thats absolutely true, speaking from experience. like, at school, we have really intelligent people who are absolutely unbearable, braging about everything they do, bringing their discontent on everyone else, blaming 'em, with nasty character. and we have low iq people who can only pretend that they know what you or teachers are talking about, learning everything by memory, but at least are nice and hard working.
@@noobtubeeeeeee He specifically states that IQ does not predict virtue. So I guess you could argue that a high IQ person +virtue could add more value but the same holds for high IQ with bad virtue, can do more damage and devalue... Based on how he explains it, i would look at it like we should look at value roughly as IQ x Virtue = Value. Just my thoughts. Definitely 100% agree IQ has nothing to do with value. I personally know very disruptive persons in the 99th percentile of IQ, and impactful Christians changing the world with average IQ(They have may have some divine intervention, but lets not get into that. :) ).
Odd, because no matter what somebody says, there will be those who support and hate them. Your logic is actually completely non existent. This was about the dumbest thing I have read here, more stupid than Peterson.
J F It seems that your tidbit of insight would take some intelligence to come up with so I assume that you aren’t an imbecile. What makes you say that Peterson is? (Genuinely curious)
Notice how his body language shifted when finally addressing race and IQ. He clearly stated it makes him uncomfortable and rightfully so. Talking about it truthfully and not strictly in a politically correct sense is career suicide as we've seen with geneticist James Watson.
Neither he nor Watson were IQ researchers. They both washed out for their long-ago debunked eugenicist ideas. Most of which are based on debunked US army studies not replicated elsewhere that administered a verbal reading test to folks they knew had been prevented from reading by actual slavery laws or hadn't had the opportunity. He constantly tries to reframe these studies with made up information. Beyond this he rattles off numbers detached from precise statistical conventions, his common strategy - because numbers equal math equals science! The fact that he washed out and nobody will take him, not even liberty university, full of his acolytes, should indicate something to you..
Political correctness began in Russia where you couldnt say in public what yiu knew to be true. Its also where the ideas behind social justice came from. Even "all scientists agree..." came from the Soviet Socialist based in Russia.
Fascinating his comment on learning to do it quickly but not correlated to actual performance. Reminds me of a story I tell from 4th grade. We were all working math problems and I had to explain how to do the problems to the table. At the end of the period, one person who didn't understand at the beginning had actually finished all the problems before I did. I'm fast to learn but slower to do. I always remembered this life lesson.
I have a good "working memory" learn fast, and forget fast unless I really drill and ingrain that knowledge. Even then I often need to be prompted or cued. My training partner is the opposite. He is slow to learn, but once he's got it he recalls more easy than me. So I learn the new drills and teach him, and he helps me when we review the old stuff.
"learning to do it quickly but not correlated to actual performance" not exactly true. if you can learn it quickly and do it on the spot.. well there's an awful lot you can succeed at. depends on what your goal is. let's be confident and not try to tear down others who have abilities we don't have. complimenting others instead makes you look 1) classy, 2) secure, 3) and magnetic.
A man with a grade 6 education once told me, the difference between education and intelligence, is how you view whats happening right in front of your eyes
I like how people get so bent out of shape over IQ yet do not think twice in acknowledging some people are better looking and/or more athletic than them. Bodybuilding, an entire sport, is based in large part on geneticsin terms of proportions and muscle insertions. As is height. These are all things that we inherit from our parents. Why is it so far fetched to think IQ is the same?
The mind is certainly different from the body. IQ is non-deterministic while your physical attributes are deterministic. The mind is able to reform and make new ideas/connections. Your body is only able change expression(epigentics). A lab can tell you how tall you can be simply looking at your current generic code. But IQ cannot be observed under a microscope. That has to be determined statistically by weighing you vs everyone else. Even if physical attributes that can be inherited affect IQ, such as cranium structure or breathing capability. But it may not be true for every one. That would just be another factor in the statistic.
f0yen4 :: At 21, can you change your height? How about your IQ? Also, height is non-deterministic, in a similar way that IQ is. If you drink caffeine or consume creatine too early on it will stunt your growth. The same can be said about stunting IQ with different substances. IQ has also been shown to be passed through genes (Wikipedia, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ AND Genetics Home Reference, ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence). There is a variance in the data for IQ (i.e., it isn’t absolutely clear if IQ is simply based on environment, genetics, or a combination of both). My point is that it is not absolutely clear how “non-deterministic” IQ is. It may be the exact same phenomenon as height; deterministic, but is also influenced by other factors, post-gestation.
