If you want to watch a monthly bonus video from me, go to my patreon and give me a few bucks! This month I have a few deleted sections from this video, which is, maybe fun, and will be out today. Anyway, here's the link! www.patreon.com/bigjoel
I love how Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist, saw that one of his patients suffering with a drug addiction was spending all of his money on drugs when he got it and concluded that "poor people don't know how to handle money" rather than "my patient's disease is making him spend money on drugs instead of necessities." I feel bad for anyone who is a client of this man.
@@Vizivirag To make it even more baffling Peterson himself was addicted to benzos. He was physically dependent on them and experienced hellish withdrawal symptoms coming off them. How he doesn't seem to understand addiction and what being physically dependent can drive a person to do is mind blowing.
Did I misunderstand? I thought he said that money sometimes is bad; he wasn't just making the blanket statement that poor people are bad with money, just that sometimes people shouldn't be given more of it
@@rayzecor he was using that anecdote as justification for his belief that if you give money to that 10% of people in society, they won't know how to use it properly and will waste it. It's a gross oversimplification and ignores the systematic issues which make it so much harder for people in poverty to hold onto money.
That's his power and weakness. He's able to say "xyz", people who critique him say "yeah that xyz is not good", and then he says, "I didn't say that, I said x^2, y^3, z^4, to the degree that 4^z = 3^y = 2^x."
@@ugadugaga4972 IQ is dumb but that statement is categorically false. Some people are genuinely more talented at thing than others, and someone that is both naturally gifted at something and passionate about it will always be better at that than someone that is solely passionate.
And it’s like, she’s literally just not skinny. It’s not an uncommon or ugly body type by any means, even subjectively. I can’t understand why he thinks she’s so horrific
@@runawaygemm5397 The funny thing is the magazine has probably had plenty of women on it that he would consider attractive. But he doesn't think its acceptable for one model to not be to his taste. He's actually the closest one to being authoritarian about this.
“This is why I’m a radical defender of free speech. You should be exposed to ideas that make you ask questions even if they make you uncomfortable!” *looking at magazine cover* “This isn’t where this picture belongs! It makes me uncomfortable, as though it’s trying to make me question my preconceptions!”
@@MrCmon113 he said that they “aren’t beautiful no matter how much authoritarian tolerance” or whatever the exact quote was. Heavy implication being that because he doesn’t find the model attractive they shouldn’t be there and that they’re only there because of wokeness or whatever. If he’s literally just stating his preference then why not say “I don’t think they’re beautiful” rather than saying it as if it’s an objective fact and if he doesn’t see it as an issue to be corrected why say anything at all?
@@MrCmon113 No dude. The implication was pretty clearly that they shouldn't do it. In fact he was quite authoritarian about how not just he doesn't find her attractive but no one can. Because if he didn't, why would he react at all? A normal person doesn't whine because a swimsuit model for one issue isn't their type.
@@MrCmon113 He didn’t say “I don’t think she’s beautiful” he said “She isn’t beautiful and everyone who disagrees has been brainwashed by woke culture”. It’s the old “no one can have different experiences from me, and if they say they do, they are either brainwashed or part of some evil plan that is trying to corrupt me”. Is this how you approach people in your everyday life?
can we please all talk about how yumi nu is also, like, conventionally attractive lol? she's probably genuinely in the top 1% of having traits that appeal to the most stereotypical of male heterosexualities. she's a little chubby and pear shaped in a way that was literally considered the height of beauty in most cultures at most times in history except like, for this one random handful of decades. Jordan's beloved ancient greeks would probably be going crazy for this woman. its like. what the fuck is he even talking about on so many levels lmfao
Well, it is unlikely for most people. Most of the change comes later in life when your psychological characteristics tend to become more pronounced. Ofc complete shift in your environment, like war situation etc., can change somewhat temporarily or permanently change it.
@@moonfolkrapid I think cheeselovingtree meant that a psychologist's career is built on the premise that people can fundamentally change with the psychologist's help. Otherwise why work in this field in the first place.
@@JuanPabloSelvaje “Why are you mad?” 1. I- Never said I was mad? I was reasonably frustrated and confused… 2. Because _they’re not the same thing._ It’s like calling someone a gardener, botanist, and herbalist when you really mean one of those things. It’s nonsensical, useless, and confusing.
Peterson's refusal to define the actual problem is maddening. "There's is nothing for 10% of the population to do" sure SOUNDS like a problem, but he's missing the very last step. How is this actually affecting the world right now? Is there 10% of the population that can't get jobs and are suffering because of it? So we need to find a way to fit them better into society, by making jobs for them? Or is 10% of the population failing at jobs that they aren't able to do, and employers should be free to fire them? Peterson's great trick is to stop right before he finishes his argument, so that in order to disagree with him you have to infer his conclusion, giving him the ability to dismiss you immediately because "I never said that." It's cowardly and brilliant at the same time.
Problem A exists. Problem A must be solved. Solutions B, C and D have been proposed. Solution C and solution B won’t work for reasons I will spend the next six hours discussing in detail. I maintain the problem must be solved but offer no alternative solution. [Solution D is eugenics and genocide. I’ll just leave that there for you to pick up on.]
When I was a kid, my mom, a college teacher, brought me Eysenck's IQ Test book, with ~10 variants of test. And I solved them all during a weekend. At the first one I got around 110, and last ones I easily solved for 140. So it is either a greatest intellectual improvement in human history, or IQ just shows how someone is good at solving poorly defined logical puzzles.
I remember when i took an iq test when i was 10 years old. I got a point less for answering a knowledge wrong. I was asked how much a "dozen" is. I wasn't sure whether it was eleven or twelve. I guessed the former and got points deducted. So. Luck is definitely a factor.
Point of order: The idiom of _picking yourself up by your bootstraps_ was an example created by Samuel Smalls in his 1848 book _Self Help_ to illustrate an impossible action. Nobody can do this.
@@itsyedino874 People understood the expression "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" to mean "attempting to do something absurd" until roughly the 1920s, at which point it started to evolve toward the current understanding: to do something without any outside help. But that's like digging yourself out of a hole, which is also absurd. Go ahead: put on some boots, grab the straps, and try to pull yourself off the ground. You won't manage to "pull yourself up" in any meaningful sense because gravity is a thing that keeps us firmly on the ground. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and thinking you can is fantasy.
"some rich people *are* parasitical but some aren't" but also ALL poor people are parasitical and just want government handouts to spend on drugs. Super consistent jordy
Ah yes people who exploit people for gain and hurt them, (parasite activity) arent all parasites cuz they give money (bare fucking minimum also not always guarenteed) arent parasites but poor people being exploited (like parasite host) who want handouts cuz no money (to live and keep up and survive cuz of parasite) are bad actually cuz capitalism yummy Dude if u use his parasite model literally his argument is debunked lol so like what's up
the thing with Peterson is that he really impresses centrist pseudointellectuals because he does this thing where he finds problems with everyone including conservatives, he says "these people who are trying to find solutions aren't smart enough to realize the problem is complicated" and everyone claps him for it, failing to see all he has said is that the problem is complicated and offers no complicated solution himself, he is contrarian for the sake of it and never says anything meaningful if you look carefully
@@immortalituss I don't want to crap on you, you're probably high, but I find it hilarious that I say "Peterson is contrarian and doesn't offer solutions" and your response to that is "how do we measure genetic influence on genetics?" I have no idea what you're on, cocaine maybe. But my response to you is: how do we measure scientific influence on science? Hmm?
At my grocery store we have a lovely teen with Down syndrome who bags groceries. He is helpful, smiling and cheerful every time I see him. I don’t buy the IQ argument at all. Some of the stupidest people I have met have been wealthy and less useful to society than this young man. I don’t know who he lives with, but I’ll assume he isn’t living on his own or earning a living wage, but he is helpful and useful to society. Our acceptance of him throughout his life, along with good parents and social programs have helped make him the cheerful person he is. Tossing our hands up and giving up on a low IQ child robs the world of people like this young man. I will assume that he has a job due to some social program benefiting his employer.
I also think the more pressing issue is that Peterson insists these people must have some sort of "productive" job in the first place. Why? Even if 10% aren't that useful we can surely just accept them anyway, 90% is a pretty good success rate. Realistically considering how much excess we produce for the ultra rich we could all live very comfortably based on what we currently produce, and that's in a system where most people's talent is wasted by being disadvantaged.
@@alexjames7144Way more than 10% of billionaires and executives haven't done jack shit to make anybody's life better in at best decades. I am, much like Peterson, deeply concerned about a small contingent of our society seeming unable to contribute anything of value. We just disagree on which neighborhood you can find them in.
@@jacobs7764 ? I'm not on the side of billionaires, I'm all for decapitation and wealth redistribution. As for 10%, I shouldn't really have to point out that 10% if billionaires and 10% of the population of the whole are very different numbers. Idek how you managed the mental backflips required to bring that up. I also agree that the rich are the problem. That was never up for debate. I was just saying that forcing everyone to be "productive" isn't necessary, if wealth was shared fairly they wouldn't need to be. Also not quite sure whether you're saying that you disagree with me or Peterson?
@@alexjames7144 The line about "productive" jobs also got to me. If a job is so worthless, then completely get rid of the position and either have a machine do it, or have a pre-existing employee also do that assignment (on top of their regular duties). The fact that so many places don't do this, shows it's not always cost effective, so even a "non-productive" job DOES have some value (even if it's in a roundabout way). Also, people degrading those jobs would be the first to complain if Walmart was only open from 5:00 PM to 12 Midnight, because "Only high school students and college students should have those jobs."
The sad thing is, Peterson is touching on a genuine problem here, that there are disabled people who can't get jobs because their superiors are unwilling to provide them the tools they need to function. But, of course, instead of phrasing his argument in terms of "People have different needs and those needs don't take away from their worth and right to live a comfortable life", he phrases his argument in terms of "Some people are inherently better than others"
Worse than that, when Peterson says that there is nothing but NOTHING these people can contribute and NOTHING can be done about it, there is an ominous subtext to his statement; like society may have to send these reprobates off to an internment camp or some such. No way to profit off this demographic, they might as well be disposed of. It's this undertone to Peterson's words that comes across as creepy. He is a weird, conflicted man.
Not to mention the assumption that everyone should be participating as a worker in the capitalist system… There are so many ways to generate value that don’t rely on being a cog in that machine. Besides, if everyone feels like they have to work long painful shifts in 20 years, then what the heck is the point of all this “technological progress” anyway…
yeah, and he does so because deep down he's not at all convinced that disability doesn't take away from people's worth and right to live a comfortable life. As evidence i submit the fact that he frequently talks to and is comfortable being on the same platform as nazis like stefan molyneux. (And before anyone makes the "well he's just not afraid of different ideas" argument; when's the last time you've seen JBP on an anarchist talkshow?)
I had the same response. I felt like it was the start of some interpretive stage show, where he is going to start dancing or other people are going to come out and act out a scene behind him, but nope it's him dramatically explaining a very basic conversative idea.
For a second I wondered if my browser had crashed. I guess he fell asleep standing up, woke up, didn't remember what he was there to say, and just blurted out the first thing that came to mind. :D
"I don't know the solution" = "I actually think the solution is eugenics but I can't say that out loud" Every single thing about him is like psychology 100 years ago or something. He was born in the wrong century.
considering the figures he holds in the highest regard like Jung are incredibly outdated for the modern field of psychology, it's no wonder he gives off that impression.
literally so easy to diagnose this guy with "divorced because his wife got sick of being treated like she was literally an inferior being, also rolled her eyes at his bullshit a bunch before she finally left" it's unreal
The more I watch analysis of JBP, the more I just want to say, "Jordan, who hurt you and how?" I mean, for a psychologist, Jordan's lack of reflection on his own rage is kind of shocking. Here's a man who literally said that he would rather die than be "forced" to use someone's chosen pronouns.
I was one of those classically 'gifted but arrogant' undiagnosed ASD kids at the age going into high school, and I remember getting an IQ score of 124 and being so mad that I didn't get a 'genius' score (140), so I took another test, and another, and another, I googled tips & tricks, I practised over and over and over because I needed so badly to be my dumb kid idea of 'clever'. Eventually I managed to get a score of 161, a jump from the 7th percentile to the 0.007th, in no more than a couple months. Considering that I am also a total idiot, then if that story doesn't prove how little merit IQ tests have, then idk what does, love the vid!
I scored a 160+ in middle school and have f'd up, destroyed, and pretty much ruined almost everything I've touched in life ever since, always thinking I was smarter than everyone and it was their fault. I'd trade 50 IQ points for a few emotional points.
@@crdudley that's too real. I score high too, but I don't have the sense god gave a tapeworm. ADHD doesn't help, but overall.. I am a paradoxical trashfire of smarts and bad decisions
A mate of mine got into Mensa this way, God knows what he felt he had to prove. Of course this story is much sadder because he was a 25 year old man at the time, not a kid.
I score incredibly high on IQ tests and yet I nearly failed math in high school a couple times lol -- IQ doesn't even necessarily correlate with applicable academic proficiency all the time, and that's something people like Peterson and other IQ proponents really like to gloss over a whole lot...
Jordan Peterson: "I had a client who spent his disability paycheck on drugs every single time. This 100% definitely happened, and also it's the disability program's fault, while poor little old psychologist me did nothing."
It's such a lazy answer too. Even if the money seemed to cause the drugs, was the client actually okay whilst totally skint? Absolutely not and any basic understanding of addiction would tell you that. Maybe his money could be better managed but it doesn't mean no money was a solution! So binary.
Peterson has spoken about his addiction with benzoy. He basically blamed everything about it and doesn't recognize his own role in it I.e. he works in the medical field and yet claims he was unaware of the potential addiction to this classification of medications. He went to a number of clinics but didn't like the idea that he had to do the work including dealing with withdrawal. He said he looked online for a better program. Then with his wealth flew to somewhere in Russia that at a extreme cost, paid to be put into a medical induced coma.... Seriously, look it up and watch some of his interviews on the subject. A few of them he burst into tears....conveniently.
School psychologist here. When I evaluate a kid’s “IQ,” I’m more concerned about their individual cognitive differences-not how “smart” they are. Knowing that a child has trouble in a specific area (like the kiddos with ADHD or Autism who struggle with processing speed and working memory or the kids with SLD who have a hard time with auditory processing) is useful because it tells me how to design the child’s Individualize Education Plan (IEP) to best help. Just saying “we’ll, they’re just dumb” isn’t constructive at all-even when you’re working with a child with low cognitive and adaptive abilities due to an intellectual disability.
"The relationship between poverty and intelligence is self evident once you think about it for any length of time" is just "I think there is a relationship between poverty and intelligence, no I don't have any source, my word must suffice, clean your room" To think I once adored this man.
ikr. There is a correlation, but asserting it as a fundamental and unchanging relationship is really reductive. And his version of "believing IQ science" seems to start and end with predictions based off of someone's current/most recent IQ, which is reductive of multiple other fields of study, like sociology and economics. You could theoretically argue that it's a starting point for an entry level course and will be expanded on in later courses, but when he's submitting these lectures as stand alone content it requires a different standard. Tl;dr IQ does affect quality of life, but society and intelligence are both more complicated than just "dum dums are useless"
There is somewhat of a correlation between poverty and intelligence, but the way Peterson phrases it, like most horseshit that comes out of his mouth, is both wildly reductive and oversimplified in order to fit his own personal narrative about whatever subject he's decided to believe that he's an expert on at that moment.
It's bizarre because obviously there's a relationship between poverty and intelligence but Peterson implies that stupid people just naturally end up poor, which makes no sense because stupid rich people don't tend to end up on state benefits. The actual relationship is that poverty limits the ability to access good education, especially early education and leave parents with less time to spend trying to nurture their kids' minds. We understand that IQ is significantly impacted by early childhood education, and that poverty predicts abysmal access to good early childhood education due to outside factors with no fault of the parents. Yet Peterson looks at that and says "hmmm..... Maybe there's a link somewhere but I guess we'll never know..... Nobody could possibly think of a solution for this.....I guess it's just the natural order......."
I think JP doesn't realize that Iq scores have to be normalized because the average IQ score is steadily going up. Does that mean the our brains are bigger than ppl from 100 years ago? No the increase us too fast to be explained by genetic changes instead it means that our education system is getting more comprehensive, knowledge is more readily available (e.g. the internet), high calorie food is readily available... all of these factors are economy related
So, this is what I'm hearing: if it's genuinely the case that there are very few jobs for people with IQs below 85, then that's the best possible case I've ever heard for Universal Basic Income.
But you're coming out at it from the perspective of wanting a society that allows for every person to exist comfortably, whereas Petersen wants a society where everyone* needs to struggle, and those who can't reach comfort don't deserve it. *everyone who doesn't happen to be born rich or extremely lucky
Experiments with UBI have also destroyed Peterson's claim that poor people can't manage money. It turns out that living in poverty is brutally efficient at teaching people the value of a dollar.
@@JonMartinYXD People conflate a willingness to choose short-term comfort while living a hellish life every once in a while with an inability to even evaluate their situation and make hard decisions. It's elitism through and through.
if you listen closely to what he doesn't say when he goes on about how hard it is to do anything and how nothing may be possible to be done, you can hear "we should euthanize the dumb, so us elites can profit even more"
Seeing these clips of him lecturing help me understand how he developed his idea of students as entitled or complaining etc. and why he joined the "PC has gone mad" lot: he somehow became a college prof through some broken system, despite being deranged. Then a bright, young and motivated new-gen of students get into the college and show up for their first lecture "wow, we made it, academia" .. and it's Peterson saying 'IQ testing is actually 100% real and people who score less than 87 cannot even dig a ditch, and we need to 'do' something about them' ... and the students are like 'what the actual f-ck' and legitimately think they have wasted their life working to get into a college program, then they question him or complain to staff. lol.
Speaking personally, if I was in Peterson's class and he started saying that we need to 'do something' about low-IQ people, I'd just say "You mean by doing eugenics? Because that's what you're implying."
I would kind of like to see a lecture by him - ideally one where he doesn't think he's being filmed. Because based on these isolated clips, it seems like he lectures the same way he gives interviews; and if that's the case, that'd be completely useless to any actual student. Either way, a lecturer using the words "self-evident" is earning deep suspicion and scepticism.
What I love is how conservatives use the phrase "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" despite the fact the phrase was originally created as an impossibility, because you physically cannot pick yourself up by your bootstraps
I'll tell ya, I whipped out this factoid once in my life and the person who I told it to just stumbled their way right past the point and into further nonsensical mumblings. Went about as well as I thought it would, but it felt good giving them some resistance.
"Other people aren't the problem" - bullies are not the problem - systemic failures are not the problem - rapists are not the problem - abusers are not the problem - the biases and failings of MDs and other elements in the system are not the problem "You are the problem!" - Jordan Peterson
Then JP cannot say criminals or terrorists or protestors or violent protestors are a problem, or Antinatalists like me trying to outlaw people having kids, or the IPCC, or climate activists, or animal rights vegans like myself trying to shut down factory farms.
I took two IQ tests in my life, one when I was a kid in a relatively poor family, in a country that just went through a revolution. My IQ was quite low at the time, according to the objective list presented by professor here, I was destined to be somewhere between mechanic and "factory production assembler". Later in life, my saint mother moved mountains to give me the ability to educate myself, (useless endeavor, according to esteemed professor, it's not like I can move stratas), our country got more stable and our financial situation got way better, and I took that test second time at the end of my uni. I got very high numbers this time, high enough to even maybe be a "Trainee" (really, professor, trainee? Just, like, in general?). Clearly all of this means that I am unique creature that could somehow defy my preexistent faith and jump from one group to another. I still don't know how it is possible, but as the only person on the planet who is able to do that, I think I need to be studied by the best iqologists out there. Maybe have my skull dimples measured or whatever real science they do
@@stephen1744 - I'm a geneticist and nothing of what you've said about this author or book sounds particularly controversial. It's also entirely possible we could, in time, learn about a non-zero innate genetic influence on IQ score. But IQ tests were created to evaluate a specific type of audience in a specific cultural and linguistic context, tailored to value certain cognitive skills _or_ ways of measuring those cognitive skills over others, meaning results are often self-fulfilling (eg. people who grow up in an environment that emphasizes verbal communication over numeric cognition are going to have an advantage in verbal IQ tests, but struggle with non-verbal IQ tests). We've never really been able to universally define "intelligence" outside of a very niche, culturally-specific context, so using IQ to determine this sounds like circular reasoning to me. It is also not particularly surprising that IQ tests can predict future "success" (which is the only angle it has been utilized in any meaningful way in science) because a lot of potential factors that influence IQ might also influence future success, but that doesn't mean IQ tests are useful for rating one's inherent genetic potential to become successful. Genetics alone cannot account for the multitude of variables that would affect cognition, intelligence, and/or success. IQ does have a few small uses in science, but they're very limited for this very reason.
@@stephen1744 I don't think the OP is trashing the notion that IQ has any predictive power, but he is making fun of the idea that a test taken at a specific time is an immutable predictor of future performance. The environment and resources available to the test taker prior to the test have been shown to impact the score. Peterson seems to throw his hands up and say, these folks are dumdums, hard problem, hand them a broom, while OP seems to suggest that policy changes could provide the environment that moves people closer to their natural limits. These "optimized" folks maybe get a wrench instead of a broom, live a better life, produce more, win -win, etc, blah blah. As far as I can tell, JP doesn't really address this possibility beyond scoffing at the idea of training a dumdum to be a software engineer, though I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I dunno, wicked tough problem man (throws hands up) :D
@@stephen1744 'Intelligence is highly heritable and predicts important educational, occupational and health outcomes better than any other trait.' Hard disagree. It is too wide a claim to be of any use. How do you define intelligence? How do you measure intelligence? How do you define educational, occupational and health outcomes? Also, there is a different sort of intelligence, like emotional intelligence or, for the lack of better word, physical intelligence. Some people are abstract thinkers. Other learn by doing. Anecdote time (I know you hate it because it is unscientific)! One of my best friends has only high school, economist vocation. His mother is college educated accountant. His father is high school educated metal worker. His sister has finished college as a technical designer. He might not have a college diploma and he might suck when it comes to math and calculations and, for the lack of better name, brute force problem solving. What he has instead is highly developed emotional intelligence. He is great at sales (including selling himself to an employer) and the way he solves a technical problem (for example, my MS Word document is out of alignment) is "try myself for half an hour, then call somebody else to fix it for me". Thus showing delegation and managerial skills. Now, if you took and measured his intelligence with a paper or online IQ test, you'll get a solid 93, maybe 97 IQ. But if you gave him oral test, his natural charisma and quick-wittedness would give you much higher score. He now works as business analyst and occasional tester, after years of successful career as a salesman. So, what would you say his intelligence is? What would you say are his occupational outcomes?
