So he is talking about 'naturals' in terms of academia. I think another point he is making is that the majority of people that are smart are 'inherently' that way, thus you can not make people more intelligent than those who are 'naturally' smart. I can see his initial point about people being at different intelligence levels because we aren't all the same, therefore not equal, which I consider to be a fact. For example my siblings are not the same as I, and we yet we are the closest things to having the same DNA. However, I disagree that we are born severely different in terms of intelligence. The variance in intelligence between new borns would be 'immaterial', almost non existent. Then it is your experiences that will shape your intelligence, given the assumption that we do not include abnormal humans like those with autism because they be both extremely intelligent in terms of academia and also mentally disabled (Both ends of the spectrum, thus outliers/extremes). Therefore I would have to conclude that we are victims of experience. That our intelligence is determined by what we can't control (Which sounds fatalistic). However only up until the point of consciousness. Once we become conscious we are aware and therefore can work/educate ourselves to the same level and further than those who are naturally talented. Perhaps it is the old question of nature vs nurture. My answer would be nature up until the point of consciousness (If reached) then nurture takes over. This is what I believe to be the purpose of our schools. To reach consciousness. Interesting eh?
Wow. Thank you Paul! Insightful response! The notion of that we are victims of experience is one worthy of a truly endeavoring conversation to explore all the nuances involved.
Paul Allen I'm not sure how you can measure a newborn's intelligence, but at as early as 6 months old, you can see vast differences in intelligence. I havent see studies that show geniuses were also smarter when they were young, but I'm guessing they exist. Your siblings for example should've had very similar experiences as you but I'm guessing there is up to 20 points difference in IQ. I want to believe, and my personal experience backs up, what you are saying, but the psychological community is overwhelmingly convinced that intelligence is almost completely genetic.
One thing is what you believe. Another what research shows and research shows that genetics accounts for at least 55% of peoples IQ and some research suggests that that number is way higher. Studies of seperated twins and adopted children shows this quite clearly eventhough I have only been able to find older studies. If you find the whole nature vs nurture talk interessting if think you would enjoy a norwegian documentary series Hjernevask (norwegian for brainwash). It has to be said that it was to a large part intended to challenge the idea that nurture is everything which is quite dominant in academia here in Scandinavia (I am from Denmark). It is therefore very pro nature but it presents a lot of interesting research and the presenter is a socilogist (and a comedian). You can find the episodes here on youtube with english subtitles. Search for 'hjernevask documentary'. I hope you find it interesting and hopefully not too aggravating as the researchers representing the nurture part are quite an academic embarrashment.
Both interesting comments. I, like the psychological community, feel there is an element of our intelligence that is inherit. And in accordance with 81deneb81 statistics it seems that to be the case. However I am starting to think that we are comprised of two intelligence streams. One is long-term (DNA/Genetic), and the other is short-term (Individual experiences). DNA is like a cumulative intelligence. For example, 10 generations of scientists vs. 10 generations of wrestlers. (Oversimplification) Individual experiences is based on the shorter term aka 1 generation. In this one lifetime you are acted upon by the world around you (victim of experiences, thus fatalistic), until you reach consciousness or a state of awareness where you are unbound and free to increase your level of understanding (intelligence) exponentially. Now I am going to sound like a mad scientist. It's the idea that everything you have learnt is added to your DNA. Based on this assumption, at the point your intelligence is highest you should have children so that their DNA includes your individual experiences and therefore will now be smarter than you were at birth. I have no facts to support this idea, it's speculative but it is a nice, simple explanation that works in the grey area of intelligence and fits with the statistics.
There's actually a positive correlation between drug use and IQ. The higher the intelligence the more likelihood of you using drugs. Though there might not be such a correletion for drug ADDICTION.
And which resource is easy to use productively? Money is a mean of exchange. This means you use them in exchange for anything you can make productive, be it materials, be it tools, be it workers to use the tools to transfer the materials to something useful following your vision. What is really hard is to do this competitively competently, meaning being a successful entrepreneur. If people at large could not use money productively what use would money have for them? Even the simple thing like buying a raw food and then produce dinner for family with the tools bought means being productive with the money on some level. Everything else is just scaling it and adopting for meeting of other needs. But the point Peterson is actually making (in between the lines) is that any resource needs sound planning and honest work in order to use it productively, even the money which many assume would solve problems on it's own.
@n0ckter Borrowing money into existence is this unfortunate new model created by central banks and has nothing to do with capitalism itself in economic terms. It's rather a privilege of the central bank to do whatever it pleases with currency. Interest as economic category is outcome of time preference. If you have assets you can use productively over time you prefer to have those assets rather now than later as if you can use them right now, you can make more of them over time. Interest paid to the lender is compensation for lost opportunity therefore lender weighs whether he have better opportunities himself or he can rather co-exploit the opportunity of someone else who himself do not have enough assets to pursue it and they both profit in the process. Now if the ultimate lender can print his money as he pleases, it turns it on its head, but generally this principle is still valid except the central banking. Taxation as a return of money to economy is nonsense. Taxation is simply just income for state. The money circulate through the economy by exchange. Even the lending is returning the money into economy. Inflation is a tool the central bank uses to circulate them faster, as it is increasingly costly to keep them, which is to the loss of people who need to save up for bigger investment or retirement. Higher taxation just means it is comparatively cheaper to make something yourself that buying it as you do not pay the high taxes on it in that case. It hampers enterprise and exchange with the added costs.
Stuff in the public library are out of date, though. If you go in self-learning, you don't know what your education roadmap looks like, suffer the Dunning-Kruger effect and end up falling into a black hole. You might have a lot of accumulated knowledge, but that knowledge is disorganized and unstructured, similar to installing a shit ton of random apps on your phone. If you want to be useful, your body of knowledge has to have some structure to it, organized so as to make you a functional human being. There are also plenty of things you don't learn just from books, a lot of content that are not published in books, but are spread via word of mouth, through communities (including online communities), etc. There's also the saying that goes "you are the average of the 5 people you hang out the most with", so if you don't take advantage of the networking opportunities an education brings you, you are missing out. But don't spend $150k on an education unless you have rich parents or a scholarship that helps you pay for it... but ironically, sometimes being in debt for some people is just the kick in the ass they need to orient their lives towards making a lot of money and being very profitable.
I know plumbers, electricians, drillers, and welders making more money than me and I'm an engineer. This isn't the 19th and early-mid 20th century where only with a high end education you'll be successful. Many trades careers pay better than most stem careers.
@@Peglegkickboxer thats partially because there are no fixed prices for the services of plumbers/electricians/etc, so they can charge you obsolete amount and they often do
@@Peglegkickboxer right, but the residential services probably amount to most of the market (im guessing), so its quite fucked up that there is no regulation for these professions and that they can basically charge you whatever they want ,especially since there isnt many of them anymore. EDIT: which i think is the reason why increasingly people are starting to learn how to do it themselves, because last time I needed a plumber, it took him literally just an hour to fix it and he charged me 100 euros (around 130-140 dollars i believe), not bad for an hour´s work eh?
Martin Iversen I always enter for the titled topic, then my mind is distracted because it's a different but very interesting other topic, then realize I've been mislead again. Don't know if I'm more thankful or resentful
We seriously need to figure out how we can get the publics intellectual opinion with feedback from relevant experts to help our politians with how to spend money. How else do you think we could approach this problem?
@@SimulationSeries Social mobility seems to increase dramatically when access education is provided equally across a society. This is the case in scandinavia at least, where social mobility is much higher than in the US f. ex. However there are potentially a whole host of other factors.
@@SimulationSeries the first step is to figure out where all the money is currently going and if it all needs to go there. The government (USA) takes in billions upon billions yet still runs at deficits, still tries to raise new taxes, still complains there isn't enough. There will never be enough. The problem is always viewed upside down.
I had the problem he was talking about in the end. As a drug addict who used every drug to disconect myself from myself and from my life, everytime I got money I would spend everything within a day or at least within a week. My parents even helped me get out of debt by giving me a few grand. I got out of debt, but rolled right back into debt in a few months. Doing this makes me feel so extremly worthless, which makes me not want do anything for myself because I hate myself. All the lying and stealing just to destroy myself. But I ran into Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan and Jocko Willink, and these men helped me create the will to live and to become someone better. Now I am still not nearly where I could be or even in a good place for that matter. but I quit drugs, and are working day by day to fix the mess I created. I am extremly gratefull for those men, for they are the reason I still fight. And I know I'm not the only one.
I've meditated on this many times and one thing I know for certain if I came into wealth is that I wouldn't tell anyone, not even my own family. I would safe keep it until I came up with a clear plan to put it to work for me and the people I care about in my life.
Theater technician here. My high school can do a better job at gating a mic. During a pep rally we have maybe as many as 30 people using the same mic ranging from shy freshman class leadership crew to confident competent motivational speakers. Two speakers on two microphones how do you mess this gig up? :)
Ted - "If you tried as hard as you could in your entire life, there is no way you could spend more than $400,000,000." Me - "Here, hold my responsibility."