Like f0yen4 said, it’s a fun statistical factor. Without having read the literature, I’ll say it has influence over social and emotional intelligence and is likely to take a large part in first assumptions, but it’s also no factor in anything past a first encounter or meeting. If you’re beautiful and stupid, people might be flocking to you on a regular basis, but the regularity of that basis usually would only last as long as it takes the other party to find out you’re a dunce. Hence why beauty and physical attributes aren’t sustainable in relationships. It’s falls on the individuals true character
because there are always brilliant people came to this life from practically dumb people and vice versa . How come we heard about Nikola Tesla but never about his parents ? We all heard about Albert Einstein but nobody knows anything about his father ...for example . As far i am concerned Einstein's father could be a total let's say "idiot" but somehow he chose the right woman perhaps and they both brought a kid to life that eventually becomes "THE" guy in science with theories like relativity and so on . It is NOT entirely proved that intelligence can be inherited from generation to generation .
The fact that Mr. Peterson answered every aspect of a 1:57 question with clinical findings, personal experience, and statistical facts separates him from any presidential candidate in at least the last 20 years.
@@dyslexiusmaximus does it bother anyone else that his numbers are devoid of any attached statistical conventions. Correlations come in many forms, for example. Sounds mostly like a star trek engineer to me. I am actually familiar with the research he sites, but most of his most compelling "data" are debunked army studies proven to be improperly conducted. It's a farce that he can get away with reproliferating eugenics myths from literally more than a half a century ago, speaks volumes about the intellectual development of the average follower...dude hasn't even published research since the end of the 90s and people still listen. wtf.
@@FICKLEII Sorry but you don't sound very bright. I can't imagine anyone wanting to hear your thoughts. At least learn some elementary school English grammar before attacking anyone like that. English isn't my first language btw.
"Ethnic differences... *audible sigh* This is something you can't say anything about without immediately being killed, so I'm hesitant to broach the topic." ...and proceeds to change the topic. JP is not quite ready to commit career suicide.
That was my thought also. But in order of increasing wavelength (blue, green, red), because wavelength order would also be political order (left=blue, center=green, right=red).
A phenomenal answer to a politically loaded question. It factually explains IQ, variations in performance by "group" and gives valuable background information, without buying into the identity politics dialectic that the question begs to address. I find most of Jordan Peterson's talks helpful in directing my worldview in a positive direction free of misinformation based bias.
I am an IQ researcher who has done assessments for research in german and english. Peterson's arguments are riddled with numbers detached from precise statistical conventions. To a fellow diagnostician, he sounds like the guy at the cocktail party trying to pretend to know everything, impressing a lot of rubes while pissing off any actual experts. Peterson further uses old problematic army study data wherein folks were rated on verbal IQ in reading, who had never been taught to read and in some cases were actively prevented from reading when they were slaves. This is not good data. Applying a reading test to someonr who hasn't been taught to read is not a test of native intelligence like most of the results of IQ Tests, it measures how much you are like those hovering around the central SDs in a fairly predictable distribution curve.
@@jesipohl6717 Not sure how you got to the information it was based on such data and method, the army tests - I do not think so. Also, the setup where JP is talking is something like a cocktail party - especially if we are talking about this channel with random watchers. I do not think it was all so bad from this relevant mass educational perspective. It was indeed a very good job, compared to the average content...
@@jesipohl6717 To be precise, you are not disproving IQ but Peterson himself and the examples he is using to explain his perspective on IQ, correct? Any more fun facts you can share about IQ as a researcher?