A popular phrase I've heard in my Psych BA and my research position which studies cognitive development is "intelligence is what intelligence tests measure". When testing for a construct, you want to know what the construct is first so that you can then make a valid test. The problem with intelligence is, no one really knows what it is. If you don't know how to define intelligence, how are you supposed to make a test with construct validity? IQ tests reveal how well you've done on the test, not necessarily how intelligent you are.
@@calisto789 ok so iq test started with an observation : people who tend to be intelligent in one task ex : mathematics tend to be intellingent in other tasks by intelligent i mean better than others. this discovery sparked the idea of a general intelligence and the creation of the g-factor that is supposed to indicate how high this general intelligence is. and then we find out that this general intelligence is way more general than we tought its every thing that demand abstaction : language, memory, everything that uses your brain. if you are better at one of them you are usually better in everything that demand your brain. and we created iq test to mesure your "g" the first iq test were heavily influenced by your level of education and your culture but we have perfected them to the point that no matter how much you studied for them you cant score better they correlate at .9 to .95 to your "g"
@@adamoutaleb7571 There no consensus agreement on "general intelligence" metrics that could include every variable needed to quantify a humans worth in society. That why no professional industry uses it to determine who they employ. They test for relevant skills in their field. A mathematician in a jungle is basically an invalid compared to a preteen member of a local tribe with intimate knowledge of how to survive in that environment. In that way, the tribe would likely consider the mathematician an idiot for his lack of knowledge of the forrest. But hes not dumb generally. Neither is the tribe generally. They grew up in distinct environments that facilitate certain skills, knowledge or ease at aqiuring those things. Take a baby from that tribe into the city to be adopted by professionals of some sort and that child will very likely grow up to be one themselves. Bring a baby born from a professional couple and raise them to live in a jungle, they will learn whatever their environment demands of them. Human being are very adaptable and iq just isnt a very helpful metric when it comes to solving social problems.
Yeah IQ is not a good way of measuring that kind of stuff. Even the people with the highest IQ can have to live on the streets while people with low IQ can live great lives.
He looks like the type of guy who in the early 20th century would have been one of those mad scientists who dissects people and tries to find ‘racial impurities’.
This is precisely what Peterson is saying, though Big Joel pulls up short of straight up accusing him of it - when he says "it's a big problem (the low IQ population being genetically incapable of performing what he considers meaningful labor), and I don't know what the solution is," he's simply advocating for eugenics. Because if you believe that people having a low IQ is a problem for society, and that low IQ is caused purely by genetic factors and cannot be meaningfully improved through environmental improvements or societal intervention, then the only "solution" is eugenics.
The irony being that there is no way to tell if he'd have survived in the realm we evolved from. Again, just the privileged decrying the failings of the underprivileged.
Ah yes, Jordan "It's impossible to train people to be creative, adaptive thinkers" Peterson. A psychological inspiration for the ages - the only psychologist who's willing to tell you he can't make you a better person, even while he sells books telling you he can make you a better person. It's that creative, adaptive thinking of his that does it. You just can't teach that! And neither can he.
The idea is that YOU,who's primed to believe him, are special person material, while THEY who don't are hopeless idiots. It's nothing but the same flattery tactic that gives us Randroids.
@@milofitness7726 And how does a non-creative, non-adaptive person fix their life exactly? How does one non-creatively, non-adaptively figure out what in their life is "broken"? How does someone take some very generic BS (admittedly wrapped up in some creatively adapted BS to hide how very, painfully generic it is) and apply it to their life without some level of creativity and adaptability? Then again, JP doesn't even follow his own books, so I guess the answer is that they don't. But perhaps you begin to see the point.
if you take it to mean "the other outdated, oversimplified garbage he believes" then yuuuup, out with that shite. And beyond that, there's so many instances where he just misses the point of more modern psychological studies that you truly have to wonder what he even thinks psychology IS
I am very intelligent, but also stinking lazy. Otherwise this comment could've been a masterpiece (as an analogy for Peterson's "bigger IQ = better proficiency" claim). This directly destroys Peterson's laughably narrow-sighted worldview (which his "theory of IQ" actually is). The lazy part: Come to your own conclusions, can you?! Other living contradictions we cannot ignore: Elon Musk and Donald Trump. They are at the top of the income pyramid and are part of the best payed/richest people of this world. Oh and they are actual idiots. Not only literally but in the medical sense of the word!
I think it was in the second year of my psych degree when someone asked a lecturer if childhood IQ scores was a good determinant of adult success. Her reply was that IQ alone didn't map to the highest scores being the most successful. There's far too many other variables at play for it to be a simple positive correlation. Then she said something that I've always remembered and this was 30 years ago. "There's people who could easily complete a doctorate sleeping on a park bench and people who can barely read or write that are multimillionaires".
i dont think he would argue that its the only variable or that smart poor people dont exist. and you should probably google what a correlation is. but jp does (to varying degrees of intentionality) make it easy for his audience to misconstrue simple facts in support of reacrionary talking points. if you take time to dig into him you'll find fairly liberal (not speaking about the american democratic liberal sense of the word), moderate, right leaning views on social issues, but he presents things in such a way that his audience will generally use his videos, books, etc. to support more radical views.
@@r_se I know perfectly well just what a correlation is, thank you very much. Nobody with any expertise in anything that he takes a position on treats what he says as worthy of taking into account. He's the intellectual for people who don't know what they're talking about, pretty much like you by the sound of it.
IQ was invented by the French public school system to justify giving foreign students in France a lower quality education system than French born students.
@@r_se "but he presents things in such a way that his audience will generally use his videos, books, etc. to support more radical views." That's because that's their purpose and always has been. His entire line of thinking leads to right wing radical views. Any liberal lean is completely surface level and pretty much a mirage.
He words his arguments very cleverly to absolve himself of the burden of proof. 8:39 "The relationship between poverty and intelligence is self-evident if you're willing to think it through for any length of time." In other words, if this relationship he claims exists is NOT self-evident to you, you simply haven't thought about it enough.
he does this so much its infuriating he always words it in a way that claims you are stupid of delusional if you don't agree with him without actually saying it
Really, the only credit I can give JP is that his words are clever, but, as you pointed out, it's not to provide clarity: it's only to obfuscate the points he wants to stay hidden/ignored. The fact he got so lost in the culture war over the last few years and exposed himself as an intellectual fraud was p hilarious to me.
It is extraordinary how long I was able to be a fan of Jordan Peterson's early lectures, assuming he was talking in good faith and that the problems he raised were meant in the spirit of improving people's wellbeing, like an actual lecturer in psychology concerned with the question of meaning whose solution to nihilism was "orient away from Nazi death camps." Hearing him say "10% of the population have trouble with the complexity of modern occupations and we haven't done anything to address this" back in 2015: damn straight, we need to revolutionise work and make it less needlessly bullshit. Hearing him say it now, in an interview with Stefan Molyneux, and go "I don't have a solution": god damn, it's going to be death camps, isn't it.
It's a fair bet that any time a conservative raises a problem but doesn't want to talk about solutions, it's because their preferred solution is too monstrous to say in public and they want you to draw that conclusion on your own so they can maintain deniability.
I agree. When Jordan said 10-15% can’t contribute to society, but I don’t “have a solution”, it does sound like, “I can’t say the solution out loud but if you’re a white supremisist, you know what I mean, wink wink.”
Most people who say they believe in personal responsibility think that just means "everyone needs to hold themselves accountable for their own lot in life without unfairly blaming others", but responsibility also necessarily means "everyone needs to hold themselves (and each other) accountable for how their actions negatively affect others- intentionally or not, individually and collectively". People tend to forget the latter part.
Ultimately it's kind of obvious: the Sports Illustrated cover is an affront to Peterson because it's an institution (Sports Illustrated) very publicly placing a particular person _somewhere Peterson doesn't think she belongs._ At their core there is perhaps nothing more conservative than believing that 1) _people have their place_ and 2) people should _know_ their place and not get uppity. It doesn't matter that this is an utterly silly and meaningless hierarchy of 'people who get to be on Sports Illustrated covers' - it _is_ a hierarchy, and as such just like any other hierarchy it _must not_ be challenged.
All to justify private ownership and unequal access to shit baby, the hoops theyll jump instead of admitting that they want hierarchy. Great analysis tho dude.
What's ironic is I bet Peterson wouldn't dispute your ending argument here. The reason Peterson went after Sports Illustrated wasn't because he's attempting to enforce "their place". It was because he recognized that this model was being put on display out of pity, not out of beauty. And we all know this, but Sports Illustrated wants to market off of their own self righteousness like the rest of the woke crowd. "Oh, you don't think this model is beautiful? It must be because you're a shallow bigot!"
@@jasonhendricks4562 He saw this model as being put on display out of pity not out of beauty because that's the only reason _he_ would have done it. And same goes for you - 'we all know this'? What other things some people agree with you about so you wrongly assume _everyone_ does? Any fan of the free market should at least be aware that _different people have different aesthetic preferences._ This isn't rocket science. But while buying a car in your favorite color is a concept everyone should grasp, I guess Peterson fans who like black cars assume all the many people who prefer red cars are _faking it for clout?_ So there's no woke mafia coming to cancel you because you don't think a model is beautiful. You're only a shallow bigot if you have trouble with the idea that _other people might like_ how she looks, and need to make up _explanations_ (beyond 'some dudes at SI thought she looked hot'). But if you just can't imagine any of that, I invite you - as an intellectual exercise - to visit Pornhub, and write down all the categories of videos the site offers. Then put a checkmark next to all the categories you think are there because Pornhub 'wants to market off of their own self righteousness like the rest of the woke crowd'.
@@KillahMate Yeah you're not wrong at all, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just clarifying that Peterson saw this move by Sports Illustrated as an agenda to make being overweight idealistic. Because modeling is about capturing the 'ideal' afterall. Beauty is subjective and Peterson admits that he could have handled his tweet better. But it absolutely had wokeness written all over it. "Lets celebrate being overweight just like we celebrate fit bodies, you know - the bodies that take great effort to maintain. You don't think fat people are equally worthy? You bigot!"
The worst thing about Peterson is that he pulls in a certain demographic that is genuinely seeking reason and meaning, and he fills that need with his weird, vacuous, dog-eat-dog nonsense.
Yeah, the ammount of otherwise genuinely smart people ive met that believe his dogshit? Its embarrassing and pathetic that he hasn't been laughed to hell publicly on all platforms for all the joker fans and intellectually dishonest tryhards to feel some real shame in their life for falling for his manipulation. Because thats all it is, he plays the part of pretending to be a woke smart guy, but he's really just some old coot that took drugs once and thinks that means he's enlightened and more socially aware than everybody combined, he's the type to dismiss Stephen Hawking for being "too woke" as if empathy and a nuanced understanding of others is a bad thing...
I took an actual IQ test (not one of those cheap online courses) and my IQ is something like 75-80 within that general range but I'm doing great in life. I'm not the smartest man alive but I can do everything that people with 100 IQ can.
@@Fatb0ybadb0y how does this count as dunning kruger? he's just using a personal anecdote to attack the credibility of IQ tests, which deserve all the attack they get. i don't see how he's claiming expertise or competence on a topic he isn't knowledgable in.
Jordan Peterson’s assertion that “IQ is the metric that determines if someone is good and/or capable of anything” is essentially just eugenics. I am shocked that a University ever let him teach.
The funny thing is, I recently watched a video that did an analysis on JBP (I can't remember the video off the top of my head) but it went a bit on how he got into being a professor at the University of Toronto. He got referred for the position from another prof there that had a really good impression from a speach or presentation that he did, saying it helped him in his personal life. Then after Peterson started teaching and students were like" He chamged my life and stuff" and the guy that reffered him saw that JP was a really good motivatinal coach and stuff, but he didn't really teach the subject of psychology very well to the stundents. They came out of the class more as if they went to a Tony Robbins speach or similar. If I remember the video I'll link it here.
Even if you want to buy into it: An IQ of below 85 (or 87, as shown in the list of jobs) is ridiculously high for someone to be considered incapable of doing any kind of useful job. I've both worked as a cleaner and spent a significant amount of time around people who have IQs of between 50 and 85. An IQ of 50 is absolutely compatible with working a useful job. In some cases, these jobs would need to be adjusted (less unwarranted "I don't need to show you how to do your job, I am not responsible for it, just do it" in situation where it is extremely unclear what the "obvious" way to do that job could be and with which very intelligent people struggle just as much if not more), and in some cases you could leave them exactly as they are (or make them a bit more challenging, to prevent bore-out).
Also, since when is it actually necessary for everybody to work? So much nonsense work is being done. You could easily make the cut-off at an IQ of 100 and say that everybody with a lower IQ (and below the age of, say, 20) is forbidden to work, and still end up with a perfectly functional society.
I was I a family iq test as a toddler, where me and my mum were tested. Based on what my mum said, the two of us did far far better than was predicted compared to our social class and family education history. The reason? My mum travelled as a young adult, she saved for years to backpack across europe and the USA. She fully admits that the only reason she could answer half of these questions was cause she learned while travelling. And, as an overly curious child, she taught me stuff. Basically, the test was far easier to pass if you were upper class and had taken a European centric education. I.E. it was really crappy science. If it had instead had a far heavier knowledge focuse on things more common in the working class, like local info, trade skills, etc. then it would have produced entirely different results.
@@ordinary_life_n Their mom backpacked through Europe and the iq test was apparently centered around European knowledge, so that's why they scored well.
@@ordinary_life_n UK based IQ test had an upper middle class European focus. That bias gave my fam an advantage. Granted, this was almost 20 years ago so things have probably changed since then, but based on what I've seen, there is still a bias against knowledge morr commonly held by immigrants and working class folk.
@@theviewer6889 But the IQ test is just math and logic puzzles, how does traveling places help you? I get that it can help you indirectly by making you more curious and more likely to study, but not directly.
@@angeloskoulas3988 took an iq test as a child and one of the questions was based on a pattern that my aunt taught me about as part of a puzzle game we played a week earlier. Literally if I had not played that puzzle game or taken the test a week earlier, I would have got it wrong. So this shows that it's not based on innate ability
SI has been in the process of rebranding their swimsuit issue to be a women-centered lifestyle magazine more than catering to men for a few years now, and I had the joy of being put in charge of SI’s customer service line right when that change started - and since I had nobody to tell me what I could or couldn’t say since the company was in the middle of a big restructuring and they replaced the whole customer service team with me I had the freedom to pretty much tell a bunch of angry men to shove it and we already have their money so there’s nothing they can do about it bc we don’t give refunds to entitled pricks. It was great.
This why you don't get too attached to brands, especially in today's world. One, because brand doesn't mean what it used to; two, because there will always be some other brand or company that will come along to fill in the gap once the demand is there.
@@nfzeta128 yeah they did lose a lot of subscribers but they got a lot better brand deals, celebrity partnerships and ad revenue that way more than made up for the decrease in sales so all in all it was a good business decision regardless of the boomer dudes who can’t figure out how to Google image search for women in bikinis
Isn't that bait and switch, though? If my Family Handyman rebranded to be a cooking magazine halfway through my subscription, I'd call for a refund. I guess that would make me an entitled prick? To assume I was entitled to the thing I bought, instead of some random other thing?
Sometimes I'm convinced JP got his liscence from a cereal box, because I can't imagine how he actually managed to convince someone he could be a psychiatrist. Also, I love how Joel points out that Jordan says that the snake symbols were inspired by DNA strands, when in fact, it just looks like snakes fucking. Brilliant. Tells you how much the man "thinks" about stuff.
As someone with a bachelor in Psychology and who was trained in psychometry... every one of my teachers warned us against using IQ as anything more than an academic success predictor. My psychology statistics teacher especially made sure to debunk The Bell Curve (without naming the book) during one of our first classes. This teacher trained us on administering an outdated version of the IQ test and one of our tasks was to point out where the test was lacking and how to account for it in our evaluation. IQ can be a useful metric to determine if someone is having a hard time learning and can sometimes give a bit of an indication as to why it's the case, but it's an incredibly faillible test that must be administered with a lot of care and its results read with even more care.
>every one of my teachers warned us against using IQ as anything more than an academic success predictor Lol. What makes academic success different from everything else in the world? >IQ can be a useful metric to determine if someone is having a hard time learning Which a lot of people here are denying precisely just because of the attitude spread by your teachers. There is nothing academic about this, it's purely about giving in to social pressure. >but it's an incredibly faillible test that must be administered with a lot of care Bullshit. Compared to what? What test in psychometry is less "fallible"? It's measures the MOST reliable and meaningful quanity in all of psychometry, *g* .
Academic success predictor? Maybe in some ways but would things like mental health problems or attention issues not significantly lower someone's academic success. Schooling sounds like more a predictor of effort than anything else.
@@Griot.7294 To a degree but these factors, I would assume, get less apparent as time goes on as people tend to get paid by wage and not by performance. Not to mention that there's just so many factors and every single one of them in a person's life will contribute in some way. Mental illness, relationships, family, substance misuse, or a myriad of other things would for sure impact work performance.
Big Joel, I really like your analysis of Peterson’s “listen to each other” argument. I was inclined to agree with the argument almost because of the argument itself: I think it’s important to listen to people you don’t agree with, and Peterson is one of those people. I didn’t get why people liked him before this video, but now I do, because he says a lot of things that sound very logical on the surface. But you shouldn’t have to listen to someone arguing in bad faith, or delegitimizing the struggles of others, or being a super obvious fascist. If my partner in the hypothetical couple situation initiated a conversation by screaming the one attack helicopter joke at me or calling me slurs, then yea i think an eye roll might be fitting there, at the very least.
i actually agree with the notion that u should listen to people u disagree with, but u should also have the opportunity to give ur perspective as well. other people should give u the same courtesy. jordan peterson does not do that. he wants u to listen to him but does not want to listen to u. i have had some of the best conversations with people i disagree with, and ive learned a lot from them. the issue comes about when u ask why he is telling us to listen. what story is he trying to tell by giving us this listening idea? he is an arrogant hypocrite who uses platitudes and pseudo intellectual ideas to sell snake oil to insecure young men basically lmfao
I think you touched on a key point that is missing on thr whole "you should listen to people you disagree so you can learn something" that that only works when the person is being honest and opening up their experience or how they understand things or whatnot, not simply anything anyone is spouting for the sake of it or bc they don't even think about what they say. Not to mention that only bc you might learn something doesn't mean their points are any good at face value.
Ever since I watched Shaun's video on The Bell Curve, any time I hear someone bring up IQ my brain instinctively waits for them to bring up racial differences. And given enough time, they'll do it almost without fail.
The funny thing is, if there are “racial” differences, the actual difference is culture. Standardized tests are apparently harder for people outside a very specific culture.
Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is *literally* *impossible.* Why do people keep repeating this phrase?! The level of unintentional irony in using that phrase as an synonym for "effort," is so high, it gives me nosebleeds.
One thing Jordan completely ignores is the idea that IQ could be multivariate, that people can be extremely stupid in some ways but less so in others. I'm a terrible businessman but I'm a top-level problem solver, and my IQ is over 140. Some stuff i can do better than anyone around me, and some stuff i seem brain-dead trying to solve. My supervisors at work have struggled with what to do with me, thinking of how they could smash me into being a business-minded worker, but ultimately realizing that succeeding in this could also smash my creativity, which was the real benefit i provided that others around me couldn't. They finally decided to just put up with me, and enjoy the unique solutions i threw off. Anybody can do time cards. Or can they? I designed a time card system, but i wouldn't really do them myself. So i contributed to getting thousands of time cards in, just not mine. The evidence that most people are like this is all around us, that people are almost never "just stupid" to the point of being incapable of anything. To make it more obvious, we have actual people in govt who are very clearly intellectually low-level, people making laws that obviously just don't understand what they are doing. Total abortion bans passed by people who don't know what "ectopic" means. What happens to Jordan's theory when the President's IQ turns out to be 90, and a homeless street person hits 135? As is commonly true of Jordan, his rationalizations tend to be lazy. He hits on a track, and fits everything to it. Everything bad is radical-leftist post-modern cultural Marxism, and Marxism is the ultimate evil because 100 million died in the Soviet Union. Yeah, that follows. Everything is on the most rudimentary level of abstraction. But he is articulate, and a lot of dumber people mistake that for erudition, or, to them, "smarts". Jordan is a conservative pseudo-intellectual for the post-Trump reality. We would be much better off of he hadn't come out of his Russian-induced rehab-shortcut coma. Seriously, a clinical psychologist hopelessly addicted to benzos. Talk about stupid.
Normally I don't feel okay making fun of people who struggle with drug abuse, especially not to the point Peterson does, but for a man who preaches self-reliance and hard-headed realism (to the point of villifying and demonizing civil rights activists as totalitarian monsters) to end up unable to cope without insane amounts of drugs, well, it's just... it's the sort of thing one can only laugh at homerically. If he had an ounce of integrity he'd ask himself some hard questions about how valid his ideas really are. But of course he doesn't. Then the whole shithouse would go up in flames.
@@pantalaemon his entire thing is "if you're own life isn't even in order you have no right to critique socity" and watching him spend all of his time critiquing society while his own life is a shit show is just objectively hysterical"
IQ was invented by the French public school system to justify giving foreign students in France a lower quality education system than French born students.
Anecdotally speaking, part of my ADHD diagnosis involved taking an IQ test with ~5 different subscores that were combined to find your aggregate IQ. In one of the categories, I got the highest possible score - better than they'd ever seen in their office. But my processing speed score was awful (because of the ADHD lol), so the total score landed around 120. I felt so slighted! I don't think this version of the test is much better at objectively measuring intelligence than standard ones, but I like it better as a means of communicating the results. It allowed me to think "oh, this is stupid! it directly penalizes neurodivergent traits!" and disregard it entirely
The "women must be beautiful and skinny" seems to me to exist to suppress women. A man who insists that a woman must fit that body type doesn't see women as equals.
A. The target market of this magazine is targeted toward men, not women, men. These women have always been more curvy than women in magazines with a target of women, like Cosmopolitan. Rail thin, shapeless, buttless, boobless women were a staple of women's magazines, not men's. B. Women have always had beauty standards. You know why? Women rank each other by looks. Women are far less forgiving of other women's bodies than men are, and there is extensive study to back this up.
Every single culture on planet earth has a female body standard. And that standard, thick or thin, is maintained by women. Every single culture on planet earth has a male body standard, and that standard is selected for by women. Women give sex to men they find physically appealing, and rank each other by physical appeal, and blame men for all of it. Great gig, women have.
never forget with any metric of measuring intelligence, the ones who introduce it into the status-quo are the ones who rank the highest on their own quiz. it is not a varied group of people with different scores who propose it. the people who claim that they can determine if an individual is a big-brained genius or not just so happen to fall under their own definition of a big-brained genius. you are more likely to vouch for something if it boosts your own ego and the fact nobody factors in that bias shows how flawed the idea of iq is.