1.) 330ft Super yacht Equnimity-Jho Low- $258 million 2.) 220 Central Park south manhattan New York penthouse Ken griffin - $230 million..... Ummm Mister Peterson?
But he is saying some bullshit, do you know? He is not all knowing and he overextends is knowledge to things he does not know. I like how well he speaks: very precise, clear on definition, avoids politically corrects stereotypes. A true intellectual, even if sometimes he just makes mistakes.
I’ve noticed something in my life. I notice many geniuses minds are constantly racing and therefore get bored and don’t stick with things(fucked up geniuses).I’ve also met plenty a (moderately not extreme)successful people of moderate IQ that are successful by being consistent and sticking with one field for 20+ years. I would be curious to hear Jordan’s thoughts on that.
He stated multiple times that success in western hierarchies is determined both by intelligence AND conscientiousness. Your first example is a high IQ-low conscientiousness type. The second one is an average IQ-high conscientiousness type. It is my understanding that Peterson's thought on the matter is that you must consider both these factors in order to predict and understand success. Also, people who score extremely low on IQ will have a very hard time being productive in any kind of field of employment. Little to no hope of success for them. This is of course a general picture, there are plentiful exceptions. It is important not to rely solely on personal experience while addressing any broad social issue, but to use as much statistical data available as possible.
He said very often than the way to predict the success rate of a person depends more of the habits and the discipline than the intelligence or the learning hability. Soon or later discipline defeat talent... That what a ex boss of mine said to me very often and I didn't understand it, but it's something true. Resilience it's another important factor, do whatever you do knowing and accepting the possibility of failure.
Im kind of this that you described but i also know that every choice is a refuse (to the other things you didnt choose). So its kind of conscientioness. Understanding, knowing and accept that every choice is also a refuso and dont look back. At least its a starting point for some.
Indeed he was! Pretty sure I was sitting next to you Sleuth at the top left of the audience. Glad I could see Peterson Live, who knows when that opportunity will come again
In my heart of hearts. I believe Jordan Peterson was sent to, and for, the peoples of the world. He is urgently important to listen to and learn all that you can. He's remarkable and you WILL be the better for your time spent listening to the truth, not his truth, THE TRUTH, which he is able to voice in such an eloquent manner. Thank you, JP. Aesir -
Because some people can’t keep up with what he’s saying so he has to use examples to help them out or else his concept he’s trying to make flies with over their heads
A Jung follower and a guy who thinks he knows personal finance and business? If you want someone who really knows what they're talking about, listen to Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. Those guys are real intellectuals whose principles have stood the test of time. Men like Peterson will fall by the wayside as the years go by. Peterson continually leaves his circle of competence when he talks about subjects that he has little to no understanding of, but still wants to seem smart about them. Warren Buffett is of the belief that in investing, there is no need for a higher IQ than what's at the average and that you should "exchange" those IQ points for more money (obviously a joke). He knows that his job is easy and is nowhere as stressful as some other jobs and that he gets paid to do what he loves. He knows more about these sorts of things than Peterson, a professor and generally hack, will ever know. Peterson does have some good ideas, but too much credit is given just because people want to spite the liberals.
@@xxitzsmellyxx That's an excuse to believe a bunch of nonsense. Who ever said that IQ doesn't impact wealth? It can help, but if IQ were a good indicator for wealth, then PhDs would be the richest people, but look at Long Term Capital Management, which was run by Nobel Prize winners. I don't think IQ matters much when it comes to making money other than not being below average (e.g.: mentally retarded/severely challenged). There are so many other characteristics that matter more like temperament and having good principles. Peterson is exactly the sort of person who overestimates his circle of competence.
That's why leaders of tribes (Native Americans, Vikings, Saxons, for example, in years gone) were indeed leaders. The tribe recognised that everyone is not the same and that the tribe would benefit as a whole when the 'right' person was chosen as leader. They recognised that certain traits were required in a leader and it was beneficial to allow the leader a larger share of the tribe's wealth in return for being their leader. Once primogeniture became established, the success of the tribe became subject to genetic chance.
@timwins31 I agree wholeheartedly. Though the whole of my heart is very likely to be different to the whole of others' hearts. Very likely mine is bigger and therefore my agreement is worth more !
The fact that I can listen Mr. Peterson for free is amazing. Knowing English opens up a lot. Only not native English speaking people will understand me.
Having an intelligent discussion is a good start to address the society problems . People who don't like him usually are the ones who are afraid to face their own demons . Nobody is perfect but at least he has balls to bring the ugly subjects to the surface and talk to people about them .
Peterson is amazing because he explains that despite lifes difficulties people have the potential to be remarkable and choose their fate by adapting to this responsible and constructive way of life which he speaks of.
+Amar Star But he never said a lazy above average intelligence would be successful at anything. And then there is the fact that most people with an above average intelligence is unlikely to be lazy.
@mel saint not exception, they are actually more successful in terms of normal life, good salary, better social health. Intelligence come with lots of problems, which very few people can deal with or want to deal with. Most end up destructing themselves.
1:22 "We radically overestimate the degree to which training works. Now, you can train people to be stupid. But training them to be smarter than they are is really, really, really hard." Maybe the best statement I've ever heard on TH-cam.
Well what I’ve gathered from this video is that I need to do more to enhance my life in terms of thinking and living. I’ve recently enrolled in college to be a civil engineer at 36. I look forward to learning how to be better. Regardless of my genetic hand dealt, I will try. I will fail or succeed but I will try.
Private school never made anybody smarter than they are, but it does give opportunity to students that the public school system doesn't give two shits about.
I disagree, maybe it doesn't make someone smarter going to a private school, but going to a bad school can make someone dumber, lazier, more depressed and more violent.
there is an old saying that goes something like things that are given to you for free will have the least value, while things that cost you, will be valued the most. if you applied that idea to private schools. it might look something like this.. if you have to PAY for your education, then perhaps you will study harder because you will want your moneys worth. also why exactly do "capitalists" have to be "smug" I've freely help folks with free financial advice for decades how does that make me smug? isn't that idea predicated on someone else;s jealousy. being successful in a capitalistic society is free information to everyone who is willing to put forth the effort to learn it. nowadays, its simply the individual freedom of choice that keeps people poor and nothing more.
Bennett Music Labs You're right public schools provide the same education if you are willing to work hard enough. But realistically how many kids work hard enough to get the education that they should be receiving in the first place? Probably about %5 if I had to guess. And if I'm to believe you, then you would maybe say "well they should have made the decision to work harder and received better education as a result of their hard work" but if kids aren't old enough to consent legally for sex or make other grown up decisions, what makes you think that they are in their right mind to willingly choose a better education for themselves. It's a decision that children shouldn't be allowed to make, yet by some crazy logic are allowed to. I ask you again, in a society where children are not allowed to make hardly descisions, what makes you think school is any different? So I do not think that people are willingly remaining stupid, or staying poor like you said, but it is a much more complex issue than that and one that needs solving. And I am not at all for a socialist society, but in a place where we make as much money as we do and are as prosperous as we are, why not have better education in public schools? Who does it really hurt? The Greeks used education as a way to divide different classes of wealth and keep the poor stupid. I honestly feel that for all that we have accomplished we would've come up with something less stupid all these years later, I guess not though.
Bennett Music Labs Also, while your formatting is pretty I don't think that it is really suited for a comment such as yours. If you are to break the comment into paragraphs it would look better and be more proper if you padded out your paragraphs more.
In Switzerland it's actually other way....The country put a lot of money on the education system. So if you go in public school: you got a chance if you go in private school: We give you a LAST chance of success In other country: Private school is a second chance of success
@@v_eye_let_17 Being smart absolutely has everything to do with being rich. You don't become rich without making intelligent, calculated decisions with your money. You don't become rich without being intelligent enough to figure out how to do things that are useful enough in society to earn you money. Being rich is 90% due to intelligence, as much as your narrative would like that to not be true.
I agree with Peterson's thesis that screening for high IQ students at selective schools means the school has more raw talent to begin with. And those students will probably succeed under most circumstances. The thing Peterson underestimates is the culture of being in one of those schools. That is, if you are not really bright but still manage to get in, the culture of the school can raise your standards and emphasize the importance of being 'good'. In addition you have a better group of peers to learn from. That can have a big life long impact.
I'd see my family Ok. Then the remaining money is great seed money for a charity and mine would be respite homes for severely autistic children so parents can get a break, and thus continue being able to care, as the terrible burden would be lifted at least once a month.
Excactly, given how we allocate value in our answers in mainstream conversations, it seems we need that message plastered EVERYWHERE! Thanks for being on the same vibe.
So nothing is ever straightforward? An obvious solution should be explained with "maybe this" or "maybe that?" Not everything needs to be nuanced. That's overcomplicating it.
