phenomena. But he's saying that this is rubbish because your using the word intelligience to describe multiple phenomena.
It's perfectly understandable for aging academics familiar with a particular usage of a particular word to feel resentment about unfamiliar usages of that word but in objective reality the meaning of any word changes over time and when speaking to different audiences or in different contexts. That is after all what provides a large amount of comedy routines with their punch lines.:)
I agree. There are things that people refer to as "intelligence" that I consider skills or talents but there are different types, or elements, of intelligence. The WAIS-IV has ten core subtests and five supplemental subtests to assess full-scale IQ. One can be strong in verbal comprehension but not in perceptual reasoning. Perhaps Dr. Peterson addressed this distinction in another part of the lecture.
You're right. His supporting argument seems clearly fallacious. Here's why: he asserts the bizarre linguistic thesis that phenomena must be positively correlated in order to be properly subsumed under the same term. And since being good at dancing (kinesthetic intelligence) does not correlate positively with being good at multiplication (mathematical intelligence), he reasons that they can't both be intelligences. But that linguistic thesis is clearly mistaken; it would entail that we can't use words like "skilled," "talented," or "expert," to refer to both dancers and mathematicians either! Or here's a fun example. Some people are members of the male sex, and others are members of the female sex. By Peterson's logic, if the word "sex" is properly ascribed to all these people, then it must be true that people who are male tend to be female, and vice versa.
that's true with everything... but people have ceilings, meaning that no matter how long they practice a particular skill they will never attain greatness.. just like a 5'1" person will most likely never be as good as Michael Jordan. Let's not forget our brain is part of our physicality .
ConflictingBeliefs Peterson deliberately diminishes Gardiners argument by his use of dancing as an example. An easy target like that also diminishes Petersons own point.
Its funny how many ppl are offended about his definition of intelligence and have to offer their own share about it. In biology intelligence is the ability to adapt trough circumstances. I myself is not that intelligent and I don't feel the need to go on and create other intelligence definition to feel less shity. The word intelligence is soo powerful because his counter part is unintelligent/dumb . Nobody want to be described as dumb soo we prefer to make this simple concept into something that everyone can see them self in.Matter of fact most human or not that intelligent ,soo what its just 1 ability you can have. I'm shit at cooking and I don't feel less of a being cuz of it and I'm good at drawing , but I won't claim that I have a kind of intelligence good with drawing . Intelligence and drawing have nothing to do with each others.
It's the way we measure intelligence that is so narrow-minded. Each of us has specific 'strengths' that are unique to us individually and if we are aware of these and cultivate them, they can manifest into things of immense value for us and society at large. The problem is that we're all taught by our culture, by our traditions, by our institutions etc. that we all need to think in the same way... We are taught that there needs to be an objective, standardized measure of intelligence when really, there is no way to quantify it. It's exactly like Einstein said: "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." IQ tests ARE the "climbing a tree" test and the scores are how we "judge the fish"...
Shahaan Singh Guraya Shahaan Singh Guraya I understand how IQ tests work and they are standardised and reductionistic. There is simply no way to objectively compare apples and oranges and it's the same thing with comparing people's minds. Everyone is different. Everyone has a unique perspective and skillset and when you try to compare everyone against a one-size-fits-all test, you omit the majority of people's idiosyncracies and thus their special talents. You think an IQ test can predict artistic genius? Or any other creative pursuit that involves divergent, abstract thinking? The very act of designing a test based around specific cognitive abilities necessarily excludes others. It's just narrow-minded to think that there is some objective standard by which all people conform to. Talking about life or job success is not the same as intelligence - many homeless people have high IQs but they fall victim to addiction or renounce society and the material world altogether. Life and job success is largely based on one's predetermined socioeconomic status anyway - a factor that influences one's level of education and likelihood to value intelligence in the first place. Everyone has the potential to realise their own strengths, passions, interests, core values etc. and if applied correctly, this can lead to the fulfillment of one's life purpose but unfortunately society does not nurture this kind of idealism and so most people settle for what is already established - go to school, get a job, have a family etc. - the status quo.
@@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone you are both right on a different level. On an individual level magic is right. In a standardised/generalized way shahaan is right.
None, I only asked him for permission that's it. If anything here is misrepresenting or wrong, it is out of my own ignorance, but there is always the full lecture in the description if you want to see the full context.
For all you IQ experts out there I have a few questions: 1) If a psychologist has an IQ of say 130, can he create an IQ test that measures an IQ higher than 130? 2) Do we have our highest IQ say at birth, and then is it a steady decline thereafter? 3) If you teach someone more about patterns and problem solving, does that increase their IQ? 4) If a person can multiply large numbers in their head, but can't explain why, is that intelligence? Thanks.
By no means an expert, but I can take a pretty good guess at a few of these. 1) It’s easier to encode a problem than it is to decode one. Any reasonably intelligent person can come up with a path of thought that one would need to follow to crack a problem, but guessing the path of thought when you don’t already know it is much trickier. 2) No. Piaget explains psychological development to a degree, but intelligence for most peaks much later.
g-loaded IQ tests do not rely on knowledge. non g-loaded IQ tests only measure rote memorization of educational concepts; e.g. mathematics. It's entirely plausible for someone of average intelligence to memorize enough math to 'box above his weight class', so to speak, on a non g-loaded IQ test. A g-loaded one will not have that problem. You can't fake a g-loaded one, and you can't study for it. It requires something you either posses or you don't.
Hey man! Psychologist here. 1) there was a guy called Ronald Hoeflin who made the MEGA test for testing higher IQs than 145. A normal clinical IQ-test such as the WAIS or the WISC go up to 160 , so i guess we dont have to invent the wheel twice. :) 2) IQ peaks around mid 20s and then has a very slow decline. There is a theory by Cattell that Human intelligence is either fluid (work with only your intelligence) or crystalized, which is sort of aquired methods, like how to solve spesific mathematical questions. Research shows that crystallized correlate with age up to around 60-70 years, and then declines. 3) teaching someone how to recognize patterns can increase the IQ you measure, since you are good at doing IQ-test, but it doesnt increase the underlying intelligence that you are trying to measure. So the inflated IQ score is somewhat useless, since its no longer shows what it is trying to measure. If that makes any sence. 4)That would be intelligence, yes! A typical Iq score measures 4 or 5 factors, and one of them is speed. So if you are very quick at solving math, then, by definition, that will heighten the measured intelligence. hope that answered the questions thoroughly :)
Actually, Einstain without his "spatial intelligence/talent" couldn't have managed to discover laws in physics. Yes, he wasn't bad at pattern recognition, however the key here is in as he called "imagination" (actually spacial intelligence/talent). Yes, Peterson is right, pattern recognition is actually what we SHOULD call IQ by definition, however, most of the successful people, like Einstein, Newton, Tesla, Shakespere etc they're success all on account of spatial/linguistic/numerical/emotional "talent" or "intelligence", call it as you like + quite high pattern recognition (which is actually an IQ). Many people think that they had enormously high IQ, like, 190 or smth. I think they had 140-155, not higher, it's just what happens when such quite high pattern recognition juxtaposed with great"talent/intelligence"
"You can't just mess up a word. The point of a word is that it describes some things and doesn't describe other things. The problem is that you blur out the word so badly that you can't tell what it means anymore." Unless that word is god...
I, being in the field of Education, understand what Dr. Peterson is talking about in terms of education being susceptible to fads( now more than ever, in my opinion) but I would like to know how Dr. Peterson is defining “inteligentes”. Only then would I have the proper ability to asses his argument 🤔🧐
I hate multiplying numbers in my head. I don't have a good "placeholder" for the numbers I solved along the way. Give me a pen and paper. I use my eyes to navigate. For example, I've walked to the bathroom in my house hundreds of times, but if you turn off the lights, I'm going to stumble. The last thing I need is someone saying "What are you? Stupid or something? Don't you know where tour own bathroom is?" Yes I do, but I'm worried I'll bump into something along the way.
"You can make the word intelligence account for whatever you want; but the problem with that is you blur the word out so much you can't tell what it means"-- Sure, but it's the same exact thing Jordan Peterson does with the word "god".
I'll remember this next time I hear my university pushing the EQ-Emotional Intelligence Quotient bs- which apparently women have more of, and many employers now test for.
I feel like EQ is subjective; couldn't it be you understand almost all of others' emotions but you don't care to react in the way you "should" or to portray yourself a certain way? People who are more socially conscious to adhere to social roles might be considered more emotional intelligent on the exterior but who's to say the quiet person in the corner doing calculus doesn't know exactly what is going on socially and emotionally around him but chooses to have no reaction? In my opinion, emotional restraint can be sign of high intelligence. Also, interacting among different people's emotional lives is exhausting and doesn't leave much energy to more interesting subjects the person might be interested in, such as calculus lol.
@@davidjayden2253 Yes exactly! People with Asperger's or Autism are often profoundly intellectually gifted in the fields they are interested in but they don't usually have a large social network or even many deep and meaningful interpersonal relationships. It's such a shame because these people could be of upmost importance and value to society if only they were understood and supported.
@@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone people with aspenger have social problem not cause they aren't "understood", they are, cause they are fixed with 1 only argoument and topic, and can't talk much about anything else, so they aren't socially attractive, and ther is no solution to it. Also asperger genius theory is bullshit. Most of them just had neve invented nothing so crucial, for the humanity.
The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that a person can be extremely talented and incredibly successful but have little intelligence. That doesn't sound right, somehow.
I'm not defending the multiple intelligences theory. But what he is saying about the different "intelligences" having correlation doesn't prove the model wrong. Since the model says that those "intelligences" are separate things and some people excel in one and some people excel in others. So him saying they have no correlation means shit since that's exactly what the multiple intelligences model says. The multiplying example is not a good one either. Multiplying fast in your head is a learned skill. It is not a sign of high intelligence. There are very bright people that are bad at that because they never trained it.
"There are very bright people that are bad at that because they never trained it." but if they tried tho they would learn way faster than the average because of their high IQ
@@membersonly807 in fact he explaind why multiple intelligences are wrong in an other video in a much better way. And he actually said the opposit than here. Different intelligences show a correlation of 100%. What means they are all the same one thing. People that are intelligent are intelligent in all of them. The only "intelligence" that didn't have correlation with the others was the kinsethetic one. Because that was an hability that had nothing to do with intelligence.
I, like others in the comment section, have to disagree with Peterson on this one. I feel like dividing up intelligence into categories is no bad thing, and in fact is quite reliable. As someone who studies and works within the person centred counselling field, I come into contact with a great degree of what I would call emotional intelligence, but these same people may have quite limited vocabulary and even social skills.
Every talent comes from your brain anyway. If you are a gifted guitar player, it's your brain telling your fingers what to do and when to do it. I agree with you that for the first time, I seriously disagree with JP.
There's already a word for "emotional intelligence" - it's called 'wisdom'. You don't need to be smart to be wise. They are not the same thing. What if the person is a complete idiot? Can't add two and two? Calling someone with "emotional intelligence", "intelligent" might be grossly misleading and actually insulting to them (if they are not intelligent). Why can't you just use the word 'wise'? Why do we have to call them 'intelligent' at all? It is just expanding the word until one day it won't have any meaning left. Everyone will be 'intelligent' and we'll drop the word entirely because it has become redundant and we'll have to come up with another word to describe actual intelligence. That is where JP is coming from (I think), this is pointless and ultimately regressive nonsense.
Geo Gaming I agree too. If you look at people who are mathematical geniuses, most could not do very well in public debate. Most trial lawyers are not going to be extremely good at trigonometry. There are a number of different skills that people commonly refer to intelligence that tend to be narrowly developed. And this can get even more complicated if you are looking at someone with brain damage. Yes we don't need to start calling empathy intelligence, or athleticism intelligence. We can save the term for high thought endeavors, but there are different skills within the thinking umbrella.
Andrew Shaw I agree. JP gives a wrong example with the dancers. He's confusing the "logical intelligence" which is also included within the multiple intelligence theory with "body-kinestetic intelligence" or talent. Professional athletes have gotten their brain scanned for example, and no they aren't faster at multiplying, but they are very fast in making split decisions in the moment. Being able to adapt to an unfamiliar situation which requires you to change your strategy within seconds isn't just muscle memory but it also requires intelligence. That is why only training without realizing or knowing what you're doing wrong, won't turn you into a successful athlete. You might become a good athlete, but never a great one.
Geo Gaming yeah for sure, a lot of my education course involved the multiple intelligence theory, and I think there's tons of merit to it. I think of this one smart friend of mine, he holds degrees in computer science and engineering physics, and his IQ is no doubt a fair bit higher than mine, but I can teach him musical theory, how his car runs and how to diagnose it, and I'm much better with athletic disciplines like gymnastics and parkour, which we sometimes train together. Maybe he picks up on these concepts quicker than I did, but the point in this case is there's lots he doesn't know that I do know. Peterson would make the case there's a difference between talents and intelligence, but sometimes people with high IQs are in fields that aren't teaching them much about anything.
It really sure looks like a definition problem here and perhaps a bit of a contradiction from Peterson's previous lectures on meaning. (I may be misunderstanding him) It's possible to see words as vessel for meaning, and that's what we trade with each other. But if that's the case, we couldn't mistake the vessel for it's content in all it's entirety. Thus, my contention is that if we were to reserve the products of this vessel "Intelligence" for only logic-calculations and the likes we would err by too much simplification. Nevermind the dictionary definition. When we say intelligence, the meaning of the word carries more than the skill the person has. To say someone is highly intelligent, or say someone is highly talent, has a difference in the way we perceive their social value. In crude terms, having a talent is kind of cute. Being intelligent has transformative power. If you don't see the social hierarchy of those two names above, than it probably really wouldn't matter to say someone is highly emotional intelligent, like the Dalai Lama, etc. But how would you say he has developed this cognitive skill beyond someone like, say, Isaac Newton, who had another type of highly developed cognitive skill?