It's always been tied to imperialism too. The original IQ guy, Binet, was a French guy who wanted to find the African kids who were worth educating in the best schools in France while the remainder would be left behind, orchestrating "brain drain" from the colonized countries for decades which still obv has an effect.
I think it is not just about scoring well, but also about this score being flexible. Like over 10 points flexible. And you can practise for it. I'm sure the test is useful for something, but relying on it too much is dangerous. A hammer is a nice tool too, but it is hard to mow the lawn with one.
@@MissMoontree I see it working well within psychiatry, of which it was originally intended, but not within the space it is today. I once compared it to xanex. A drug intended solely for psychiatric use but is now mostly known for being a party drug. In a sense, modern IQ tests are the nerdy party drug meant for people who prefer to get high off their own ego more than anything else.
It's "biased" towards pattern recognition, short term memory, logic, and 3D mental rotation. Your stupid generic criticism is typical for someone, who has never done anything by himself and never even tried to understand anything properly.
It turns out that "it's really complicated to explain why" he thinks they're DNA means it came to him in a hallucination. He thinks he saw DNA when he was on shrooms. And he believes in a collective unconscious. Those combined gets there. He explained it in a discussion with Richard Dawkins.
He takes his belief in a collective unconscious and takes that to mean Joseph Campbell's monomyth (which is not actually universal) is a result of the collective human subconcious and that archetypes are real and should be enforced. It's bonkers.
Years ago when this man was starting to be famous, I was in a bad place mentally, with no good expectations in life, and his basic cognitive therapy advice and his capacity of tedious talking looking meaningful did make me like him. He did a website, I don't remember what it was, I think it was some sort of life coaching or work guidance for 15 bucks and it made a bunch of moral questions. When I ended, I was greeted with a message of "You don't have enough intelligence and we can't help you". Which was funny, apart of insulting, because I have done in the past 2 "certified" IQ tests, 1 during elementary school and the other one in high school and they said I was about 128 IQ, which by this man's perspective I should be some big shot in a company or something and not a barista at Starbucks. So, I felt insulted and cash grabbed by the same man who said "he wanted to help young men" and I started to realize what was his real game all along, then all the analisys on his bonkers books was done by lot of people on the internet and, yeah, he is just your good ol' second hand car seller with a... psychological? twist. I also learned that IQ tests are bullshit and probably did decently at them because I always liked the logic games of guessing what is the next drawing pattern given 2 or 3 examples in passtime magazines. I still do logic games though, I find them very entertaining and have the capacity to make me feel more intelligent than what I really am. As for my 15 bucks, don't worry, I could cancel the payment and that was a very happy ending to my then struggling economy, so I kinda proved his point against his own economy, I guess. I think he talks about the people who pay him for his shit when he burns people about IQ and managing money, maybe he still doesn't believe he got rich and adored by doing what he does.
so many grifters want to "help young men" but end up just scamming them :( its a damn shame, but it sounds like you definitely came out on the better end of it, congrats!
ngl the increase of mental health issues made some "psychiatric clinics" rich because they're just offering band aid solutions or just giving them meds and thats that.
@@user-gm3lg8gp3m Like all bootlicking quacks and psychopaths with power nowadays, he refurbishes the old Calvin reversal on christianity poverty and modesty. Instead of saying rich people are touched by god, he says that people that lacks modesty and toughtfulness over other people and is willing to strive in the power/money chain are more intelligent. It's idiotic beyond belief and pretty much bombs the mysticism around IQ and all the constructs around it. I suppose people who are like that use that logic to be able to sleep sound at night or something and keep people who don't know better believing in this shit. I think the web was given on one of the old H3H3 podcasts (I suppose the first) if you wanna try the stupid test. Just be sure you can reclaim your money back, don't give this piece of shit any money.
one of the points that I think is often neglected with the silly "poverty and iq" question is the way that increased stress and trauma really fuck with a lot of your higher order functions. You can see this in how previously high-performing people end up doing worse as they go through trauma or as increased life stressors that occur as one ages takes their toll. I haven't read all too much on this effect developmentally but I can't imagine that kids living through the family stress and everything that comes with being in a tight place economically is gonna be especially Conducive to developing study and test-taking skills.
I agree with your point and I happen to have read an awful lot about the intersection between exposure to stress & trauma and poor health outcomes, especially the link to chronic pain and inflammatory auto-immune disease. There's a lot in that body of research regarding how your body deprioritizes certain functions when in a prolonged state of fight or flight. Also, cool profile picture. That album slaps.
in the last 5 years i have had 2 semesters of classes on psychology, at some of which they explained to us the problem with IQ tests ...but i'm sure JP would just take it as a sign that the modern education is inferior to the one he had.
It's more clear what's going on when he reacts to the pure biology side of things... With IQ and psychology, well, he's a psychologist, maybe he knows what he's talking about. Surely he's done his research, right? He's saying it's important and *he's* got a PhD in this stuff. But then it moves into pure biology, and he's got no qualifications here, and he's enraged that the cutting edge of the science isn't aligned with the 200 year old traditional understanding of the matter. How dare these "researchers" with the "data" and "experiments" and "computer models" and "hundreds of years of science to build upon" suggest that Darwin didn't magically and perfectly solve everything centuries ago!? That's based on nothing. That's just 100% his outrage at the notion of new information challenging old ideas. The reason he gets upset when people challenge the importance of IQ is he's an anti-intellectual conservative who can't stand the notion of academic or scientific progress.
@@paulsmart4672 The problem with Peterson is he plays the field and both sides. He quote's numbers and statistics when he wants to that support his beliefs and then quotes mysticism and religion when it suites the argument as well. He'll bounce between the two and rail against authoritarianism but loves to tell people exactly what they should think and do. His final form of defense is the somewhat famous "there's something important there but I just haven't figured it out yet", usually attached at the end of some wild claim. He's able to manipulate the conversation by sounding academic, sounding spiritual and all encompassing, sounding contrarian to subvert his critics and keeping things open enough to build upon later. A slippery character indeed. I am enjoying the word salad moniker though.
@@paulsmart4672 IQ tests are racist BD. They were invented to give racism a scientific touch as if it is founded on facts. But it is not, it is scientism. Peterson talks just rubbish sh*t. Big word which means nothing. Once he made clear that one of his "sources" is "The Bell Curve", which does exactly that claiming that racisim has scientific grounding and IQ test tell something useful. For a debunking of the Bell Curve there is e.g. the book by Stephen Jay Gould (The Mismeasure of Men). You don't need more to read to know the BS Peterson says.
They're not even that good at measuring that, actually, as the same individual's result can vary greatly between two tests. IQ isn't even good at measuring IQ.
This kind of misses the point of the video. Joel never debates the point that IQ is a metric connected to various other factors such as what jobs you may be able to occupy and sustain. Though IQ isn't probably as meaningful as we'd hope a meaningful statistic would be, IQ does have some meaning beyond a number, and even Joel seems to accept that in this video. If you claim IQ is meaningless to one of Peterson's followers, you won't get to any of the more significant problems in Peterson's rhetoric.
When asked in a 2004 interview with The New York Times what his IQ is, Stephen Hawking gave a curt reply: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
@@adamoutaleb7571 1st - I think you mean 'psychology question' rather than 'psychological question'. The 1st is a question regarding psychology, the 2nd is a question that affects the asked person mentally or psychologically. 2nd - Most actual psychologists don't see IQ scores as a big deal either, and certainly not indicative of intelligence.
@@fpedrosa2076 hi it’s me on another account 1. yes this is what I meant 2. Every psychologists you’ll go too will use iq test to help diagnosis with adhd, autism, nvld, learning disabilities
His harsh opposition to being “tricked” into finding someone attractive is a play for control. He wants to keep us thinking that there’s an objective way to be “correctly”, and that *he* knows what that is. This gives him power to say, “fat people are ugly and unhealthy”, “poor people are stupid”, “trans people are their assigned gender”, “women are intellectually inferior” - all from a place of objective truth. If we as a society agree that there’s nuance and things are more complicated than “only skinny white woman attractive”, he loses all of his power to say what is and isn’t objectively right and wrong, which is literally the only argument he has against everything he opposes. It means that we can be “tricked” into believing that it’s okay to be fat, that poor people deserve assistance, that trans people are their actual gender, and that men and women are equal, and that’s terrifying to him.
'Some More News' covered Jordan so well, the video outperformed much, but unfortunatley people get the odd, odd Impression it could possibly be the only video worth watching. His epic Worker-Right Coverage is therefore not the only thing that just wont Profit from all the new Viewers cause they all come to the Conclusion 'Oh well, this video was EPIC, but why would i check-out the other Videos this same Guy made?'
I think its more malign narcissism. Jordan Peterson gets angry if he feels like the public is not appeasing him personally. I personally always found that it would be the most healthy to just psychologically profile such guys, round them up and shoot them, it would prevent alot of terrorist attacks and school shootings which are in most cases commited by the creepy incel kid who pikachu faces over why nobody likes his toxic ass and blames society for it.
There is such a thing as objective truth. Being fat makes you objectively less healthy. Many of the poor make shitty life decisions that result in their condition, and many of them are just genetically predestined to be poor. Biology is predetermined and cannot be changed. Here are innate differences in mental and physical structures between men and women. Hiding behind 'nuance' in the face of reality is delusion. Many topics deserve nuance, but many also are objectively true -- The sky is blue. The Earth is round, ect. Quit denying reality.
@@8jijjoo126 Then what do you say about people who vote for the democrats and being generally on the left statistically having higher levels of education than rightwingers? Not to forget all the economic, scientific, artistic and technological centers being generally blue and the majority of elites in the arts, beauty, tech and academia, the corner stones of a civilization, being left leaning? Doesn't your stance kind of indicate that left leaning positions are naturally something that appeals to the genetic upper class of society and therefore being of a higher validity and genuinly being more favorable to society in large than conservatism, which is something the genetic under class leans towards? Especially since many of the conservative strongholds tend to be part of the broader hillbilly and white trash culture, which is notoriously known for inbreeding and therefore genetic degeneration?
My therapist has another client that apparently loves Peterson very much (I don't know the client or anything else about him, so I can't judge him as a person) so the both of us talk about him at times. I actually brought up Peterson first because he basically stated that BPD is the female version of ASPD which I found quite strange because the two disorders have some glaring differences between them. That promted my therapist to look into Peterson because two clients of his mentioned him. His conclusion was that Peterson was a very typical old university professor, insane, conservative with a dangerous love for facist rethoric.
> "a very typical old university professor, insane, conservative with a dangerous love for facist rethoric." Wait that's typical??? Dang I just got into uni I gotta watch out 👀
Yeah, autism is nothing like bpd, take it from someone who is autistic and has met people with bpd many times. They arent even cognitive cousins, I have more in common with my cats than I do someone with bpd, thats not a bad thing, its just true, women with bpd and autism may act similar but thats literally just because of sexism, and how women with mental differences are raised to basically be submissive niave robots, its depressing, but thats ableism for you.
No, he's roped even relatively moderate or even progressive minded people into believing he's smart. No, he's simply the dumb person's idea of a smart person. Dumb people will gravitate towards him from all walks of life.
I used to think he was so smart because I couldn't understand a single point he'd make. Now I realize he simply never says anything worth listening to.
The thing about "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" that always bugs me, and this is true of many conservative arguments and positions, is that even if it's true and even if it solves that one person's problem that's one person. We're talking about a system that affects millions and can't sustain everyone doing that at once, it's just mathematically impossible for all those people to do even if we just assume it's possible. But it sounds really nice and simple to say
Ah, but conservatives don't believe in systems. If one person can still get an illegal firearm somehow, then "people can get illegal firearms" and gun control is therefore pointless. If one person can get insanely lucky and make all the right choices at the right time and go from rags to riches, then "people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and the world is therefore fair.
Yea I realise that with a lot of conservative arguments on systems in general. They tell you a method that 'may' work to allieviate some of the symptoms of that system but of never seem to understand the goal is to fix the system itself and not maybe help one or two people be the next to subjugate 5 - 1000 others.
Conservative solutions are entirely based on individual solutions and reject systems wholesale. They generally are not interested in society-scale projects because they don't believe in helping those who they can't personally benefit from.
Really felt the bit about respect being a 2-way street. The person speaking isn’t always trying to show you some profound flaw in yourself. Sometimes they’re just insulting you, or lying, or lashing out, or arguing in bad faith. Sometimes rolling your eyes is the correct reaction to bullshit.
Joel, I just wanted to compliment you on your oratory and delivery of this video. You make a lot of points I don't agree with, but you deliver your arguments in an extremely convincing manner. Keep it up!
I've noticed that whenever JP says "It's a big problem, man! and nobody knows what to do about it," that's where his Hidden Agenda is very close to the surface. Great essay Joel - I subscribed
“No one knows what to do about it!” “Here are some things we could do about it” “No, none of those would ever work. Why doesn’t anyone have a solution for this?”
I just wanted to say I've got a BSc in evolutionary biology and I've also read The Origin of Species, and I have a genetics textbook sitting about two feet to my left that makes Darwin look about as smart as a toddler. He could've had no idea how mind bogglingly complicated the field would become in 160 years, and there was a _lot_ he didn't know and some core facts he got almost laughably wrong around heredity. That said, he absolutely wasn't wrong on the core principles of natural selection and common descent, which have been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. Edit: to clarify I don't actually think he was only as smart as a toddler. He was incredibly intelligent and insightful, especially given the limited data he had to work with. But people like JP treating him as though he was a prophet who can't be questioned is ridiculous.
He was right on quite a lot. The Origin of Species is just his most known work. His work concerning orchids, barnacles and especially his ideas concerning the distribution of seeds, the behavior of bees & Sexual selection are incredible. His book on behaviour and human emotions is widely respected. There is also much inspiration in philosophy concerning Darwin's work. But indeed, after the modern synthesis combining mendelian genetics with Darwin's natural selection and the discovery of other mechanisms (example genetic drift, Endosymbiosis, epigenetics, Horizontal gene transfer etc.) anyone still claiming Evolutionary theory is still stuck with the knowledge of only Charles Darwin's ideas is ridiculous....
Welcome to science. You get a lot right, but you get 10x more wrong. It’s almost like all you can do is take evidence work with it and throw out what fails
Rightists: Lefty are the real bigots! Me: Yeah they are quite ironically, quite often, prejudiced 'anti-bigots' who backfire spectacularly all day every day to a degree I don't know if to laugh or cry. Peterson: My opinion on a Chinese woman's appearance means I am Stunning and Brave for daring to call out the CCP! Facts & Logic! Also him: Nobody else dares except half of the rest of the world! Also the Chinese people themselves, increasingly so the last year or two over the CCP economic incompetence, corruption, being barricaded inside their own homes, and being forced to kneel under barriers and at windows to complain, and having no recourse except to file petitions which usually get ignored! USA Rightists: Jordan Peterson Does Nothing Wrong! Only Liberals and Leftists are the ones who worship their political figures like a Cultist Groupthink Collective! We're the Stunning and Brave Independent Thinkers. Trump and Peterson make us feel good therefore they're correct! UK Leftists: Jeremy Corbyn Does Nothing Wrong! Liberals, Social Democrats, Welfarists and fans of the Third Way are all Fascists! Only they are the ones who worship their political figures like a Cultist Groupthink Collective! We're the Stunning and Brave Independent Thinkers. Corbyn, Chomsky and Craig Murray make us feel good therefore they're correct! The rest of us: Can you both please not!?
The funny thing about scientific progress is one can be a revolutionary mind in their time, create a whole new field of study, and create the foundation for a structure which makes the original person seem ... comparatively tiny in scope and depth. A scientist can be both right and wrong.
Well he was a prophet of his time.. the fact with nothing and got so far from that ot say a lot. I can't say that and you can't either just like me you read books of others that used him as a stepping stone to move forward so come even wrong and or bias.
31:04 THANK YOU for bringing this up. Facial expression recognition software terrifies me because I know how biased it can be. As an autistic person with atypical body language, I've gotten very good at copying the people around me to cope. And facial expressions are DEFINITELY cultural and vary dramatically from individual to individual.
I think the point of is, that some people are capable of less though they have no control over this like me. No matter how I hard I learn, I always did bad in school. I barely passed high school. I dropped out of college. I can barely hold a minimum wage job because i am so slow. Help pelase.
And what's a "autistic"? Meaning You very special or something better? And should be granted special rights, privileges and immunities, denied to those that don't have a "autistic" in them? Again What is a "autistic"?
I feel like anytime someone is hyper focused on IQ and how it is an accurate indicator of people’s place in society- it starts sounding like a precursor to their eugenics speech.
If you think, just because someone talks about a trait which predicts stuff like income, etc, that they must therefore want to manipulate this, that's a you problem. Also, I realize the irony of this, but if you support laws against incest, you support eugenic laws, so it's not like eugenics is bad anyway. You just have an emotional reaction to the word.
You made it through this whole video without saying the word “eugenics” and I take that to mean you’re more disciplined than I am 🤭 when Jordan says he doesn’t have a solution for poverty/low IQ I feel like he’s expecting the viewer to connect the dots and think what he doesn’t want to say aloud - “our world doesn’t have a place for these people so maybe they shouldn’t be in it.” That’s the end result of all the talk of Truth and the human body - anyone who doesn’t meet the ideal is an aberration to be erased.
If you listened to his longer clips you would not feel that at all. He seems to me like he genuinely cares about all people (whether that is misguided or not aside). He wants them taken care of, not gone. He points out a problem he sees that he has no solutions to -- what's wrong with that? Or can we only point out issues if we ourselves have the one perfect solution? I'd also note that here his lecture is about psychology, IQ, and what it teaches us, NOT politics.
It’s so incredibly to me that JP can say “IQ is the biggest predictor of success” while completely ignoring the hundreds of studies that show that high IQ is associated with higher nutrition and better education in early age, stemming from wealth. Therefore the biggest predictor of success isn’t the high IQ but the fact that people with high IQs overwhelmingly tend to come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, which is by far the bigger predictor of success. It’s such a simple and easy to see confounding factor, and I know he’s deliberately obfuscating this fact to support his own deranged obsession with IQ
I tried to explain this to a friend of mine about five years ago, almost exactly these words, and he would have none of it. He was one of those "I don't understand 'The Blacks', it must be their low IQs." But I guess racism doesn't make sense, so yeah. :(
@@Nosliw837 it's part you're friend doesn't get it part we're taught meritocracy is a thing and that high IQ is passed down through selective breeding. We know that's not true but until you completely disprove meritocracy nothing will stick
There's a racial group in the United States for which having a SES at the 80th percentile is not enough to compete academically against the whites who are at the 20th percentile - however they excel at basketball.
It's also kind of the other way around though. Higher IQ = better socioeconomic status. It's a chicken and egg type thing. Ppl like Peterson overstate it's value and others say it's completely useless. The truth is it's somewhere in between, it's kind of outdated and has some flaws but in general it does have some importance.
People with higher IQ make better decisions and choose to have better nutrition. And the Wilson effect shows that the older one gets the more IQ correlates to one's ancestry. One of the evidences for the Wilson effect is adoption studies which show that IQ becomes more correlated with one's ancestry the older they get and that folks in their early youth have an IQ that more strongly correlates with the quality of their environment..
"self-evident if you're willing to think it through" is the least self-evident statement possible. What he's asking you to do is imagine a reason, and then whatever reason you came to must therefore be the correct, self-evident one
I think what's interesting about Peterson's disgust is that he insists that Yumi Nu being ugly is an objective fact. Yet when asked to define he pivots to "Her body is not athletic and it is not healthy." How interesting that he pivoted from beauty which is subjective to athletic and healthy, which are somewhat more objective. But tons of models are anorexic and unhealthily thin. Peterson doesn't criticize that. I don't see swimsuit models winning a softball or soccer game. I don't think Peterson would have been pleased to see Brittany Griner rocking that cover photo. Peterson immediately pivots from attractive to other more objective traits to insist that he is the objectively correct one, and yet his argument is completely irrelevant.
Peterson: "You're poor because you're stupid." Me, someone who is unemployed with a masters in bio science and has an IQ of 145: "Hold on there. I think you are missing a lot of things." P.S. I know IQ doesn't mean jackshit but the fact that I am unemployed even though I have a Master's degree is probably more about the systemic stigma of disabled people (yes, I am wheelchair bound)
Nah bro. If they bring out IQ, what right do they have to you for you to tell the truth. Like holy shit, if they are that high on their stuff BECAUSE of their IQ, see if they can even try to prove it.
You don't have to respond but as a university chemistry student I am wondering do you have special accomodations to work in a lab or are you not doing lab work? Most apparatus i had to set up it's hard for me to imagine how someone in a wheelchair would do. Or is it that in bioscience most things you work with are level and can be done in a wheelchair?
@@vladys5238 I went into human biology because I wanted to research how pollution affects people's health. I'm wheelchair bound because of the pollution where I grew up, so I've been trying to find a job in that field that could accommodate my disability. To be fair, I just graduated two months ago but having nothing to do is driving me insane. I do have a friend in the same field is working on getting me to be his research assistant, so it's not all bad. I'm just pointing out flaws in Peterson's logic with my own experiences
Peterson came right out and said that trans people should give up their rights so that society will be calmer. I think it's pretty clear that he would have said the same thing about black people 40 years ago I'm really surprised that's not getting more attention.
At risk of violating Godwin's law on MR's video on that clip I made (only partially) tongue-in-cheek comparison to what he said about Jews and Germany. They couldn't actualise themselves because they were destabilising to the Aryan nation. Therefore there needed to be a "solution" to the problem of Jews wanting to actualise as Jews.
they do say the same thing about black people all the time, they're just careful mostly to say "black activists" or "black lives matter" (preferred euphemism for all black people who are angry basically) as if it were radical to tell the cops to stop shooting innocent teenagers? To them, it is... :(
@@naomistarlight6178 I think the difference is they still won't come right out and say black people shouldn't have rights. They'll call the BLM activists rioters and looters to try and frame them as criminals but they don't have the balls yet to say that their rights should be taken away merely for being black They're trying to get us there and Joe Biden just gave a long speech trying to convince Americans not to go down that path
I am more surprised people don't call Peterson and people like him out for engaging in Sophistry. Sophistry isn't something new. We've known about it for a long long time. So why aren't we writing him off by its own definition?
sophistry is a ten dollar vocab word and not everyone knows what it means. you'd have to explain what sophistry is and then explain how jordan peterson is engaging in it. this video does the second thing which is much more important anyway
Jordan Peterson is as pathetic as those kids on the playground who used to start fights and then as soon as someone touched them start screaming and crying as loud as possible to get everyone in trouble just so they could be coddled by the nurse. He is that kid, just wrinklier and with a thesaurus.