I'm a real JP fan, and I do agree with him that the main value of an Ivy League education is in the screening to get in, but he's simplifying (perhaps for the sake of saving time) the issue of how the college you attend affects what education you'll get. Of course if you vigorously pursue knowledge then any facility of higher education will benefit you. But there are other factors at play than the fact that any school will contain more knowledge than you can adsorb. One is requirements - some schools will require rigorous courses, some not. Some schools will have super-smart students (a lot of students) and some will have mostly mediocrities who will not be the best influence on fellow students. Some schools have a party culture, and at other schools people who party all the time would be oddballs. Etc,........
You are talking about the performance of an individual. So in a average college an academic high performer can still come through the ranks. But that does not take away from the fact that academic high performers are the main focus of the likes of Harvard or MIT. Imagine you went around and picked the various best performers and then formed an organisation. Well you end up with NASA, Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge and google.
I have a friend who has a Harvard PhD and also graduated from Harvard Law school. He has talk to me about this subject, and I do believe he agrees with at least 99% of what Professor Peterson is saying here.
I've seen some comments talking about nature vs nurture and I would like to add that a person with 130+ IQ doesn't have to try nearly as hard to learn something as an average person, which is relevant since the acceleration of learning will be way higher. This combined with already being ahead will widen the gap even more over time, assuming their web of knowledge offer a higher ability to draw conclusions and parallells. I'd change out the word "acceleration" to "speed" if it turns out that our learning isn't exponential during the productive parts of our lives (education not work). Just some thoughts.
+welmhotz I have an IQ of 153 and when I was in college I never needed to study. I just did the course work and came out with perfect grades. Not once did I ever let anybody know this was the case. If I was in the library the chances were I was reading a book that had nothing to do with my courses. The vast majority of what I picked up was in the actual classes. I could constantly see errors in the lectures but I never deviated from them and gave them what they wanted. I find it very difficult to actually describe topics in detail to people because their point of reference is different from mine. So my day involves lots of perspectives.
When I was in eighth grade, I read every book in the school's libraries, including even the smaller libraries in each classroom. I read continuously, right through the teacher's lectures. At first they were irritated by my apparent lack of interest and participation in their classes and they kept trying to catch me flat-footed with questions about what was just presented or why it was important. I was always polite and responsive with the correct answer or accurate analysis, but I never put down my book or stopped reading while responding. They finally gave up and they agreed that as long as I got A grades on every test, I could do anything that I found interesting! I actually liked going school. Much to their embarrassment, I rejected mindlessly conforming to their social programming and found a way to become self-educated, in spite of the best efforts of the teachers and public school policies to prevent it! I was one of the few lucky ones who survived our "education" system.
@saganist Unfortunately, it took going to college to made me realize that school was a pain in the ass. Yes, learning at times as fun, but the people in classes you were surrounded by just made it boring and just made me not want to be there. When I found out that schools were just scams meant to suppress and "brainwash" children, I detested all of it.
I think you are right about that. It seems to me that what people need is really meaning, something to bring their endeavors purpose. Instead of focusing on the means to an end as a solution for our systemic problems, we should rather focus on providing ends to be achieved as solutions for our issues. I'd really like to have more time to contemplate what all the possible ends are in life. If we get some answers to that question, and we rank them in priority, relative to individuals and their positions in the hyerarchy of our society, we can market these results accordingly. The aim would be to provide purpose to every strata of society and give people a good reason to motivate them to productive action. This is the deep philosophical question, what are all the ends in an of themselves in life? Then we can focus on the means to those ends. Making a rule that those ends, no matter how important, will not justify the means. I think that would be a big step in solving our issues.
Geoffrey this was excellent and well thought out. We would love for you to join our telegram for further intellectually and nuanced driven conversations!
Please shoot us an email at Simulationseries@gmail.com or hit us up on our social media and we'll send you the link! Cant wait to get you involved and hear your thoughts in conversation.
Jordan is So Brilliant in His thinking. The title of the video alludes to the idea that simply giving money out to smooth out inequality is not helpful especially to people at the fringes of society. However, if we use it "productively" we may very well be able to help these people out of their personal Hells but more importantly help avoid them getting there in the first place. Society as a whole should work towards this goal and ultimately this will require the 'work' of each of it's constituents.
Yeah, but money also is a good give, because it lends them a little more choice, a little more dignity ... a bit more of that feeling of independence that they so sorely lack. Tell you what, you give them food, I'll give them money. 🙂
We have created a modern world that we didn't evolve to live in. We evolved to hunt and gather and to raise children, now suddenly we have to deal with complex modern economies and technology. A lot of people get left behind.
Great observation! Let me ask you, and I'm asking you from left-wing point of view, how would you take care of those people in terms of libertarian theory, if the state isn't allowed to redistribute them money and investors can't be forced to invest in them? And I would say that not only people are left behind, but also entire cities and countries, unable to adapt.
@@anaccount8474 I apologize, what I meant to say is I don't understand how libertarians expect so many people to adapt so fast or at all. Your observation is brilliant, but I would add it's not just evolution, it's also culture, even age, that can prevent a person to adapt.
whisperingwind2 i think the point is you can not spend it and have none. Sure you could go buy a bunch of liabilities and depreciate your money but technically you would still have some money in the item.
Colton Carlisle Lol yeah, I did get the point, I just thought that I would love to try. I think I could find a way, but first someone has to dump a truckload of money on me
People often say money can't buy happiness. Which is true in so many areas but you can buy the stuff that can make you happy. The only thing is you have to control money. Don't let money to take control over you. You won't be happy but But if you have enough money. Money won't be a issue for your problem. That means still you will have problem but money will not in one of those. And the best thing about money is you can help others. And nothing gives you more pleasure than helping someone. After getting enough money now you have choices to chose a simple life or a luxury life thats your choice whatever you want. You can live however you want.
Talking about intelligence.. I find MENSA quiet interesting. I have talked with some MENSA members and every time i have asked them what MENSA does and what they think MENSA should do. It turns out that it does nothing, and non of the members i have talked with have any ambitions of what MENSA should do, they all think it should not do anything. So as far as i can see, MENSA is a place for people with high IQ that just want to have it on a paper that they have a high IQ, but they dont want that "club" with only smart people to do anything. To me that show us clearly that not all smart people is necessarily so very smart. Most of them said strait out that they just wanted it to be a social club.. lol
True, true and true. I had a volume "The Playwright's Speak" with bios of the most successful American playwrights. NONE had finished college and most had not gone. They were naturally brilliant. The were heuristic, or self educated. However, it is important to remember there are bright people who are not academically orientated in many realms of life: plumbers, inventors, small business people, etc.
Elon Musk is a testament to why its not so bad that the cognitive elite get the most money. This man is flying spaceships to mars, flying 13,000 satelites to orbit and bringing electric cars to mass market, pioneering re-usable rockets, etc etc. God bless Elon Musk
Firstly, I think Jordan Peterson is excluding the fact that there are different intelligences. Many people can be good at sports or can be good socially and these skills can be used to make money and a rewarding life. As an aside: From personal experiences i do believe intelligence can be increased with practice and can also decrease with a lack of practice. However these differences are not major.
No, I don't think that's the case. The science is pretty clear there is only one factor of intelligence. Yes, some people are gifted at math, and some at linguistics, but someone gifted in math is so close to someone gifted in linguistics that they might as well be the same thing. It's not like your temperament which can be broken down into multiple facets which are all very different from each other. Being good at sports probably has a biological basis, but I don't think it's rooted in intelligence. It might be tied to it, or projected through it, but it's not what we would label traditionally as intelligence on it's own.
A house in California recently sold for $165 million. Pretty sure a couple of those would wipe out even the largest fortune in history, never mind making business-scale purchases.
@@tylerguitar75 But thats not considered spending. You turn one form of asset into another. The house can be resold at higher or lower price in the future depend on many factors.
That's a bad example unfortunately. They might do worse than a local who has the benefit of generations of wisdom, but will probably do better than their very dumb colleague, which proves Peterson's point.
Winning the genetic lottery , having a very high IQ , being extremely talented at certain things are almost NEVER the indicators as to how successful someone will turn out later in life ... Self-awareness , self-esteem , empathy , excellent communication skills , mindfulness and having a curious mind will ALWAYS trump being having an high IQ in determining success in life ...
Really like this bloke super intelligent but very humble and not arrogant like a lot with his knowledge and very patient with layman such as myself.just my humble opinion.
Jesus, I cannot listen because the noise gate is so jarring and the clipping is causing distortion. Pls audio guy. Dont noise gate a speaker, or at least give it a longer attack.