A comedian (can't remember who) said, "Whenever I hear someone say 'I may not have book smarts, but I do have _street-smarts',_ all I hear is, 'I may not be *real* smart, but I am *imaginary* smart." This isn't what Peterson is specifically addressing, but there is some overlap.
The fact that coordination or musical ability are not associated with logic or grammatical ability is proof of multiple "intelligences," not disproff. If they were all related, it would disprove the idea of there being only one measure of mental ability, a single "intelligence." Even the creators behind D&D are aware of the fact that more than one form of mental ability exists; they generalize it into intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. In reality, a person's natural balance or rhythm are just as much a function of the mind as mathematics or grammar. Which is to say that different people are good at different things. It would be useful for parents to have tests for measuring different abilities, as well as knowledge of which abilities apply to which fields. It would let them steer their children toward careers in which their children would excel.
I find Dr. Peterson to be very insightful, but I disagree to some extent here. I recently took the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) after preparing 6 months for it. Scored very well. But my reading comprehension score was insanely high, while my problem-solving/math performance was just above average. I have always struggled with math while excelling in verbal expression: public speaking, reading, and writing. I think people have strengths within their intelligence and weakness, but what we normally call "intelligence" is merely the sum of a person's collected strengths weighed against their weaknesses.
He's certainly not suggesting that if you're good at writing, you must be good at maths. I think the point he is making is that there is no use defining extra forms of intelligence, rather that your intelligence is only correlated with your ability to perform certain tasks. It's just that your intelligence is some weighted average of your abilities in these things, and that that is as good a predictor of success as you will get.
Help me JP! I would love to become a teacher and I'm in my first year of a Masters in Teaching (Secondary) but I don't know if I can handle having to learn these crack pot theories! Gardner has practically zero supportive research yet my courses are trying to jam multiple intelligences down my throat. I could get around it if it were changed to Multiple Skills and Talents maybe, but Intelligences?! No!!! I agree with you. It's rubbish and it seems from my research that most psychologists agree. I really want to become a teacher and an educator but I don't know if I'll be able to get through it with what I'm being taught. Just crack pot theories that lack supportive research and deny factual evidence!!
Like many others have said, Jordan Peterson is wrong about multiple intelligences. Intelligence is simply being talented or "good" at some academic subject or whatnot but it is simply an individuals ability to learn. This is common understanding in the cognitive-behavioral sciences and I think Peterson must know this. Taking this definition of intelligence into account and the fact that individuals can be better at learning different things, I think it's obvious that multiple intelligences exist. Take Peterson's example contrasting dancing and multiplication. A person isn't simply "good" at dancing or multiplication, they have to learn to get better. The reason some people appear "gifted" or talented is that learning isn't only done through trial and error but also through watching and listening to others. As a side note this example is weak as others have pointed out. Peterson also mentions IQ and how high IQ scores have strong correlations with better outcomes in income, etc. Traditionally IQ tests have had a bias towards those raised in families with higher SES, by parents or caretakers who are better educated and in modern western societies. This bias has been significantly reduced over the years but it is still present. This, plus the fact that psychopaths seek power, wealth and/or fame, is likely, at the very least, a major contributing factor to the aforementioned correlation. What I personally find more ironic about IQ tests is that they measure one's ability to think about and solve abstract problems moreso than anything to do with intelligence. This is probably why IQ scores have been rising over the past century. (Note that the tests have been continually readjusted so a score of 100 is near average of the living population.) This also explains why those on the autistic spectrum (who have trouble communicating their emotions and reading the emotions of others) score low on IQ tests while those with anxiety and depressive disorders (for whom ruminating is a major issue) and those with personality disorders (who engage in manipulative behavior) score high. I got a little sidetracked but my point is that multiple intelligences do exist even if they don't tell us anything really interesting about the mind or society.
I am not sure I agree with JP in this subject. The theory of multiple intelligences is that there are eight areas of intelligence, more or less, and the reason they don't correlate, which JP seems to miss, is that they are different, perhaps orthogonal, types of intelligence, hence "multiple intelligences." It seems JP wants to relegate these to "talents," but how is a talent not a species of intelligence?Further, does JP accept that there are at least verbal and non-verbal intelligence, which I must assume he does? If so, must they too be highly correlated, and if not, does he dismiss non-verbal intelligence the same as he dismisses Gardner's eight intelligences? What are people using when they do something well? Is that not intelligence? JP would argue that this dilutes the concept of intelligence, which is quite a reasonable objection. I am not sure I agree that we should call only verbal IQ the highest type of intelligence, as I surmise he does: to say nothing of "wisdom."Thus, his first problem is he argues that if two forms of intelligence are not highly correlated then they don't measure the same construct; yet, he accepts verbal and non-verbal intelligences, which often are quite disparate, culminating in the vaguely defined "learning disabilities." Why not call non-verbal intelligence "talents" then? How would JP account for peoples' different abilities, if he argues that intelligence is one thing and therefore people should be equally able across the board? He would say they have different talents, of course, but I don't think that's any clearer than saying they have different expressions of intelligence in different areas.I think his argument fails as soon as he demands (implicitly) a high correlation between verbal and non-verbal IQ, which so often are not closely correlated. Therefore he must reject non-verbal IQ, at the least, let alone Gardner's variety. Lastly, I know this is only a short clip, but has JP anywhere defined intelligence? I kind of doubt it, because he didn't do it here, and it would be to the point. He seems to accept the predictive validity of whatever the hell IQ tests measure, and that is a form of scientific explanation with which I disagree: prediction = explanation. A professor so deeply grounded in classical education, I would think, would try to get at the concept more articulately rather than looking at it purely mathematically, that is, quantitatively. [I broke this narrative into many paragraphs and then it just appeared as a unitary block. Sorry].
I think Peterson is missing something. Just look at child prodigies. Did Bobby Fischer have the same Math aptitude as Charles Fefferman. Does Charles Fefferman have the same chess aptitude as Bobby Fischer? Could either of those two write at the level of Alexander Pope?
I believe that what he's saying is that if person A is more intelligent than person B, person A would always surpass B in any domain. If they start learning writing, singing, maths, science, or investing at the same time from the same resources and in the same environment, person A would always surpass B. If Bobby Fischer were more intelligent than Alexander Pope and you had Fischer write a poem and the poem were not as beautiful as Alexander's poem, that would be because Alexander Pope had had practiced writing for more time and/or because he loves writing poems, and Fischer doesn't, and that's why he works harder than Bobby.
I understand his point but isn't he just speaking about the the terminology here? I think that the theory of multiple "intelligences" isn't that wrong at all. I mean there are different people with different strenghts and skills and this whole theory seems like a good idea to put those different strenghts and skills into a systematic concept. It's just not rubbish in my opinion.
My first guess would be that verbal and mathematical intelligence are both very correlated but that individuals can be lopsided in terms of their innate verbal and mathematical abilities (can't people do much better one on part of the SAT than another?), and that this same principle could apply to other facets of intelligence. Still, people don't like the idea that general intelligence exists, that it varies between people, that it isn't very malleable, and that it is a limiting factor with regard to an individual's ability to participate in certain cognitive domains (all things that are obviously true). What I'm curious about is if lawyers and engineers (assuming they have similar average IQs) mostly differ in their "type of intelligence" or if they mostly differ in their interests and temperaments.
Different tasks require the use of different areas of the brain. To say that just multiplying numbers in your head makes you intelligent is to be ignorant. Also drinking any type of coke is not a sign of intelligence.
I agree with 95% of what you say on other topics, but Sternberg & Gardner are right on this one. Your major argument is a tautology, amounting to assuming what you are trying to approve "Since intelligence is a unitary thing (i.e., with all subfactors highly inter-correlated) then if what Gardner calls intelligences were actually intelligence, they would inter-correlate, and since they do not, they are not intelligence." I say that since they do not inter-correlate, the premise of a g factor is wrong. Furthermore, I would challenge one of your empirical claims: "IQ is the best predictor." No, the best predictor for success in any specific occupation is a test whose predictive validity has been validated with respect to that specific occupation. If IQ tests were the best predictor for all occupations, the U.S. military should not have developed the ASVAB.
I don't buy the idea that, if two constructs share the same word, that they should produce the same outcomes. Things exist before we abstract them into symbols. A paint gun is useful for beautifying my house, while a gatling gun does the opposite.
This seems like a strange argument. "If both of those were intelligences, then the people who could dance better could multipy two digit numbers faster in their head" Why though?
Ikr. In fact he has said himself in a video that the higher your iq is the more difference you'll have in your different type of intelligence (such as linguistic and typical number/pattern intellegence).
No matter which era, it seems there always were people who wanted to be THE ones that took credit for being “intelligent.” Example as follows ... from the book … Slouching toward Bethlehem: Essays … author Joan Didion “Don’t make the mistake of taking a chair at the big table,” I was warned sotto voce on my first visit to the Center. “The talk there is pretty high-powered.” “Is there any evidence that living in a violent age encourages violence?” someone was asking at the big table. “That’s hard to measure.” “I think it’s the Westerns on television.” “I tend (pause) to agree.” Every word uttered at the Center is preserved on tape, and not only colleges and libraries but thousands of individuals receive Center tapes and pamphlets.
Could someone explain this, please? I completely understand what Jordan Peterson is saying, but I think it’s understandable to talk about multiple intelligences. Mozart had an estimated IQ of 160 Einstein had an estimated IQ of 160 Both people profoundly changed the future of their fields of work, and it seems a bit unrealistic to simply say that it was down to ‘talent.’ It’s unlikely with Mozart’s intelligence, he would have been deemed a genius in any other field than music, and it’s unlikely that Einstein would have been recognised as a genius in any other field except physics.
talent is actually the correct word to describe these "multiple intelligences" precisely because they don't necessarily correlate with iq, because talents are a broad spectrum and some talents are more intellectually demanding than others(funnily enough, in the same sense some multiple "intelligences" are more "intellectually" demanding than others). this is also why someone can't be talented in an intellectually demanding field if they aren't intelligent. whether one specializing genius would be recognized as a genius in another field is irrelevant to the whole point, which is that you can't say that talent=intelligence, because of the absence of intellectual correlation between different talents. the mindset shouldn't be that there's an arrow pointing either intelligence->talent or talent->intelligence. instead the two are parallel; | |
Wait, what @ 2:30. No, the point of multiple intelligences is that they can be mutually exclusive of each other. Being intelligent in one area does not mean you would be intelligent across the broad spectrum. Now, I do think we are muddling the word "intelligence" but I don't understand Dr. Peterson's thoughts here.
If they are completely different then they are not intelligences because intelligence has a specific definition. It'd be like calling your brain a kind of muscle, it's not.
talent is the stuff built on top of 'g'. Neural pruning, piaget etc upbringing. High 'g' aka high IQ...high GENERAL intelligence is capable of more than low within the bounds of pruning somewhat....though pruning has a bigger impact on low g people. I think it's just that the genetics of higher g people allow more spinogenesis etc perhaps on top of working memory and speed. High IQ people that are "talentless" in something can definitely knock it out of the park or be equal to a lower g person "talented" in something. Maybe a low g person was exposed to music lots and fiddled on a piano as a child. They're pruned to that....but a high g person can pick it up later in life too. It's somewhat influenced by personality components that are a nurtured/ natured complex thing themselves.
To his point about rating dancers on their ability to dance and rating people's ability to multiply two different numbers, one requires action (predominantly) and the other requires thought. The ability to dance would be talent, not intelligence. BUT, being able to dance and having theoretical knowledge of how to perform certain dances are two different things. You may be a phenomenal improvisational dancer but have very limited knowledge when it comes to the theory of dancing or the correct order for a structured dance. It would be interesting to take peorple who are exceptional dancers but have never studied dance and people who understand the steps and timing to certain types of dance but are not got at executing the dance. I would assume the improvisational dancers would score lower on an IQ test (generally) than the people who study dance theory but aren't as good at executing. And if this were to be the case, does Petersons point still hold true or is it a matter of theory vs practice? For instance, you can have excellent theoretical knowledge of guitar but never have played a guitar in your life. And someone who had played guitar for years but never studied will have very limited knowledge of music theory. Just because you are able to perform the act of dancing and execute it well, it's not the same as having a theoretical understanding. So while the act of dancing itself may not be considered "intelligence", you do need intelligence to understand the theory.
phill Hutchings I agree that it takes a level of intelligence to teach yourself something like the guitar without any help whatsoever. But how would that person score on an IQ test? This is where I disagree with Peterson's statement of there not being multiple sources for intelligence. IQ can't be the only way to definitively determine someone's intelligence.
phill Hutchings I'm not sure about that. I'm a self-taught guitar, bass, and drum player with an above average IQ, because I also have other areas of interest. But I also know quite a few other musicians whose sole focus is perfecting their craft. They are phenomenal at playing their instrument - much better than I am - and some are self taught. But you can't really have an intellectual conversation with them and they did poorly in school. Creatively, they are extremely "intelligent" but not so much when it comes to logical thinking. Still, it's a very interesting claim. One I'd like to look into more.
phill Hutchings I thought that's what you may have meant. Like if I were to stumble upon a guitar, had never seen one before, didn't know what it was, and still managed to teach myself. The brain is definitely complex. And relative to how much there is to know about it, we know nothing.