To feel self-assured in writing him off as a sophist, one has to already know something about the topics he engages with and says stupid things about, which unfortunately is a wide range of topics. Like he's long since stopped saying the thing about snakes and DNA because he knows that shit won't fly.
That free speech/listening argument falls flat for not only the reasons you (excellently) pointed out here, but also for the simple reason that it presupposes that all actors are always acting in good faith. Which, well, they aren't. And it's pretty difficult, given Peterson's politics, to not see this as a backhanded, preventative defense of the typical bad-faith arguing tactics used by his ideological allies, essentially trying to guilt his opponents into thinking they have a moral obligation to not refuse to listen to trolls but to engage with them as if they're trying to have a good faith discussion. It's all BS, all the way down.
Exactly, giving those trolls respect, and time, to argue against horrible takes & bigoted rhetoric, has done nothing but make the trolls relevant- nobody wins, or even changes their stance.. they just become a name, and face, more ppl on that side recognize.
You nailed it. Peterson associates with a LOT of bad faith actors who just want to push a conservative agenda, so his requirement that all actors must be listened to as a precondition opens the door for bullshit to be blown through a megaphone.
@@inefffable its pretty easy to see through, too, if you genuinely consider their words... and besides all that, their cadences are equal to nails on a fucking chalk board, they exude annoying egotistical frat-boys best friend energy. They were praised as kids for being mature Their age and then rode that high for the rest of their lives and carreers.
@@facelessdrone definitely easy to see through, I agree. I think that's why we see a lot of people get out of the pipeline and realize "wow I actually nodded along to this guy?" I just think if you are unsuspecting/assuming positive intent and in a mindset of giving the benefit of the doubt (generally how I think people tend to operate, myself included, esp in comfort of own home browsing The Internet), it's easy to get sucked in. Hope you have a nice day :)
Well I think it's relatively speaking. College educated right wing extremist is the 2nd rarest specimen of conservative- right behind conservative comedians.
As a woman who does not look like the models in magazines, I am so sick of hearing that I am not worth anything because I am not necessarily skinny. You cannot talk about bodies outside the persons who are occupying these bodies. I don’t exist for your aesthetic pleasure, I am a human being. I spend 24/7 in my body and I am learning to love it as is and not to be envious or depressed all the time because I am a size too big for someone’s taste. This gets me really annoyed.
These misogynists literally think women are that and femme non male afabs in general to them because theyre misogynist and gross and thinks that women are just objects and for them to look at and commodify because to commodify u need to objectify
besides the fact that a person's value is not based upon other people finding their weight/body attractive... it infuriates me the way that Peterson frames his disgust towards bigger women as a universally held opinion when that is not even remotely the case. he truly acts like he's "saying what everyone is thinking but too afraid to say" when really he's just so far removed from reality that he thinks everyone else is as judgemental as he is
@@ashknight6696 If you speak to children of immigrants from some parts of Africa who were going back to their parents' homeland for like the holidays once in a while, and if they're a bit skinny, they'll tell you how they were scolded for "still looking like a teenager goddammit won't you put up a bit of weight you're a grown up now!"... X'D
It’s also so disgusting when people bring up the “it’s promoting an unhealthy lifestyle!!” As if all, or even most, super skinny fit models are actually heather than the average person, when in reality a huge many of them use drugs, have eating disorders, or eat well below their nutritional requirements in order to stay “healthy” looking.
I've found that Jordon Peterson is a fairly reliable barometer of political discourse. Specifically, if he is upset about something it is completely fine, and if he is insisting something is right and proper it should be resisted by any means necessary.
Ah yes, I love it when things are "self-evident" if you just "think it through"... why would we rely on actual facts and data when things are so *obvious?* I like how right wing people are always so scientific, and definitely put the reals before the feels.
judging by the amount of times he's had to clarify that "he didn't say this" when people think his arguments through, I'd guess his conclusions are not as self-evident as he likes to claim.
I mean, to play devils advocate here, I honestly don’t mind logic based arguments ( that are consequently not backed by a concrete scientific consensus / statistic etc. ) because, especially with politics, usually, _if you have analysed enough data in the past_ , you can certainly make pretty accurate statements based on estimations without needing new data. Case in point; a lot of political science is about getting super accurate measurements. This IS very useful and necessary but for a conventional political debate, you can usually develop a feeling for a scenario and with feeling I mean that you are able to basically evaluate different outcomes and causalities without needing the actual data. I would say that this is a rule that applies everywhere BUT while I 100% agree that emotions are not a good measurement, I also think that people usually don’t take “thinking it through” far enough. As I always say; run the numbers. Thing is, you don’t need to be a scientist to read basic statistics. And if you have understood enough of how the world works, you can basically estimate an outcome based on your own experiences with the available data in the past. Now, it won’t be as detailed as a scientific argument yet I think you will agree that „self evidence“ depends on the amount of information you can draw upon. Now, if an issue is highly complex, this can of course get out of hand quickly ( personally, I would be hard pressed to find too many arguments I made without some level of research into whatever subject I was discussing, while trying to stay away from debates about issues I am clueless about ) as you can come to the wrong conclusions, the point I am however making is that often, if people actually take the time to analyse an issue, if it’s not too complex, you can theoretically often enough arrive at a good opinion. Now, to solidify one’s position it is usually advisable to add data, in the spirit of argument however, let’s take a quick look at Vladimir Putin: the current acting president of the Russian federation spend a part of his initial career as a lower ranking officer in the KGB. Later he would also act as the director of the newly formed FSB. There is a lot of talk currently about a new age of Russian imperialism but, given the origin of the man Putin is today, it is in no small part plausible that his motivations are a lot more personal than many people would assume. A significant amount of modern and pre modern dictators have a reputation for for a high degree paranoia, often well deserved. If we just take these two factors, without adding any actual concrete scientific evidence, we can potentially arrive at the conclusion that the war in Ukraine falls in the classical tradition of creating an external distraction, while I by no means wish to establish this as a certain fact, if, in due time, it would turn out that personal factors actually did play a much greater role in shaping the current events than many, many people would currently assume, based on „thinking it through“ I would not be surprised at all. In summary, what I mean to argue is that, even without concrete scientific data, one can make very likely speculations IF one is informed enough to do so, on a selective variety of topics if enough applicable data has been observed in the past. Thoughts?
@@Arcaryon you can arrive at logically sound and argumentatively coherent conclusions that are nevertheless *completely and utterly wrong* if your data is insufficient or you are interpreting it wrongly
@@MCArt25 Of course. Doesn’t mean that logic based arguments are entirely worthless. On the contrary. And again; my “logic based argument” is fundamentally dependent on sufficient data to form the understanding needed to make the argument in the first place.
@@Arcaryon Peterson's problem is that he has no real arguments or conclusions of his own. He just tosses word salad after word salad out with maybe the occasional right-wing talking point to give the illusion of an argument. This is by design; he wants you to effectively invent an argument for him, whether you're a supporter or a detractor. If you're supporting him, you're making him look smarter than he really is by looking like you "get" what he's saying. If you're detracting him, then he can easily weasel his way out of the argument you think he's making by saying he didn't say that. And he's right; he' *didn't* say that, he didn't say anything of substance at all. Peterson's speeches are a parlor trick.
„Why is Petersen so obsessed with IQ??“ Contapoints, in the back of my head: „It Always comes down to the size of the skull“ (He’s spouting a bunch of pseudoscience to justify a social order where he, a college professor, is at the top. And of course once you have IQ as the end all be all, you can quickly revive some good old eugenics, too. Oh man, some years ago I was really terrified by Petersen because I knew he was wrong, but he always brought his points across in a way that sounded legit. I‘m so glad that I‘m better at identifying these strategies now, and it’s thanks to people like you, Joel ❤)
I love how JP tells a story about a client he had who eventually *died* because JP wasn't about to help him. Great talk. Good work. Sounds like your expertise and prescriptions for the world are truly beyond question.
He’s exactly the type of person who’s IQ is shown through his medicinal and psychological prowess, and then let that kill someone. And by that I mean he has holes in his brains from the xans and can’t be trusted.
I have a degree in psych in the same province he taught in and they literally emphasize how silly even the idea of IQ is and how difficult it is to define and measure... How was this guy well respected in the field??
In the field one of his supervisors ended up concluding he would habitually make shit up, teach it as fact, and when asked about it claim “yes it was fake and I intended that”, and repeats (note, this was by observing one of his lectures). The fact he remained there for so long is fascinating.
Hot take: I think Peterson actually saw the lady on the cover and, seeing that got him all sorts of heckin' horney, and because of his preconceived believes about large people, he failed to accept this basic reality and instead he's denying the calls of his loins and rationalizing it away as a defense mechanism.
I wonder what Peterson thought of the Sports Illustrated issue that featured a trans woman model on the cover? I just imagine he’d piss his pants over that too.
@@MrCmon113 why do you think only one specific type of person should be used to sell clothes when a wide variety of people buy them? As much as it’s “political activism” to put a fat person in a magazine, it’s also “political activism” to put a skinny person in a magazine. You’re just salty about it being different politics to yours, or you’re too much of a pussy to state your position so you simply deride “activism” instead of stating your position. Perhaps you do this because you recognize your position to be unpopular and reprehensible, but that’s just a theory :p
Hey! I'm a graduate student in psychology currently in Kentucky. Short story: Jordan Peterson is a hack who doesn't actually follow any industry standards for good research methodology. Some More News has an excellent video on this subject. Never overestimate what IQ is, because it is actually a very mixed subject despite having so much research in it.
It's also so wild to me that he's a psychology professor because I'm about 3/4 of the way through a psychology undergrad degree and my classes are literally nothing like any of this lectures and I'm glad for that. They contain actual information about research with discussions of where the evidence is mixed etc. No emotional political rants lmao.
Also we are taught extensively both the positives and negatives of IQ science. An oversimplified summary is that IQ tests can be excellent measures of m specific skills among particular cultural/ language groups in comparison to other members of that group in a similar age range but can never be taken as an all encompassing objective measure of pure intellect.
Did you learn about EQ tests and those other annoying tests. The ones that businesses just love like the Myers Briggs test that are a load of garbage too. Research has shown you can throw them in the bin. I mean it’s like astrology fun to do .
@@Dominique_99 I can't think of any EQ tests that have come up but lots of personality tests including Meyers Briggs have been discussed and yes I am well aware that it doesn't have good evidence for it. That falls more under personality psychology whereas IQ tests tend to fall more under Cognitive psychology. Although plenty of overlap between categories of course.
@TOS100 Returns It astounds me that a purported Psychologist like him can't grasp that if people are getting sad from depression, it is because when episodes of it wear off they probably realize why it's ruining their lives and relationships, yet he's somehow drawing the opposite conclusion from it... Always working from shit backwards, that guy.
Jordan Peterson has become almost (sometimes literally) a messianic figure in some sectors. Adored and venerated. It seems he has come to love this attention. He dispenses "hard truths" with his intense authoritative condescension that stokes some people up, but, when pressed for conclusions or even practical applications for these truths, he follows them up with meaningless self help platitudes. I am really tired of the Jordan Peterson phenomenon.
My parents told me my IQ is in the low 140s, which is perfect because I can almost understand the plot of most Rick and Morty episodes. Thanks genetics!
I think saying "He doesn't have an answer" to his "low-IQ question" is entirely too charitable of a take. He knows exactly what he wants us to do, as do the people who listen to him day-in and day-out, he's just banking on us not hearing the dogwhistle. Watch the interview with Stefan at 33:30, his example was not a happy accident. He knows EXACTLY who he is talking to.
Yes ! Saying "A whole portion of the population is biologically useless for society", "this population happens to be poor" associated with a veneration of (his idea of) Darwin and a refusal to spell out any concrete answer jumped out immediately as a dogwhistle for brutal, old-school Francis Dalton eugenism. Which is loooovely for the n*zis listening. I am disappointed it wasn't spelled out in the video
Given that Stefan is a white nationalist who ran a far right anti-woman cult, yeah I think it's fair to say that Peterson's preferred solution is something awful.
Yeah this man is sinister, he's recycling all of the nazi propaganda without ever saying the words "useless eater" or "life unworthy of life" but still planting those ideas in people's heads. It feels so deliberate and calculated, he knows what he is spreading and the outcomes he wants from it.
Jordan seems to be one of those college professors who decided they were done with learning new things and switched to pontificating gassbag. In my experience, these prof's turn into a poor man's Plato, looking for ideal forms and immutable truths. The whole obsession of sorting people's role in the society/economy by IQ is a prime example.
Yah, it's always seemed obvious to me that as a scholar Peterson realized he couldn't hang with the other scholars in his field and that he'd eventually be sidelined. That was clearly a threat to his livelihood so his only option was to basically ad hominem *all of scholarship*. Which, it turns out is a very popular position and a huge moneymaker. Lots of people love hearing that academia is full of morons who are just getting handouts to do nothing. So, problem solved for Peterson he effectively transitioned out of a dependency on the academic world.
Do people think it's Jordan Peterson just making up these stats and lists etc? And if so, to what end? Or is it more likely he just knows the literature and it makes him sad as it would any reasonably emotional person? Have you read all the literature on IQ?
@@WOJAus Not sure why you think his work has received that many citations. In terms of his scientific output and scholarship, he's pretty much an average if not lower tier researcher. I think you're confusing popular press articles/books with peer-reviewed publications, which are the basis for scientific inquiry.
The most impressive thing Peterson has ever done, is the fact that he has to be debunked by so many different disciplines, because he talks about so much stuff he doesn't understand. From Biologist, to the Bar association of Canada, economics, fellow psychologists, philosophers, even supermodels are making fun of him. I'd di e of embrassement if I said even half the amount of things he has that were just so wrong and easily debunkable. Just the line about staying awake for 27 days due to Apple Cider would be too much on it's own. Yet for Peterson he just goes on, it's fascinating how one man can have such an undeserved ego and prefers to be ignorant on every topic he talks about, he is the defintion of Dunning Kruger.
Peterson speaks as if his opinion is fact which is what basically anyone who is trained in a scientific profession is taught not to do, because it's unethical and goes against a core tenant of truth, needing substantive evidence.
I disagree. I'd say the most impressive thing Peterson has ever done was lose his sh*t over the notion that he might need to take a course in how to use social media responsibly, then go on to share an image of male milking fetish porn thinking it shows a Chinese sperm factory.
If you want to watch a monthly bonus video from me, go to my patreon and give me a few bucks! This month I have a few deleted sections from this video, which is, maybe fun, and will be out today. Anyway, here's the link! www.patreon.com/bigjoel
Watching your videos is fuyn
Uhh maybe I'm engaging with this comment as well??😚😚👍😌🐍🧐 Wow I really am
Joel, buy a microphone stand. Seriously.
@@stevechance150 But then he couldn’t hold his microphone
All of these paid talking heads are dumbing down America.
I love how Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist, saw that one of his patients suffering with a drug addiction was spending all of his money on drugs when he got it and concluded that "poor people don't know how to handle money" rather than "my patient's disease is making him spend money on drugs instead of necessities." I feel bad for anyone who is a client of this man.
He uses generalisations madly yet he sometimes claims he’s a scientist. I almost died laughing 😂
I was also baffled. This psychologist doesn't know what addiction is?
@@Vizivirag To make it even more baffling Peterson himself was addicted to benzos. He was physically dependent on them and experienced hellish withdrawal symptoms coming off them. How he doesn't seem to understand addiction and what being physically dependent can drive a person to do is mind blowing.
Did I misunderstand? I thought he said that money sometimes is bad; he wasn't just making the blanket statement that poor people are bad with money, just that sometimes people shouldn't be given more of it
@@rayzecor he was using that anecdote as justification for his belief that if you give money to that 10% of people in society, they won't know how to use it properly and will waste it. It's a gross oversimplification and ignores the systematic issues which make it so much harder for people in poverty to hold onto money.
The sentence “To Jordan Peterson’s credit, I have no idea what he’s talking about” is beautiful
That's his power and weakness. He's able to say "xyz", people who critique him say "yeah that xyz is not good", and then he says, "I didn't say that, I said x^2, y^3, z^4, to the degree that 4^z = 3^y = 2^x."
@@vtorious9102 filibusters upon filibusters
To JP's credit, neither does he.
leftists when they're told to clean their room or something
@@MickeyMouse-lm6zj You're not very bright.
"I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers." -- Stephen Hawking, when asked by a reporter for his IQ
Chad
Yup just look at Mensa
based
BASED AS FUCK
@@ugadugaga4972 IQ is dumb but that statement is categorically false. Some people are genuinely more talented at thing than others, and someone that is both naturally gifted at something and passionate about it will always be better at that than someone that is solely passionate.
Imagine your dad coming to you, his adult daughter, to complain about a fat woman on a magazine cover for five solid minutes tho. Imagine
That was so creepy to me.
And it’s like, she’s literally just not skinny. It’s not an uncommon or ugly body type by any means, even subjectively. I can’t understand why he thinks she’s so horrific
@@runawaygemm5397 The funny thing is the magazine has probably had plenty of women on it that he would consider attractive. But he doesn't think its acceptable for one model to not be to his taste. He's actually the closest one to being authoritarian about this.
I'd seriously tell my Dad to get over himself 😅😂
That's how parents get disowned by their children
“This is why I’m a radical defender of free speech. You should be exposed to ideas that make you ask questions even if they make you uncomfortable!”
*looking at magazine cover*
“This isn’t where this picture belongs! It makes me uncomfortable, as though it’s trying to make me question my preconceptions!”
He never said that they shouldn't be allowed to print the cover. He reacted to it.
@@MrCmon113 he said that they “aren’t beautiful no matter how much authoritarian tolerance” or whatever the exact quote was. Heavy implication being that because he doesn’t find the model attractive they shouldn’t be there and that they’re only there because of wokeness or whatever. If he’s literally just stating his preference then why not say “I don’t think they’re beautiful” rather than saying it as if it’s an objective fact and if he doesn’t see it as an issue to be corrected why say anything at all?
@@MrCmon113 No dude. The implication was pretty clearly that they shouldn't do it. In fact he was quite authoritarian about how not just he doesn't find her attractive but no one can. Because if he didn't, why would he react at all? A normal person doesn't whine because a swimsuit model for one issue isn't their type.
@@MrCmon113 He didn’t say “I don’t think she’s beautiful” he said “She isn’t beautiful and everyone who disagrees has been brainwashed by woke culture”.
It’s the old “no one can have different experiences from me, and if they say they do, they are either brainwashed or part of some evil plan that is trying to corrupt me”. Is this how you approach people in your everyday life?
can we please all talk about how yumi nu is also, like, conventionally attractive lol? she's probably genuinely in the top 1% of having traits that appeal to the most stereotypical of male heterosexualities. she's a little chubby and pear shaped in a way that was literally considered the height of beauty in most cultures at most times in history except like, for this one random handful of decades. Jordan's beloved ancient greeks would probably be going crazy for this woman. its like. what the fuck is he even talking about on so many levels lmfao
Imagine if your clinical psychologist told you that he didn't believe that people could fundamentally change
I stg, people call him a therapist, psychiatrist, and now a psychologist-
Which is it, they’re not the same thing 😭
Well, it is unlikely for most people. Most of the change comes later in life when your psychological characteristics tend to become more pronounced. Ofc complete shift in your environment, like war situation etc., can change somewhat temporarily or permanently change it.
@@moonfolkrapid I think cheeselovingtree meant that a psychologist's career is built on the premise that people can fundamentally change with the psychologist's help. Otherwise why work in this field in the first place.
@@DeathnoteBB He’s a psychologist. That’s the right one to call him. Why are you mad?
@@JuanPabloSelvaje “Why are you mad?” 1. I- Never said I was mad? I was reasonably frustrated and confused…
2. Because _they’re not the same thing._ It’s like calling someone a gardener, botanist, and herbalist when you really mean one of those things. It’s nonsensical, useless, and confusing.
Peterson's refusal to define the actual problem is maddening. "There's is nothing for 10% of the population to do" sure SOUNDS like a problem, but he's missing the very last step. How is this actually affecting the world right now? Is there 10% of the population that can't get jobs and are suffering because of it? So we need to find a way to fit them better into society, by making jobs for them? Or is 10% of the population failing at jobs that they aren't able to do, and employers should be free to fire them? Peterson's great trick is to stop right before he finishes his argument, so that in order to disagree with him you have to infer his conclusion, giving him the ability to dismiss you immediately because "I never said that." It's cowardly and brilliant at the same time.
Given his politics, I'm pretty sure I know what his solution would be to these so-called useless people...
Problem A exists. Problem A must be solved. Solutions B, C and D have been proposed. Solution C and solution B won’t work for reasons I will spend the next six hours discussing in detail. I maintain the problem must be solved but offer no alternative solution.
[Solution D is eugenics and genocide. I’ll just leave that there for you to pick up on.]
He is apparently incapable of listening to ideas outside of capitalism's dark, sad box.
@@crdudley "Muh culture Marxists!" Man literally dodging every Marxist or socialist wo can and are willing to debate him.
@@Rawnblade13 And it may well be final.
When I was a kid, my mom, a college teacher, brought me Eysenck's IQ Test book, with ~10 variants of test. And I solved them all during a weekend. At the first one I got around 110, and last ones I easily solved for 140. So it is either a greatest intellectual improvement in human history, or IQ just shows how someone is good at solving poorly defined logical puzzles.
Peterson really solved one of these and got a high result and thought he is the chosen one huh
@@TragicHeroine-kd6uynah he's just the only one who knows the truth... Right?
I remember when i took an iq test when i was 10 years old. I got a point less for answering a knowledge wrong. I was asked how much a "dozen" is. I wasn't sure whether it was eleven or twelve. I guessed the former and got points deducted. So. Luck is definitely a factor.
iq tests are made by humans, just that fact alone is already enough reason for us to question this tests.
Point of order: The idiom of _picking yourself up by your bootstraps_ was an example created by Samuel Smalls in his 1848 book _Self Help_ to illustrate an impossible action. Nobody can do this.
@BARF just as impossible. Get your boots and take a long look at those straps. You can barely fit your finger in them let alone your neck.
How ironic, and now people are saying it everywhere as if it’s a possible task. Wow.
@@itsyedino874 People understood the expression "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" to mean "attempting to do something absurd" until roughly the 1920s, at which point it started to evolve toward the current understanding: to do something without any outside help. But that's like digging yourself out of a hole, which is also absurd.