I always enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson, and while I agree with his commentary in this video I actually heard the very same thing around 2004 at a national GMAC conference (Graduate Management Admissions Council, which was then the author and governor of the famous GMAT - Graduate Management Aptitude Test - for MBA admissions nationwide). Forgive me as I don't recall the specific professor's name, but an esteemed professor from Stanford - along with his graduate assistant - gave what was then considered to be a rather heretical talk that very much mirrors what Dr. Peterson says here. He talked about how MBA programs at elite schools needed to seriously analyze their "value added" attributes of their respective curricula because his study of the recruiting habits of top employers showed that they mostly used the (high) admissions standards as a basis for hiring graduating students more than grades earned or activities engaged while on campus. In essence, the high GMAT scores for the top MBA programs -- typically, 750 or higher on the 800 scale - were a measure of intelligence that companies dared not explore in their official hiring practices because such an investigation could have been deemed discriminatory. Instead, they simply piggy-backed the top schools' admissions practices. While such a practice would have been considered unseemly in the corporate world of HR, it was SOP in the world of higher academics (especially among business schools). If so, according to this prof, then what the hell were the MBA programs teaching that was of any value?... that was his main premise. But, boy oh boy, did he ruffle some feathers with that presentation and premise at that conference!
Neuroplasticity refutes his claims of intellectual "genetic lottery." If you think you're dumb, keep learning. Competency should indeed be the main factor of the distribution of power. It's a trait that anyone can strive for if they are willing to labour at it consistently.
Good video 👍 there are three fundamental realities in this video. The Jordan Peterson is very good at looking at common sense explanations to real life issues I always enjoy his videos thank you
One is born with certain 'undeveloped' traits and characteristics. Usain Bolt, for example, was without doubt born with certain genes that would later allow him to be a supremely fast sprinter. There's probably dozens, or even hundreds of such genes, all of which together made him more likely than others to run fast. For example, the genes that control oxygen conversion in lungs, sugar burning in muscles, leg movement speed, lactic acid tolerance and removal. However in another environment his 'talent' might not have been 'noticed' and thus not developed. I think one of the consequences of human biological reproduction (evolution) is that there will always be a normal (statistically speaking) distribution of all traits and characteristics across populations. Some individuals will have a 'lucky' combination of a significant number, all at the 'right' of the spectrum, whilst, unfortunately, some individuals will have a combination of traits at the 'left' of the spectrum. Nature defines, nurture modifies. But because of a lack of positive nurture, many Mozarts, Einsteins and Bolts are out there with talents which are never identified. This is surely, a 'hidden' though unavoidable consequence of the genetic mixing during evolutionary reproduction.
I took somebody to my wrestling club once who never done wrestling in his whole entire life and he was ragdolling top international wrestlers like they were toys. And not one of them could believe what they were going up against. And it was zero technique and the guy was not as physically as big as the trained wrestlers either.
What you talk about really resonates with me Dr Peterson. And I feel as tho you're articulating my own thoughts and perspective while sharing new ones though mine seem to be in imagery rather than words in most cases. I enjoy your talking points and references. You are doing a great job and I'm truly inspired whenever I tune in with your art. The feedback is wonderful and moving and I must say sir your biblical lectures have done you well and in synchronicity of me finding a video of yours on parenting, leading me to many more videos I was almost done reading the old testament through and was even strengthened in faith as a result of your (who dare they say they believe in God) video, though you, in a way demonstrated less faith in God than I perceived myself to be blessed with, I was moved by your demonstrated view point. I almost instantly thought of a counter point that in my imagination would have completely put you on a new thought train so to speak. You're filling your space very well and then some. Keep growing toward the light brother and stay strong. Peace be with you and yours.
Sweden is not a socialist country - it is predominantly capitalist with generous redistribution/government entitlement programmes. For example, there is no minimum wage, the government provides complete school-choice (i.e. they pay for privately owned school's) and they rank highly on the Economic Freedom Index. I'm anti-socialism before anyone asks, just thought I'd state that none of the Nordic countries are actually socialist.
Somewhere in the distant past, I heard of an emperical situation that goes something like this, In the UK roughly 10% of the population own 90% of the wealth. If however, this wealth was divided equally between every man,woman and child in the UK, then after 10 years or so, 10% of the population would once again own 90% of the wealth!!!
So he is talking about 'naturals' in terms of academia.
I think another point he is making is that the majority of people that are smart are 'inherently' that way, thus you can not make people more intelligent than those who are 'naturally' smart.
I can see his initial point about people being at different intelligence levels because we aren't all the same, therefore not equal, which I consider to be a fact. For example my siblings are not the same as I, and we yet we are the closest things to having the same DNA.
However, I disagree that we are born severely different in terms of intelligence. The variance in intelligence between new borns would be 'immaterial', almost non existent. Then it is your experiences that will shape your intelligence, given the assumption that we do not include abnormal humans like those with autism because they be both extremely intelligent in terms of academia and also mentally disabled (Both ends of the spectrum, thus outliers/extremes).
Therefore I would have to conclude that we are victims of experience. That our intelligence is determined by what we can't control (Which sounds fatalistic). However only up until the point of consciousness. Once we become conscious we are aware and therefore can work/educate ourselves to the same level and further than those who are naturally talented.
Perhaps it is the old question of nature vs nurture.
My answer would be nature up until the point of consciousness (If reached) then nurture takes over. This is what I believe to be the purpose of our schools. To reach consciousness.
Interesting eh?
Wow. Thank you Paul! Insightful response! The notion of that we are victims of experience is one worthy of a truly endeavoring conversation to explore all the nuances involved.
Curious what others have to think about these points. Please share what you think on this thought
Paul Allen I'm not sure how you can measure a newborn's intelligence, but at as early as 6 months old, you can see vast differences in intelligence. I havent see studies that show geniuses were also smarter when they were young, but I'm guessing they exist. Your siblings for example should've had very similar experiences as you but I'm guessing there is up to 20 points difference in IQ.
I want to believe, and my personal experience backs up, what you are saying, but the psychological community is overwhelmingly convinced that intelligence is almost completely genetic.
One thing is what you believe. Another what research shows and research shows that genetics accounts for at least 55% of peoples IQ and some research suggests that that number is way higher. Studies of seperated twins and adopted children shows this quite clearly eventhough I have only been able to find older studies.
If you find the whole nature vs nurture talk interessting if think you would enjoy a norwegian documentary series Hjernevask (norwegian for brainwash). It has to be said that it was to a large part intended to challenge the idea that nurture is everything which is quite dominant in academia here in Scandinavia (I am from Denmark). It is therefore very pro nature but it presents a lot of interesting research and the presenter is a socilogist (and a comedian).
You can find the episodes here on youtube with english subtitles. Search for 'hjernevask documentary'. I hope you find it interesting and hopefully not too aggravating as the researchers representing the nurture part are quite an academic embarrashment.
Both interesting comments. I, like the psychological community, feel there is an element of our intelligence that is inherit. And in accordance with 81deneb81 statistics it seems that to be the case. However I am starting to think that we are comprised of two intelligence streams. One is long-term (DNA/Genetic), and the other is short-term (Individual experiences).
DNA is like a cumulative intelligence. For example, 10 generations of scientists vs. 10 generations of wrestlers. (Oversimplification)
Individual experiences is based on the shorter term aka 1 generation. In this one lifetime you are acted upon by the world around you (victim of experiences, thus fatalistic), until you reach consciousness or a state of awareness where you are unbound and free to increase your level of understanding (intelligence) exponentially.
Now I am going to sound like a mad scientist. It's the idea that everything you have learnt is added to your DNA. Based on this assumption, at the point your intelligence is highest you should have children so that their DNA includes your individual experiences and therefore will now be smarter than you were at birth.
I have no facts to support this idea, it's speculative but it is a nice, simple explanation that works in the grey area of intelligence and fits with the statistics.
5:15
JBP: "Not all cocaine addicts have low IQ by the way"
Audience *audible relief*
fub ababar Doctors use it to stay up
tt Morgan you’d be very surprised
He didnt have to save it...if you’re a coke addict, that’s a bad choice... fair to say they’re probably a dipshit.
@@sarahwebster8927 all drug addicts are dipshits
There's actually a positive correlation between drug use and IQ. The higher the intelligence the more likelihood of you using drugs. Though there might not be such a correletion for drug ADDICTION.
''Money is not an easy resource to use productively''..........Very true.
That escalated so fast it's kind of hilarious. You completely missed Dom's message if this is your reaction. Read it again, but slowly
And which resource is easy to use productively? Money is a mean of exchange. This means you use them in exchange for anything you can make productive, be it materials, be it tools, be it workers to use the tools to transfer the materials to something useful following your vision. What is really hard is to do this competitively competently, meaning being a successful entrepreneur.
If people at large could not use money productively what use would money have for them? Even the simple thing like buying a raw food and then produce dinner for family with the tools bought means being productive with the money on some level. Everything else is just scaling it and adopting for meeting of other needs.
But the point Peterson is actually making (in between the lines) is that any resource needs sound planning and honest work in order to use it productively, even the money which many assume would solve problems on it's own.
@n0ckter Borrowing money into existence is this unfortunate new model created by central banks and has nothing to do with capitalism itself in economic terms. It's rather a privilege of the central bank to do whatever it pleases with currency.
Interest as economic category is outcome of time preference. If you have assets you can use productively over time you prefer to have those assets rather now than later as if you can use them right now, you can make more of them over time. Interest paid to the lender is compensation for lost opportunity therefore lender weighs whether he have better opportunities himself or he can rather co-exploit the opportunity of someone else who himself do not have enough assets to pursue it and they both profit in the process. Now if the ultimate lender can print his money as he pleases, it turns it on its head, but generally this principle is still valid except the central banking.