As a musician I find that talent plays very little role in the acquisition of particular skillsets. Talent is what unskilled people who lack the appropriate experience call skill which is acquired and not innate. They don't see all the hard work and multiple failures that go into the final product. Usain Bolt is a talented sprinter- he has the genetic makeup to run very fast, but if he sat on his arse all day drinking beer and stuffing his face with shit, he wouldn't do very well at it in comparison with someone who wasn't as genetically gifted but trained hard.
he is talking within the area of statistics. if you took 10000 excellent dancers and and pitted them against 10000 bad or average dancers (in another area of ability), you would see a correlation between ability in a specific talent and general intelligence. getting large numbers to participate in the study, flattens out variations and aberrations in the results, giving you a glimpse at what the word intelligence actually means. i think what he is proposing is that "intelligence" is a meta words of sorts.
Peterson’s idea that there would be a positive correlation between dancing and math shows a complete lack of understanding of multiple intelligence theory. The whole point of multiple intelligence theory is that they wouldn’t be good at both, as the brain of a dancer and the brain of a mathematician are different in their structure and operations. Therefore, they are good at different things.
Huh? Talent isn't a good substitute for the word intelligence at all... Talent suggests something that's can only be narrowly applied to a specific task, whereas intelligence suggests a more general capacity. Besides, we now know that intelligence is nowhere near as fixed as we used to think. The concept of multiple types of intelligences is intuitively understandable. I didn't need anyone to explain the term "emotional intelligence" to me when I first heard it, it made sense instantly. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't know someone who is incredible with their hands and can build a house, or has a special way with words and music, but gave up on mathematics completely when long division or algebra came up. Or inversely, someone who does well in school but in the real world can't so much as fry an egg. We've always had terms, like "book smart" and "street smart"... That's just a less academic way of talking amount multiple domains of intelligence. Seems kind of unfair to dub a person unintelligent simply when they've no particular proficiency for a very particular type of abstract thinking prized in the 20th/early 21st century West, but might be brilliant in other domains. Besides, I think the word talent is more often than not a word used by people who wish to explain away why some other people show so much more proficiency than them, and by extension to excuse their own lack of proficiency in that domain. Talent is supremely over-rated. I mean, it certainly does exist, but there are many, many other important factors that go into making someone truly excellent in any particular field, not least hard work, bags of effort, and the ability to spend a lot of time on their chosen area of interest. To paraphrase Leonardo: "if you knew how much time it took, you would not call it genius". And to argue against the idea of words changing meaning over time is just totally absurd! Take the word "focus" for instance, what comes to mind? Perhaps something about the eye, lenses, perhaps? The etymology originally meant the hearth of a home, because back then, that's where people gathered and where their attention, and eyes, would fixate. Through the natural evolution of language, we sought to find words to explain natural phenomena we understand more deeply, or to find language for new innovations where none yet exist. Another example: we now no longer talk about "humour" in the biological sense, now only in the extended meaning of one's emotional state -- derived from the erroneous theory that one's emotional state was a consequence of the balance or imbalance of the four bodily "humours". Within living memory, a computer was a person (often a woman), who added up numbers... How many people think of a lady with a pencil and an abacus sitting in a dusty office doing sums when they hear the word "computer" come up in conversation?? This is always through the mechanism of metaphor; fundamentally, words that are abstract have meaning are extended from our experience with the physical world, but this process is culturally contingent and often reflects the values and agreements of that particular culture, and is sometimes simply contingent on accidents of history. Language is, always has been, and will remain a fundamentally contextual phenomenon, and I fail to see the apparent leap or overstretching that he accuses Gardner of so dismissively. Anyway, it's abundantly clear that these are stones being thrown by a man who lives in a house made of glass. Anyone who takes cues in evolutionary biology, linguistics, dietary advice, political critique or any other area of study that Peterson has grossly overexaggerated his understanding of, should probably start reading a little bit wider. It's been said many times but it rings true now more than ever: Jordan Peterson is a stupid man's idea of an intellectual. For anyone who wants to see just how rigorous this man is with language, look up him tying himself into a pretzel trying to justify the truth of the resurrection of Jesus whilst talking to Alex O'Connor.
I disagree. You can have a person who can multiply numbers very fast in their head (mathematical intelligence) but not be able to socialize very well (social intelligence). The same can be said the other way around also.
you agree with him... that's basically what he said. if it was about intelligence there with be a strong correlation between someone's socially competence and his ability to multiply. The way I understood it is that he's saying that intelligence is something of its own but it's thrown around and combined with other words while it has nothing to do with intelligence but rather talent or competent. Intelligence has already a definition of its own and is related to IQ. You can't just add another word next to it and make something out of it. The thing is that intelligence is pretty abstract if you don't think too much about it and it seems somewhat to make sense when you hear «social intelligence» ,we get it. But intelligence represent and mesure different "parameters" (pattern recognition, spacial visualization, ...) and although you might need some of it to be socially talented, it isn't merely enough to be able to class people for their natural tendency to be socially competent. Social talent require different dimensions of analysis than intelligence. Maybe talent and intelligence are cousin and when intelligence is well defined for some searched characteristics, talent is more general. Maybe the talent to recognized pattern or to do spacial visualization,.. is what is called intelligence. That's the way I look at it and I understood it. I could be wrong but I think what he said makes sense.
@@husseinkhalil5023 I will have to disagree with both of you then. When you say intelligence has to do with pattern recognition, I agree with that statement, but you can have the ability to recognize patterns in regards to social cues, but have a hard time recognizing mathematical patterns.
I don’t know I can’t say. Is pattern recognition in the brain common in different situation. Pattern recognition for social cue or mathematic sequences use the same part of the brain? Replace a social clues with a mathematic variables or images would that person(good with math) finally be able to recognize the pattern? I can’t say. if I give an answer, it would be based on not much evidence. However in your example who’s to say that people who recognize social clues wouldn’t be better at recognizing mathematic pattern as well? Maybe it'ss harder for someone who doesn’t recognize social pattern because you first have to be able to detect a clue before can detect a pattern. What I mean is we can’t jump too fast to conclusion. Petterson is a really smart person who generally has done his homework on the subjects he talks about plus he have experience about it. I would say he’s probably more correct about what he’s saying than us. He could be wrong we never know but he probably has thought more carefully about it than we have.
Multiplying numbers quickly in head is not mathematical intelligence, that is more linked to verbal intelligence. Language is very linked to arithmetic. Mathematical ability mainly refers to mathematical reasoning, which is more tied with spatial reasoning
I mean intelligence cannot be just about multiplying. For instance people can be terrible at English but great at maths and vice versa. I'd call both those people intelligent
This guys argument against various types of intelligence here is so weak he can't complete his sentences without coughing. The dictionary definition of intelligence supports the argument of multiple types in "the ability to attain and apply knowledge and skills" Talent is synonymous with intelligence and talents are a way of breaking intelligence down. Attempting to debunk the theory of multiple intelligences is a weak form of thinking, it is an attempt to try and keep things simple. The only constant is change and as Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." Great changes and improvements in our world did not come from doing the same old shit as those before us, it comes from challenging those thoughts and trying new ideas. By all means knowledge is a strong foundation, but it counts for nothing without application.
I think the idea that was intended is true, but it needs to be reworded. For once I have to disagree with him. There are too many things that IQ doesn't account for.
Would you say that a savant on the autism spectrum has, by nature of being so smart, a high social intelligence? He can use his vast intelligence to overcome autism and it's effects on social skills? Feigning ignorance about the definitions of words doesn't change the fact that almost everyone knows what people mean by separate intelligences. Projecting your own shortcomings onto others is Peterson's Hallmark. This guy is so successful that he has produced nothing of note but a few self help books that largely regurgitate truisms.
Coming from a person who scores extremely low in emotional intelligence. Intelligent people understand that words gain their meaning through context. Intelligence is not only the ability to solve abstract problems, but it also includes perception and cognitive abilities. What would Peterson call "military intelligence". What does the "central intelligence agency" do? I would not expect athletic ability to correlate with puzzle solving. That doesn't mean that someone with particular sensory and motor skills does not have intelligence. Solving puzzles does not mean you are going to become a famous musical artist. The only thing Peterson is explaining is his own narrow mindedness. Scratch a few points off his openness score.
The priority of Jordan's identity is to preserve the one-dimensional decisions that created it. The one-dimensional decisions that created Jordan's identity are roughly "My father hurt me" "My father doesn't like me" "My father is dangerous" "My father will like me if I say what he wants" "My father is good and right" "I sacrifice myself for my father" "I am good because I protect and rescue my father's feelings" "My father will like me if I try to be better" Intelligence is the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied toward adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. Intelligence is referring to the mind's abilities to accurately perceive, infer and adapt in a particular area, not all areas or all contents. Jordan's identity is one-dimensional meaning that it can only look out in one direction to put or polarize things into categories and false dichotomies that fulfill its purpose. A conscious look at perception would add a dimension that would entirely invalidate Jordan's one-dimensional decisions and view. Jordan's void of conscious awareness of perception has his mind believing that intelligence is only about content and has only two dichotomous categories of I already know or I don't know.
The argument seems pretty weak and the only way I can make it hold any water is if I assume a very inelastic definition of intelligence. I've never interpreted talk of multiple intelligences as literally equating math skills with dancing skills, or people skills, or whatever other "intelligences" you care to name. It seems more like drawing an analogy in how people using their naturally gifted tools in different ways. Are the people who are naturally good at math and logic problems able to explain why they're better at math and logic than the average person? In the same way, can the people who are naturally good at dancing explain why they have better coordination and rhythm than the average person? No doubt that logic and rhythm are both skills that can be taught and learned, but I'm not convinced that a person who learns it "secondhand" can ever experience the thing in the same way a "native speaker" experiences them. This seems to be the sort of idea that multiple intelligence is trying to speak on. At least that's the definition I made up for myself without having done any research or serious reading on the subject. The people within the field who write on the topic may use the term in a totally different way.
He uses a very limited definition of intelligence, basically mathematical and logical intelligence. But even composing music, drawing a painting or coordination requires intelligence (they are all skills coming from the brain: coordination for example was once very important for our own survival), and they are not necessarily correlated with math-logic intelligence. That's why I think Mr Peterson's theory is actually rubbish.
I’m not sure how he reached the conclusion he did. He was actually making the argument FOR multiple intelligences before he quit and clung to the familiar. See the multiplication is a “math intelligence” tool for measurement. So you would compare the person doing math to get the result to a person using their intelligence, I.e. dance. So we’re talking about math based choreography to Instinctual or “dance intelligence”. And you could in fact get the same “result”.
But animalia describes both us primates and octopuses. Yet we are k-selected and them r-selected. Why must a dancer, who’s movements, if recorded, are markedly quantifiable within the confines of rhythm and shape, be as completely cognizant of that quantitative prowess as someone who’s memorized the steps of numerical multiplication? Why do you define intelligence in a way that demands that self-observation? Cannot intelligence be used to describe any form of improvisation? Many objective terms have wide and general definitions. And Gardener’s magic system is fun enough if you realize that hardly any human action requires just one of the magic-skills he defines as “intelligences”. Almost everything requires a logistical mindset, first of all(music, movement, people, etc), but it’s applied to different areas of the brain’s perceptions and phantasias. And it’s now up to 11?: Logistical, Spatial, Linguistic, Musical/phonetic, Kinesthetic, Naturalistic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Existential, Pedagogical and, a theory of mine: Narratorial(word?) or Narrative intelligence. Aka story-smart
Self observation is the foundation of consciousness? Why did this need to be explained to you? Intelligence by nature will never encompass a single talent and necessarily require consciousness.
Best diet coke ad ever.
😂 2:39
Diet Coke withdrawals are his only weakness
diet coke is literally cancerous (with aspartam and other sweeteners causing increased risk on it) on top that, most sweeteners cause you to crave actual sugar, making you prone to overeating, causing obesitas, which is another big risk factor in getting cancer!
-end rant
you know what else makes u crave sugar more then aspartam etc. SUGAR! FUCKING SUGAR yea maybe aspartam will also make u crave sugar but SUGAR ITSELF will make u want even more sugar more then aspartam will.
-end ranting to ur rant
Does he look like somebody that is overeating? Yea, so much for that. Also, fucking life is cancerous. Living in fear of cancer fucking everywhere just makes life fucking miserable.
AwoudeX Recent studies using double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in scientific research (these types of studies are like the holy grail of rigorous scientific methodology) have invalidated previous research that indicated any correlation between sweeteners and cancer, also the part that stipulated that sweeteners lead to an increase in sugar cravings. These types of researches are the most devoid of bias. Hence, it is likely that previous research that indicated these ''bad'' effects of sweeteners attained their conclusions because of the side-effect of some bias present in different areas in the carrying-out of the research
Peterson cleaned his damn room, and has slain many a dragon - he can drink as much Diet Coke as he wants! :P
I personally wouldn't drink it, but hey this man's taught me a HELL of a lot in a very, very short time.
I can't believe no one laughed at the "multiply" joke.
It was worth at least a chuckle...
when?
@MEMEMEET 2:56
don't get it, captain?
@MEMEMEET He unintentionally implied people who are good at dancing are also the ones who'll fuck the most and thus, procreate (multiply) the most rapidly.
His early comments on the meaning of words is very important. By expanding the meaning of a word, you eventually make it of no meaning at all.
Like his notion of truth?
Like Nazi
Like the word, "gender."
The left does this all the time. They also do this slight of hand, where they’ll change/expand the meaning of a word in the present and then retroactively apply the new meaning to past uses of said word to imply that people were saying things that they in fact were not saying.
Bruh
I don't know...the people that dance really well also seem to be the ones doing most of the multiplying. xD
Ah, I see you're a (wo)man of culture as well.
The Bell Curve and other publications prior to 2000 showed a direct correlation between IQ and amount of babies you had: the lower your IQ the more children you would have while the only child families had the higest IQ of all parents.