Go ahead: put on some boots, grab the straps, and try to pull yourself off the ground. You won't manage to "pull yourself up" in any meaningful sense because gravity is a thing that keeps us firmly on the ground. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and thinking you can is fantasy.
How interesting, thank you, @@jackdeath
@@jackdeath Thank you for sharing this, I had no clue about the etymology of the expression. The mo' you know!
"some rich people *are* parasitical but some aren't" but also ALL poor people are parasitical and just want government handouts to spend on drugs. Super consistent jordy
Ah yes people who exploit people for gain and hurt them, (parasite activity) arent all parasites cuz they give money (bare fucking minimum also not always guarenteed) arent parasites but poor people being exploited (like parasite host) who want handouts cuz no money (to live and keep up and survive cuz of parasite) are bad actually cuz capitalism yummy
Dude if u use his parasite model literally his argument is debunked lol so like what's up
I don't think it's inconsistent, just terrible and simple. Not all rich people are good, no good people are poor.
@@derp195 that’s true
@@derp195
"No good people are poor"
Whatever keeps you awake at night, man.
@@SharkyMcSnarkface Isn't he/she simply rewording Peterson's statement?
the thing with Peterson is that he really impresses centrist pseudointellectuals because he does this thing where he finds problems with everyone including conservatives, he says "these people who are trying to find solutions aren't smart enough to realize the problem is complicated" and everyone claps him for it, failing to see all he has said is that the problem is complicated and offers no complicated solution himself, he is contrarian for the sake of it and never says anything meaningful if you look carefully
I know this is not the point but I like your icon
and how do you measure genetic influences on genetics then? We knkw west africans have genetic predisposition for sprinting
@@immortalituss I don't want to crap on you, you're probably high, but I find it hilarious that I say "Peterson is contrarian and doesn't offer solutions" and your response to that is "how do we measure genetic influence on genetics?" I have no idea what you're on, cocaine maybe. But my response to you is: how do we measure scientific influence on science? Hmm?
@@grey_f98 i meant genetic influence on intelligence, sorry mistyped
@@immortalitusslol wtf
At my grocery store we have a lovely teen with Down syndrome who bags groceries. He is helpful, smiling and cheerful every time I see him. I don’t buy the IQ argument at all. Some of the stupidest people I have met have been wealthy and less useful to society than this young man. I don’t know who he lives with, but I’ll assume he isn’t living on his own or earning a living wage, but he is helpful and useful to society. Our acceptance of him throughout his life, along with good parents and social programs have helped make him the cheerful person he is. Tossing our hands up and giving up on a low IQ child robs the world of people like this young man. I will assume that he has a job due to some social program benefiting his employer.
I also think the more pressing issue is that Peterson insists these people must have some sort of "productive" job in the first place. Why? Even if 10% aren't that useful we can surely just accept them anyway, 90% is a pretty good success rate.
Realistically considering how much excess we produce for the ultra rich we could all live very comfortably based on what we currently produce, and that's in a system where most people's talent is wasted by being disadvantaged.
@@alexjames7144Way more than 10% of billionaires and executives haven't done jack shit to make anybody's life better in at best decades.
I am, much like Peterson, deeply concerned about a small contingent of our society seeming unable to contribute anything of value.
We just disagree on which neighborhood you can find them in.
@@jacobs7764 ?
I'm not on the side of billionaires, I'm all for decapitation and wealth redistribution. As for 10%, I shouldn't really have to point out that 10% if billionaires and 10% of the population of the whole are very different numbers. Idek how you managed the mental backflips required to bring that up.
I also agree that the rich are the problem. That was never up for debate. I was just saying that forcing everyone to be "productive" isn't necessary, if wealth was shared fairly they wouldn't need to be.
Also not quite sure whether you're saying that you disagree with me or Peterson?
@@alexjames7144I think they're agreeing with you in a very angry manner hahaha
@@alexjames7144 The line about "productive" jobs also got to me. If a job is so worthless, then completely get rid of the position and either have a machine do it, or have a pre-existing employee also do that assignment (on top of their regular duties). The fact that so many places don't do this, shows it's not always cost effective, so even a "non-productive" job DOES have some value (even if it's in a roundabout way). Also, people degrading those jobs would be the first to complain if Walmart was only open from 5:00 PM to 12 Midnight, because "Only high school students and college students should have those jobs."
The sad thing is, Peterson is touching on a genuine problem here, that there are disabled people who can't get jobs because their superiors are unwilling to provide them the tools they need to function. But, of course, instead of phrasing his argument in terms of "People have different needs and those needs don't take away from their worth and right to live a comfortable life", he phrases his argument in terms of "Some people are inherently better than others"
Honestly disgusting 😔 He is so lame
Worse than that, when Peterson says that there is nothing but NOTHING these people can contribute and NOTHING can be done about it, there is an ominous subtext to his statement; like society may have to send these reprobates off to an internment camp or some such. No way to profit off this demographic, they might as well be disposed of. It's this undertone to Peterson's words that comes across as creepy. He is a weird, conflicted man.
Not to mention the assumption that everyone should be participating as a worker in the capitalist system… There are so many ways to generate value that don’t rely on being a cog in that machine.
Besides, if everyone feels like they have to work long painful shifts in 20 years, then what the heck is the point of all this “technological progress” anyway…
his ellipsis after stating the supposed issue leaves open the idea that we don't "need" these people...
yeah, and he does so because deep down he's not at all convinced that disability doesn't take away from people's worth and right to live a comfortable life.
As evidence i submit the fact that he frequently talks to and is comfortable being on the same platform as nazis like stefan molyneux. (And before anyone makes the "well he's just not afraid of different ideas" argument; when's the last time you've seen JBP on an anarchist talkshow?)
I actually died laughing when you cut to him in a completely quiet room followed by him saying "free speech" as if he hadn't slept for a whole week.
RIP
I had the same response. I felt like it was the start of some interpretive stage show, where he is going to start dancing or other people are going to come out and act out a scene behind him, but nope it's him dramatically explaining a very basic conversative idea.
Hahaha, I giggled my silly ass off. Now you're dead and I'm assless.
For a second I wondered if my browser had crashed. I guess he fell asleep standing up, woke up, didn't remember what he was there to say, and just blurted out the first thing that came to mind. :D
LMAO same 💀💀💀
"I don't know the solution" = "I actually think the solution is eugenics but I can't say that out loud"
Every single thing about him is like psychology 100 years ago or something. He was born in the wrong century.
considering the figures he holds in the highest regard like Jung are incredibly outdated for the modern field of psychology, it's no wonder he gives off that impression.
@@emylily8266 that's exactly what I mean yeah. He's like a human time capsule.
Stefan Molineux, the bald guy he was explaining IQ to, is literally a self proclaimed eugenicist and white supremacist so...
@@emylily8266
This is totally unrelated, but I was wondering what your profile pic is from, it looks familiar
"I can't say it out loud so I'll let my followers do it for me." That's his strategy.
literally so easy to diagnose this guy with "divorced because his wife got sick of being treated like she was literally an inferior being, also rolled her eyes at his bullshit a bunch before she finally left" it's unreal
he has hostage wife energy
@@notthatLeia i mean, hes certainly charismatic.
@@fourthmatchflameIs he, though?
@@spuriousgeorge7233 i mean it is just word vomit but it is, if you are a certain kind of person, very compelling word vomit.
The more I watch analysis of JBP, the more I just want to say, "Jordan, who hurt you and how?" I mean, for a psychologist, Jordan's lack of reflection on his own rage is kind of shocking. Here's a man who literally said that he would rather die than be "forced" to use someone's chosen pronouns.
Right. He is full of rage. And is raging even more now that he has some real fame.
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
The three people he s3xually harrassed, by reporting him would be my guess.
He outright publicly states that men should be monsters....
@@christaylor9095 Oh, but he didn't really mean that, you're taking him out of context 🤪🤪🤪 /ssssss
I was one of those classically 'gifted but arrogant' undiagnosed ASD kids at the age going into high school, and I remember getting an IQ score of 124 and being so mad that I didn't get a 'genius' score (140), so I took another test, and another, and another, I googled tips & tricks, I practised over and over and over because I needed so badly to be my dumb kid idea of 'clever'. Eventually I managed to get a score of 161, a jump from the 7th percentile to the 0.007th, in no more than a couple months. Considering that I am also a total idiot, then if that story doesn't prove how little merit IQ tests have, then idk what does, love the vid!
I scored a 160+ in middle school and have f'd up, destroyed, and pretty much ruined almost everything I've touched in life ever since, always thinking I was smarter than everyone and it was their fault. I'd trade 50 IQ points for a few emotional points.
@@crdudley that's too real. I score high too, but I don't have the sense god gave a tapeworm. ADHD doesn't help, but overall.. I am a paradoxical trashfire of smarts and bad decisions
A mate of mine got into Mensa this way, God knows what he felt he had to prove. Of course this story is much sadder because he was a 25 year old man at the time, not a kid.
I score incredibly high on IQ tests and yet I nearly failed math in high school a couple times lol -- IQ doesn't even necessarily correlate with applicable academic proficiency all the time, and that's something people like Peterson and other IQ proponents really like to gloss over a whole lot...
Thats because you practised it, no shit you got better
Jordan Peterson: "I had a client who spent his disability paycheck on drugs every single time. This 100% definitely happened, and also it's the disability program's fault, while poor little old psychologist me did nothing."
It's such a lazy answer too. Even if the money seemed to cause the drugs, was the client actually okay whilst totally skint? Absolutely not and any basic understanding of addiction would tell you that. Maybe his money could be better managed but it doesn't mean no money was a solution! So binary.
He was also ashamed, horrified and repentant after being "completely dead".
So what should he have done? Did he have power of attorney?
right??? like some good ole DBT might have helped there but nope, Jordan just lets em die ig
Peterson has spoken about his addiction with benzoy. He basically blamed everything about it and doesn't recognize his own role in it I.e. he works in the medical field and yet claims he was unaware of the potential addiction to this classification of medications.
He went to a number of clinics but didn't like the idea that he had to do the work including dealing with withdrawal. He said he looked online for a better program. Then with his wealth flew to somewhere in Russia that at a extreme cost, paid to be put into a medical induced coma....
Seriously, look it up and watch some of his interviews on the subject. A few of them he burst into tears....conveniently.
School psychologist here. When I evaluate a kid’s “IQ,” I’m more concerned about their individual cognitive differences-not how “smart” they are. Knowing that a child has trouble in a specific area (like the kiddos with ADHD or Autism who struggle with processing speed and working memory or the kids with SLD who have a hard time with auditory processing) is useful because it tells me how to design the child’s Individualize Education Plan (IEP) to best help. Just saying “we’ll, they’re just dumb” isn’t constructive at all-even when you’re working with a child with low cognitive and adaptive abilities due to an intellectual disability.
Yeah. IQ measures a "central intelligence" based on several skills, but no one type of intellect to tie these skills together has been found. I personally have some trouble communicating verbally and focusing, and it definitely makes me feel "stupid" but it doesn't point to my math skills or how well i retain information. It's like if you colored in a drawing with markers and then said "i just used my fantastic new product, all art supplies© and yes, that includes markers, and you could do the same thing with plain old markers. But it is real!"
"The relationship between poverty and intelligence is self evident once you think about it for any length of time" is just "I think there is a relationship between poverty and intelligence, no I don't have any source, my word must suffice, clean your room"
To think I once adored this man.
ikr. There is a correlation, but asserting it as a fundamental and unchanging relationship is really reductive. And his version of "believing IQ science" seems to start and end with predictions based off of someone's current/most recent IQ, which is reductive of multiple other fields of study, like sociology and economics. You could theoretically argue that it's a starting point for an entry level course and will be expanded on in later courses, but when he's submitting these lectures as stand alone content it requires a different standard.
Tl;dr IQ does affect quality of life, but society and intelligence are both more complicated than just "dum dums are useless"
There is somewhat of a correlation between poverty and intelligence, but the way Peterson phrases it, like most horseshit that comes out of his mouth, is both wildly reductive and oversimplified in order to fit his own personal narrative about whatever subject he's decided to believe that he's an expert on at that moment.
It's bizarre because obviously there's a relationship between poverty and intelligence but Peterson implies that stupid people just naturally end up poor, which makes no sense because stupid rich people don't tend to end up on state benefits.
The actual relationship is that poverty limits the ability to access good education, especially early education and leave parents with less time to spend trying to nurture their kids' minds.
We understand that IQ is significantly impacted by early childhood education, and that poverty predicts abysmal access to good early childhood education due to outside factors with no fault of the parents. Yet Peterson looks at that and says "hmmm..... Maybe there's a link somewhere but I guess we'll never know..... Nobody could possibly think of a solution for this.....I guess it's just the natural order......."
I think JP doesn't realize that Iq scores have to be normalized because the average IQ score is steadily going up. Does that mean the our brains are bigger than ppl from 100 years ago? No the increase us too fast to be explained by genetic changes instead it means that our education system is getting more comprehensive, knowledge is more readily available (e.g. the internet), high calorie food is readily available... all of these factors are economy related
Hes a blithering grifter, the self help is basic psychology and how he radicalizes ppl
So, this is what I'm hearing: if it's genuinely the case that there are very few jobs for people with IQs below 85, then that's the best possible case I've ever heard for Universal Basic Income.
But you're coming out at it from the perspective of wanting a society that allows for every person to exist comfortably, whereas Petersen wants a society where everyone* needs to struggle, and those who can't reach comfort don't deserve it.
*everyone who doesn't happen to be born rich or extremely lucky
But then the poors will breed!
Experiments with UBI have also destroyed Peterson's claim that poor people can't manage money. It turns out that living in poverty is brutally efficient at teaching people the value of a dollar.
@@JonMartinYXD People conflate a willingness to choose short-term comfort while living a hellish life every once in a while with an inability to even evaluate their situation and make hard decisions. It's elitism through and through.
if you listen closely to what he doesn't say when he goes on about how hard it is to do anything and how nothing may be possible to be done, you can hear "we should euthanize the dumb, so us elites can profit even more"
Seeing these clips of him lecturing help me understand how he developed his idea of students as entitled or complaining etc. and why he joined the "PC has gone mad" lot: he somehow became a college prof through some broken system, despite being deranged. Then a bright, young and motivated new-gen of students get into the college and show up for their first lecture "wow, we made it, academia" .. and it's Peterson saying 'IQ testing is actually 100% real and people who score less than 87 cannot even dig a ditch, and we need to 'do' something about them' ... and the students are like 'what the actual f-ck' and legitimately think they have wasted their life working to get into a college program, then they question him or complain to staff. lol.
Speaking personally, if I was in Peterson's class and he started saying that we need to 'do something' about low-IQ people, I'd just say "You mean by doing eugenics? Because that's what you're implying."
“It’s disgusting of you to say I was implying the very thing I was implying! How dare you!”
Also, do we have a name for this rhetorical trick?
@@synthstatic9889 I call it The Name Blame Game, aka the "Stop calling everyone you disagree with a Nazi" defense.
I would kind of like to see a lecture by him - ideally one where he doesn't think he's being filmed. Because based on these isolated clips, it seems like he lectures the same way he gives interviews; and if that's the case, that'd be completely useless to any actual student.
Either way, a lecturer using the words "self-evident" is earning deep suspicion and scepticism.
@@FTZPLTC "self evident" is the professorial version of "it's just common sense" lol
What I love is how conservatives use the phrase "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" despite the fact the phrase was originally created as an impossibility, because you physically cannot pick yourself up by your bootstraps
I'll tell ya, I whipped out this factoid once in my life and the person who I told it to just stumbled their way right past the point and into further nonsensical mumblings. Went about as well as I thought it would, but it felt good giving them some resistance.
"Other people aren't the problem"
- bullies are not the problem
- systemic failures are not the problem
- rapists are not the problem
- abusers are not the problem
- the biases and failings of MDs and other elements in the system are not the problem
"You are the problem!"
- Jordan Peterson
He’s a neoliberal, everything is your own fault, mostly the failings that are not in your control
@@ernestoacosta7918 F this "neoliberal" BS. He's a neocon/conservative /rightwing extremist hypocrite.
Then JP cannot say criminals or terrorists or protestors or violent protestors are a problem, or Antinatalists like me trying to outlaw people having kids, or the IPCC, or climate activists, or animal rights vegans like myself trying to shut down factory farms.
yes, jordan peterson IS the problem.
I'm 14 and this is deep bro
I took two IQ tests in my life, one when I was a kid in a relatively poor family, in a country that just went through a revolution. My IQ was quite low at the time, according to the objective list presented by professor here, I was destined to be somewhere between mechanic and "factory production assembler". Later in life, my saint mother moved mountains to give me the ability to educate myself, (useless endeavor, according to esteemed professor, it's not like I can move stratas), our country got more stable and our financial situation got way better, and I took that test second time at the end of my uni. I got very high numbers this time, high enough to even maybe be a "Trainee" (really, professor, trainee? Just, like, in general?).
Clearly all of this means that I am unique creature that could somehow defy my preexistent faith and jump from one group to another. I still don't know how it is possible, but as the only person on the planet who is able to do that, I think I need to be studied by the best iqologists out there. Maybe have my skull dimples measured or whatever real science they do
@@stephen1744 hasn’t thought of this cheers
@@stephen1744 - I'm a geneticist and nothing of what you've said about this author or book sounds particularly controversial. It's also entirely possible we could, in time, learn about a non-zero innate genetic influence on IQ score.
But IQ tests were created to evaluate a specific type of audience in a specific cultural and linguistic context, tailored to value certain cognitive skills _or_ ways of measuring those cognitive skills over others, meaning results are often self-fulfilling (eg. people who grow up in an environment that emphasizes verbal communication over numeric cognition are going to have an advantage in verbal IQ tests, but struggle with non-verbal IQ tests). We've never really been able to universally define "intelligence" outside of a very niche, culturally-specific context, so using IQ to determine this sounds like circular reasoning to me.
It is also not particularly surprising that IQ tests can predict future "success" (which is the only angle it has been utilized in any meaningful way in science) because a lot of potential factors that influence IQ might also influence future success, but that doesn't mean IQ tests are useful for rating one's inherent genetic potential to become successful. Genetics alone cannot account for the multitude of variables that would affect cognition, intelligence, and/or success. IQ does have a few small uses in science, but they're very limited for this very reason.
@@stephen1744 I don't think the OP is trashing the notion that IQ has any predictive power, but he is making fun of the idea that a test taken at a specific time is an immutable predictor of future performance. The environment and resources available to the test taker prior to the test have been shown to impact the score. Peterson seems to throw his hands up and say, these folks are dumdums, hard problem, hand them a broom, while OP seems to suggest that policy changes could provide the environment that moves people closer to their natural limits. These "optimized" folks maybe get a wrench instead of a broom, live a better life, produce more, win -win, etc, blah blah. As far as I can tell, JP doesn't really address this possibility beyond scoffing at the idea of training a dumdum to be a software engineer, though I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I dunno, wicked tough problem man (throws hands up) :D
I think IQ tests are usually more based around education than intelligence so that would probably explain it.
@@stephen1744 'Intelligence is highly heritable and predicts important educational, occupational and health outcomes better than any other trait.' Hard disagree. It is too wide a claim to be of any use. How do you define intelligence? How do you measure intelligence? How do you define educational, occupational and health outcomes?
Also, there is a different sort of intelligence, like emotional intelligence or, for the lack of better word, physical intelligence. Some people are abstract thinkers. Other learn by doing.
Anecdote time (I know you hate it because it is unscientific)!
One of my best friends has only high school, economist vocation. His mother is college educated accountant. His father is high school educated metal worker. His sister has finished college as a technical designer. He might not have a college diploma and he might suck when it comes to math and calculations and, for the lack of better name, brute force problem solving. What he has instead is highly developed emotional intelligence. He is great at sales (including selling himself to an employer) and the way he solves a technical problem (for example, my MS Word document is out of alignment) is "try myself for half an hour, then call somebody else to fix it for me". Thus showing delegation and managerial skills.
Now, if you took and measured his intelligence with a paper or online IQ test, you'll get a solid 93, maybe 97 IQ. But if you gave him oral test, his natural charisma and quick-wittedness would give you much higher score. He now works as business analyst and occasional tester, after years of successful career as a salesman.
So, what would you say his intelligence is? What would you say are his occupational outcomes?
A popular phrase I've heard in my Psych BA and my research position which studies cognitive development is "intelligence is what intelligence tests measure". When testing for a construct, you want to know what the construct is first so that you can then make a valid test. The problem with intelligence is, no one really knows what it is. If you don't know how to define intelligence, how are you supposed to make a test with construct validity? IQ tests reveal how well you've done on the test, not necessarily how intelligent you are.
Yes! Thank you!
okay but iq is the scientific way to approach the concept of intelligence
@@adamoutaleb7571 no it isn't.
@@calisto789 ok so iq test started with an observation : people who tend to be intelligent in one task ex : mathematics tend to be intellingent in other tasks by intelligent i mean better than others. this discovery sparked the idea of a general intelligence and the creation of the g-factor that is supposed to indicate how high this general intelligence is. and then we find out that this general intelligence is way more general than we tought its every thing that demand abstaction : language, memory, everything that uses your brain. if you are better at one of them you are usually better in everything that demand your brain. and we created iq test to mesure your "g" the first iq test were heavily influenced by your level of education and your culture but we have perfected them to the point that no matter how much you studied for them you cant score better they correlate at .9 to .95 to your "g"
@@adamoutaleb7571 There no consensus agreement on "general intelligence" metrics that could include every variable needed to quantify a humans worth in society. That why no professional industry uses it to determine who they employ. They test for relevant skills in their field. A mathematician in a jungle is basically an invalid compared to a preteen member of a local tribe with intimate knowledge of how to survive in that environment. In that way, the tribe would likely consider the mathematician an idiot for his lack of knowledge of the forrest. But hes not dumb generally. Neither is the tribe generally. They grew up in distinct environments that facilitate certain skills, knowledge or ease at aqiuring those things. Take a baby from that tribe into the city to be adopted by professionals of some sort and that child will very likely grow up to be one themselves. Bring a baby born from a professional couple and raise them to live in a jungle, they will learn whatever their environment demands of them.
Human being are very adaptable and iq just isnt a very helpful metric when it comes to solving social problems.
My IQ is 143 and I've lived below the poverty line most of my adult life. Take that, JBP
Yeah IQ is not a good way of measuring that kind of stuff. Even the people with the highest IQ can have to live on the streets while people with low IQ can live great lives.