Taxation as a return of money to economy is nonsense. Taxation is simply just income for state. The money circulate through the economy by exchange. Even the lending is returning the money into economy. Inflation is a tool the central bank uses to circulate them faster, as it is increasingly costly to keep them, which is to the loss of people who need to save up for bigger investment or retirement.
Higher taxation just means it is comparatively cheaper to make something yourself that buying it as you do not pay the high taxes on it in that case. It hampers enterprise and exchange with the added costs.
@stefano ferrari America is socialism for rich people
Who defines what a productive use is?
“You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.”
― Matt Damon, Good Will Hunting
My boy’s wicked smart.
Probably the best advice ever. Period.
Stuff in the public library are out of date, though. If you go in self-learning, you don't know what your education roadmap looks like, suffer the Dunning-Kruger effect and end up falling into a black hole. You might have a lot of accumulated knowledge, but that knowledge is disorganized and unstructured, similar to installing a shit ton of random apps on your phone. If you want to be useful, your body of knowledge has to have some structure to it, organized so as to make you a functional human being. There are also plenty of things you don't learn just from books, a lot of content that are not published in books, but are spread via word of mouth, through communities (including online communities), etc.
There's also the saying that goes "you are the average of the 5 people you hang out the most with", so if you don't take advantage of the networking opportunities an education brings you, you are missing out.
But don't spend $150k on an education unless you have rich parents or a scholarship that helps you pay for it... but ironically, sometimes being in debt for some people is just the kick in the ass they need to orient their lives towards making a lot of money and being very profitable.
Money is what we agree it is -Robert Kiyosaki. Is a diploma not the same?
@@cryora great reply!
I have a very low IQ my Dad told me when I was a kid that I would have to work twice as hard as everyone else to succeed, and I did and it paid off
So what are u doing rn
I know plumbers, electricians, drillers, and welders making more money than me and I'm an engineer. This isn't the 19th and early-mid 20th century where only with a high end education you'll be successful. Many trades careers pay better than most stem careers.
@@Peglegkickboxer thats partially because there are no fixed prices for the services of plumbers/electricians/etc, so they can charge you obsolete amount and they often do
@@Mairesist that depends on the region and type of work. Not all trades are for residential services.
@@Peglegkickboxer right, but the residential services probably amount to most of the market (im guessing), so its quite fucked up that there is no regulation for these professions and that they can basically charge you whatever they want ,especially since there isnt many of them anymore.
EDIT: which i think is the reason why increasingly people are starting to learn how to do it themselves, because last time I needed a plumber, it took him literally just an hour to fix it and he charged me 100 euros (around 130-140 dollars i believe), not bad for an hour´s work eh?
"Money is not an easy resource to use productivly" - Amen
Completely mistitled thumbnail. Very Important points made however.
Martin Iversen I always enter for the titled topic, then my mind is distracted because it's a different but very interesting other topic, then realize I've been mislead again. Don't know if I'm more thankful or resentful
100%
Yes. But once the video ends, you don't see the thumbnail anymore. It's good misdirection.
But feels dirty.
The last sentence was on topic though. "Money is not an easy resource to use productively". The end.
that very last point can not be overstated. so many of the social problems we have today are NOT going to be fixed by throwing (more) money at them.
We seriously need to figure out how we can get the publics intellectual opinion with feedback from relevant experts to help our politians with how to spend money. How else do you think we could approach this problem?
@@SimulationSeries Social mobility seems to increase dramatically when access education is provided equally across a society. This is the case in scandinavia at least, where social mobility is much higher than in the US f. ex. However there are potentially a whole host of other factors.
@@SimulationSeries the first step is to figure out where all the money is currently going and if it all needs to go there. The government (USA) takes in billions upon billions yet still runs at deficits, still tries to raise new taxes, still complains there isn't enough. There will never be enough. The problem is always viewed upside down.
Its actually pretty cruel to deny those with less money to say they dont deserve it because they have problems !
@@iamasmurf1122 truth hurts
"money is not an easy resource to use productively". Gem of a quote
ljbrandt500,
The current monetary system inefficient? What a surprise...
It was so weird i was scrolling down in the comments and read this comment at the exact same time he was saying it. That was trippy.
I had the problem he was talking about in the end. As a drug addict who used every drug to disconect myself from myself and from my life, everytime I got money I would spend everything within a day or at least within a week. My parents even helped me get out of debt by giving me a few grand. I got out of debt, but rolled right back into debt in a few months. Doing this makes me feel so extremly worthless, which makes me not want do anything for myself because I hate myself. All the lying and stealing just to destroy myself. But I ran into Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan and Jocko Willink, and these men helped me create the will to live and to become someone better. Now I am still not nearly where I could be or even in a good place for that matter. but I quit drugs, and are working day by day to fix the mess I created.
I am extremly gratefull for those men, for they are the reason I still fight. And I know I'm not the only one.
The example with Harvard is incomplete... You can also make a good donation and get in.... lol
That's all Universities
Or just bribe admissions as the FBI found
Or blackmail them for sleeping with little children in Thailand.
Or be a leftist activist that isn't actually all that smart like that guy David Hogg.
That just proves his point even further. Only very few families have the resources to make a huge donation lmao
I've meditated on this many times and one thing I know for certain if I came into wealth is that I wouldn't tell anyone, not even my own family. I would safe keep it until I came up with a clear plan to put it to work for me and the people I care about in my life.
He's in the middle of silicon valley with all the technically brilliant people...and they can't gate a microphone headset properly.
Virtuoso80👏👏👏
Joe Rogan had a better mic than this
Theater technician here. My high school can do a better job at gating a mic. During a pep rally we have maybe as many as 30 people using the same mic ranging from shy freshman class leadership crew to confident competent motivational speakers. Two speakers on two microphones how do you mess this gig up? :)
yeah this is the editor not the venue
Ted - "If you tried as hard as you could in your entire life, there is no way you could spend more than $400,000,000."
Me - "Here, hold my responsibility."
"you can't possibly spend more than 400 million dollars" - Hold my beer...
1.) 330ft Super yacht Equnimity-Jho Low- $258 million
2.) 220 Central Park south manhattan New York penthouse Ken griffin - $230 million.....
Ummm
Mister Peterson?
You can start many businesses and build schools ...
Spend 5 minutes in Dubai.
Give me a week
Lol 2 items worth over 400mm. IQ...Low....haha
The more I hear his lectures, the more I admire his vast knowledge, his verbal IQ, and courage to speak the truth.
But he is saying some bullshit, do you know? He is not all knowing and he overextends is knowledge to things he does not know.
I like how well he speaks: very precise, clear on definition, avoids politically corrects stereotypes. A true intellectual, even if sometimes he just makes mistakes.
@@adamoleoni2272 Try to back up your argument with evidence and show me the videos of him saying bullsh!t!
@@adamoleoni2272 you must be watched that atheist guy with the long hair debunk him. Ever since then I'm selctive on what I take from JP.
I’ve noticed something in my life. I notice many geniuses minds are constantly racing and therefore get bored and don’t stick with things(fucked up geniuses).I’ve also met plenty a (moderately not extreme)successful people of moderate IQ that are successful by being consistent and sticking with one field for 20+ years. I would be curious to hear Jordan’s thoughts on that.
He stated multiple times that success in western hierarchies is determined both by intelligence AND conscientiousness. Your first example is a high IQ-low conscientiousness type. The second one is an average IQ-high conscientiousness type. It is my understanding that Peterson's thought on the matter is that you must consider both these factors in order to predict and understand success. Also, people who score extremely low on IQ will have a very hard time being productive in any kind of field of employment. Little to no hope of success for them. This is of course a general picture, there are plentiful exceptions. It is important not to rely solely on personal experience while addressing any broad social issue, but to use as much statistical data available as possible.
He said very often than the way to predict the success rate of a person depends more of the habits and the discipline than the intelligence or the learning hability.
Soon or later discipline defeat talent... That what a ex boss of mine said to me very often and I didn't understand it, but it's something true.
Resilience it's another important factor, do whatever you do knowing and accepting the possibility of failure.
Openess to experience coorelates with iq so this isn't too surprising.
Im kind of this that you described but i also know that every choice is a refuse (to the other things you didnt choose). So its kind of conscientioness.
Understanding, knowing and accept that every choice is also a refuso and dont look back.
At least its a starting point for some.
.
Had a great time attending this event. Peterson was amazing! 🙏
Indeed he was! Pretty sure I was sitting next to you Sleuth at the top left of the audience. Glad I could see Peterson Live, who knows when that opportunity will come again
Dusty O'Daffer I was disappointed there was no hot dog vendor
Lucky!!
I saw you on the camera
So did he sit on the left or the right? He changes position in the video 😁
"Everyone's the same. Yeah, um they're not."