Great example of this; Nicola Tesla. He died with no children and a virgin and gave the world a TON.
Great observation.
:D
-FFM
So humans will eventually get dumber and dumber...
+Sagrotan You saying Michael Jackson was insane? He did have issues later on in his life, but c'mon- insane? What about Frank Cinatra? Cicero lived in a very different era, I'm not sure whether his words hold much meaning in today's context.
FuriousFatMan That just depends on the people, not intelligance.
IQ is the ability to dissect a problem and offer a logical solution. Talent is utilizing a gift at its highest potential. Where as IQ can be utilized generically to life circumstances, talent is very specific in its application.
The issue is, if we look at pretty much any IQ test with widespread scientific support the ability to measure problem-solving skills is only a portion of the test. For example, the Stanford Binet IQ test claims to measure Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory. You do have questions that ask you to find relations or go through logic problems but this is only a small portion. How is knowing synonyms to a specific vocabulary word with no text to use in relation to an accurate reading of someone's intelligence? It is widely known and verified that often times people will excel in learning mathematics but have more difficulties learning English or vice versa. These different areas being measured also stem from different parts of the brain when it comes to the ability to learn mathematics vs. linguistics. By this measure, since mathematical ability and linguistic ability do not have strong enough correlations with each other, they fail the construct validity test. Thus, they can't be grouped as Intelligence by his understanding, while they are regularly regarded as forms of intelligence by literally any psychologist.
Even in Peterson's understanding of Intelligence, multiple forms of intelligence are being measured. This has always been the case for IQ tests, simply that it lumps these qualities which do have minor correlations together for a singular overall score at the end. The whole theory of multiple intelligences was derived from IQ test score results. In testing IQ tests, it became clear that certain questions would have incredibly strong correlations to other specific questions. People who answered correctly on one math question would be very likely to answer correctly on another whereas their vocabulary or problem-solving questions may not be as strongly correlated. By grouping these even more strongly correlated areas together, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences came into fruition.
The fact is, Peterson's construct of intelligence is not based on any construct validity test, it is based on what he does or does not want to consider intelligence. His degree of what is considered a "strong" enough correlation is entirely arbitrary.
All criteria talked about so far is what scientists wanted to test using the intelligence tests, however, the main thing linking these things and what I would argue defines the overlapping construct called intelligence is one's neurological ability, which differs from one point in the brain to the next. Thus if I wanted to come up with how many different intelligences there were, I would look at brain activity in regards to different scenarios to try and pinpoint various zones of cognitive activity. You can average these areas of cognition to come up with a general IQ or intelligence, but separating it down into different bits of intelligence is more useful.
Gamechamp36O I see the view in which Peterson own understanding of the IQ, my question is given our own scoring of different tests being different and not necessarily to dissimilar if one where to look at Iq, yet I have come across the issue that Iq is not fixed entirely as I’ve had heard an official report saying that a student had taken two different tests at two different points in their life in which the scores were more than 25 points apart, in what way is this possible if not a difference in that individual’s frame of thinking?
Was it a charge in consciousness over time or was this person always like this yet somehow didn’t do well as he should have? I understand what might have happened but given it is genuine what is the most probable reason behind this?
Ps in regards to iq in terms of scoring it is under my knowledge that every test has a limit, in regards to comparing two different tests their scoring is seen based off the amount done, for instance in a theoretical format where two test one having a maximum of 160 and the other of 200, in both cases 160 and 200 would be seen as the same practical score(suggesting that the misconception is that if you have a score higher on one test then the other then you must be beyond the test with the lower score despite the fact the scoring is completely different, in other words those who say their number being high is simply due that they think it means they did better is false?, as 143 on one test could really be a 115 on another) , is this information correct, as I’m not completely sure this is in fact the case but I’m willing to admit it could be false
Someone explain to me though, u got someone like Einstein who’s mad at maths n physics, but then u got someone like putin who’s very smart socially n politicaly n self awareness. There both intelligent but in different ways, I wanna know pls
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes both thing.
Gamechamp36O thank you
I read not long ago that the person who came up with this idea of multiple intelligences was actually writing a book about skills, multiple skills, but realized that the concept was already out and spread so decided to change the whole thing to multiple intelligences, just to make sure that the book would sell well. A marketing strategy that has shown us how some sectors of Academia are ready to swallow anything if it sounds fancy enough.
I personally like thinking of different forms of intelligence since another common word for intelligence is brain power and virtually every skill anyone has is related to the development of neuron density in particular areas of their brains. When somebody makes a change to the lyrics of a song that doesn't necessarily mean the original lyrics were better than the new lyrics. The new lyrics may make more sense to people and help them understand what the song means better. Words mean whatever the speaker and his audience understand them to mean.
Interesting. is it true?
Erik The Existor you say as you completely swallow up a random TH-cam comment as facts. You must either have half a brain or none at all.
@@jimscribner8314 if intelligence means everything then it stops being usefull.
Cooking? That doesn't count. I seen Mexicans throw shit in a pot, turns out fine. I had one of those trying to dominate with cooking and she was a bitch so we took away her meat.
With the existence of "talent" as Jordan put it, categorising those talents into types of intelligence does not somehow detract from the meaning of the word 'intelligence'. If intelligence is broadly defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge, then it fits into all of the categories described. A good analogy of this happening elsewhere is the use of the word "memory". We have come to learn and use terms such as episodic memory, semantic memory, or working memory. We have devised the types of memory which in effect are related but separately categorised, yet it has not taken away from the definition of what the word "memory" means. Some people have good working memory while not having decent long term memory and vise versa and we can point that out without diluting the meaning of memory. It's difficult not to see the validity in the fact that there are those who possess extraordinary physical "intelligence" (acquiring and applying knowledge in the realm of some sport, say) but could not perform arithmetics - because this happens; as well as the opposite. It is still a type of cognitive ability no matter how subjective the interpretation of it might be (like say, in art). So why not describe it as a type of intelligence?
I, a PhD in psychology living in China, knew that multiple intelligence and triarchic theory, and the like, are rubbish. thank you Jordan for making it clear.
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes What about practical intelligence?
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes Oh ok, and I guess that single kind of intelligence can be applied to different fields with different results?
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes Cool, thanks for the explanation
@I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes I'm not any sort of expert in psychology, but what would you say about quick decisions making in a stressful environment? Isn't that some sort of practical intelligence?
@@sidekick8983 that's something you would learn to do according to your personal experience. You're own personal and practical use of intelligence. Anyone could learn those things for them selves or not.
When I was in elementary school, they did a school wide activity based on the idea of multiple intelligences. Each teacher represented a different intelligence, and we all split up to go to the one we thought best represented ourselves. All I remember of the results was that only 3 kids picked Math Intelligence, which seemed low to me, even at the time as a kid.
Looking back on it, it was all total nonsense.
People want to subdivide intelligence so that they have a sticker "intelligent" for whatever they do, since intelligence is recognized in society as the ultimate talent. But sorry intelligence is not talent, intelligence is a whole
A whole of what exactly?
@@waggawaggaful A whole lot of "knowledge" and "facts". Trust me, I'm a "genius".
@@waggawaggaful for some reason I never got updated on this. A whole ability of making links between knowledge. My point was not the definition of intelligencr anyways. My point was to dismiss the idea of multiple intelligence as simple usurpation of the word to gain credit for something elss. If that something else is not given more credit there is probably a reason for it, and twisting words is not going to change it
@Trevor Wilson No that is simply not how it works
Someone explain to me though, u got someone like Einstein who’s mad at maths n physics, but then u got someone like putin who’s very smart socially n politicaly n self awareness. There both intelligent but in different ways, I wanna know pls
Excuse me, but he used the word "talent" to describe multiple things. If musical talent and athletic talent were truly both "talent", then there would be a correlation between the two. As it is they are not the same thing, so the word "talent" should not be used to describe them both, since it can only mean one thing. Because this is the way language works, apparently.
You showed great intelligence in discerning that🙂
Talent means to be naturally good at something without being taught.
Musical talent means you're naturally good at music while athletic talent means you're naturally good at athletics. See there's your correlation . Talent is field specific while intelligence is not, you're either intelligent or you're not. Seriously it wasn't that hard to understand.
Yogesh ok, so let's say you're intelligent but what does it really mean? If you're intelligent overall, then you must be intelligent in everything if you put the practice into it and yet that's not the case.
@@danarsarkawt2694It is the case. People with higher general intelligence are better at more subjects than those with "talents"
"It's very difficult to find a discipline that's more susceptible to fads than education." Did he ever get that right! 0:33
Going by his logic of "if dancing was a form of intelligence then good dancers would be good at quick multiplication", then it would also be true that possessing one "talent", such as dancing, would mean you would also possess other "talents", such as sculpting or composing music. Not even a remotely compelling argument.
Is what he is trying to say... that multiple intelligence doesn't exist, cause a dancer, is good at dancing. But not necesarily at math.
@@dagan8659 That is the point of multiple intelligence theory though, it is recognizing the importance of variety of intelligences.
I disagree with JP on this, and a lot of things, but its cool to have him around to question things to make sure I believe them. I just dont think its a good Idea to take too much stock in what any one man says.
Same thing is true for the term ''literacy''. Take a look at the Australian curriculum for the butchering of that term.
Holy shit, I just went and looked and you are so right. It basically says "Literacy is just about whatever you want it to be". It's not about "knowledge" and "skills" it's about being able to "express thoughts and emotion". I shit you not. Wow... just, wow.
I had to endure a university subject teaching me that drivel. Welcome to the new age of education.
My suspicion is that Indigenous education outcomes are so poor they are reinventing these terms in an attempt to raise their grades. It's such a sad method, believing that they aren't capable so they broaden terms until they have no meaning.
Yup, people have such a prejudice against stupidity. Aboriginals are the least intelligent people on the planet I believe; they average at 65 or 68 I think. Rather than admit the truth and adjust our expectations regarding them we just cover it up and 'lower the bar' so everyone can succeed... and then we have no longer have a metric by which to measure aptitude and education becomes worthless. But hey, I guess that's better than admitting an uncomfortable, not-politically-correct, fact. It may be shocking to some, but we are not equal.
Equality of opportunity has been redefined to mean equality of outcome or equality of representation. But equality of outcome or representation mandates inequality of opportunity, or in other words, is discriminatory and ultimately harmful to society. It seems this simple truth is lost on a great many people.
You can see the same thing in motion in Europe with the refugees in the education systems there (IQ's average 80-85 in most of the countries they come from), and yes, it is sad.
Jumbo Jerkson they aren't capable...their iq is 50
Its all a cope. Of course its controversial because nobody likes being told they're 'stupid' so they just say they are unconventionally intelligent
I agree, yet i dont think this is the only reasons.
I'm having a hard time agreeing with Peterson on this one. I mean, both Einstein and Shakespeare were geniuses; but I'm pretty sure that Einstein would have a far greater IQ score than Shakespeare if both took an IQ test. Does that mean that Einstein was far more intelligent than Shakespeare? I don't think so. Shakespeare is one of the most brilliant minds ever.
Einstein is a genius. Shakespeare is incredibly talented. That’s exactly what JP said
Also your assumption isn't necezsarily correct. Shakespeare may have well been as intelligent as Einstein, we don't know. What if Mozart went into physics? We don't know. But people have different interests and talents.
“I’m pretty sure Einstein would have a far greater IQ score than Shakespeare if both took an IQ test”
Are you sure ? Did Shakespeare ever take an IQ test before to validate your assumption? Do you have any evidence or logical reasoning to justify that assumption at all or are you just guessing?
@@Kenny-tl7ir 💀
“Multiple intelligences" go beyond "talents" because they are also the ways in which we learn differently. They are our learning
strengths. Howard Gardener was pointing out that students can learn curriculum in their own way and not just one way. Some can learn multiplication by being told how to do it, others by working it out themselves, others by manipulating shapes and beads by hand. Multiple intelligences require multiple teaching strategies. It makes teaching a classroom more effective. Maybe Peterson doesn’t see this because he is teaching psychology in university where the students are all strong in literary/verbal intelligence where they learn by listening to lectures and reading. Many people, however, do not learn easily that way and instead need to figure things out by working with
their hands or by watching a demonstration, for example.
None of what you've written has anything to do with "multiple intelligences", 2x2=4 whether you use your fingers, write it down, use beads, or do it in your head. Various teaching techniques doesn't imply multiple intelligences.
We use various teaching strategies to give students a chance to learn according to the strategy that helps them the most. This is what Howard Gardner meant by multiple intelligences. We learn most naturally in different ways.
You’re not motivated to learn if the learning strategies that are being taught to you are not working because they don’t relate to your way of learning. MI is not debunked. It is the leading philosophy in elementary education. If you tried teaching a class of seven year olds you would see that not everyone learns the same way. Teachers have to remember that there is more than one way to learn otherwise they will not be helpful to many of their students. Guide students through differentiated processes of problem solving and when they start to learn they will more likely become motivated to keep going.This helps unmotivated students.
In elementary education you can use dance and music to teach math and language. You can use math to teach art. It is done all the time.
@@torbreww still nothing to do with multiple intelligence. Sad, you fail again.
One of my grad school professors told a story in our human abilities class that Gardner (the guy who argued for all those different types of intelligence) didn’t do it for scientific reasons, but because he saw the appeal and profitability of consoling kids’ parents if their kid wasn't displaying much traditional intelligence, as it just meant that they needed to figure out which of the other “intelligences” they possessed and focus on that.
I think the quote from the prof was, "it's okay if your kid is dumb as a rock, if he’s good at sports it means he’s high in kinesthetic intelligence and should pursue that instead."
I guess he was emotionally intelligent. I could argue unless there is a mental issue, eg down syndrome no one is "dumb" in traditional intelligence. You just cannot teach everyone the same.