@@jesipohl6717how were people prevented from reading via slavery post 1919 when slavery ended in the 1860s? Assume someone was born in 1860. In 1919 they'd be 59 which is way past conscriptable age, even in wartime. There is no value to testing 59 yr olds. Within a couple of sentences you've indicated your research is ideologically, not data, driven. If that's not the case great, but given the standards of research in the west at present I'm not going to hold my breath. As an aside, has it occured to you that JP is trying to be accessible to as many as possible rather than speaking in a way that only specialists understand?
You appreciate hucksters who quote numbers without statistical conventions and use vacuous useless words like "tremendous" to describe effect sizes? Hustlers who haven't published research since the 90s? What a joke. Peterson's fame is proof the public communication of real science is broken. Sheep-Folks would rather have a verbose actually washed-out academic then hear about real data. Edit: JP seems like the kind of person to score high on the verbal and well under the norm for the maths (nonverbal) portion. Perfect for a mediocre born-into-money white guy who bets everything on a golden tongue.
Peterson’s methods of analysis is brilliant. What is truly impressive is his ability to make it understandable without resorting to complex statistical gymnastics. Sadly, many will listen to this and be angered by the admission of facts and totally miss the the real value of the information.
Peterson is out of his depth with IQ data. He throws around words no scientist uses like "Tremendous" and then rattles off numbers without giving them statistical conventions/units (alpha, power, etc"). In another life he could have been a expert technobabble engineer on star trek, stringing together real words into nonsense sentences to shock and awe a public ready to pretend. Tremendous, hahaha. Edit: pop-sci literature is not research.
@@lilnoir4213, the primary feature of being in a cult is that you can't give a detailed reason why you're there. The OP literally just explained why he likes JP.
This went places I didn’t imagine it would go to. If anyone’s on the edge about wether to watch this, please do. And keep an open mind, ‘cause this was an exceedingly intellectually honest discussion.
Mr. Bell Jordan Peterson? Well, if he is then it won’t be any time soon. He recently checked himself into rehab and is dealing with some serious family issues.
warro 1042 because IQ is a very polarizing subject that is very difficult to discuss without it getting too one-sided. However, this seemed very fair and balanced, which I wasn’t expecting.
using words like "exceedingly" is generally frowned upon in scientific debates as it promotes exagerations and is far-removed from operationalised languages that actually give us information about what is being reported. The way Jordan Peterson abuses these operationalisations , for example to describe results that are not "statisically significant" as "significant" is doubly problematic. You can see this as well in how he reports numbers, usually devoid of any precise statistical conventions, for example, correlational analyses can come in different forms (eg R vs R²), significances are also of different degrees. I am not saying he needs these in public communications, but he is clearly using them for what I like to call "science woowoo validity". It's no surprise he washed out and can't find a new position, and it's no surprise he hasn't succeeded in publishing any research since the 90s. I think his brain probably takes a hit from his consumption problems and that might play a role, wouldn't be surprised if he started drinking in the late 90s more intensively. It's very sad to see this cult fandom enabling him. I hope he can recover some day, but for the time being, he's a terrible person that just does a ton of harm in terms of communicating science and science literacy. He's like an anti-Eugenie Scott.
Yep. If this had to be summarized in a few words, that would be "There is no convinicng evidence that there is any difference in natural intelligence between ethnic groups". So racist idiots should stop parroting this bullshit and learn how science works.
That’s an incredibly detailed and well thought out answer to an extremely complex and well presented question. I could have listened to several more hours of him answering that one.
Ha! Rarely do I have enough patience for so called intellectuals or debate enthusiasts to get to a point. But, Peterson lectures (at 1.5x speed) are sufficiently brief so as to make a fair listening palatable. Even though he couldn't have been as honest as he would have liked to have been due to the public forum's suppression of frank discussion regarding racial IQ differentials, this man's thoughtful and careful commentary is quite considered. Insightful. Bravo sir!