*They're
@@JorgePille yeah yeah voice to text fail
*laughter*
@@nPcDrone oh cool
@RAF XGaming oh stop trying to be different
Literally nothing about this was about how to use money productively.
Right?
Well, he did mention don’t buy cocaine...
watch the video again
yeah i would recommend watching this again John Hayes, maybe open your ears this time
Thanks for saving my time.
In my heart of hearts. I believe Jordan Peterson was sent to, and for, the peoples of the world.
He is urgently important to listen to and learn all that you can.
He's remarkable and you WILL be the better for your time spent listening to the truth, not his truth, THE TRUTH, which he is able to voice in such an eloquent manner.
Thank you, JP.
Aesir -
Jordan "Look, let me give you an example" Peterson
Peter "in the" charland
Can you come up with something better?
Joe Rogan’d.
@thomas mccormack That's such a great epithet: "Muppet!" First time I heard it was in "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels." Hilarious!
Because some people can’t keep up with what he’s saying so he has to use examples to help them out or else his concept he’s trying to make flies with over their heads
"As inequality increases, societies destabilise." That's interesting, and cause for concern
That's what's been going on lately....
North Korea is equal and stable.
Ahhh Merica
He mentioned that twice
I watched this video waiting for Jordan to tell me what to do with my savings.
Become a genius.. or a person of higher intelligence.. you will know how to spend it
First step is understanding the problem and situation, which is what Jordan explains in his lectures
This person needs to be in a real position of power. I'm a bleeding heart liberal and I know what he's saying is true.
A Jung follower and a guy who thinks he knows personal finance and business? If you want someone who really knows what they're talking about, listen to Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. Those guys are real intellectuals whose principles have stood the test of time. Men like Peterson will fall by the wayside as the years go by. Peterson continually leaves his circle of competence when he talks about subjects that he has little to no understanding of, but still wants to seem smart about them. Warren Buffett is of the belief that in investing, there is no need for a higher IQ than what's at the average and that you should "exchange" those IQ points for more money (obviously a joke). He knows that his job is easy and is nowhere as stressful as some other jobs and that he gets paid to do what he loves. He knows more about these sorts of things than Peterson, a professor and generally hack, will ever know. Peterson does have some good ideas, but too much credit is given just because people want to spite the liberals.
@@dogestranding5047 Warren Buffet is lying so people like you don't get out their pitchforks.You must be naive to think IQ doesn't impact wealth.
@@xxitzsmellyxx That's an excuse to believe a bunch of nonsense. Who ever said that IQ doesn't impact wealth? It can help, but if IQ were a good indicator for wealth, then PhDs would be the richest people, but look at Long Term Capital Management, which was run by Nobel Prize winners. I don't think IQ matters much when it comes to making money other than not being below average (e.g.: mentally retarded/severely challenged). There are so many other characteristics that matter more like temperament and having good principles. Peterson is exactly the sort of person who overestimates his circle of competence.
@@dogestranding5047 Really? Comparing Jung with the likes of Warren Buffet? lol being rich does not equate intelligence
@@dogestranding5047 Where to invest and when to invest. A high IQ person will question it but low IQ folks will simply invest.
That's why leaders of tribes (Native Americans, Vikings, Saxons, for example, in years gone) were indeed leaders. The tribe recognised that everyone is not the same and that the tribe would benefit as a whole when the 'right' person was chosen as leader. They recognised that certain traits were required in a leader and it was beneficial to allow the leader a larger share of the tribe's wealth in return for being their leader. Once primogeniture became established, the success of the tribe became subject to genetic chance.
@timwins31 I agree wholeheartedly. Though the whole of my heart is very likely to be different to the whole of others' hearts. Very likely mine is bigger and therefore my agreement is worth more !
It does do that, but the question is - how well does it do it?
and then came the myth of bloodlines.
In Islam, being a leader is very Important too.
The fact that I can listen Mr. Peterson for free is amazing. Knowing English opens up a lot. Only not native English speaking people will understand me.
*Non-native
Having an intelligent discussion is a good start to address the society problems . People who don't like him usually are the ones who are afraid to face their own demons . Nobody is perfect but at least he has balls to bring the ugly subjects to the surface and talk to people about them .
It is amazing how great education leads to the recognition of evident things. The way to get there is very difficult and reserved to the happy few.
Peterson is amazing because he explains that despite lifes difficulties people have the potential to be remarkable and choose their fate by adapting to this responsible and constructive way of life which he speaks of.
An average person with a strong work ethic beats a naturally above average person who is lazy any day. I think he misses this. But great info.
Yeah there will always be exceptions
+Amar Star
But he never said a lazy above average intelligence would be successful at anything. And then there is the fact that most people with an above average intelligence is unlikely to be lazy.
@mel saint not exception, they are actually more successful in terms of normal life, good salary, better social health. Intelligence come with lots of problems, which very few people can deal with or want to deal with. Most end up destructing themselves.
He doesn´t mis it at all, thats what conscientiousness means. 2:50 "yeah you work hard, you're and entrepreneur, you put in 60 hours a week..."
Having a strong work ethic is genetic too. Its not some achievement, people just are or arent. Its part of being naturally above average.
1:22 "We radically overestimate the degree to which training works. Now, you can train people to be stupid. But training them to be smarter than they are is really, really, really hard." Maybe the best statement I've ever heard on TH-cam.
I will send this to Ali Abdal
Why?
That last thing he said was the most true thing I’ve heard in a long, long time.
I am addicted to J Peterson..cant stop listening to him.
cobra3289 Keep going 😎 That’s what I was like last year and then I read his book. I’m still cleaning my room 😉
Thank you TH-cam algorithm for suggesting this man inside my feed. I will be searching more of him soon!
The background and the armchair must give the video compression algorithm an easy life
damn. The things we can learn just by listening to him
Dr Peterson be dropping truth bombs left and right...
I like listening to him to get an objective perspective on things.
Well what I’ve gathered from this video is that I need to do more to enhance my life in terms of thinking and living. I’ve recently enrolled in college to be a civil engineer at 36. I look forward to learning how to be better. Regardless of my genetic hand dealt, I will try. I will fail or succeed but I will try.
How's the engineering journey progressing?
Private school never made anybody smarter than they are, but it does give opportunity to students that the public school system doesn't give two shits about.
I disagree, maybe it doesn't make someone smarter going to a private school, but going to a bad school can make someone dumber, lazier, more depressed and more violent.
there is an old saying that goes something like
things that are given to you for free will have the least value, while things that cost you, will be valued the most.
if you applied that idea to private schools. it might look something like this..
if you have to PAY for your education, then perhaps you will study harder because you will want your moneys worth.
also why exactly do "capitalists" have to be "smug" I've freely help folks with free financial advice for decades how does that make me smug?
isn't that idea predicated on someone else;s jealousy.
being successful in a capitalistic society is free information to everyone who is willing to put forth the effort to learn it. nowadays, its simply the individual freedom of choice that keeps people poor and nothing more.
Bennett Music Labs You're right public schools provide the same education if you are willing to work hard enough. But realistically how many kids work hard enough to get the education that they should be receiving in the first place? Probably about %5 if I had to guess. And if I'm to believe you, then you would maybe say "well they should have made the decision to work harder and received better education as a result of their hard work" but if kids aren't old enough to consent legally for sex or make other grown up decisions, what makes you think that they are in their right mind to willingly choose a better education for themselves. It's a decision that children shouldn't be allowed to make, yet by some crazy logic are allowed to. I ask you again, in a society where children are not allowed to make hardly descisions, what makes you think school is any different? So I do not think that people are willingly remaining stupid, or staying poor like you said, but it is a much more complex issue than that and one that needs solving. And I am not at all for a socialist society, but in a place where we make as much money as we do and are as prosperous as we are, why not have better education in public schools? Who does it really hurt? The Greeks used education as a way to divide different classes of wealth and keep the poor stupid. I honestly feel that for all that we have accomplished we would've come up with something less stupid all these years later, I guess not though.
Bennett Music Labs Also, while your formatting is pretty I don't think that it is really suited for a comment such as yours. If you are to break the comment into paragraphs it would look better and be more proper if you padded out your paragraphs more.
In Switzerland it's actually other way....The country put a lot of money on the education system.
So if you go in public school: you got a chance
if you go in private school: We give you a LAST chance of success
In other country: Private school is a second chance of success
“Everyone’s the same”
“Yeah... they’re not. “
Jordan Peterson is got damm amazing
You are underestimating the system and its influence on success and education.
The fella sitting with peterson contributes to this conversation more than I'd be able to contribute to one of JP'S lectures
There is no quick pathway from smart to wise.
Jordan B.Peterson
I always thought I was smart, then one day a real friend said to me “if you’re so smart why ain’t you rich?”
Because being smart has nothing to do with being rich. You have to be okay with having no ethics to get there.
{Delete this} true
@@v_eye_let_17 Being smart absolutely has everything to do with being rich. You don't become rich without making intelligent, calculated decisions with your money. You don't become rich without being intelligent enough to figure out how to do things that are useful enough in society to earn you money. Being rich is 90% due to intelligence, as much as your narrative would like that to not be true.