"Up yours, woke moralists" 💀
Your iq dose not 143
@@physics_lover100and you don't love physics
@@Literallyjustmint 😂🤣 okk ok
Fun fact: "Jordan Peterson" is the correct way to pronounce the word "eugenics" in a Toronto accent
th-cam.com/video/GD6qtc2_AQA/w-d-xo.html
Personally I think his position has always been "I want to do eugenics but would never straight up say that because I'd get cancelled"
He looks like the type of guy who in the early 20th century would have been one of those mad scientists who dissects people and tries to find ‘racial impurities’.
This is precisely what Peterson is saying, though Big Joel pulls up short of straight up accusing him of it - when he says "it's a big problem (the low IQ population being genetically incapable of performing what he considers meaningful labor), and I don't know what the solution is," he's simply advocating for eugenics. Because if you believe that people having a low IQ is a problem for society, and that low IQ is caused purely by genetic factors and cannot be meaningfully improved through environmental improvements or societal intervention, then the only "solution" is eugenics.
jesus christ worst faith possible interpretation
@@HazeLmao argue a better one😂😂 you people are in a cult
The irony being that there is no way to tell if he'd have survived in the realm we evolved from. Again, just the privileged decrying the failings of the underprivileged.
Ah yes, Jordan "It's impossible to train people to be creative, adaptive thinkers" Peterson. A psychological inspiration for the ages - the only psychologist who's willing to tell you he can't make you a better person, even while he sells books telling you he can make you a better person. It's that creative, adaptive thinking of his that does it. You just can't teach that! And neither can he.
The idea is that YOU,who's primed to believe him, are special person material, while THEY who don't are hopeless idiots. It's nothing but the same flattery tactic that gives us Randroids.
Gold
His book is about fixing your life not about being more adaptive and creative this point doesnt make sense
@@milofitness7726 And how does a non-creative, non-adaptive person fix their life exactly? How does one non-creatively, non-adaptively figure out what in their life is "broken"? How does someone take some very generic BS (admittedly wrapped up in some creatively adapted BS to hide how very, painfully generic it is) and apply it to their life without some level of creativity and adaptability?
Then again, JP doesn't even follow his own books, so I guess the answer is that they don't. But perhaps you begin to see the point.
Hahaha one of the best jokes/points I have ever heard
"If you don't buy IQ, you might as well throw out the rest of psychology"
Me keeping up with developments in modern psych:
lol ok, we can do that.
if you take it to mean "the other outdated, oversimplified garbage he believes" then yuuuup, out with that shite. And beyond that, there's so many instances where he just misses the point of more modern psychological studies that you truly have to wonder what he even thinks psychology IS
😂😂😂 🎯
I am very intelligent, but also stinking lazy. Otherwise this comment could've been a masterpiece (as an analogy for Peterson's "bigger IQ = better proficiency" claim).
This directly destroys Peterson's laughably narrow-sighted worldview (which his "theory of IQ" actually is). The lazy part: Come to your own conclusions, can you?!
Other living contradictions we cannot ignore: Elon Musk and Donald Trump. They are at the top of the income pyramid and are part of the best payed/richest people of this world. Oh and they are actual idiots. Not only literally but in the medical sense of the word!
That stance make no sense. Peterson is an academic fraud.
It really puts JP's "expertise" in question.
I think it was in the second year of my psych degree when someone asked a lecturer if childhood IQ scores was a good determinant of adult success. Her reply was that IQ alone didn't map to the highest scores being the most successful. There's far too many other variables at play for it to be a simple positive correlation. Then she said something that I've always remembered and this was 30 years ago. "There's people who could easily complete a doctorate sleeping on a park bench and people who can barely read or write that are multimillionaires".
i dont think he would argue that its the only variable or that smart poor people dont exist. and you should probably google what a correlation is. but jp does (to varying degrees of intentionality) make it easy for his audience to misconstrue simple facts in support of reacrionary talking points. if you take time to dig into him you'll find fairly liberal (not speaking about the american democratic liberal sense of the word), moderate, right leaning views on social issues, but he presents things in such a way that his audience will generally use his videos, books, etc. to support more radical views.
@@r_se I know perfectly well just what a correlation is, thank you very much. Nobody with any expertise in anything that he takes a position on treats what he says as worthy of taking into account. He's the intellectual for people who don't know what they're talking about, pretty much like you by the sound of it.
IQ was invented by the French public school system to justify giving foreign students in France a lower quality education system than French born students.
@@r_se "but he presents things in such a way that his audience will generally use his videos, books, etc. to support more radical views."
That's because that's their purpose and always has been. His entire line of thinking leads to right wing radical views. Any liberal lean is completely surface level and pretty much a mirage.
@@r_se just look at him now
He words his arguments very cleverly to absolve himself of the burden of proof. 8:39 "The relationship between poverty and intelligence is self-evident if you're willing to think it through for any length of time." In other words, if this relationship he claims exists is NOT self-evident to you, you simply haven't thought about it enough.
he does this so much its infuriating he always words it in a way that claims you are stupid of delusional if you don't agree with him without actually saying it
Really, the only credit I can give JP is that his words are clever, but, as you pointed out, it's not to provide clarity: it's only to obfuscate the points he wants to stay hidden/ignored. The fact he got so lost in the culture war over the last few years and exposed himself as an intellectual fraud was p hilarious to me.
So basically an Emperor's New Clothes argument: "Only people who are smart can see this; if you can't see this, it's because you're an idiot"
It *is* self-evident if you're willing to consider it for any length of time, though. It's just that Peterson isn't willing.
this proof is left as an exercise for the listener
It is extraordinary how long I was able to be a fan of Jordan Peterson's early lectures, assuming he was talking in good faith and that the problems he raised were meant in the spirit of improving people's wellbeing, like an actual lecturer in psychology concerned with the question of meaning whose solution to nihilism was "orient away from Nazi death camps."
Hearing him say "10% of the population have trouble with the complexity of modern occupations and we haven't done anything to address this" back in 2015: damn straight, we need to revolutionise work and make it less needlessly bullshit.
Hearing him say it now, in an interview with Stefan Molyneux, and go "I don't have a solution": god damn, it's going to be death camps, isn't it.
It's a fair bet that any time a conservative raises a problem but doesn't want to talk about solutions, it's because their preferred solution is too monstrous to say in public and they want you to draw that conclusion on your own so they can maintain deniability.
Yes, considering the public he has this guy' ideas are dangerous.
Be fair, it might not be eugenicist death camps… it might be eugenicist sterilization programs.
I agree. When Jordan said 10-15% can’t contribute to society, but I don’t “have a solution”, it does sound like, “I can’t say the solution out loud but if you’re a white supremisist, you know what I mean, wink wink.”
He is the warm-up act for Final Solution 2
Most people who say they believe in personal responsibility think that just means "everyone needs to hold themselves accountable for their own lot in life without unfairly blaming others", but responsibility also necessarily means "everyone needs to hold themselves (and each other) accountable for how their actions negatively affect others- intentionally or not, individually and collectively". People tend to forget the latter part.
Ultimately it's kind of obvious: the Sports Illustrated cover is an affront to Peterson because it's an institution (Sports Illustrated) very publicly placing a particular person _somewhere Peterson doesn't think she belongs._ At their core there is perhaps nothing more conservative than believing that 1) _people have their place_ and 2) people should _know_ their place and not get uppity. It doesn't matter that this is an utterly silly and meaningless hierarchy of 'people who get to be on Sports Illustrated covers' - it _is_ a hierarchy, and as such just like any other hierarchy it _must not_ be challenged.
All to justify private ownership and unequal access to shit baby, the hoops theyll jump instead of admitting that they want hierarchy. Great analysis tho dude.
What's ironic is I bet Peterson wouldn't dispute your ending argument here. The reason Peterson went after Sports Illustrated wasn't because he's attempting to enforce "their place". It was because he recognized that this model was being put on display out of pity, not out of beauty. And we all know this, but Sports Illustrated wants to market off of their own self righteousness like the rest of the woke crowd. "Oh, you don't think this model is beautiful? It must be because you're a shallow bigot!"
@@jasonhendricks4562 He saw this model as being put on display out of pity not out of beauty because that's the only reason _he_ would have done it. And same goes for you - 'we all know this'? What other things some people agree with you about so you wrongly assume _everyone_ does?
Any fan of the free market should at least be aware that _different people have different aesthetic preferences._ This isn't rocket science. But while buying a car in your favorite color is a concept everyone should grasp, I guess Peterson fans who like black cars assume all the many people who prefer red cars are _faking it for clout?_
So there's no woke mafia coming to cancel you because you don't think a model is beautiful. You're only a shallow bigot if you have trouble with the idea that _other people might like_ how she looks, and need to make up _explanations_ (beyond 'some dudes at SI thought she looked hot').
But if you just can't imagine any of that, I invite you - as an intellectual exercise - to visit Pornhub, and write down all the categories of videos the site offers. Then put a checkmark next to all the categories you think are there because Pornhub 'wants to market off of their own self righteousness like the rest of the woke crowd'.
@@KillahMate Yeah you're not wrong at all, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just clarifying that Peterson saw this move by Sports Illustrated as an agenda to make being overweight idealistic. Because modeling is about capturing the 'ideal' afterall. Beauty is subjective and Peterson admits that he could have handled his tweet better. But it absolutely had wokeness written all over it. "Lets celebrate being overweight just like we celebrate fit bodies, you know - the bodies that take great effort to maintain. You don't think fat people are equally worthy? You bigot!"
Perfectly put!
I love how Big Joel has just grown more and more to look like an ancient Greek philosopher over the past years
Now he just needs to get ripped like crazy.
He does look like he just peeled himself off of some cracked vase.
@@zawrator4457 or move into a local barrel
The worst thing about Peterson is that he pulls in a certain demographic that is genuinely seeking reason and meaning, and he fills that need with his weird, vacuous, dog-eat-dog nonsense.
Yeah, the ammount of otherwise genuinely smart people ive met that believe his dogshit? Its embarrassing and pathetic that he hasn't been laughed to hell publicly on all platforms for all the joker fans and intellectually dishonest tryhards to feel some real shame in their life for falling for his manipulation. Because thats all it is, he plays the part of pretending to be a woke smart guy, but he's really just some old coot that took drugs once and thinks that means he's enlightened and more socially aware than everybody combined, he's the type to dismiss Stephen Hawking for being "too woke" as if empathy and a nuanced understanding of others is a bad thing...
His videos are a good stepping stone to reaction videos like this
@@wildoaklane3
That's a good point.
very similar to socialists
@@wildoaklane3 or much, much worse videos.
I took an actual IQ test (not one of those cheap online courses) and my IQ is something like 75-80 within that general range but I'm doing great in life. I'm not the smartest man alive but I can do everything that people with 100 IQ can.
@@Fatb0ybadb0y how does this count as dunning kruger? he's just using a personal anecdote to attack the credibility of IQ tests, which deserve all the attack they get. i don't see how he's claiming expertise or competence on a topic he isn't knowledgable in.
@@Fatb0ybadb0y Uh no, no it is not. But you have helpfully demonstrated IQ is no substitute for learning what something is.
Nice
Except score 100 on an IQ test.
Jordan Peterson’s assertion that “IQ is the metric that determines if someone is good and/or capable of anything” is essentially just eugenics. I am shocked that a University ever let him teach.
There's a reason he says "there isn't a good solution" because he damn well knows what final solution he is gesturing towards.
The funny thing is, I recently watched a video that did an analysis on JBP (I can't remember the video off the top of my head) but it went a bit on how he got into being a professor at the University of Toronto. He got referred for the position from another prof there that had a really good impression from a speach or presentation that he did, saying it helped him in his personal life. Then after Peterson started teaching and students were like" He chamged my life and stuff" and the guy that reffered him saw that JP was a really good motivatinal coach and stuff, but he didn't really teach the subject of psychology very well to the stundents.
They came out of the class more as if they went to a Tony Robbins speach or similar.
If I remember the video I'll link it here.
@@lord125000 Are you talking about the fairly recent Some More News video on him?
Even if you want to buy into it: An IQ of below 85 (or 87, as shown in the list of jobs) is ridiculously high for someone to be considered incapable of doing any kind of useful job. I've both worked as a cleaner and spent a significant amount of time around people who have IQs of between 50 and 85. An IQ of 50 is absolutely compatible with working a useful job. In some cases, these jobs would need to be adjusted (less unwarranted "I don't need to show you how to do your job, I am not responsible for it, just do it" in situation where it is extremely unclear what the "obvious" way to do that job could be and with which very intelligent people struggle just as much if not more), and in some cases you could leave them exactly as they are (or make them a bit more challenging, to prevent bore-out).
Also, since when is it actually necessary for everybody to work? So much nonsense work is being done. You could easily make the cut-off at an IQ of 100 and say that everybody with a lower IQ (and below the age of, say, 20) is forbidden to work, and still end up with a perfectly functional society.
I was I a family iq test as a toddler, where me and my mum were tested. Based on what my mum said, the two of us did far far better than was predicted compared to our social class and family education history. The reason? My mum travelled as a young adult, she saved for years to backpack across europe and the USA. She fully admits that the only reason she could answer half of these questions was cause she learned while travelling. And, as an overly curious child, she taught me stuff.
Basically, the test was far easier to pass if you were upper class and had taken a European centric education. I.E. it was really crappy science. If it had instead had a far heavier knowledge focuse on things more common in the working class, like local info, trade skills, etc. then it would have produced entirely different results.
Did you ever see a question from the IQ test? What has "backpacking Europe" got anything to do with it?
@@ordinary_life_n Their mom backpacked through Europe and the iq test was apparently centered around European knowledge, so that's why they scored well.
@@ordinary_life_n UK based IQ test had an upper middle class European focus. That bias gave my fam an advantage.
Granted, this was almost 20 years ago so things have probably changed since then, but based on what I've seen, there is still a bias against knowledge morr commonly held by immigrants and working class folk.
@@theviewer6889 But the IQ test is just math and logic puzzles, how does traveling places help you? I get that it can help you indirectly by making you more curious and more likely to study, but not directly.
@@angeloskoulas3988 took an iq test as a child and one of the questions was based on a pattern that my aunt taught me about as part of a puzzle game we played a week earlier. Literally if I had not played that puzzle game or taken the test a week earlier, I would have got it wrong. So this shows that it's not based on innate ability
SI has been in the process of rebranding their swimsuit issue to be a women-centered lifestyle magazine more than catering to men for a few years now, and I had the joy of being put in charge of SI’s customer service line right when that change started - and since I had nobody to tell me what I could or couldn’t say since the company was in the middle of a big restructuring and they replaced the whole customer service team with me I had the freedom to pretty much tell a bunch of angry men to shove it and we already have their money so there’s nothing they can do about it bc we don’t give refunds to entitled pricks. It was great.
Unimaginably based
This why you don't get too attached to brands, especially in today's world. One, because brand doesn't mean what it used to; two, because there will always be some other brand or company that will come along to fill in the gap once the demand is there.
@@nfzeta128 yeah they did lose a lot of subscribers but they got a lot better brand deals, celebrity partnerships and ad revenue that way more than made up for the decrease in sales so all in all it was a good business decision regardless of the boomer dudes who can’t figure out how to Google image search for women in bikinis
@@realitypoet Honestly conservatively minded people have such a weird way of thinking it intrigues me sometimes, when it isn't annoying me that is.
Isn't that bait and switch, though? If my Family Handyman rebranded to be a cooking magazine halfway through my subscription, I'd call for a refund. I guess that would make me an entitled prick? To assume I was entitled to the thing I bought, instead of some random other thing?
Sometimes I'm convinced JP got his liscence from a cereal box, because I can't imagine how he actually managed to convince someone he could be a psychiatrist.
Also, I love how Joel points out that Jordan says that the snake symbols were inspired by DNA strands, when in fact, it just looks like snakes fucking. Brilliant. Tells you how much the man "thinks" about stuff.
As someone with a bachelor in Psychology and who was trained in psychometry... every one of my teachers warned us against using IQ as anything more than an academic success predictor. My psychology statistics teacher especially made sure to debunk The Bell Curve (without naming the book) during one of our first classes. This teacher trained us on administering an outdated version of the IQ test and one of our tasks was to point out where the test was lacking and how to account for it in our evaluation.
IQ can be a useful metric to determine if someone is having a hard time learning and can sometimes give a bit of an indication as to why it's the case, but it's an incredibly faillible test that must be administered with a lot of care and its results read with even more care.
>every one of my teachers warned us against using IQ as anything more than an academic success predictor
Lol. What makes academic success different from everything else in the world?
>IQ can be a useful metric to determine if someone is having a hard time learning
Which a lot of people here are denying precisely just because of the attitude spread by your teachers. There is nothing academic about this, it's purely about giving in to social pressure.
>but it's an incredibly faillible test that must be administered with a lot of care
Bullshit. Compared to what? What test in psychometry is less "fallible"?
It's measures the MOST reliable and meaningful quanity in all of psychometry, *g* .
@@MrCmon113 academic success is way less affected by luck and way more affected by competence than the real world success I'm sure you know that
Academic success predictor? Maybe in some ways but would things like mental health problems or attention issues not significantly lower someone's academic success. Schooling sounds like more a predictor of effort than anything else.
But doesn't your productivity, education and problem solving abilities have strong implications when it comes to the workplace?
@@Griot.7294 To a degree but these factors, I would assume, get less apparent as time goes on as people tend to get paid by wage and not by performance. Not to mention that there's just so many factors and every single one of them in a person's life will contribute in some way. Mental illness, relationships, family, substance misuse, or a myriad of other things would for sure impact work performance.
Big Joel, I really like your analysis of Peterson’s “listen to each other” argument. I was inclined to agree with the argument almost because of the argument itself: I think it’s important to listen to people you don’t agree with, and Peterson is one of those people. I didn’t get why people liked him before this video, but now I do, because he says a lot of things that sound very logical on the surface. But you shouldn’t have to listen to someone arguing in bad faith, or delegitimizing the struggles of others, or being a super obvious fascist. If my partner in the hypothetical couple situation initiated a conversation by screaming the one attack helicopter joke at me or calling me slurs, then yea i think an eye roll might be fitting there, at the very least.
It's called 'deepity.'
@@antediluvianatheist5262 oh my god thank you i love this word sm
he a fascist?
i actually agree with the notion that u should listen to people u disagree with, but u should also have the opportunity to give ur perspective as well. other people should give u the same courtesy. jordan peterson does not do that. he wants u to listen to him but does not want to listen to u. i have had some of the best conversations with people i disagree with, and ive learned a lot from them. the issue comes about when u ask why he is telling us to listen. what story is he trying to tell by giving us this listening idea? he is an arrogant hypocrite who uses platitudes and pseudo intellectual ideas to sell snake oil to insecure young men basically lmfao
I think you touched on a key point that is missing on thr whole "you should listen to people you disagree so you can learn something" that that only works when the person is being honest and opening up their experience or how they understand things or whatnot, not simply anything anyone is spouting for the sake of it or bc they don't even think about what they say. Not to mention that only bc you might learn something doesn't mean their points are any good at face value.
Ever since I watched Shaun's video on The Bell Curve, any time I hear someone bring up IQ my brain instinctively waits for them to bring up racial differences. And given enough time, they'll do it almost without fail.
It's the "I'm not racist, but..." of social science
The funny thing is, if there are “racial” differences, the actual difference is culture. Standardized tests are apparently harder for people outside a very specific culture.
Yeah, totally, me too. I'm always waiting for something eugenics-y.
I know you're just covering your bases with the "almost" in there, but I really don't feel like it's necessary, lol
who is Shaun?
Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is *literally* *impossible.* Why do people keep repeating this phrase?!
The level of unintentional irony in using that phrase as an synonym for "effort," is so high, it gives me nosebleeds.
One thing Jordan completely ignores is the idea that IQ could be multivariate, that people can be extremely stupid in some ways but less so in others.
I'm a terrible businessman but I'm a top-level problem solver, and my IQ is over 140.
Some stuff i can do better than anyone around me, and some stuff i seem brain-dead trying to solve.
My supervisors at work have struggled with what to do with me, thinking of how they could smash me into being a business-minded worker, but ultimately realizing that succeeding in this could also smash my creativity, which was the real benefit i provided that others around me couldn't.
They finally decided to just put up with me, and enjoy the unique solutions i threw off.
Anybody can do time cards. Or can they?
I designed a time card system, but i wouldn't really do them myself. So i contributed to getting thousands of time cards in, just not mine.
The evidence that most people are like this is all around us, that people are almost never "just stupid" to the point of being incapable of anything.
To make it more obvious, we have actual people in govt who are very clearly intellectually low-level, people making laws that obviously just don't understand what they are doing.
Total abortion bans passed by people who don't know what "ectopic" means.
What happens to Jordan's theory when the President's IQ turns out to be 90, and a homeless street person hits 135?
As is commonly true of Jordan, his rationalizations tend to be lazy. He hits on a track, and fits everything to it. Everything bad is radical-leftist post-modern cultural Marxism, and Marxism is the ultimate evil because 100 million died in the Soviet Union.
Yeah, that follows.
Everything is on the most rudimentary level of abstraction.
But he is articulate, and a lot of dumber people mistake that for erudition, or, to them, "smarts".
Jordan is a conservative pseudo-intellectual for the post-Trump reality. We would be much better off of he hadn't come out of his Russian-induced rehab-shortcut coma.
Seriously, a clinical psychologist hopelessly addicted to benzos. Talk about stupid.
Normally I don't feel okay making fun of people who struggle with drug abuse, especially not to the point Peterson does, but for a man who preaches self-reliance and hard-headed realism (to the point of villifying and demonizing civil rights activists as totalitarian monsters) to end up unable to cope without insane amounts of drugs, well, it's just... it's the sort of thing one can only laugh at homerically.
If he had an ounce of integrity he'd ask himself some hard questions about how valid his ideas really are. But of course he doesn't. Then the whole shithouse would go up in flames.
@@pantalaemon his entire thing is "if you're own life isn't even in order you have no right to critique socity" and watching him spend all of his time critiquing society while his own life is a shit show is just objectively hysterical"
IQ was invented by the French public school system to justify giving foreign students in France a lower quality education system than French born students.
YES!
Anecdotally speaking, part of my ADHD diagnosis involved taking an IQ test with ~5 different subscores that were combined to find your aggregate IQ.
In one of the categories, I got the highest possible score - better than they'd ever seen in their office. But my processing speed score was awful (because of the ADHD lol), so the total score landed around 120. I felt so slighted!
I don't think this version of the test is much better at objectively measuring intelligence than standard ones, but I like it better as a means of communicating the results. It allowed me to think "oh, this is stupid! it directly penalizes neurodivergent traits!" and disregard it entirely
The "women must be beautiful and skinny" seems to me to exist to suppress women. A man who insists that a woman must fit that body type doesn't see women as equals.