I think that what we define as "intelligence" in todays world has more to do with what skills we as a society value the most. Today, we value people who have a higher degree of skill in maths, physics and chemistry. These skills are critical to our race that is obsessed with conquoring the universe, improving the world around us, generating wealth and the automating tasks (I understand it's a bit more complicated than that). However, if we look at the history of humanity, there was a time when athleticism or the ability to sing or dance or draw was far more valuable than what society values today or at least were considered noble endeavours, far more the work of any scientist.
of course Mordan Meterson never cared about profitability at all.
@@noneofyourbeeswax371 You're not wrong that intelligence is a culturally-bound concept with different meanings across different cultures and time periods - and one historical and broad operationalization of it s simply the ability to adapt to one's environment (which would therefore include things such as athleticism, social skills, musical ability, etc.). But this isn't really about what society values but rather many of the things Gardner and some others refer to as types of intelligence are more aptly considered talents or skills among modern intelligence researchers/psychologists.
If you expand intelligence to encompass any skill then that bastardizes the concept and warps discussion concerning it. This is not to imply talents aren't important on their own merits, just that they aren't intelligence.
See the Cattell-Horn-Carroll hierarchical model of cognition for the theory with the most empirical support and acceptance among intelligence researchers.
Actually the example he brought with musician being good at dancing and thus at mathematics is exactly what general intelligence stands for, it's viewed as one cognitive ability that underlies all other forms of intelligence. Meaning that if ure good at mathematics than u're likely to be good at dancing because u're generally intelligent. However multiple intelligences' theory is complete opposite of this notion, it offers more egalitarian view at intelligence, meaning that everyone can be intelligent but in different ways. U can be mathematically intelligent but u may lack linguistic intelligence. And to me this theory sounds more believable, because general intelligence is just fixed so it's like u're either stupid at everything or smart at everything.
I agree with him on maintaining the integrity of words.
You don't see someone dancing really well and think, "Wow he's really intelligent."
They’re intelligent at dancing. Just like you can be intelligent at math and not interpersonal relations. (Or vice versa)
@@andybaldman That's not what intelligence is. You can be cognitively disabled and still become a top ballerina dancer with enough practice. You can train certain dogs to "write" by having them memorize specific patterns, but that doesn't mean they actually understand the concept of literature and written words or language.
Inteligence is just type of talent, same as dancing.
I see the word "intelligent" more like a verb in practice. Can play your hand very well in one area while being retarded in another.
If you work with engineers you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
@jonebeak3603 @@Harvest133 As per this video,people who are intelligent and if they do not practice solving problems or use their intelligence then they won’t be considered intelligent enough. They have the TALENT, which is not utilised. So, using their mind and logic, which we call ‘practice’, is important. Same way when a person has other talent let’s say dance or music or athletic and practices then why that can’t be named as intelligence. Not everyone who is good at dance or music, practices or utilises the talent and reason for that is the narrow minded approach to intelligence. The person who is good at academics, only that person is considered intelligent….why? In real world these so called intelligent people aren’t running the world, each and every profession has it’s important then what is the problem in accepting other intelligence as intelligence not mere talent.
iq is the highest predictive because it measures 2 things:
-the ability to recognize patterns
-the ability to solve problems
now you take a person with high iq and a talent for dancing, he'll have a higher chance of recognizing the patterns that lead to using that talent on the road to success, and will be able to overcome more problems on that road.
there's one big other factor that enhances these abilities enormously: the ability to form new memories and recall them at will, but this one is nigh impossible to measure in a single test.
i've seen this guy and his multiple intelligences bullshit and it's nothing more than giving people that aren't intelligent a participation trophee.
AwoudeX The problem with your use of the word "intelligent" is that you're misunderstanding what IQ tests measure, which isn't in fact the ability to solve problems but merely specific types of problems requiring verbal and mathematical skills. Computers with artificial intelligence have enormously larger memory storage capacity and data processing speed than a human brain however if you've ever tried to have a conversation with a computer answering machine on a telephone I'm sure you'll agree its usually much easier to explain anything but the very simplest sort of problems to a human being. There are a lot of different online tests that spambots can't pass but human beings can.
@@jimscribner8314 Computers are way smarter and better at solving problems and recognizing patterns because of their computational capacity their limitations to do those things on a abstract level is what puts us on a higher level than them but see how Machine Learning goes and how DeepMind is dominating every field better than humans . He does have a point A person with higher IQ can or fluid intelligence have a potential to become way better than someone who jstu have a talent for that particular area because he has better ability to reason and to learn to spot patterns and solve problems i guess that is the thing that sepperate us from animals and why we are way better.
AwoudeX I also think that a more intelligent dancer probably has a better social standing as well and better planning ability.
no lol, are you stupid
I don’t exist For tax and insurance purposes that's not what iq tests test
as a teacher, I actually see evidence of the existence of multiple intelligences. Kids who "get it" quickly in math class are not the kids who learn movement patterns quickly out on the pitch. If these had to be correlated like JP says, we would not need to define them as different intelligences in the first place. When I adjusted my teaching methods according to these differences between the two types, as an example, I saw very good results and got great traction.
As a student, I agree. I'm someone who learn languages very easily. I've seen classmates who are really good at learning Maths quickly but suck at learning languages no matter how hard they try.
This is about the only thing I have ever disagreed with him on. I know many Engineers and Scientists who can't learn new languages or understand emotions. I don't see how this is different from saying some people have Linguistic Intelligence that otherwise very Intelligent people don't have.
Intelligence is measured by IQ and IQ is a measure of how quickly you take in new knowledge and apply it. Talents or skills are a very specific application of your intelligence.
You have fluid IQ and crystallised IQ. Fluid IQ is what allows you to learn new things quickly and it starts to decline at about 24 or 25. What talents you develop depend on what skills you put a lot of effort into practicing. Those engineers and scientists can't learn new languages or understand emotions because they only ever practiced being good at engineering or science. There are plenty of people with high IQs that are talented at many things at a very high level.
IQ test questions do not in any way test one's ability to understand emotions in depth, to create etc. Maybe some of the questions do test skills that are transferable into other intelligent areas that aren't purely mathematic/logical/spatial, but most do not.
Intelligence is defined as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." Social sciences, psychology, the arts etc can be taught and are somewhat knowledge based subjects, but they do not use the same skills that subjects like mathematics do. However questions in IQ tests do not represent emotional/creative intelligence much whatsoever.
THEY ARE forms of intelligence.
If a toddler painted an amazing picture, or if a toddler hugged its parents because it could tell they were feeling upset despite them hiding it quite well, you would think this toddler is intelligent.
The point is that IQ tests specifically do not test these areas of intelligence and do not cover the entire scope. Not all people who test as having a high IQ are creatively adept, and not all that are creatively adept will test as having a high IQ - because IQ tests are flawed.
Talent and personality traits are now intelligence?
He is such an adorable human being, besides being a total boss. The people that hate him must have SERIOUS issues
Cause he is naive
@@buttercups616d crazy good argument. You have convinced me and will immediately change my opinion under the weight of this evidence
@@Leopar525 your welcome
@@buttercups616d why do you think he is naive
Jordan Peterson's theories could also be called rubbish. Why does he talk about things with which he has no lived experience? I have been an educator for 35 years. I've seen in the lives of children in the classroom that Gardner's theory is a reality.
This seems to be more a English lesson than psychology.
The English language is constantly evolving, as is the studies and understanding of psychology, I guess it's only natural that they are going to clash sometimes.
Exactly!
Apart from the fact that reducing what Gardner called "Kinesthetic Intelligence" to "being good at dancing" is a bit disingenuous, why would a good dancer be necessarily good at multiplication for both kinesthesia and logic to both legitimately be kinds of intelligences? There are some scientists who are not so great at multiplication, and/or other mathematical skills.
If anybody is confused with what the definition of intelligence is, it's Jordan. A simple google search yields "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." Notice how it doesn't specify what knowledge or what skills. Therefore, if someone wanted to say they had a high dance intelligence, it would not contradict the definition of intelligence. They are simply saying they have a high ability to acquire knowledge and skills particularly dance knowledge and skills.
Intelligence allows one to aquire knowledge and skills in ANY domain IF desired. A highly intelligent person would be able to surpass any other "normal" person in whatever domain they compete.
Due to lack of physical training, social interactions of the classical high-IQ persons, some try to invent other "intelligences" besides the normal one, to describe people who have good skills, but can't really be considered intelligent in most of the other domains.
I think you're the one trying to invent your own definition of intelligence, I just looked up one on google and it makes perfect sense and you don't have to invent an intelligence to say someone has high dance intelligence. It's also not true that a highly intelligent person could surpass any normal person in whatever domain. I'm sure if Albert Einstein tried as hard as he could, he could not compete in competitive sports like the NFL, no matter how much physical training he had. No one's inventing any intelligence, I'm using the definition given I googled "intelligence definition." Now if you want to go into semantics about what intelligence means I'm not going to talk with you anymore.
Albert Einstein would be highly competitive in plenty of sports, most of them are not all about physical strength. You're comparing a 60-years old Einstein with teenagers, don't do that.
Personally, I prefer the definition of intelligence being :
The ability to understand our surroundings, and make accurate predictions based on that understanding.
IQ attempts to measure this, and I would say does a pretty good job. I think being artistic is correlated to intelligence (as you need to understand artistic devices and tie metaphors, symbols, etc into them), but it is not completely different ball game warranting a distinct form of intelligence.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would understand that the exact definition of intelligence is controversial. A "googling" of the term will not solve this issue, as it will just describe mainstream meaning. Psychologists are interested in the mechanisms behind intelligence. Which is why plenty are against MI as it has zero scientific evidence supporting it, and it conflates different mechanisms (ability to become a good foot ball player results in a completely different way than somebody being able to solve problems. Industriousness/persistence and having fit parents is not what we think of when we think of intelligence)
intelligence is the ability to logically understand something. It often has to do with the logical understanding of the syntax of numbers and words. intelligence also has to with mechanical understanding, such as with car mechanics, carpentry and electricity. but just because someone is better than you at something, does not mean that they understand (or that they are more intelligent) in that field. A 70 year old foot ball coach may not be better at football than an 18 year old kid, but the 70 year may know much more about what makes people a better foot ball player.
So based on this argument of validity of construct....you shouldn't use the word "intelligence" for both dancing and multiplying because the two don't correlate...then you also shouldn't use the word "talent" for both "cooking" and "dancing" since the two also presumably don't correlate....
The problem is that if the meaning of the word intelligence was never correlated with how most human beings have always used the word, then it was already missasigned to begin with.
The idea of multiple intelligence is based on what people feel intelligence truly is, and how the word is used in life. Who got to choose the meaning of the word? Even Alfred Binet, when he invented the IQ test, said it is not a measure of human intelligence.
What many overlook is that when people refer to someone as intelligent or stupid, then that has a powerful psychological impact. The word is valued highly in society. So, it is important to get the meaning correct in what it means to the majority of human beings.
I believe that with a word carrying such weight, it is better for society that it is broad, and people believe that it is something they can work and improve on. We have seen the results of people who believe they can improve their IQ, their IQ score raises more than those who believe it is fixed. Think of the benefits when that mentality is applied to life.
Gardner NEVER said that one person has all intelligences at the same level. Do YOU have the same ability to do math and the same to write? Of course not. Your point does not make sense! All the intelligences are not on the same level, and you would know that if you actually read Gardner's book!
Genuine lazily informed question. I looked up the definition of intelligence and google gave me this "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." So under this definition, wouldn't being extremely talented in some area or another be a manifestation of intelligence? I think Peterson's understanding of intelligence is that it's directly related to IQ and obviously a boxer of notable proficiency probably wouldn't do well on an IQ test. However, saying that someone who consistently wins in a such a dynamic and competitive sport using technique as opposed to raw athleticism and physical attributes strikes me as someone who possesses some form of intelligence. Someone tell me why I'm wrong.
What jordan is identifying as "intelligence" is just a set of talents. Redefining intelligence is the point of multiple intelligence. It is taking the virtue of "intelligence" and showing how it applies to a wide range of characteristics. So that way a person can be respected and learned from even if he cant multiply 68x17 in 2 seconds in his head. Unfortunately you cant just lay it out plain, you have to wrap new ideas up in hardcover for anyone to listen. It's like how it's easier to sell a dog than give one away.
the intelligence needed to do a variety amount of things from winning a competitive fight to creating an oscar award winning film to a successful hostage negotiation to building a successful hockey team, all encompass different forms of intelligence and skill... this might be one of those points where jordan sucks at, lol according to dr todd grande
Lol
HMMM seems like he's playing semantics. It's called multiple intelligences precisely because they are different phenomena. But he's saying that this is rubbish because your using the word intelligience to describe multiple phenomena.
It's perfectly understandable for aging academics familiar with a particular usage of a particular word to feel resentment about unfamiliar usages of that word but in objective reality the meaning of any word changes over time and when speaking to different audiences or in different contexts. That is after all what provides a large amount of comedy routines with their punch lines.:)
Ù
First time I'm disagreeing with Dr. Peterson. I don't think he made a strong point in calling multiple intelligences rubbish.
Totally. He is right about education being very susceptible to fads though.
I agree. There are things that people refer to as "intelligence" that I consider skills or talents but there are different types, or elements, of intelligence. The WAIS-IV has ten core subtests and five supplemental subtests to assess full-scale IQ. One can be strong in verbal comprehension but not in perceptual reasoning. Perhaps Dr. Peterson addressed this distinction in another part of the lecture.