Jordan: “What are you gonna do read the whole library? “
Me: I mean why not? Sounds kinda fun 🤷🏽♂️😂
I agree with Peterson's thesis that screening for high IQ students at selective schools means the school has more raw talent to begin with. And those students will probably succeed under most circumstances. The thing Peterson underestimates is the culture of being in one of those schools. That is, if you are not really bright but still manage to get in, the culture of the school can raise your standards and emphasize the importance of being 'good'. In addition you have a better group of peers to learn from. That can have a big life long impact.
Great talk, again. Thank you. You are saving people’s lives! Money can destroy people.
“There is no way you could spend $400 million dollars if you won the lottery”
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED
I could buy 2-3 villas in Belair with that. All in one day. 400 million dollars gone.
There are yachts that cost over $400 million
I'd see my family Ok. Then the remaining money is great seed money for a charity and mine would be respite homes for severely autistic children so parents can get a break, and thus continue being able to care, as the terrible burden would be lifted at least once a month.
Buy a $401 million company
What a wonderful lesson! We need to shout "nuance!" from every rooftop and stop thinking we can get away with an easy unilateral answer!
Excactly, given how we allocate value in our answers in mainstream conversations, it seems we need that message plastered EVERYWHERE! Thanks for being on the same vibe.
So nothing is ever straightforward? An obvious solution should be explained with "maybe this" or "maybe that?" Not everything needs to be nuanced. That's overcomplicating it.
It's an ironically unilateral thing to say. Demanding nuance everywhere is an extreme too.
I'm a real JP fan, and I do agree with him that the main value of an Ivy League education is in the screening to get in, but he's simplifying (perhaps for the sake of saving time) the issue of how the college you attend affects what education you'll get. Of course if you vigorously pursue knowledge then any facility of higher education will benefit you. But there are other factors at play than the fact that any school will contain more knowledge than you can adsorb. One is requirements - some schools will require rigorous courses, some not. Some schools will have super-smart students (a lot of students) and some will have mostly mediocrities who will not be the best influence on fellow students. Some schools have a party culture, and at other schools people who party all the time would be oddballs. Etc,........
You are talking about the performance of an individual. So in a average college an academic high performer can still come through the ranks.
But that does not take away from the fact that academic high performers are the main focus of the likes of Harvard or MIT.
Imagine you went around and picked the various best performers and then formed an organisation. Well you end up with NASA, Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge and google.
I have a friend who has a Harvard PhD and also graduated from Harvard Law school. He has talk to me about this subject, and I do believe he agrees with at least 99% of what Professor Peterson is saying here.
His Harvard education will/has given him easy employment no doubt.
“Money is not an easy resource to use productivity.” That sums up the futility of the redistribution types
I've seen some comments talking about nature vs nurture and I would like to add that a person with 130+ IQ doesn't have to try nearly as hard to learn something as an average person, which is relevant since the acceleration of learning will be way higher. This combined with already being ahead will widen the gap even more over time, assuming their web of knowledge offer a higher ability to draw conclusions and parallells.
I'd change out the word "acceleration" to "speed" if it turns out that our learning isn't exponential during the productive parts of our lives (education not work).
Just some thoughts.
+welmhotz
I have an IQ of 153 and when I was in college I never needed to study. I just did the course work and came out with perfect grades. Not once did I ever let anybody know this was the case. If I was in the library the chances were I was reading a book that had nothing to do with my courses.
The vast majority of what I picked up was in the actual classes. I could constantly see errors in the lectures but I never deviated from them and gave them what they wanted.
I find it very difficult to actually describe topics in detail to people because their point of reference is different from mine. So my day involves lots of perspectives.
@@bighands69 Which was your major?
look at the girl at the end of the cut to the audience at around 02:15 how she looks at the happy couple, poor girl :/
wow i didnt notice her
Ur sick
IQ >= 200
I'd be very surprised if she was single herself.
I wish someone would look at me like that :(
2:16 its like a shortest love scene out of nowhere
I was looking for this hahaha
It is incredible how his watch constantly changes from left to right hand. Editing is not only to cut and paste.
Straight facts. Brilliant man right there...
💯 🙏
When I was in eighth grade, I read every book in the school's libraries, including even the smaller libraries in each classroom. I read continuously, right through the teacher's lectures. At first they were irritated by my apparent lack of interest and participation in their classes and they kept trying to catch me flat-footed with questions about what was just presented or why it was important. I was always polite and responsive with the correct answer or accurate analysis, but I never put down my book or stopped reading while responding. They finally gave up and they agreed that as long as I got A grades on every test, I could do anything that I found interesting! I actually liked going school. Much to their embarrassment, I rejected mindlessly conforming to their social programming and found a way to become self-educated, in spite of the best efforts of the teachers and public school policies to prevent it! I was one of the few lucky ones who survived our "education" system.
@saganist Unfortunately, it took going to college to made me realize that school was a pain in the ass. Yes, learning at times as fun, but the people in classes you were surrounded by just made it boring and just made me not want to be there. When I found out that schools were just scams meant to suppress and "brainwash" children, I detested all of it.
seems like this was a diy venue since there was no technician present to prevent audio distortion
I think you are right about that. It seems to me that what people need is really meaning, something to bring their endeavors purpose. Instead of focusing on the means to an end as a solution for our systemic problems, we should rather focus on providing ends to be achieved as solutions for our issues. I'd really like to have more time to contemplate what all the possible ends are in life. If we get some answers to that question, and we rank them in priority, relative to individuals and their positions in the hyerarchy of our society, we can market these results accordingly. The aim would be to provide purpose to every strata of society and give people a good reason to motivate them to productive action. This is the deep philosophical question, what are all the ends in an of themselves in life? Then we can focus on the means to those ends. Making a rule that those ends, no matter how important, will not justify the means. I think that would be a big step in solving our issues.
Geoffrey this was excellent and well thought out. We would love for you to join our telegram for further intellectually and nuanced driven conversations!
Simulation,
Thanks, it would be pretty amazing to discuss, and figure out some potential answers to these questions, for its sake.
Where do I join?
Please shoot us an email at Simulationseries@gmail.com or hit us up on our social media and we'll send you the link! Cant wait to get you involved and hear your thoughts in conversation.
I love listening to Jordan, he makes alot of sense, hello from Ireland 🇮🇪👍
Mahyar Tousi does good UK news coverage
Jordan is So Brilliant in His thinking. The title of the video alludes to the idea that simply giving money out to smooth out inequality is not helpful especially to people at the fringes of society. However, if we use it "productively" we may very well be able to help these people out of their personal Hells but more importantly help avoid them getting there in the first place. Society as a whole should work towards this goal and ultimately this will require the 'work' of each of it's constituents.
A great benefit of going to a selective university or private school is the opportunity to associate with other people who come from wealthy families.
Those type of connections will help but it does not replace the importance of IQ. And if you have a low IQ, connections will not help in the long run.
Thats why my father said dont give beggers money. Give them food, water clothes. Things important for survival.
Yeah, but money also is a good give, because it lends them a little more choice, a little more dignity ... a bit more of that feeling of independence that they so sorely lack.
Tell you what, you give them food, I'll give them money. 🙂
@@gherieg.1091 And they'll buy the drugs...
So, how do I use money productively??
Thank you finally someone said it
Truth is Truth
We have created a modern world that we didn't evolve to live in. We evolved to hunt and gather and to raise children, now suddenly we have to deal with complex modern economies and technology. A lot of people get left behind.
Great observation! Let me ask you, and I'm asking you from left-wing point of view, how would you take care of those people in terms of libertarian theory, if the state isn't allowed to redistribute them money and investors can't be forced to invest in them?
And I would say that not only people are left behind, but also entire cities and countries, unable to adapt.
@@goranmilic442 Why would I answer in terms of libertarian theory?
@@anaccount8474 I apologize, what I meant to say is I don't understand how libertarians expect so many people to adapt so fast or at all. Your observation is brilliant, but I would add it's not just evolution, it's also culture, even age, that can prevent a person to adapt.
3:57
Ted Turner - “If you tried as hard as you could in your entire life there was no way you could spend more that $400,000,000.”
Me - Hold my beer.
whisperingwind2 i think the point is you can not spend it and have none. Sure you could go buy a bunch of liabilities and depreciate your money but technically you would still have some money in the item.
Colton Carlisle Lol yeah, I did get the point, I just thought that I would love to try. I think I could find a way, but first someone has to dump a truckload of money on me
Just plain hyper intelligent
Sit back and LEARN people
Thanks again Dr. Peterson
People often say money can't buy happiness.
Which is true in so many areas but you can buy the stuff that can make you happy.
The only thing is you have to control money.
Don't let money to take control over you.
You won't be happy but
But if you have enough money.
Money won't be a issue for your problem.
That means still you will have problem but money will not in one of those.
And the best thing about money is you can help others.
And nothing gives you more pleasure than helping someone.