He's also telling other men they aren't allowed to find women attractive he doesn't.
A. The target market of this magazine is targeted toward men, not women, men. These women have always been more curvy than women in magazines with a target of women, like Cosmopolitan. Rail thin, shapeless, buttless, boobless women were a staple of women's magazines, not men's.
B. Women have always had beauty standards. You know why? Women rank each other by looks. Women are far less forgiving of other women's bodies than men are, and there is extensive study to back this up.
I like he more likely saying “the majority of men find skinny women more attractive” which is factually true.
@@celewign Which culture? Some cultures hold that non tan and overweight is the peak of beauty.
Every single culture on planet earth has a female body standard. And that standard, thick or thin, is maintained by women. Every single culture on planet earth has a male body standard, and that standard is selected for by women. Women give sex to men they find physically appealing, and rank each other by physical appeal, and blame men for all of it. Great gig, women have.
never forget with any metric of measuring intelligence, the ones who introduce it into the status-quo are the ones who rank the highest on their own quiz. it is not a varied group of people with different scores who propose it. the people who claim that they can determine if an individual is a big-brained genius or not just so happen to fall under their own definition of a big-brained genius. you are more likely to vouch for something if it boosts your own ego and the fact nobody factors in that bias shows how flawed the idea of iq is.
It's always been tied to imperialism too. The original IQ guy, Binet, was a French guy who wanted to find the African kids who were worth educating in the best schools in France while the remainder would be left behind, orchestrating "brain drain" from the colonized countries for decades which still obv has an effect.
I think it is not just about scoring well, but also about this score being flexible. Like over 10 points flexible. And you can practise for it. I'm sure the test is useful for something, but relying on it too much is dangerous. A hammer is a nice tool too, but it is hard to mow the lawn with one.
@@MissMoontree I see it working well within psychiatry, of which it was originally intended, but not within the space it is today. I once compared it to xanex. A drug intended solely for psychiatric use but is now mostly known for being a party drug. In a sense, modern IQ tests are the nerdy party drug meant for people who prefer to get high off their own ego more than anything else.
@@naomistarlight6178
So you think it's accurate and it worked.
It's "biased" towards pattern recognition, short term memory, logic, and 3D mental rotation.
Your stupid generic criticism is typical for someone, who has never done anything by himself and never even tried to understand anything properly.
It's just eugenics wearing a mustache and a funny hat.
It turns out that "it's really complicated to explain why" he thinks they're DNA means it came to him in a hallucination. He thinks he saw DNA when he was on shrooms. And he believes in a collective unconscious. Those combined gets there. He explained it in a discussion with Richard Dawkins.
Okay who let him do mushrooms
oh boy
bruhhhh this man is unhinged, I feel bad for anyone to have ever been his student or patient
He takes his belief in a collective unconscious and takes that to mean Joseph Campbell's monomyth (which is not actually universal) is a result of the collective human subconcious and that archetypes are real and should be enforced.
It's bonkers.
somehow this doesn't surprise me
Years ago when this man was starting to be famous, I was in a bad place mentally, with no good expectations in life, and his basic cognitive therapy advice and his capacity of tedious talking looking meaningful did make me like him.
He did a website, I don't remember what it was, I think it was some sort of life coaching or work guidance for 15 bucks and it made a bunch of moral questions. When I ended, I was greeted with a message of "You don't have enough intelligence and we can't help you". Which was funny, apart of insulting, because I have done in the past 2 "certified" IQ tests, 1 during elementary school and the other one in high school and they said I was about 128 IQ, which by this man's perspective I should be some big shot in a company or something and not a barista at Starbucks.
So, I felt insulted and cash grabbed by the same man who said "he wanted to help young men" and I started to realize what was his real game all along, then all the analisys on his bonkers books was done by lot of people on the internet and, yeah, he is just your good ol' second hand car seller with a... psychological? twist. I also learned that IQ tests are bullshit and probably did decently at them because I always liked the logic games of guessing what is the next drawing pattern given 2 or 3 examples in passtime magazines. I still do logic games though, I find them very entertaining and have the capacity to make me feel more intelligent than what I really am.
As for my 15 bucks, don't worry, I could cancel the payment and that was a very happy ending to my then struggling economy, so I kinda proved his point against his own economy, I guess. I think he talks about the people who pay him for his shit when he burns people about IQ and managing money, maybe he still doesn't believe he got rich and adored by doing what he does.
so many grifters want to "help young men" but end up just scamming them :( its a damn shame, but it sounds like you definitely came out on the better end of it, congrats!
Oh man, I would LOVE to take that test! I wanna see if I also get called a hopeless idiot because I'm not a conservative.
ngl the increase of mental health issues made some "psychiatric clinics" rich because they're just offering band aid solutions or just giving them meds and thats that.
Why would he use moral questions to quantify someone's intelligence! Glad u got ur 15 bucks back 👍
@@user-gm3lg8gp3m Like all bootlicking quacks and psychopaths with power nowadays, he refurbishes the old Calvin reversal on christianity poverty and modesty. Instead of saying rich people are touched by god, he says that people that lacks modesty and toughtfulness over other people and is willing to strive in the power/money chain are more intelligent.
It's idiotic beyond belief and pretty much bombs the mysticism around IQ and all the constructs around it. I suppose people who are like that use that logic to be able to sleep sound at night or something and keep people who don't know better believing in this shit.
I think the web was given on one of the old H3H3 podcasts (I suppose the first) if you wanna try the stupid test. Just be sure you can reclaim your money back, don't give this piece of shit any money.
I've seen cats less obsessed with boxes and fitting in them no matter the cost than Peterson.
And at least they're cute doing it!
Ha ha ha!
Peterson reminds me of those kids in class who would take a 5 minute IQ test online and base their whole being on it.
one of the points that I think is often neglected with the silly "poverty and iq" question is the way that increased stress and trauma really fuck with a lot of your higher order functions. You can see this in how previously high-performing people end up doing worse as they go through trauma or as increased life stressors that occur as one ages takes their toll. I haven't read all too much on this effect developmentally but I can't imagine that kids living through the family stress and everything that comes with being in a tight place economically is gonna be especially Conducive to developing study and test-taking skills.
Thank you
I agree with your point and I happen to have read an awful lot about the intersection between exposure to stress & trauma and poor health outcomes, especially the link to chronic pain and inflammatory auto-immune disease. There's a lot in that body of research regarding how your body deprioritizes certain functions when in a prolonged state of fight or flight. Also, cool profile picture. That album slaps.
@@caramazzola2399hey do you mind sharing those readings? I’m quite curious about this
I like it when big joel is challenged by insane tweets
OMG i thought you are AOC😭😭
I'm her cousin ey
@@sista363 All women on the left look the same.
@@Shaggylicious yeah. They look like ✨QUEENS ✨. Beautiful smart and they slay
@@sista363 that's right.
in the last 5 years i have had 2 semesters of classes on psychology, at some of which they explained to us the problem with IQ tests
...but i'm sure JP would just take it as a sign that the modern education is inferior to the one he had.
It's more clear what's going on when he reacts to the pure biology side of things... With IQ and psychology, well, he's a psychologist, maybe he knows what he's talking about. Surely he's done his research, right? He's saying it's important and *he's* got a PhD in this stuff.
But then it moves into pure biology, and he's got no qualifications here, and he's enraged that the cutting edge of the science isn't aligned with the 200 year old traditional understanding of the matter. How dare these "researchers" with the "data" and "experiments" and "computer models" and "hundreds of years of science to build upon" suggest that Darwin didn't magically and perfectly solve everything centuries ago!?
That's based on nothing. That's just 100% his outrage at the notion of new information challenging old ideas.
The reason he gets upset when people challenge the importance of IQ is he's an anti-intellectual conservative who can't stand the notion of academic or scientific progress.
@@paulsmart4672 The problem with Peterson is he plays the field and both sides. He quote's numbers and statistics when he wants to that support his beliefs and then quotes mysticism and religion when it suites the argument as well. He'll bounce between the two and rail against authoritarianism but loves to tell people exactly what they should think and do. His final form of defense is the somewhat famous "there's something important there but I just haven't figured it out yet", usually attached at the end of some wild claim.
He's able to manipulate the conversation by sounding academic, sounding spiritual and all encompassing, sounding contrarian to subvert his critics and keeping things open enough to build upon later. A slippery character indeed. I am enjoying the word salad moniker though.
I was in uni doing education 20 years ago and they were saying IQ was a bad lens to view students through then!
Up yours woke moralist
@@paulsmart4672 IQ tests are racist BD. They were invented to give racism a scientific touch as if it is founded on facts. But it is not, it is scientism. Peterson talks just rubbish sh*t. Big word which means nothing. Once he made clear that one of his "sources" is "The Bell Curve", which does exactly that claiming that racisim has scientific grounding and IQ test tell something useful. For a debunking of the Bell Curve there is e.g. the book by Stephen Jay Gould (The Mismeasure of Men). You don't need more to read to know the BS Peterson says.
Remember children: IQ tests only prove how good you are at solving IQ tests.
They're not even that good at measuring that, actually, as the same individual's result can vary greatly between two tests. IQ isn't even good at measuring IQ.
TRUE
Exactly
Hm it's almost as if ones ability to take in and regurgitate information may be related to their intelligence
This kind of misses the point of the video. Joel never debates the point that IQ is a metric connected to various other factors such as what jobs you may be able to occupy and sustain. Though IQ isn't probably as meaningful as we'd hope a meaningful statistic would be, IQ does have some meaning beyond a number, and even Joel seems to accept that in this video.
If you claim IQ is meaningless to one of Peterson's followers, you won't get to any of the more significant problems in Peterson's rhetoric.
When asked in a 2004 interview with The New York Times what his IQ is, Stephen Hawking gave a curt reply: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."
ahh yes lets ask a physicist a psychological question and take his answer as truth
@@adamoutaleb7571 1st - I think you mean 'psychology question' rather than 'psychological question'. The 1st is a question regarding psychology, the 2nd is a question that affects the asked person mentally or psychologically.
2nd - Most actual psychologists don't see IQ scores as a big deal either, and certainly not indicative of intelligence.
@@fpedrosa2076 hi it’s me on another account
1. yes this is what I meant
2. Every psychologists you’ll go too will use iq test to help diagnosis with adhd, autism, nvld, learning disabilities
@@adamoutaleb7571 i'm sorry but im pretty sure stephen hawking was smarter than you or I will ever be
@@Gh0sb0ss YeS because einstein beileved in a god god is real
His harsh opposition to being “tricked” into finding someone attractive is a play for control. He wants to keep us thinking that there’s an objective way to be “correctly”, and that *he* knows what that is. This gives him power to say, “fat people are ugly and unhealthy”, “poor people are stupid”, “trans people are their assigned gender”, “women are intellectually inferior” - all from a place of objective truth.
If we as a society agree that there’s nuance and things are more complicated than “only skinny white woman attractive”, he loses all of his power to say what is and isn’t objectively right and wrong, which is literally the only argument he has against everything he opposes.
It means that we can be “tricked” into believing that it’s okay to be fat, that poor people deserve assistance, that trans people are their actual gender, and that men and women are equal, and that’s terrifying to him.
'Some More News' covered Jordan so well,
the video outperformed much, but unfortunatley people
get the odd, odd Impression it could possibly be the only
video worth watching.
His epic Worker-Right Coverage is therefore not the only
thing that just wont Profit from all the new Viewers
cause they all come to the Conclusion 'Oh well, this video was EPIC, but
why would i check-out the other Videos this same Guy made?'
Cody is a lying hack. Sitch and Adam did an 8 hour breakdown on all of his lies if you’re interested
I think its more malign narcissism. Jordan Peterson gets angry if he feels like the public is not appeasing him personally. I personally always found that it would be the most healthy to just psychologically profile such guys, round them up and shoot them, it would prevent alot of terrorist attacks and school shootings which are in most cases commited by the creepy incel kid who pikachu faces over why nobody likes his toxic ass and blames society for it.
There is such a thing as objective truth.
Being fat makes you objectively less healthy.
Many of the poor make shitty life decisions that result in their condition, and many of them are just genetically predestined to be poor.
Biology is predetermined and cannot be changed.
Here are innate differences in mental and physical structures between men and women.
Hiding behind 'nuance' in the face of reality is delusion. Many topics deserve nuance, but many also are objectively true -- The sky is blue. The Earth is round, ect. Quit denying reality.
@@8jijjoo126 Then what do you say about people who vote for the democrats and being generally on the left statistically having higher levels of education than rightwingers? Not to forget all the economic, scientific, artistic and technological centers being generally blue and the majority of elites in the arts, beauty, tech and academia, the corner stones of a civilization, being left leaning?
Doesn't your stance kind of indicate that left leaning positions are naturally something that appeals to the genetic upper class of society and therefore being of a higher validity and genuinly being more favorable to society in large than conservatism, which is something the genetic under class leans towards? Especially since many of the conservative strongholds tend to be part of the broader hillbilly and white trash culture, which is notoriously known for inbreeding and therefore genetic degeneration?
My therapist has another client that apparently loves Peterson very much (I don't know the client or anything else about him, so I can't judge him as a person) so the both of us talk about him at times. I actually brought up Peterson first because he basically stated that BPD is the female version of ASPD which I found quite strange because the two disorders have some glaring differences between them.
That promted my therapist to look into Peterson because two clients of his mentioned him. His conclusion was that Peterson was a very typical old university professor, insane, conservative with a dangerous love for facist rethoric.
> "a very typical old university professor, insane, conservative with a dangerous love for facist rethoric."
Wait that's typical??? Dang I just got into uni I gotta watch out 👀
Yeah, autism is nothing like bpd, take it from someone who is autistic and has met people with bpd many times. They arent even cognitive cousins, I have more in common with my cats than I do someone with bpd, thats not a bad thing, its just true, women with bpd and autism may act similar but thats literally just because of sexism, and how women with mental differences are raised to basically be submissive niave robots, its depressing, but thats ableism for you.
@@facelessdrone aspd is antisocial personality disorder, the acronym for autism is asd
@@facelessdrone ASPD is Anti-Social Personality Disorder, not Autism Spectrum Disorder - ASD.
@@facelessdrone i think aspd refers to antisocial personality disorder. youre thinking of asd, autism spectrum disorder
took some random online iq test the other week and got ~130, guess i'm off to law school, jordan peterson really has changed my life
Jordan Peterson is the regular conservative person's idea of a smart person.
No, he's roped even relatively moderate or even progressive minded people into believing he's smart. No, he's simply the dumb person's idea of a smart person. Dumb people will gravitate towards him from all walks of life.
I used to think he was so smart because I couldn't understand a single point he'd make. Now I realize he simply never says anything worth listening to.
my dad would fall for this man's bullshit IMMEDIATELY lmao
The thing about "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" that always bugs me, and this is true of many conservative arguments and positions, is that even if it's true and even if it solves that one person's problem that's one person. We're talking about a system that affects millions and can't sustain everyone doing that at once, it's just mathematically impossible for all those people to do even if we just assume it's possible. But it sounds really nice and simple to say
Ah, but conservatives don't believe in systems.
If one person can still get an illegal firearm somehow, then "people can get illegal firearms" and gun control is therefore pointless. If one person can get insanely lucky and make all the right choices at the right time and go from rags to riches, then "people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and the world is therefore fair.
Yea I realise that with a lot of conservative arguments on systems in general. They tell you a method that 'may' work to allieviate some of the symptoms of that system but of never seem to understand the goal is to fix the system itself and not maybe help one or two people be the next to subjugate 5 - 1000 others.
Because it's very simple, their solution is that while "anyone" can do that, NOT EVERYONE can, because they don't want everyone to do that.
Conservative solutions are entirely based on individual solutions and reject systems wholesale. They generally are not interested in society-scale projects because they don't believe in helping those who they can't personally benefit from.
@@gamerinatrance3618 get 10 people to fight over a loaf of bread. “ANYONE can win this bread!”
Really felt the bit about respect being a 2-way street. The person speaking isn’t always trying to show you some profound flaw in yourself. Sometimes they’re just insulting you, or lying, or lashing out, or arguing in bad faith. Sometimes rolling your eyes is the correct reaction to bullshit.
Also respect doesn’t mean one person is treated with deference while the other gets the honor being being treated as a person.
His whole shtick is skillfully manipulative
Some times they are advocating for genocide
Ye ye, you don’t have to be tolerant toward intolerance
Joel, I just wanted to compliment you on your oratory and delivery of this video. You make a lot of points I don't agree with, but you deliver your arguments in an extremely convincing manner. Keep it up!
I've noticed that whenever JP says "It's a big problem, man! and nobody knows what to do about it," that's where his Hidden Agenda is very close to the surface. Great essay Joel - I subscribed
“No one knows what to do about it!”
“Here are some things we could do about it”
“No, none of those would ever work. Why doesn’t anyone have a solution for this?”
Jordan's got a big dog whistle
I just wanted to say I've got a BSc in evolutionary biology and I've also read The Origin of Species, and I have a genetics textbook sitting about two feet to my left that makes Darwin look about as smart as a toddler. He could've had no idea how mind bogglingly complicated the field would become in 160 years, and there was a _lot_ he didn't know and some core facts he got almost laughably wrong around heredity.
That said, he absolutely wasn't wrong on the core principles of natural selection and common descent, which have been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt.
Edit: to clarify I don't actually think he was only as smart as a toddler. He was incredibly intelligent and insightful, especially given the limited data he had to work with. But people like JP treating him as though he was a prophet who can't be questioned is ridiculous.
He was right on quite a lot. The Origin of Species is just his most known work.
His work concerning orchids, barnacles and especially his ideas concerning the distribution of seeds, the behavior of bees & Sexual selection are incredible.
His book on behaviour and human emotions is widely respected.
There is also much inspiration in philosophy concerning Darwin's work.
But indeed, after the modern synthesis combining mendelian genetics with Darwin's natural selection and the discovery of other mechanisms (example genetic drift, Endosymbiosis, epigenetics, Horizontal gene transfer etc.) anyone still claiming Evolutionary theory is still stuck with the knowledge of only Charles Darwin's ideas is ridiculous....
Welcome to science. You get a lot right, but you get 10x more wrong. It’s almost like all you can do is take evidence work with it and throw out what fails
Rightists: Lefty are the real bigots!
Me: Yeah they are quite ironically, quite often, prejudiced 'anti-bigots' who backfire spectacularly all day every day to a degree I don't know if to laugh or cry.
Peterson: My opinion on a Chinese woman's appearance means I am Stunning and Brave for daring to call out the CCP! Facts & Logic!
Also him: Nobody else dares except half of the rest of the world! Also the Chinese people themselves, increasingly so the last year or two over the CCP economic incompetence, corruption, being barricaded inside their own homes, and being forced to kneel under barriers and at windows to complain, and having no recourse except to file petitions which usually get ignored!
USA Rightists: Jordan Peterson Does Nothing Wrong! Only Liberals and Leftists are the ones who worship their political figures like a Cultist Groupthink Collective! We're the Stunning and Brave Independent Thinkers. Trump and Peterson make us feel good therefore they're correct!
UK Leftists: Jeremy Corbyn Does Nothing Wrong! Liberals, Social Democrats, Welfarists and fans of the Third Way are all Fascists! Only they are the ones who worship their political figures like a Cultist Groupthink Collective! We're the Stunning and Brave Independent Thinkers. Corbyn, Chomsky and Craig Murray make us feel good therefore they're correct!
The rest of us: Can you both please not!?
The funny thing about scientific progress is one can be a revolutionary mind in their time, create a whole new field of study, and create the foundation for a structure which makes the original person seem ... comparatively tiny in scope and depth. A scientist can be both right and wrong.
Well he was a prophet of his time.. the fact with nothing and got so far from that ot say a lot.
I can't say that and you can't either just like me you read books of others that used him as a stepping stone to move forward so come even wrong and or bias.
31:04 THANK YOU for bringing this up. Facial expression recognition software terrifies me because I know how biased it can be. As an autistic person with atypical body language, I've gotten very good at copying the people around me to cope. And facial expressions are DEFINITELY cultural and vary dramatically from individual to individual.
I think the point of is, that some people are capable of less though they have no control over this like me. No matter how I hard I learn, I always did bad in school. I barely passed high school. I dropped out of college. I can barely hold a minimum wage job because i am so slow. Help pelase.
@@ceooflonelinessinc.267 the school system really sucks. Doing bad at school doesn't say anything about your intelligence
@@CoreDump451 Not necessary. But in my case my low marks were a result of my low intelligence.
And what's a "autistic"?
Meaning You very special or something better? And should be granted special rights, privileges and immunities, denied to those that don't have a "autistic" in them?
Again What is a "autistic"?
@@SeptemberAdam what are you talking about; who's talking about special privileges. Calm yourself
I feel like anytime someone is hyper focused on IQ and how it is an accurate indicator of people’s place in society- it starts sounding like a precursor to their eugenics speech.
If you think, just because someone talks about a trait which predicts stuff like income, etc, that they must therefore want to manipulate this, that's a you problem. Also, I realize the irony of this, but if you support laws against incest, you support eugenic laws, so it's not like eugenics is bad anyway. You just have an emotional reaction to the word.
You made it through this whole video without saying the word “eugenics” and I take that to mean you’re more disciplined than I am 🤭 when Jordan says he doesn’t have a solution for poverty/low IQ I feel like he’s expecting the viewer to connect the dots and think what he doesn’t want to say aloud - “our world doesn’t have a place for these people so maybe they shouldn’t be in it.” That’s the end result of all the talk of Truth and the human body - anyone who doesn’t meet the ideal is an aberration to be erased.
Precisely. Peterson is knowingly using a fascist dog whistle.
If you listened to his longer clips you would not feel that at all. He seems to me like he genuinely cares about all people (whether that is misguided or not aside). He wants them taken care of, not gone. He points out a problem he sees that he has no solutions to -- what's wrong with that? Or can we only point out issues if we ourselves have the one perfect solution? I'd also note that here his lecture is about psychology, IQ, and what it teaches us, NOT politics.
@@LoudCommentorFaux paternalism.
@@Chazzmatazz What has Peterson said or done that makes you think his care for these people is fake?
@@LoudCommentor His clear and consistent unwillingness to recognize that they serve a human/cultural purpose.