20:28 the point made in the last 20 seconds is not talked about nearly enough whenever this debate comes up. For one reason or another, there's an automatic tendency to assume that differences in IQ imply differences in intrinsic worth, and so it's no wonder people get so heated when you try to point out that there may be veritable differences between populations. I feel like the idea of human value needs to be separated from this before we can start having productive discussions about what to do about the average job becoming more cognitively complex.
"The problem with our society is that people dont understand Statistic" ... this is probably the most important thing that Peterson ever said in his life and it has a huge Implication in how we think about things. Statistic is the Key of every Scientific Observation... which make us realise that Statistic is the Most Important Ingredient of knowing something. Brilliant Peterson, Just Brilliant!
I have trouble understanding why there is such focus on teaching calculus, which is difficult and has limited practical utility, and little interest in teaching statistics and logic which are much easier to learn and of such great practical utility.
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu No thats wrong. Yes we have modern medicine from islam. So what? We compare what we have today. And i argue that there is more people that invade westworld from islam country as other way around.
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu commentary ist towards the one who make the video. Sugestions are clearly not debate. But, If we two not agree about same issue than it could be debate.
No they're not. The red and blue are visibly further apart than are the blue and green; you need to move the blue over to the left about 1/4 the length of the cap before they become even; and the fourth one on the far left (barely in view), besides being a different make, is way too far over to the right.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +1
@@RockBrentwood The university needs to form a committee to look into this issue.
He did a good job laying out the controversy and providing some data, but didn't touch enough on what a positive reaction to the data might be. One of the simplest consequences of accepting IQ data is accepting school tracking, that is grouping children of similar intelligence together and pacing their learning according, which has been long practiced but is under heat from the Left. The thing is when IQ is relevant it sets a ceiling for potential success, so equal outcome doctrine is obliterated and instead we should try to set people up for their best possible outcome. The other implication might be making sure we can provide appropriate jobs for the less intelligent. Someone with a sub 100 IQ isn't learning to code, but maybe they could earn a living as a welder or plumber. Given the race and IQ correlation we probably need to focus the vocational training in minority schools and encourage business employing these trades to setup in minority communities. The equal outcome believers can't accept IQ or these potential implications, but I think ensuring we have a variety of educational and vocational opportunities to reflect the various IQ landscape helps everyone reach their own potential, and we all benefit from that.
@@soccergalsara Understanding it to the degree in which he does ..yes, intelligence is involved or he would be talking like the majority of the other psychologists in the world which he clearly does not.
As a scientist published in this field,unlike Peterson. I can assure you it was nonsense technobabble woo woo, the key thing to notice is he does not accompany his numbers with precise statistical conventions. Meaning nobody can truly understand what he is saying. Pretending you did is kinda sad and totally indicative of how this guy convinces his rubes. Peterson missed his opportunity to be an engineer on star trek.
@@jesipohl6717 jordan peterson was a highly cited scientist before his rise to faim with about 10000 citations (he has now more than 19000 this put him as the 12 th most cited clinical psychologist). ow to respond, of course he didnt acompany his response to an unprepared question with precise statistical numbers who has this kind of knoledge anyway. his arguments are pretty easily verifyable and it turns out they are all correct
have you ever had a sibling or close family member who was much smarter than you? or vice versa. My family are retards in comparison to me but we came from your same "evolutionary paths". Why do we have black doctors come from the same stock as dish washers? Genius is not hereditary, it is an anomaly. MOST people are not very intelligent, only a few of us can be structural engineers or molecular biologists.
@@braggsean1026 did u know, majority of people who are dumb fucks gloat about their "intelligence", and a vast majority of people with high IQ don't gloat about their intelligence. I feel sorry for your family.
There is nothing like an objective, rational, and metaphysical approach to the complex topics of psychology and sociology. I really appreciate the work and studies that happened in order to attain the statistics necessary to make such determinations that Dr. Petersons consistently presents. Keep up the good work.