After getting enough money now you have choices to chose a simple life or a luxury life thats your choice whatever you want. You can live however you want.
I love his last sentence. So true.
Talking about intelligence.. I find MENSA quiet interesting.
I have talked with some MENSA members and every time i have asked them what MENSA does and what they think MENSA should do.
It turns out that it does nothing, and non of the members i have talked with have any ambitions of what MENSA should do, they all think it should not do anything.
So as far as i can see, MENSA is a place for people with high IQ that just want to have it on a paper that they have a high IQ,
but they dont want that "club" with only smart people to do anything.
To me that show us clearly that not all smart people is necessarily so very smart.
Most of them said strait out that they just wanted it to be a social club.. lol
Jordan “and the data on this is quite clear” Peterson
400 mil?
I could literally spend it in 6 hours.
True, true and true. I had a volume "The Playwright's Speak" with bios of the most successful American playwrights. NONE had finished college and most had not gone. They were naturally brilliant. The were heuristic, or self educated. However, it is important to remember there are bright people who are not academically orientated in many realms of life: plumbers, inventors, small business people, etc.
Knowledge is Power
Elon Musk is a testament to why its not so bad that the cognitive elite get the most money. This man is flying spaceships to mars, flying 13,000 satelites to orbit and bringing electric cars to mass market, pioneering re-usable rockets, etc etc. God bless Elon Musk
100%
Fun drinking game; drink every time J.P. says "ok - let me give you an example".
Oops alcohol poisoning!
Firstly, I think Jordan Peterson is excluding the fact that there are different intelligences. Many people can be good at sports or can be good socially and these skills can be used to make money and a rewarding life.
As an aside: From personal experiences i do believe intelligence can be increased with practice and can also decrease with a lack of practice. However these differences are not major.
💯 Ashling! Thanks for watching & commenting :)
No, I don't think that's the case. The science is pretty clear there is only one factor of intelligence. Yes, some people are gifted at math, and some at linguistics, but someone gifted in math is so close to someone gifted in linguistics that they might as well be the same thing. It's not like your temperament which can be broken down into multiple facets which are all very different from each other.
Being good at sports probably has a biological basis, but I don't think it's rooted in intelligence. It might be tied to it, or projected through it, but it's not what we would label traditionally as intelligence on it's own.
We are not all the same in talents or ability but we shod act as one to help each other as much as we can.
Jordan is awesome
3:56 HAHAAHAhAHAHA Ask Johnny Depp... He knows how to spend 600 million dollars +
A house in California recently sold for $165 million. Pretty sure a couple of those would wipe out even the largest fortune in history, never mind making business-scale purchases.
@@tylerguitar75 But thats not considered spending. You turn one form of asset into another. The house can be resold at higher or lower price in the future depend on many factors.
It's not spending it's investing bro
@@navneetTanks no it's spending.
Put a Harvard student in the jungle and then see how he gets on.
+David 135
Like really means something.
Foreal send their asses to Vietnam
That's a bad example unfortunately. They might do worse than a local who has the benefit of generations of wisdom, but will probably do better than their very dumb colleague, which proves Peterson's point.
Put a kid from the jungle into Harvard and see how he goes
It just shows that you turned jealousy into anger to Harvard student.
Winning the genetic lottery , having a very high IQ , being extremely talented at certain things are almost NEVER the indicators as to how successful someone will turn out later in life ... Self-awareness , self-esteem , empathy , excellent communication skills , mindfulness and having a curious mind will ALWAYS trump being having an high IQ in determining success in life ...
I’m a ski instructor. The best ski instructor we have at my ski school went to Stanford. He started skiing in his late 20s, I started at 4.
Amazing, at 4 you already knew it would take you longer then other people to become a ski instructor.
Really like this bloke super intelligent but very humble and not arrogant like a lot with his knowledge and very patient with layman such as myself.just my humble opinion.
Jesus, I cannot listen because the noise gate is so jarring and the clipping is causing distortion. Pls audio guy. Dont noise gate a speaker, or at least give it a longer attack.
My man put a 0.01ms attack on JP over here
I always enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson, and while I agree with his commentary in this video I actually heard the very same thing around 2004 at a national GMAC conference (Graduate Management Admissions Council, which was then the author and governor of the famous GMAT - Graduate Management Aptitude Test - for MBA admissions nationwide). Forgive me as I don't recall the specific professor's name, but an esteemed professor from Stanford - along with his graduate assistant - gave what was then considered to be a rather heretical talk that very much mirrors what Dr. Peterson says here. He talked about how MBA programs at elite schools needed to seriously analyze their "value added" attributes of their respective curricula because his study of the recruiting habits of top employers showed that they mostly used the (high) admissions standards as a basis for hiring graduating students more than grades earned or activities engaged while on campus. In essence, the high GMAT scores for the top MBA programs -- typically, 750 or higher on the 800 scale - were a measure of intelligence that companies dared not explore in their official hiring practices because such an investigation could have been deemed discriminatory. Instead, they simply piggy-backed the top schools' admissions practices. While such a practice would have been considered unseemly in the corporate world of HR, it was SOP in the world of higher academics (especially among business schools). If so, according to this prof, then what the hell were the MBA programs teaching that was of any value?... that was his main premise. But, boy oh boy, did he ruffle some feathers with that presentation and premise at that conference!
interesting point you brought up! Glad you shared this with all of us!
Neuroplasticity refutes his claims of intellectual "genetic lottery." If you think you're dumb, keep learning. Competency should indeed be the main factor of the distribution of power. It's a trait that anyone can strive for if they are willing to labour at it consistently.
I hope it is true
JP makes that distinction in another talk about fluid IQ vs. IQ (you’re born with)
This has actually put me in an unsettled mindset having to think that I’ll never be better than some people no matter how hard I try, very depressing
If u work hard enough you will be successful. First step is get off TH-cam and start working or learning
Good video 👍 there are three fundamental realities in this video. The Jordan Peterson is very good at looking at common sense explanations to real life issues I always enjoy his videos thank you
One is born with certain 'undeveloped' traits and characteristics. Usain Bolt, for example, was without doubt born with certain genes that would later allow him to be a supremely fast sprinter. There's probably dozens, or even hundreds of such genes, all of which together made him more likely than others to run fast. For example, the genes that control oxygen conversion in lungs, sugar burning in muscles, leg movement speed, lactic acid tolerance and removal. However in another environment his 'talent' might not have been 'noticed' and thus not developed.
I think one of the consequences of human biological reproduction (evolution) is that there will always be a normal (statistically speaking) distribution of all traits and characteristics across populations. Some individuals will have a 'lucky' combination of a significant number, all at the 'right' of the spectrum, whilst, unfortunately, some individuals will have a combination of traits at the 'left' of the spectrum. Nature defines, nurture modifies.
But because of a lack of positive nurture, many Mozarts, Einsteins and Bolts are out there with talents which are never identified. This is surely, a 'hidden' though unavoidable consequence of the genetic mixing during evolutionary reproduction.
I took somebody to my wrestling club once who never done wrestling in his whole entire life and he was ragdolling top international wrestlers like they were toys. And not one of them could believe what they were going up against.
And it was zero technique and the guy was not as physically as big as the trained wrestlers either.
What you talk about really resonates with me Dr Peterson. And I feel as tho you're articulating my own thoughts and perspective while sharing new ones though mine seem to be in imagery rather than words in most cases. I enjoy your talking points and references. You are doing a great job and I'm truly inspired whenever I tune in with your art. The feedback is wonderful and moving and I must say sir your biblical lectures have done you well and in synchronicity of me finding a video of yours on parenting, leading me to many more videos I was almost done reading the old testament through and was even strengthened in faith as a result of your (who dare they say they believe in God) video, though you, in a way demonstrated less faith in God than I perceived myself to be blessed with, I was moved by your demonstrated view point. I almost instantly thought of a counter point that in my imagination would have completely put you on a new thought train so to speak. You're filling your space very well and then some. Keep growing toward the light brother and stay strong. Peace be with you and yours.
My country Sweden spends 50 million SEK which about 5,704,500 dollars of taxpayer money to spend on gender studies. Thank you Socialism.
It’s not down to socialism. That’s down to the arseholes who have hijacked socialism.
The irony is that you're basically an all-white European country. What percentage of your populace is non-white? 10%?
DIVISIONINCISION what is the connection between gender studies and Racism. I think you are commenting in the wrong section.
Sweden is not a socialist country - it is predominantly capitalist with generous redistribution/government entitlement programmes. For example, there is no minimum wage, the government provides complete school-choice (i.e. they pay for privately owned school's) and they rank highly on the Economic Freedom Index. I'm anti-socialism before anyone asks, just thought I'd state that none of the Nordic countries are actually socialist.
Somewhere in the distant past, I heard of an emperical situation that goes something like this,
In the UK roughly 10% of the population own 90% of the wealth. If however, this wealth was divided equally between every man,woman and child in the UK, then after 10 years or so, 10% of the population would once again own 90% of the wealth!!!