You're right. His supporting argument seems clearly fallacious. Here's why: he asserts the bizarre linguistic thesis that phenomena must be positively correlated in order to be properly subsumed under the same term. And since being good at dancing (kinesthetic intelligence) does not correlate positively with being good at multiplication (mathematical intelligence), he reasons that they can't both be intelligences. But that linguistic thesis is clearly mistaken; it would entail that we can't use words like "skilled," "talented," or "expert," to refer to both dancers and mathematicians either!
Or here's a fun example. Some people are members of the male sex, and others are members of the female sex. By Peterson's logic, if the word "sex" is properly ascribed to all these people, then it must be true that people who are male tend to be female, and vice versa.
that's true with everything... but people have ceilings, meaning that no matter how long they practice a particular skill they will never attain greatness.. just like a 5'1" person will most likely never be as good as Michael Jordan. Let's not forget our brain is part of our physicality .
ConflictingBeliefs Peterson deliberately diminishes Gardiners argument by his use of dancing as an example. An easy target like that also diminishes Petersons own point.
Its funny how many ppl are offended about his definition of intelligence and have to offer their own share about it. In biology intelligence is the ability to adapt trough circumstances. I myself is not that intelligent and I don't feel the need to go on and create other intelligence definition to feel less shity. The word intelligence is soo powerful because his counter part is unintelligent/dumb . Nobody want to be described as dumb soo we prefer to make this simple concept into something that everyone can see them self in.Matter of fact most human or not that intelligent ,soo what its just 1 ability you can have. I'm shit at cooking and I don't feel less of a being cuz of it and I'm good at drawing , but I won't claim that I have a kind of intelligence good with drawing . Intelligence and drawing have nothing to do with each others.
It's the way we measure intelligence that is so narrow-minded. Each of us has specific 'strengths' that are unique to us individually and if we are aware of these and cultivate them, they can manifest into things of immense value for us and society at large. The problem is that we're all taught by our culture, by our traditions, by our institutions etc. that we all need to think in the same way... We are taught that there needs to be an objective, standardized measure of intelligence when really, there is no way to quantify it. It's exactly like Einstein said: "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." IQ tests ARE the "climbing a tree" test and the scores are how we "judge the fish"...
Seneschal Archbishop Holy shit learn grammar. There’s something to apply that fluid intelligence to.
Why don’t you just try to
become intelligent? Give your brain exercise and it gets stronger.
Shahaan Singh Guraya Shahaan Singh Guraya I understand how IQ tests work and they are standardised and reductionistic. There is simply no way to objectively compare apples and oranges and it's the same thing with comparing people's minds. Everyone is different. Everyone has a unique perspective and skillset and when you try to compare everyone against a one-size-fits-all test, you omit the majority of people's idiosyncracies and thus their special talents. You think an IQ test can predict artistic genius? Or any other creative pursuit that involves divergent, abstract thinking? The very act of designing a test based around specific cognitive abilities necessarily excludes others. It's just narrow-minded to think that there is some objective standard by which all people conform to. Talking about life or job success is not the same as intelligence - many homeless people have high IQs but they fall victim to addiction or renounce society and the material world altogether. Life and job success is largely based on one's predetermined socioeconomic status anyway - a factor that influences one's level of education and likelihood to value intelligence in the first place. Everyone has the potential to realise their own strengths, passions, interests, core values etc. and if applied correctly, this can lead to the fulfillment of one's life purpose but unfortunately society does not nurture this kind of idealism and so most people settle for what is already established - go to school, get a job, have a family etc. - the status quo.
@@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone you are both right on a different level. On an individual level magic is right. In a standardised/generalized way shahaan is right.
Could somebody explain the relationship between Bite-sized Philosophy and Dr. Peterson?
None, I only asked him for permission that's it. If anything here is misrepresenting or wrong, it is out of my own ignorance, but there is always the full lecture in the description if you want to see the full context.
For all you IQ experts out there I have a few questions:
1) If a psychologist has an IQ of say 130, can he create an IQ test that measures an IQ higher than 130?
2) Do we have our highest IQ say at birth, and then is it a steady decline thereafter?
3) If you teach someone more about patterns and problem solving, does that increase their IQ?
4) If a person can multiply large numbers in their head, but can't explain why, is that intelligence?
Thanks.
dude I can't belive you though IQ is highest at birth.
By no means an expert, but I can take a pretty good guess at a few of these.
1) It’s easier to encode a problem than it is to decode one. Any reasonably intelligent person can come up with a path of thought that one would need to follow to crack a problem, but guessing the path of thought when you don’t already know it is much trickier.
2) No. Piaget explains psychological development to a degree, but intelligence for most peaks much later.
g-loaded IQ tests do not rely on knowledge. non g-loaded IQ tests only measure rote memorization of educational concepts; e.g. mathematics. It's entirely plausible for someone of average intelligence to memorize enough math to 'box above his weight class', so to speak, on a non g-loaded IQ test. A g-loaded one will not have that problem. You can't fake a g-loaded one, and you can't study for it. It requires something you either posses or you don't.
Hey man! Psychologist here.
1) there was a guy called Ronald Hoeflin who made the MEGA test for testing higher IQs than 145. A normal clinical IQ-test such as the WAIS or the WISC go up to 160 , so i guess we dont have to invent the wheel twice. :)
2) IQ peaks around mid 20s and then has a very slow decline. There is a theory by Cattell that Human intelligence is either fluid (work with only your intelligence) or crystalized, which is sort of aquired methods, like how to solve spesific mathematical questions. Research shows that crystallized correlate with age up to around 60-70 years, and then declines.
3) teaching someone how to recognize patterns can increase the IQ you measure, since you are good at doing IQ-test, but it doesnt increase the underlying intelligence that you are trying to measure. So the inflated IQ score is somewhat useless, since its no longer shows what it is trying to measure. If that makes any sence.
4)That would be intelligence, yes! A typical Iq score measures 4 or 5 factors, and one of them is speed. So if you are very quick at solving math, then, by definition, that will heighten the measured intelligence.
hope that answered the questions thoroughly :)
3 no
4 yes
Actually, Einstain without his "spatial intelligence/talent" couldn't have managed to discover laws in physics. Yes, he wasn't bad at pattern recognition, however the key here is in as he called "imagination" (actually spacial intelligence/talent). Yes, Peterson is right, pattern recognition is actually what we SHOULD call IQ by definition, however, most of the successful people, like Einstein, Newton, Tesla, Shakespere etc they're success all on account of spatial/linguistic/numerical/emotional "talent" or "intelligence", call it as you like + quite high pattern recognition (which is actually an IQ). Many people think that they had enormously high IQ, like, 190 or smth. I think they had 140-155, not higher, it's just what happens when such quite high pattern recognition juxtaposed with great"talent/intelligence"
"You can't just mess up a word. The point of a word is that it describes some things and doesn't describe other things. The problem is that you blur out the word so badly that you can't tell what it means anymore." Unless that word is god...
It's the first time I disagree and his throat is fighting on my side.
I, being in the field of Education, understand what Dr. Peterson is talking about in terms of education being susceptible to fads( now more than ever, in my opinion) but I would like to know how Dr. Peterson is defining “inteligentes”. Only then would I have the proper ability to asses his argument 🤔🧐
I hate multiplying numbers in my head.
I don't have a good "placeholder" for the numbers I solved along the way.
Give me a pen and paper.
I use my eyes to navigate.
For example, I've walked to the bathroom in my house hundreds of times, but if you turn off the lights, I'm going to stumble.
The last thing I need is someone saying "What are you? Stupid or something? Don't you know where tour own bathroom is?"
Yes I do, but I'm worried I'll bump into something along the way.
"You can make the word intelligence account for whatever you want; but the problem with that is you blur the word out so much you can't tell what it means"-- Sure, but it's the same exact thing Jordan Peterson does with the word "god".
Stop coughing, we need you fit, healthy and alive for as most years as possible^^
he's but 1 man and he's not perfect
Big oof
This comment aged well
@@jamessales9047 right
How did they not get his joke "multiply, in their head..."
I like head
I'll remember this next time I hear my university pushing the EQ-Emotional Intelligence Quotient bs- which apparently women have more of, and many employers now test for.
I feel like EQ is subjective; couldn't it be you understand almost all of others' emotions but you don't care to react in the way you "should" or to portray yourself a certain way? People who are more socially conscious to adhere to social roles might be considered more emotional intelligent on the exterior but who's to say the quiet person in the corner doing calculus doesn't know exactly what is going on socially and emotionally around him but chooses to have no reaction? In my opinion, emotional restraint can be sign of high intelligence. Also, interacting among different people's emotional lives is exhausting and doesn't leave much energy to more interesting subjects the person might be interested in, such as calculus lol.
@@davidjayden2253 Yes exactly! People with Asperger's or Autism are often profoundly intellectually gifted in the fields they are interested in but they don't usually have a large social network or even many deep and meaningful interpersonal relationships. It's such a shame because these people could be of upmost importance and value to society if only they were understood and supported.
@@davidjayden2253 it's just a nonsense invented and fantasy intelligence.
@@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone people with aspenger have social problem not cause they aren't "understood", they are, cause they are fixed with 1 only argoument and topic, and can't talk much about anything else, so they aren't socially attractive, and ther is no solution to it. Also asperger genius theory is bullshit. Most of them just had neve invented nothing so crucial, for the humanity.
The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that a person can be extremely talented and incredibly successful but have little intelligence. That doesn't sound right, somehow.
Algernon Wolfwhistle you push it to the extreme. I like it. Good thinking.
@Proctain Darkward mucho texto.
I think it's true. There are a lot of very talented and succesfull football players I would not describe as intelligent.
@@Robinzorz Mr Peterson may agree but they would be 'intelligent' in accordance with Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.
@Proctain Darkward What you describe is not want emotional intelligence is.
Wow, refreshing to see someone who shares my opinion on this
Almost word for word!
I'm not defending the multiple intelligences theory. But what he is saying about the different "intelligences" having correlation doesn't prove the model wrong. Since the model says that those "intelligences" are separate things and some people excel in one and some people excel in others. So him saying they have no correlation means shit since that's exactly what the multiple intelligences model says.
The multiplying example is not a good one either. Multiplying fast in your head is a learned skill. It is not a sign of high intelligence. There are very bright people that are bad at that because they never trained it.
"There are very bright people that are bad at that because they never trained it."
but if they tried tho they would learn way faster than the average because of their high IQ
@@membersonly807 yes, but that is not what was being discussed here. Was it? Nor you didn't address the main issue of my comment.
@@membersonly807 in fact he explaind why multiple intelligences are wrong in an other video in a much better way. And he actually said the opposit than here. Different intelligences show a correlation of 100%. What means they are all the same one thing. People that are intelligent are intelligent in all of them.
The only "intelligence" that didn't have correlation with the others was the kinsethetic one. Because that was an hability that had nothing to do with intelligence.
I, like others in the comment section, have to disagree with Peterson on this one. I feel like dividing up intelligence into categories is no bad thing, and in fact is quite reliable. As someone who studies and works within the person centred counselling field, I come into contact with a great degree of what I would call emotional intelligence, but these same people may have quite limited vocabulary and even social skills.
Every talent comes from your brain anyway. If you are a gifted guitar player, it's your brain telling your fingers what to do and when to do it. I agree with you that for the first time, I seriously disagree with JP.
There's already a word for "emotional intelligence" - it's called 'wisdom'. You don't need to be smart to be wise. They are not the same thing. What if the person is a complete idiot? Can't add two and two? Calling someone with "emotional intelligence", "intelligent" might be grossly misleading and actually insulting to them (if they are not intelligent). Why can't you just use the word 'wise'? Why do we have to call them 'intelligent' at all? It is just expanding the word until one day it won't have any meaning left. Everyone will be 'intelligent' and we'll drop the word entirely because it has become redundant and we'll have to come up with another word to describe actual intelligence. That is where JP is coming from (I think), this is pointless and ultimately regressive nonsense.
Geo Gaming I agree too. If you look at people who are mathematical geniuses, most could not do very well in public debate. Most trial lawyers are not going to be extremely good at trigonometry. There are a number of different skills that people commonly refer to intelligence that tend to be narrowly developed. And this can get even more complicated if you are looking at someone with brain damage.
Yes we don't need to start calling empathy intelligence, or athleticism intelligence. We can save the term for high thought endeavors, but there are different skills within the thinking umbrella.
Andrew Shaw I agree. JP gives a wrong example with the dancers. He's confusing the "logical intelligence" which is also included within the multiple intelligence theory with "body-kinestetic intelligence" or talent. Professional athletes have gotten their brain scanned for example, and no they aren't faster at multiplying, but they are very fast in making split decisions in the moment. Being able to adapt to an unfamiliar situation which requires you to change your strategy within seconds isn't just muscle memory but it also requires intelligence. That is why only training without realizing or knowing what you're doing wrong, won't turn you into a successful athlete. You might become a good athlete, but never a great one.
Geo Gaming yeah for sure, a lot of my education course involved the multiple intelligence theory, and I think there's tons of merit to it.
I think of this one smart friend of mine, he holds degrees in computer science and engineering physics, and his IQ is no doubt a fair bit higher than mine, but I can teach him musical theory, how his car runs and how to diagnose it, and I'm much better with athletic disciplines like gymnastics and parkour, which we sometimes train together. Maybe he picks up on these concepts quicker than I did, but the point in this case is there's lots he doesn't know that I do know.
Peterson would make the case there's a difference between talents and intelligence, but sometimes people with high IQs are in fields that aren't teaching them much about anything.
one of the things with psychology is the replication crisis - a major issue that remains unchanged - churning out garbage continuously.
It really sure looks like a definition problem here and perhaps a bit of a contradiction from Peterson's previous lectures on meaning. (I may be misunderstanding him)
It's possible to see words as vessel for meaning, and that's what we trade with each other. But if that's the case, we couldn't mistake the vessel for it's content in all it's entirety.