Personally, a Dude like Peterson (psychologist) and other Dudes (Teachers) said always, I would be quiet dumb since I was ~6 years old. That I could be glad, if I would ever find a Workplace. It got so bad, that I didn't talk to people for few years. Due to that, I got into the "lowest" Schools in my youth (In Germany we've "Gymnasium", "Realschule" and "Hauptschule" and in the later, you only learn the absolut basics) Now I have an apprenticeship diploma, got in 1 1/2 years promoted twice, left & made my Colleged degree, studied successfully 2 Semester Physics and switched to Engineering 'cause it's more my personal thing + I can work more while I study. ... So, yeah, most psychologists become that, 'cause they have problems on their own. Would you trust a Mechanic which has a broken car and no idea how he could fix his own car?
I could watch JP talk for hours across almost every topic imaginable. He cuts straight through all the political angles and gets right to the facts and figures. He makes you think about complex and relevant social issues in a way that you never could without that mental nudge in the right direction. Thank you JP. I hope you get well soon.
Fool! Mr Peterson is a far right cultist! He THINKS that he knows climate change, lol. He thinks that it does nothing! That demonstrates how stupid he real is. Higher levels of carbon dioxide will result in high average temperatures which will melt the world’s ice fields. That will result in the ocean levels rising more than 200 feet!
yeah... I was a tear away..... and my dad went MILITANT on me. He beat me black and blue. Back in the day when it was socially acceptable to do so with a deserving child. He saved me. Difficult times. Don't beat kids up...... but the initial message of overly unruly, chaotic children are gonna end up as criminals. Nip it in the bud. I love my dad.
@@Scorch428 nah..... because i WAS old enough to know right from wrong.... but i thought I could get away with it.... like most bullies do.... and my dad was heavy handed but fair..... if getting the odd hiding when you deserve it lead you to become psychopath then any1 older than 50 would be a psychopath. it is only recently it has become so terribly frowned upon....
@Matthew Wehri It's not abuse, in the rare cases that the parent has failed in some way and the kid has done something horribly wrong so beating is the only way (in the parent's eye). When you put it as abuse, the parent would be faced with A.) continuing failing with their method or B.) give up on the child which will inflict emotional trauma on the child. Physical pain will go away, emotional trauma are not so easily healed. So stop labeling isolated one time occurrence of beating a child because they did some real shit as abuse.
Chico Papass it's true tho... Just read these comments. Most of them are very thoughtful but there are many which are just low life's trying to justify there own racism.
I really enjoy watching Jordan think. This was enjoyable and I'm glad this ends by stating that intelligence is not indicative of virtue. I've been privileged to be among people of so-called lower intelligence who I felt had a near lock on virtue.
The compassion in this man is astounding. Did you not hear- if this doesn’t hurt you? I appreciate that with all his knowledge he can admit his faults- his temper being at the forefront. While all the data he is presenting is quite fascinating, just think about the damage we all do in life simply by being ourselves and getting up in the morning.
He's not presented any data here. Most of the numbers he rattles off were not attached to any units or statistical conventions. As a scientist more often and more recently published in the field of psychological assessments, including in both german and english the standard Wechsler IQ-Scale, I can tell you that Jordan would make an excellent engineer on star trek, but is currently a washed-out out researcher who has failed to publish any research since the late 90s. Stop drinking colourful coolaides, it's not good for you!
@@jesipohl6717 what do you expect him to deliver in this limited amount of time and in this setting? He has to simplify, summarise. And Peterson does an excellent job, while at the same time avoiding to feed the racists out there. As a published researcher in the field of "both german and english the standard Wechsler IQ scale" (as you describe yourself) you should understand that he can't start throwing in "alpha and power" (as you write somewhere else in the comment section). YOU are the one throwing around fancy "research" terms in order to appear an expert. Greetings from a psychologist with extensive experience in psychometrics.
I do not agree that scoring below 83 in an IQ test means you can not do any job. this score may not get you into the Army, however as a soldier you need to learn some reasonably complex skills like handling weapons safely and well, basic first aid, basic map reading, and basic tactics, I believe there are some simpler jobs that lower than IQ 83 could cope with. The average estimated unemployment rate in developed countries is often below 10%.