It’s so incredibly to me that JP can say “IQ is the biggest predictor of success” while completely ignoring the hundreds of studies that show that high IQ is associated with higher nutrition and better education in early age, stemming from wealth. Therefore the biggest predictor of success isn’t the high IQ but the fact that people with high IQs overwhelmingly tend to come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, which is by far the bigger predictor of success. It’s such a simple and easy to see confounding factor, and I know he’s deliberately obfuscating this fact to support his own deranged obsession with IQ
I tried to explain this to a friend of mine about five years ago, almost exactly these words, and he would have none of it. He was one of those "I don't understand 'The Blacks', it must be their low IQs." But I guess racism doesn't make sense, so yeah. :(
@@Nosliw837 it's part you're friend doesn't get it part we're taught meritocracy is a thing and that high IQ is passed down through selective breeding. We know that's not true but until you completely disprove meritocracy nothing will stick
There's a racial group in the United States for which having a SES at the 80th percentile is not enough to compete academically against the whites who are at the 20th percentile - however they excel at basketball.
It's also kind of the other way around though.
Higher IQ = better socioeconomic status.
It's a chicken and egg type thing.
Ppl like Peterson overstate it's value and others say it's completely useless.
The truth is it's somewhere in between, it's kind of outdated and has some flaws but in general it does have some importance.
People with higher IQ make better decisions and choose to have better nutrition. And the Wilson effect shows that the older one gets the more IQ correlates to one's ancestry. One of the evidences for the Wilson effect is adoption studies which show that IQ becomes more correlated with one's ancestry the older they get and that folks in their early youth have an IQ that more strongly correlates with the quality of their environment..
"self-evident if you're willing to think it through" is the least self-evident statement possible. What he's asking you to do is imagine a reason, and then whatever reason you came to must therefore be the correct, self-evident one
I think what's interesting about Peterson's disgust is that he insists that Yumi Nu being ugly is an objective fact. Yet when asked to define he pivots to "Her body is not athletic and it is not healthy." How interesting that he pivoted from beauty which is subjective to athletic and healthy, which are somewhat more objective. But tons of models are anorexic and unhealthily thin. Peterson doesn't criticize that. I don't see swimsuit models winning a softball or soccer game. I don't think Peterson would have been pleased to see Brittany Griner rocking that cover photo. Peterson immediately pivots from attractive to other more objective traits to insist that he is the objectively correct one, and yet his argument is completely irrelevant.
Peterson: "You're poor because you're stupid."
Me, someone who is unemployed with a masters in bio science and has an IQ of 145: "Hold on there. I think you are missing a lot of things."
P.S. I know IQ doesn't mean jackshit but the fact that I am unemployed even though I have a Master's degree is probably more about the systemic stigma of disabled people (yes, I am wheelchair bound)
I remember a pandering online site "estimating" IQ scores of celebrities giving Trump an IQ of 160...
@@isaganipalanca8803 Lol, I think they might have mixed that up with his cholesterol or his resting heart rate
Nah bro. If they bring out IQ, what right do they have to you for you to tell the truth. Like holy shit, if they are that high on their stuff BECAUSE of their IQ, see if they can even try to prove it.
You don't have to respond but as a university chemistry student I am wondering do you have special accomodations to work in a lab or are you not doing lab work? Most apparatus i had to set up it's hard for me to imagine how someone in a wheelchair would do. Or is it that in bioscience most things you work with are level and can be done in a wheelchair?
@@vladys5238 I went into human biology because I wanted to research how pollution affects people's health. I'm wheelchair bound because of the pollution where I grew up, so I've been trying to find a job in that field that could accommodate my disability. To be fair, I just graduated two months ago but having nothing to do is driving me insane. I do have a friend in the same field is working on getting me to be his research assistant, so it's not all bad. I'm just pointing out flaws in Peterson's logic with my own experiences
Peterson came right out and said that trans people should give up their rights so that society will be calmer. I think it's pretty clear that he would have said the same thing about black people 40 years ago
I'm really surprised that's not getting more attention.
At risk of violating Godwin's law on MR's video on that clip I made (only partially) tongue-in-cheek comparison to what he said about Jews and Germany. They couldn't actualise themselves because they were destabilising to the Aryan nation. Therefore there needed to be a "solution" to the problem of Jews wanting to actualise as Jews.
Which clip was this?
they do say the same thing about black people all the time, they're just careful mostly to say "black activists" or "black lives matter" (preferred euphemism for all black people who are angry basically) as if it were radical to tell the cops to stop shooting innocent teenagers? To them, it is... :(
@@naomistarlight6178 I think the difference is they still won't come right out and say black people shouldn't have rights. They'll call the BLM activists rioters and looters to try and frame them as criminals but they don't have the balls yet to say that their rights should be taken away merely for being black
They're trying to get us there and Joe Biden just gave a long speech trying to convince Americans not to go down that path
@@taranullius9221 When it comes to eugenics jumping into the Godwin's Law pit as early as possible is always acceptable.
I am more surprised people don't call Peterson and people like him out for engaging in Sophistry. Sophistry isn't something new. We've known about it for a long long time. So why aren't we writing him off by its own definition?
sophistry is a ten dollar vocab word and not everyone knows what it means. you'd have to explain what sophistry is and then explain how jordan peterson is engaging in it. this video does the second thing which is much more important anyway
Jordan Peterson is as pathetic as those kids on the playground who used to start fights and then as soon as someone touched them start screaming and crying as loud as possible to get everyone in trouble just so they could be coddled by the nurse. He is that kid, just wrinklier and with a thesaurus.
To feel self-assured in writing him off as a sophist, one has to already know something about the topics he engages with and says stupid things about, which unfortunately is a wide range of topics. Like he's long since stopped saying the thing about snakes and DNA because he knows that shit won't fly.
Because schools don’t teach what sophistry is. It leaves lots of people vulnerable to people like Peterson.
@@MissCaraMint Yep, even though it has some obvious signs, a lot of people don't know how to watch for them.
That free speech/listening argument falls flat for not only the reasons you (excellently) pointed out here, but also for the simple reason that it presupposes that all actors are always acting in good faith. Which, well, they aren't. And it's pretty difficult, given Peterson's politics, to not see this as a backhanded, preventative defense of the typical bad-faith arguing tactics used by his ideological allies, essentially trying to guilt his opponents into thinking they have a moral obligation to not refuse to listen to trolls but to engage with them as if they're trying to have a good faith discussion. It's all BS, all the way down.
Exactly, giving those trolls respect, and time, to argue against horrible takes & bigoted rhetoric, has done nothing but make the trolls relevant- nobody wins, or even changes their stance.. they just become a name, and face, more ppl on that side recognize.
You nailed it. Peterson associates with a LOT of bad faith actors who just want to push a conservative agenda, so his requirement that all actors must be listened to as a precondition opens the door for bullshit to be blown through a megaphone.
The fact that people find Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro intelligent tells you a lot about our society.
It's theatrical intellect.
Or they're just great actors. I think it's pretty easy to fall for a well-crafted con when you aren't suspecting it.
@@inefffable its pretty easy to see through, too, if you genuinely consider their words... and besides all that, their cadences are equal to nails on a fucking chalk board, they exude annoying egotistical frat-boys best friend energy. They were praised as kids for being mature Their age and then rode that high for the rest of their lives and carreers.
@@facelessdrone definitely easy to see through, I agree. I think that's why we see a lot of people get out of the pipeline and realize "wow I actually nodded along to this guy?"
I just think if you are unsuspecting/assuming positive intent and in a mindset of giving the benefit of the doubt (generally how I think people tend to operate, myself included, esp in comfort of own home browsing The Internet), it's easy to get sucked in.
Hope you have a nice day :)
They are obviously intelligent people its just that they reach crazy conclusions for whatever reason
Well I think it's relatively speaking. College educated right wing extremist is the 2nd rarest specimen of conservative- right behind conservative comedians.
As a woman who does not look like the models in magazines, I am so sick of hearing that I am not worth anything because I am not necessarily skinny. You cannot talk about bodies outside the persons who are occupying these bodies. I don’t exist for your aesthetic pleasure, I am a human being. I spend 24/7 in my body and I am learning to love it as is and not to be envious or depressed all the time because I am a size too big for someone’s taste. This gets me really annoyed.
These misogynists literally think women are that and femme non male afabs in general to them because theyre misogynist and gross and thinks that women are just objects and for them to look at and commodify because to commodify u need to objectify
besides the fact that a person's value is not based upon other people finding their weight/body attractive... it infuriates me the way that Peterson frames his disgust towards bigger women as a universally held opinion when that is not even remotely the case. he truly acts like he's "saying what everyone is thinking but too afraid to say" when really he's just so far removed from reality that he thinks everyone else is as judgemental as he is
jordan "all meat diet// klonopin" peterson is definitely a credible source on personal health!!
@@ashknight6696 If you speak to children of immigrants from some parts of Africa who were going back to their parents' homeland for like the holidays once in a while, and if they're a bit skinny, they'll tell you how they were scolded for "still looking like a teenager goddammit won't you put up a bit of weight you're a grown up now!"... X'D
It’s also so disgusting when people bring up the “it’s promoting an unhealthy lifestyle!!” As if all, or even most, super skinny fit models are actually heather than the average person, when in reality a huge many of them use drugs, have eating disorders, or eat well below their nutritional requirements in order to stay “healthy” looking.
Tbh, I think you give Jordan too much credit. He doesn’t see poverty as a problem to be solved, he sees poor *people* as a problem to be solved.
I've found that Jordon Peterson is a fairly reliable barometer of political discourse.
Specifically, if he is upset about something it is completely fine, and if he is insisting something is right and proper it should be resisted by any means necessary.
Honestly, that’s really smart. Can I steal it?
@@deadmemes719 No need to steal what is freely offered, my friend. Have at it!
This is outstanding.
Same could be said about all public figure conservatives
I believe he insists that giving children boundaries is right and proper. You sure you want to throw the baby with the bath water?
Ah yes, I love it when things are "self-evident" if you just "think it through"... why would we rely on actual facts and data when things are so *obvious?* I like how right wing people are always so scientific, and definitely put the reals before the feels.
judging by the amount of times he's had to clarify that "he didn't say this" when people think his arguments through, I'd guess his conclusions are not as self-evident as he likes to claim.
I mean, to play devils advocate here, I honestly don’t mind logic based arguments ( that are consequently not backed by a concrete scientific consensus / statistic etc. ) because, especially with politics, usually, _if you have analysed enough data in the past_ , you can certainly make pretty accurate statements based on estimations without needing new data.
Case in point; a lot of political science is about getting super accurate measurements. This IS very useful and necessary but for a conventional political debate, you can usually develop a feeling for a scenario and with feeling I mean that you are able to basically evaluate different outcomes and causalities without needing the actual data. I would say that this is a rule that applies everywhere BUT while I 100% agree that emotions are not a good measurement, I also think that people usually don’t take “thinking it through” far enough. As I always say; run the numbers. Thing is, you don’t need to be a scientist to read basic statistics.
And if you have understood enough of how the world works, you can basically estimate an outcome based on your own experiences with the available data in the past. Now, it won’t be as detailed as a scientific argument yet I think you will agree that „self evidence“ depends on the amount of information you can draw upon.
Now, if an issue is highly complex, this can of course get out of hand quickly ( personally, I would be hard pressed to find too many arguments I made without some level of research into whatever subject I was discussing, while trying to stay away from debates about issues I am clueless about ) as you can come to the wrong conclusions, the point I am however making is that often, if people actually take the time to analyse an issue, if it’s not too complex, you can theoretically often enough arrive at a good opinion.
Now, to solidify one’s position it is usually advisable to add data, in the spirit of argument however, let’s take a quick look at Vladimir Putin: the current acting president of the Russian federation spend a part of his initial career as a lower ranking officer in the KGB. Later he would also act as the director of the newly formed FSB.
There is a lot of talk currently about a new age of Russian imperialism but, given the origin of the man Putin is today, it is in no small part plausible that his motivations are a lot more personal than many people would assume. A significant amount of modern and pre modern dictators have a reputation for for a high degree paranoia, often well deserved. If we just take these two factors, without adding any actual concrete scientific evidence, we can potentially arrive at the conclusion that the war in Ukraine falls in the classical tradition of creating an external distraction, while I by no means wish to establish this as a certain fact, if, in due time, it would turn out that personal factors actually did play a much greater role in shaping the current events than many, many people would currently assume, based on „thinking it through“ I would not be surprised at all.
In summary, what I mean to argue is that, even without concrete scientific data, one can make very likely speculations IF one is informed enough to do so, on a selective variety of topics if enough applicable data has been observed in the past.
Thoughts?
@@Arcaryon you can arrive at logically sound and argumentatively coherent conclusions that are nevertheless *completely and utterly wrong* if your data is insufficient or you are interpreting it wrongly
@@MCArt25 Of course. Doesn’t mean that logic based arguments are entirely worthless. On the contrary. And again; my “logic based argument” is fundamentally dependent on sufficient data to form the understanding needed to make the argument in the first place.
@@Arcaryon Peterson's problem is that he has no real arguments or conclusions of his own.
He just tosses word salad after word salad out with maybe the occasional right-wing talking point to give the illusion of an argument. This is by design; he wants you to effectively invent an argument for him, whether you're a supporter or a detractor.
If you're supporting him, you're making him look smarter than he really is by looking like you "get" what he's saying.
If you're detracting him, then he can easily weasel his way out of the argument you think he's making by saying he didn't say that. And he's right; he' *didn't* say that, he didn't say anything of substance at all.
Peterson's speeches are a parlor trick.
„Why is Petersen so obsessed with IQ??“
Contapoints, in the back of my head: „It Always comes down to the size of the skull“
(He’s spouting a bunch of pseudoscience to justify a social order where he, a college professor, is at the top. And of course once you have IQ as the end all be all, you can quickly revive some good old eugenics, too.
Oh man, some years ago I was really terrified by Petersen because I knew he was wrong, but he always brought his points across in a way that sounded legit. I‘m so glad that I‘m better at identifying these strategies now, and it’s thanks to people like you, Joel ❤)
I love the idea of Stalin trying to force Jordan Peterson to be attracted to fat women in some weird body positivity fun house gulag.
I love how JP tells a story about a client he had who eventually *died* because JP wasn't about to help him.
Great talk. Good work. Sounds like your expertise and prescriptions for the world are truly beyond question.
He’s exactly the type of person who’s IQ is shown through his medicinal and psychological prowess, and then let that kill someone. And by that I mean he has holes in his brains from the xans and can’t be trusted.
Funny and true.
Seriously, if he doesn't think people are capable of change why was he a psychiatrist?
@@tea_time_t To feel superior, probably. He’s an ass
@SirKickBan - Can you please tell us more about Peterson's criminal neglect of his client who died? Thank you! ~ Anastacia in Cleveland
I have a degree in psych in the same province he taught in and they literally emphasize how silly even the idea of IQ is and how difficult it is to define and measure... How was this guy well respected in the field??
Because he says the things right wingers want to hear but couches it in enough mumbo jumbo to give them plausible deniability.
In the field one of his supervisors ended up concluding he would habitually make shit up, teach it as fact, and when asked about it claim “yes it was fake and I intended that”, and repeats (note, this was by observing one of his lectures). The fact he remained there for so long is fascinating.
Because he's one of the world's foremost authorities of the subject of IQ and social strata
@@stevemattero1471 which are a shakey subjects that some people in the field see as Pseudoscientific.
What do you even mean?
@@stevemattero1471 yeah and I'm at the top of the field in underwater basket weaving, where's my respect?
Hot take: I think Peterson actually saw the lady on the cover and, seeing that got him all sorts of heckin' horney, and because of his preconceived believes about large people, he failed to accept this basic reality and instead he's denying the calls of his loins and rationalizing it away as a defense mechanism.
the clip of him raging about a plus size model on a magazine reminded be of Frollo singing Hellfire at the fireplace lmao
@@coolbeans5911 HAHAHA
I wonder what Peterson thought of the Sports Illustrated issue that featured a trans woman model on the cover? I just imagine he’d piss his pants over that too.
Or he just doesn't like fashion magazines engaging in political activism.
@@MrCmon113 why do you think only one specific type of person should be used to sell clothes when a wide variety of people buy them?
As much as it’s “political activism” to put a fat person in a magazine, it’s also “political activism” to put a skinny person in a magazine. You’re just salty about it being different politics to yours, or you’re too much of a pussy to state your position so you simply deride “activism” instead of stating your position.
Perhaps you do this because you recognize your position to be unpopular and reprehensible, but that’s just a theory :p
you just KNOW that jordan peterson would become a phrenologist so quickly if he didn't know it would ruin his reputation
Hey! I'm a graduate student in psychology currently in Kentucky. Short story: Jordan Peterson is a hack who doesn't actually follow any industry standards for good research methodology. Some More News has an excellent video on this subject. Never overestimate what IQ is, because it is actually a very mixed subject despite having so much research in it.
you obviously still have a lot to learn. IQ IS the leading indicator for success in life.
@@johanviskar5781 literally incorrect. cope.
Totally agreed. And by all accounts, he wasn’t a great tutor or clinician. What an arsehole.
@@haydennelson2115 I am almost convinced that he was being sarcastic, quoting Petersons position as a joke.
Probably yeah. I’ve heard the argument before and typically don’t give it any leeway. My bad 😅
It's also so wild to me that he's a psychology professor because I'm about 3/4 of the way through a psychology undergrad degree and my classes are literally nothing like any of this lectures and I'm glad for that. They contain actual information about research with discussions of where the evidence is mixed etc. No emotional political rants lmao.
Also we are taught extensively both the positives and negatives of IQ science. An oversimplified summary is that IQ tests can be excellent measures of
m specific skills among particular cultural/ language groups in comparison to other members of that group in a similar age range but can never be taken as an all encompassing objective measure of pure intellect.
Did you learn about EQ tests and those other annoying tests. The ones that businesses just love like the Myers Briggs test that are a load of garbage too. Research has shown you can throw them in the bin. I mean it’s like astrology fun to do .
I would walk out of most lectures I've ever seen him make.
@@Dominique_99 I can't think of any EQ tests that have come up but lots of personality tests including Meyers Briggs have been discussed and yes I am well aware that it doesn't have good evidence for it. That falls more under personality psychology whereas IQ tests tend to fall more under Cognitive psychology. Although plenty of overlap between categories of course.
@TOS100 Returns It astounds me that a purported Psychologist like him can't grasp that if people are getting sad from depression, it is because when episodes of it wear off they probably realize why it's ruining their lives and relationships, yet he's somehow drawing the opposite conclusion from it... Always working from shit backwards, that guy.
Jordan Peterson has become almost (sometimes literally) a messianic figure in some sectors. Adored and venerated. It seems he has come to love this attention. He dispenses "hard truths" with his intense authoritative condescension that stokes some people up, but, when pressed for conclusions or even practical applications for these truths, he follows them up with meaningless self help platitudes. I am really tired of the Jordan Peterson phenomenon.
and all of us pay for it, collectively
In a few years he will either be forgotten or a legitimate cult leader
@@biggestastiest As always "socialise the loses", while a handful of rightwing grifters and their masters profit from JP's brainrot.
My parents told me my IQ is in the low 140s, which is perfect because I can almost understand the plot of most Rick and Morty episodes. Thanks genetics!
I think saying "He doesn't have an answer" to his "low-IQ question" is entirely too charitable of a take. He knows exactly what he wants us to do, as do the people who listen to him day-in and day-out, he's just banking on us not hearing the dogwhistle.
Watch the interview with Stefan at 33:30, his example was not a happy accident. He knows EXACTLY who he is talking to.
Yes ! Saying "A whole portion of the population is biologically useless for society", "this population happens to be poor" associated with a veneration of (his idea of) Darwin and a refusal to spell out any concrete answer jumped out immediately as a dogwhistle for brutal, old-school Francis Dalton eugenism. Which is loooovely for the n*zis listening. I am disappointed it wasn't spelled out in the video
"Jews are smarter than other Caucasians" is such a buckwild statement. It's amazing.
Given that Stefan is a white nationalist who ran a far right anti-woman cult, yeah I think it's fair to say that Peterson's preferred solution is something awful.
Okay, what does he want us to do? Kill all the stupid people?
Yeah this man is sinister, he's recycling all of the nazi propaganda without ever saying the words "useless eater" or "life unworthy of life" but still planting those ideas in people's heads. It feels so deliberate and calculated, he knows what he is spreading and the outcomes he wants from it.
Jordan seems to be one of those college professors who decided they were done with learning new things and switched to pontificating gassbag. In my experience, these prof's turn into a poor man's Plato, looking for ideal forms and immutable truths. The whole obsession of sorting people's role in the society/economy by IQ is a prime example.
"Pontificating grassbag". Lol.
Yah, it's always seemed obvious to me that as a scholar Peterson realized he couldn't hang with the other scholars in his field and that he'd eventually be sidelined. That was clearly a threat to his livelihood so his only option was to basically ad hominem *all of scholarship*. Which, it turns out is a very popular position and a huge moneymaker. Lots of people love hearing that academia is full of morons who are just getting handouts to do nothing. So, problem solved for Peterson he effectively transitioned out of a dependency on the academic world.
@@ErikPukinskis Why is that obvious to you? Shouldn't the exact opposite be more obvious? Based on the amount of times his work has been cited.
Do people think it's Jordan Peterson just making up these stats and lists etc? And if so, to what end?
Or is it more likely he just knows the literature and it makes him sad as it would any reasonably emotional person? Have you read all the literature on IQ?
@@WOJAus Not sure why you think his work has received that many citations. In terms of his scientific output and scholarship, he's pretty much an average if not lower tier researcher. I think you're confusing popular press articles/books with peer-reviewed publications, which are the basis for scientific inquiry.
The most impressive thing Peterson has ever done, is the fact that he has to be debunked by so many different disciplines, because he talks about so much stuff he doesn't understand. From Biologist, to the Bar association of Canada, economics, fellow psychologists, philosophers, even supermodels are making fun of him. I'd di e of embrassement if I said even half the amount of things he has that were just so wrong and easily debunkable. Just the line about staying awake for 27 days due to Apple Cider would be too much on it's own. Yet for Peterson he just goes on, it's fascinating how one man can have such an undeserved ego and prefers to be ignorant on every topic he talks about, he is the defintion of Dunning Kruger.
As of today it is my life goal to be so wrong about so many things that the UN needs to organize a multidisciplinary committee to debunk my bullshit
Supermodels too?! I haven’t seen that, it sounds like a riot, mind giving me a reference to a video? :D
Peterson speaks as if his opinion is fact which is what basically anyone who is trained in a scientific profession is taught not to do, because it's unethical and goes against a core tenant of truth, needing substantive evidence.
I disagree. I'd say the most impressive thing Peterson has ever done was lose his sh*t over the notion that he might need to take a course in how to use social media responsibly, then go on to share an image of male milking fetish porn thinking it shows a Chinese sperm factory.
@@chebghobbi
I have a screenshot of that saved for the next time a particular acquaintance sends me a Jordan Peterson op-ed.
19:48 this is the "can I hear it for the buses?" video. This means a lot to us as a society.