Thus, my contention is that if we were to reserve the products of this vessel "Intelligence" for only logic-calculations and the likes we would err by too much simplification.
Nevermind the dictionary definition. When we say intelligence, the meaning of the word carries more than the skill the person has. To say someone is highly intelligent, or say someone is highly talent, has a difference in the way we perceive their social value.
In crude terms, having a talent is kind of cute. Being intelligent has transformative power.
If you don't see the social hierarchy of those two names above, than it probably really wouldn't matter to say someone is highly emotional intelligent, like the Dalai Lama, etc. But how would you say he has developed this cognitive skill beyond someone like, say, Isaac Newton, who had another type of highly developed cognitive skill?
We may need to redefine what intelligence really is🤔.
A comedian (can't remember who) said, "Whenever I hear someone say 'I may not have book smarts, but I do have _street-smarts',_ all I hear is, 'I may not be *real* smart, but I am *imaginary* smart."
This isn't what Peterson is specifically addressing, but there is some overlap.
Well I can't dance to save my life!!
I can multiply 2 digit numbers together in my head though.
The fact that coordination or musical ability are not associated with logic or grammatical ability is proof of multiple "intelligences," not disproff. If they were all related, it would disprove the idea of there being only one measure of mental ability, a single "intelligence."
Even the creators behind D&D are aware of the fact that more than one form of mental ability exists; they generalize it into intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. In reality, a person's natural balance or rhythm are just as much a function of the mind as mathematics or grammar. Which is to say that different people are good at different things.
It would be useful for parents to have tests for measuring different abilities, as well as knowledge of which abilities apply to which fields. It would let them steer their children toward careers in which their children would excel.
I find Dr. Peterson to be very insightful, but I disagree to some extent here. I recently took the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) after preparing 6 months for it. Scored very well. But my reading comprehension score was insanely high, while my problem-solving/math performance was just above average. I have always struggled with math while excelling in verbal expression: public speaking, reading, and writing. I think people have strengths within their intelligence and weakness, but what we normally call "intelligence" is merely the sum of a person's collected strengths weighed against their weaknesses.
He's certainly not suggesting that if you're good at writing, you must be good at maths. I think the point he is making is that there is no use defining extra forms of intelligence, rather that your intelligence is only correlated with your ability to perform certain tasks. It's just that your intelligence is some weighted average of your abilities in these things, and that that is as good a predictor of success as you will get.
@@morganmitchell4017 what bitch
Help me JP! I would love to become a teacher and I'm in my first year of a Masters in Teaching (Secondary) but I don't know if I can handle having to learn these crack pot theories! Gardner has practically zero supportive research yet my courses are trying to jam multiple intelligences down my throat. I could get around it if it were changed to Multiple Skills and Talents maybe, but Intelligences?! No!!! I agree with you. It's rubbish and it seems from my research that most psychologists agree. I really want to become a teacher and an educator but I don't know if I'll be able to get through it with what I'm being taught. Just crack pot theories that lack supportive research and deny factual evidence!!
how did it go
He's right
Like many others have said, Jordan Peterson is wrong about multiple intelligences. Intelligence is simply being talented or "good" at some academic subject or whatnot but it is simply an individuals ability to learn. This is common understanding in the cognitive-behavioral sciences and I think Peterson must know this. Taking this definition of intelligence into account and the fact that individuals can be better at learning different things, I think it's obvious that multiple intelligences exist.
Take Peterson's example contrasting dancing and multiplication. A person isn't simply "good" at dancing or multiplication, they have to learn to get better. The reason some people appear "gifted" or talented is that learning isn't only done through trial and error but also through watching and listening to others. As a side note this example is weak as others have pointed out.
Peterson also mentions IQ and how high IQ scores have strong correlations with better outcomes in income, etc. Traditionally IQ tests have had a bias towards those raised in families with higher SES, by parents or caretakers who are better educated and in modern western societies. This bias has been significantly reduced over the years but it is still present. This, plus the fact that psychopaths seek power, wealth and/or fame, is likely, at the very least, a major contributing factor to the aforementioned correlation.
What I personally find more ironic about IQ tests is that they measure one's ability to think about and solve abstract problems moreso than anything to do with intelligence. This is probably why IQ scores have been rising over the past century. (Note that the tests have been continually readjusted so a score of 100 is near average of the living population.) This also explains why those on the autistic spectrum (who have trouble communicating their emotions and reading the emotions of others) score low on IQ tests while those with anxiety and depressive disorders (for whom ruminating is a major issue) and those with personality disorders (who engage in manipulative behavior) score high.
I got a little sidetracked but my point is that multiple intelligences do exist even if they don't tell us anything really interesting about the mind or society.
uff ...
the misinterpretation is real
@@membersonly807 ???
All this boils down to semantics.
Not had a Diet Coke in a long while now...Just bubbly water 😂
I am not sure I agree with JP in this subject. The theory of multiple intelligences is that there are eight areas of intelligence, more or less, and the reason they don't correlate, which JP seems to miss, is that they are different, perhaps orthogonal, types of intelligence, hence "multiple intelligences." It seems JP wants to relegate these to "talents," but how is a talent not a species of intelligence?Further, does JP accept that there are at least verbal and non-verbal intelligence, which I must assume he does? If so, must they too be highly correlated, and if not, does he dismiss non-verbal intelligence the same as he dismisses Gardner's eight intelligences? What are people using when they do something well? Is that not intelligence? JP would argue that this dilutes the concept of intelligence, which is quite a reasonable objection. I am not sure I agree that we should call only verbal IQ the highest type of intelligence, as I surmise he does: to say nothing of "wisdom."Thus, his first problem is he argues that if two forms of intelligence are not highly correlated then they don't measure the same construct; yet, he accepts verbal and non-verbal intelligences, which often are quite disparate, culminating in the vaguely defined "learning disabilities." Why not call non-verbal intelligence "talents" then? How would JP account for peoples' different abilities, if he argues that intelligence is one thing and therefore people should be equally able across the board? He would say they have different talents, of course, but I don't think that's any clearer than saying they have different expressions of intelligence in different areas.I think his argument fails as soon as he demands (implicitly) a high correlation between verbal and non-verbal IQ, which so often are not closely correlated. Therefore he must reject non-verbal IQ, at the least, let alone Gardner's variety. Lastly, I know this is only a short clip, but has JP anywhere defined intelligence? I kind of doubt it, because he didn't do it here, and it would be to the point. He seems to accept the predictive validity of whatever the hell IQ tests measure, and that is a form of scientific explanation with which I disagree: prediction = explanation. A professor so deeply grounded in classical education, I would think, would try to get at the concept more articulately rather than looking at it purely mathematically, that is, quantitatively. [I broke this narrative into many paragraphs and then it just appeared as a unitary block. Sorry].
I think Peterson is missing something. Just look at child prodigies. Did Bobby Fischer have the same Math aptitude as Charles Fefferman. Does Charles Fefferman have the same chess aptitude as Bobby Fischer? Could either of those two write at the level of Alexander Pope?
I believe that what he's saying is that if person A is more intelligent than person B, person A would always surpass B in any domain. If they start learning writing, singing, maths, science, or investing at the same time from the same resources and in the same environment, person A would always surpass B. If Bobby Fischer were more intelligent than Alexander Pope and you had Fischer write a poem and the poem were not as beautiful as Alexander's poem, that would be because Alexander Pope had had practiced writing for more time and/or because he loves writing poems, and Fischer doesn't, and that's why he works harder than Bobby.
Or Mozart.
I understand his point but isn't he just speaking about the the terminology here? I think that the theory of multiple "intelligences" isn't that wrong at all. I mean there are different people with different strenghts and skills and this whole theory seems like a good idea to put those different strenghts and skills into a systematic concept. It's just not rubbish in my opinion.
My first guess would be that verbal and mathematical intelligence are both very correlated but that individuals can be lopsided in terms of their innate verbal and mathematical abilities (can't people do much better one on part of the SAT than another?), and that this same principle could apply to other facets of intelligence. Still, people don't like the idea that general intelligence exists, that it varies between people, that it isn't very malleable, and that it is a limiting factor with regard to an individual's ability to participate in certain cognitive domains (all things that are obviously true). What I'm curious about is if lawyers and engineers (assuming they have similar average IQs) mostly differ in their "type of intelligence" or if they mostly differ in their interests and temperaments.
He’s got a point
Different tasks require the use of different areas of the brain. To say that just multiplying numbers in your head makes you intelligent is to be ignorant. Also drinking any type of coke is not a sign of intelligence.
You really solved the question did you not?
@Shahaan Singh Guraya youre an example of how jordan peterson's fan base is filled with low IQ people
nope
triggerd because you have average g factor ?
@@membersonly807 i can tell by your profile pic how low your IQ must be
i can tell by your comments that you wont succeed in life
measured Full Scale IQ at 149 (SD 15) WAIS Test
1590 SAT score at age 15
There are definitely multiple skill sets for sure. That's not bunk. I know because there are a whole heck of a lot of skill sets I don't have.
2:55 seems like the class didn't get it 😆
I agree with 95% of what you say on other topics, but Sternberg & Gardner are right on this one. Your major argument is a tautology, amounting to assuming what you are trying to approve "Since intelligence is a unitary thing (i.e., with all subfactors highly inter-correlated) then if what Gardner calls intelligences were actually intelligence, they would inter-correlate, and since they do not, they are not intelligence." I say that since they do not inter-correlate, the premise of a g factor is wrong. Furthermore, I would challenge one of your empirical claims: "IQ is the best predictor." No, the best predictor for success in any specific occupation is a test whose predictive validity has been validated with respect to that specific occupation. If IQ tests were the best predictor for all occupations, the U.S. military should not have developed the ASVAB.
I don't buy the idea that, if two constructs share the same word, that they should produce the same outcomes. Things exist before we abstract them into symbols. A paint gun is useful for beautifying my house, while a gatling gun does the opposite.
This seems like a strange argument.
"If both of those were intelligences, then the people who could dance better could multipy two digit numbers faster in their head"
Why though?
Ikr. In fact he has said himself in a video that the higher your iq is the more difference you'll have in your different type of intelligence (such as linguistic and typical number/pattern intellegence).
Talented is one skill, intelligence is multiple skills.
So bottom line JP thinks special abilities to do thing beside take a IQ test should be called talents.
So his argument is just a semantic one
No matter which era, it seems there always were people who wanted to be THE ones that took credit for being “intelligent.”
Example as follows ... from the book … Slouching toward Bethlehem: Essays … author Joan Didion
“Don’t make the mistake of taking a chair at the big table,” I was warned sotto voce on my first visit to the Center. “The talk there is pretty high-powered.”
“Is there any evidence that living in a violent age encourages violence?” someone was asking at the big table.
“That’s hard to measure.”
“I think it’s the Westerns on television.”
“I tend (pause) to agree.”
Every word uttered at the Center is preserved on tape, and not only colleges and libraries but thousands of individuals receive Center tapes and pamphlets.
Wow, I was just looking into purchasing the book from Howard Gardner. Thanks for saving me a few bucks Dr, Peterson!
Could someone explain this, please?
I completely understand what Jordan Peterson is saying, but I think it’s understandable to talk about multiple intelligences.
Mozart had an estimated IQ of 160
Einstein had an estimated IQ of 160
Both people profoundly changed the future of their fields of work, and it seems a bit unrealistic to simply say that it was down to ‘talent.’ It’s unlikely with Mozart’s intelligence, he would have been deemed a genius in any other field than music, and it’s unlikely that Einstein would have been recognised as a genius in any other field except physics.
talent is actually the correct word to describe these "multiple intelligences" precisely because they don't necessarily correlate with iq, because talents are a broad spectrum and some talents are more intellectually demanding than others(funnily enough, in the same sense some multiple "intelligences" are more "intellectually" demanding than others). this is also why someone can't be talented in an intellectually demanding field if they aren't intelligent. whether one specializing genius would be recognized as a genius in another field is irrelevant to the whole point, which is that you can't say that talent=intelligence, because of the absence of intellectual correlation between different talents. the mindset shouldn't be that there's an arrow pointing either intelligence->talent or talent->intelligence. instead the two are parallel; | |
Wait, what @ 2:30. No, the point of multiple intelligences is that they can be mutually exclusive of each other. Being intelligent in one area does not mean you would be intelligent across the broad spectrum. Now, I do think we are muddling the word "intelligence" but I don't understand Dr. Peterson's thoughts here.
If they are completely different then they are not intelligences because intelligence has a specific definition. It'd be like calling your brain a kind of muscle, it's not.
Legendsmith But I thought the point of that theory was that he re-worked the definition of intelligence?
You understood; JP is wrong.
talent is the stuff built on top of 'g'. Neural pruning, piaget etc upbringing. High 'g' aka high IQ...high GENERAL intelligence is capable of more than low within the bounds of pruning somewhat....though pruning has a bigger impact on low g people. I think it's just that the genetics of higher g people allow more spinogenesis etc perhaps on top of working memory and speed. High IQ people that are "talentless" in something can definitely knock it out of the park or be equal to a lower g person "talented" in something. Maybe a low g person was exposed to music lots and fiddled on a piano as a child. They're pruned to that....but a high g person can pick it up later in life too. It's somewhat influenced by personality components that are a nurtured/ natured complex thing themselves.
got The Hillary Cough Intelligence
lmao
🥱
'Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.'
- Simone Elkeles
To his point about rating dancers on their ability to dance and rating people's ability to multiply two different numbers, one requires action (predominantly) and the other requires thought. The ability to dance would be talent, not intelligence. BUT, being able to dance and having theoretical knowledge of how to perform certain dances are two different things. You may be a phenomenal improvisational dancer but have very limited knowledge when it comes to the theory of dancing or the correct order for a structured dance. It would be interesting to take peorple who are exceptional dancers but have never studied dance and people who understand the steps and timing to certain types of dance but are not got at executing the dance. I would assume the improvisational dancers would score lower on an IQ test (generally) than the people who study dance theory but aren't as good at executing. And if this were to be the case, does Petersons point still hold true or is it a matter of theory vs practice? For instance, you can have excellent theoretical knowledge of guitar but never have played a guitar in your life. And someone who had played guitar for years but never studied will have very limited knowledge of music theory.
Just because you are able to perform the act of dancing and execute it well, it's not the same as having a theoretical understanding. So while the act of dancing itself may not be considered "intelligence", you do need intelligence to understand the theory.
phill Hutchings I agree that it takes a level of intelligence to teach yourself something like the guitar without any help whatsoever. But how would that person score on an IQ test? This is where I disagree with Peterson's statement of there not being multiple sources for intelligence. IQ can't be the only way to definitively determine someone's intelligence.
phill Hutchings I'm not sure about that. I'm a self-taught guitar, bass, and drum player with an above average IQ, because I also have other areas of interest. But I also know quite a few other musicians whose sole focus is perfecting their craft. They are phenomenal at playing their instrument - much better than I am - and some are self taught. But you can't really have an intellectual conversation with them and they did poorly in school. Creatively, they are extremely "intelligent" but not so much when it comes to logical thinking.
Still, it's a very interesting claim. One I'd like to look into more.
phill Hutchings I thought that's what you may have meant. Like if I were to stumble upon a guitar, had never seen one before, didn't know what it was, and still managed to teach myself.
The brain is definitely complex. And relative to how much there is to know about it, we know nothing.
As a musician I find that talent plays very little role in the acquisition of particular skillsets. Talent is what unskilled people who lack the appropriate experience call skill which is acquired and not innate. They don't see all the hard work and multiple failures that go into the final product. Usain Bolt is a talented sprinter- he has the genetic makeup to run very fast, but if he sat on his arse all day drinking beer and stuffing his face with shit, he wouldn't do very well at it in comparison with someone who wasn't as genetically gifted but trained hard.
he is talking within the area of statistics. if you took 10000 excellent dancers and and pitted them against 10000 bad or average dancers (in another area of ability), you would see a correlation between ability in a specific talent and general intelligence. getting large numbers to participate in the study, flattens out variations and aberrations in the results, giving you a glimpse at what the word intelligence actually means. i think what he is proposing is that "intelligence" is a meta words of sorts.
Peterson’s idea that there would be a positive correlation between dancing and math shows a complete lack of understanding of multiple intelligence theory. The whole point of multiple intelligence theory is that they wouldn’t be good at both, as the brain of a dancer and the brain of a mathematician are different in their structure and operations. Therefore, they are good at different things.
Huh? Talent isn't a good substitute for the word intelligence at all... Talent suggests something that's can only be narrowly applied to a specific task, whereas intelligence suggests a more general capacity. Besides, we now know that intelligence is nowhere near as fixed as we used to think.
The concept of multiple types of intelligences is intuitively understandable. I didn't need anyone to explain the term "emotional intelligence" to me when I first heard it, it made sense instantly. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't know someone who is incredible with their hands and can build a house, or has a special way with words and music, but gave up on mathematics completely when long division or algebra came up. Or inversely, someone who does well in school but in the real world can't so much as fry an egg. We've always had terms, like "book smart" and "street smart"... That's just a less academic way of talking amount multiple domains of intelligence. Seems kind of unfair to dub a person unintelligent simply when they've no particular proficiency for a very particular type of abstract thinking prized in the 20th/early 21st century West, but might be brilliant in other domains.
Besides, I think the word talent is more often than not a word used by people who wish to explain away why some other people show so much more proficiency than them, and by extension to excuse their own lack of proficiency in that domain. Talent is supremely over-rated. I mean, it certainly does exist, but there are many, many other important factors that go into making someone truly excellent in any particular field, not least hard work, bags of effort, and the ability to spend a lot of time on their chosen area of interest. To paraphrase Leonardo: "if you knew how much time it took, you would not call it genius".
And to argue against the idea of words changing meaning over time is just totally absurd! Take the word "focus" for instance, what comes to mind? Perhaps something about the eye, lenses, perhaps? The etymology originally meant the hearth of a home, because back then, that's where people gathered and where their attention, and eyes, would fixate. Through the natural evolution of language, we sought to find words to explain natural phenomena we understand more deeply, or to find language for new innovations where none yet exist.
Another example: we now no longer talk about "humour" in the biological sense, now only in the extended meaning of one's emotional state -- derived from the erroneous theory that one's emotional state was a consequence of the balance or imbalance of the four bodily "humours".
Within living memory, a computer was a person (often a woman), who added up numbers... How many people think of a lady with a pencil and an abacus sitting in a dusty office doing sums when they hear the word "computer" come up in conversation??
This is always through the mechanism of metaphor; fundamentally, words that are abstract have meaning are extended from our experience with the physical world, but this process is culturally contingent and often reflects the values and agreements of that particular culture, and is sometimes simply contingent on accidents of history. Language is, always has been, and will remain a fundamentally contextual phenomenon, and I fail to see the apparent leap or overstretching that he accuses Gardner of so dismissively.
Anyway, it's abundantly clear that these are stones being thrown by a man who lives in a house made of glass. Anyone who takes cues in evolutionary biology, linguistics, dietary advice, political critique or any other area of study that Peterson has grossly overexaggerated his understanding of, should probably start reading a little bit wider.
It's been said many times but it rings true now more than ever: Jordan Peterson is a stupid man's idea of an intellectual. For anyone who wants to see just how rigorous this man is with language, look up him tying himself into a pretzel trying to justify the truth of the resurrection of Jesus whilst talking to Alex O'Connor.
I disagree. You can have a person who can multiply numbers very fast in their head (mathematical intelligence) but not be able to socialize very well (social intelligence). The same can be said the other way around also.
you agree with him... that's basically what he said. if it was about intelligence there with be a strong correlation between someone's socially competence and his ability to multiply. The way I understood it is that he's saying that intelligence is something of its own but it's thrown around and combined with other words while it has nothing to do with intelligence but rather talent or competent. Intelligence has already a definition of its own and is related to IQ. You can't just add another word next to it and make something out of it. The thing is that intelligence is pretty abstract if you don't think too much about it and it seems somewhat to make sense when you hear «social intelligence» ,we get it. But intelligence represent and mesure different "parameters" (pattern recognition, spacial visualization, ...) and although you might need some of it to be socially talented, it isn't merely enough to be able to class people for their natural tendency to be socially competent. Social talent require different dimensions of analysis than intelligence. Maybe talent and intelligence are cousin and when intelligence is well defined for some searched characteristics, talent is more general. Maybe the talent to recognized pattern or to do spacial visualization,.. is what is called intelligence. That's the way I look at it and I understood it. I could be wrong but I think what he said makes sense.
@@husseinkhalil5023 I will have to disagree with both of you then. When you say intelligence has to do with pattern recognition, I agree with that statement, but you can have the ability to recognize patterns in regards to social cues, but have a hard time recognizing mathematical patterns.
I don’t know I can’t say. Is pattern recognition in the brain common in different situation. Pattern recognition for social cue or mathematic sequences use the same part of the brain? Replace a social clues with a mathematic variables or images would that person(good with math) finally be able to recognize the pattern? I can’t say. if I give an answer, it would be based on not much evidence. However in your example who’s to say that people who recognize social clues wouldn’t be better at recognizing mathematic pattern as well? Maybe it'ss harder for someone who doesn’t recognize social pattern because you first have to be able to detect a clue before can detect a pattern.
What I mean is we can’t jump too fast to conclusion. Petterson is a really smart person who generally has done his homework on the subjects he talks about plus he have experience about it. I would say he’s probably more correct about what he’s saying than us. He could be wrong we never know but he probably has thought more carefully about it than we have.
Multiplying numbers quickly in head is not mathematical intelligence, that is more linked to verbal intelligence. Language is very linked to arithmetic. Mathematical ability mainly refers to mathematical reasoning, which is more tied with spatial reasoning
One of the few times I think he is deadass wrong.
I mean intelligence cannot be just about multiplying. For instance people can be terrible at English but great at maths and vice versa. I'd call both those people intelligent
This guys argument against various types of intelligence here is so weak he can't complete his sentences without coughing.
The dictionary definition of intelligence supports the argument of multiple types in "the ability to attain and apply knowledge and skills"
Talent is synonymous with intelligence and talents are a way of breaking intelligence down.
Attempting to debunk the theory of multiple intelligences is a weak form of thinking, it is an attempt to try and keep things simple.
The only constant is change and as Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
Great changes and improvements in our world did not come from doing the same old shit as those before us, it comes from challenging those thoughts and trying new ideas.
By all means knowledge is a strong foundation, but it counts for nothing without application.
as strange as it sounds, I was laying in bed the other night and wondered what JP's take was on Howard Gardner...now I know
I think the idea that was intended is true, but it needs to be reworded. For once I have to disagree with him. There are too many things that IQ doesn't account for.
Exactly.
Would you say that a savant on the autism spectrum has, by nature of being so smart, a high social intelligence? He can use his vast intelligence to overcome autism and it's effects on social skills? Feigning ignorance about the definitions of words doesn't change the fact that almost everyone knows what people mean by separate intelligences. Projecting your own shortcomings onto others is Peterson's Hallmark. This guy is so successful that he has produced nothing of note but a few self help books that largely regurgitate truisms.
I was definitely searching for his views on the gardner theory . And I am not surprised he is discarding it... This guy keeps making my life harder
Coming from a person who scores extremely low in emotional intelligence. Intelligent people understand that words gain their meaning through context. Intelligence is not only the ability to solve abstract problems, but it also includes perception and cognitive abilities. What would Peterson call "military intelligence". What does the "central intelligence agency" do? I would not expect athletic ability to correlate with puzzle solving. That doesn't mean that someone with particular sensory and motor skills does not have intelligence. Solving puzzles does not mean you are going to become a famous musical artist. The only thing Peterson is explaining is his own narrow mindedness. Scratch a few points off his openness score.
The priority of Jordan's identity is to preserve the one-dimensional decisions that created it.
The one-dimensional decisions that created Jordan's identity are roughly
"My father hurt me"
"My father doesn't like me"
"My father is dangerous"
"My father will like me if I say what he wants"
"My father is good and right"
"I sacrifice myself for my father"
"I am good because I protect and rescue my father's feelings"
"My father will like me if I try to be better"
Intelligence is the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied toward adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. Intelligence is referring to the mind's abilities to accurately perceive, infer and adapt in a particular area, not all areas or all contents.
Jordan's identity is one-dimensional meaning that it can only look out in one direction to put or polarize things into categories and false dichotomies that fulfill its purpose. A conscious look at perception would add a dimension that would entirely invalidate Jordan's one-dimensional decisions and view.
Jordan's void of conscious awareness of perception has his mind believing that intelligence is only about content and has only two dichotomous categories of I already know or I don't know.
The argument seems pretty weak and the only way I can make it hold any water is if I assume a very inelastic definition of intelligence.
I've never interpreted talk of multiple intelligences as literally equating math skills with dancing skills, or people skills, or whatever other "intelligences" you care to name. It seems more like drawing an analogy in how people using their naturally gifted tools in different ways.
Are the people who are naturally good at math and logic problems able to explain why they're better at math and logic than the average person? In the same way, can the people who are naturally good at dancing explain why they have better coordination and rhythm than the average person?
No doubt that logic and rhythm are both skills that can be taught and learned, but I'm not convinced that a person who learns it "secondhand" can ever experience the thing in the same way a "native speaker" experiences them. This seems to be the sort of idea that multiple intelligence is trying to speak on.
At least that's the definition I made up for myself without having done any research or serious reading on the subject. The people within the field who write on the topic may use the term in a totally different way.
He uses a very limited definition of intelligence, basically mathematical and logical intelligence. But even composing music, drawing a painting or coordination requires intelligence (they are all skills coming from the brain: coordination for example was once very important for our own survival), and they are not necessarily correlated with math-logic intelligence. That's why I think Mr Peterson's theory is actually rubbish.
I’m not sure how he reached the conclusion he did. He was actually making the argument FOR multiple intelligences before he quit and clung to the familiar. See the multiplication is a “math intelligence” tool for measurement. So you would compare the person doing math to get the result to a person using their intelligence, I.e. dance. So we’re talking about math based choreography to Instinctual or “dance intelligence”. And you could in fact get the same “result”.
Where is the whole lecture?
But animalia describes both us primates and octopuses. Yet we are k-selected and them r-selected. Why must a dancer, who’s movements, if recorded, are markedly quantifiable within the confines of rhythm and shape, be as completely cognizant of that quantitative prowess as someone who’s memorized the steps of numerical multiplication? Why do you define intelligence in a way that demands that self-observation? Cannot intelligence be used to describe any form of improvisation? Many objective terms have wide and general definitions. And Gardener’s magic system is fun enough if you realize that hardly any human action requires just one of the magic-skills he defines as “intelligences”. Almost everything requires a logistical mindset, first of all(music, movement, people, etc), but it’s applied to different areas of the brain’s perceptions and phantasias. And it’s now up to 11?: Logistical, Spatial, Linguistic, Musical/phonetic, Kinesthetic, Naturalistic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, Existential, Pedagogical and, a theory of mine: Narratorial(word?) or Narrative intelligence. Aka story-smart
Self observation is the foundation of consciousness? Why did this need to be explained to you? Intelligence by nature will never encompass a single talent and necessarily require consciousness.