You are making the exact same mistakes J. Peterson warned. IQ correlates with 0.3 to 0.4 of people's success. It is definitely not hard to understand why the unemployment is below 10% in developed countries since getting jobs are not only about IQs. That does not mean that they can perform the job without being counter-productive. It's just that they are not being fired for other reasons. Maybe the guy's incompetence are covered up well by other people who are capable and can follow up on his/her mistakes that it doesn't become apparent enough for boss's concern, which is usually the case. Maybe the guy is a really good guy and makes the workplace a good place to do work. I don't know, but there are plenty of other factors that contribute to having low unemployment rate.
You don’t understand what unemployment means. The definition applies only to people actively seeking work, the employment rate is a better measure. Also, it is obvious that you were never in the military. You described one job that the army offers, sort of. They have cooks. They have people who clean guns. They have people who dig holes, or change tires. You’re out of your element.
In America, at least, the official unemployment rate is determined by how many people have applied for unemployment benefits, not how many are actually unemployed. So after 26 weeks (usually) their benefits end but even if they’re still unemployed they are no longer included in the official unemployment rate. Everyone in jail/prison and mental institutions are not included. Stay-at-home spouses/parents are not included. Individuals who support themselves by criminal means, e.g. drug-dealers, are not included. The homeless population is not included. College students are not included. Individuals age 18+ who live at home and who don’t work or go to school are not included.
@@JeffTY77450 I think you just listed where the 10% went. Honestly, it seems that women in society have a much easier option here, to stay at home and raise the kids. Low status men will likely not have that option, as women tend to be more selective and the low status men are not desirable. Hence the crime.
Matt Wilkerson, thank you for commenting. Agreed. A reasonably attractive woman with a pleasant disposition who has below average intelligence still has a reasonably good chance of, say, a middle-class life if she plays her cards right. Much less true for a man with below average intelligence. Most feminists will deny it with their dying breath but women quite naturally have a nesting instinct and are more nurturing. I’m sixty and over the years a number of women I’ve worked with, who were making very good money in defense-contracting, have conveyed to me that they’d rather be home taking care of their families but that they wanted the standard of living that required two incomes and/or they were aware that some marriages don’t last. About twelve years ago I read an article by a woman who had achieved success on Wall Street. She said that there was still a bit of a glass ceiling but that that wasn’t the single biggest thing holding women back. What she saw was that a lot of women weren’t bringing their “A-game” to the job. They had the attitude that they’d work for five or six years and if their career wasn’t going the way they wanted they’d opt for plan-b, get married and be a stay-at-home mom. Whereas the men had no such attitude. They knew that for them there was no plan-b. “Plan-B” was being a barista at Starbucks. So, on average, she saw the men just hitting it harder. They had more “fire in the belly.”
Humans gets quite mixed nowdays. Race definition is not just hard, it is plainly useless. Any personal test would apply to person, not the "race". So why even bother?
@@heyhoe168 Not true. A fuzzy edge is still an edge. There are differences, physiological, psychological (behavioural) and cultural. Plus, not everyone is OK with the Neo Marxist-supported Globalist agenda to mix out diversity for a super-state.
@@kebman Lets assume you found edges and differences. What will you do with that? Any direct manipulation to the population is plainly and undiscussably wrong. Simply because 1) people are tend to get corrupt. You cant put any person in the populacional control. 2) no one is wise enough to decide what traits are really crucial for humanity. You cant put any person in control of population yet anain. All you can influence is immigration policy but it does not really work due to illegal immigration. The only option left is to build heathy society. Healthy society should uplift talented persons no matter what race they are. So the question is the same: why even bother investigating races? Aside of morality, it would not benefit your society anyway. There is just no good ways to use this information.
@@heyhoe168 It's already used to manipulated low IQ peeps to become the new working class of the West, on the bill of the native pop, my friend. ;) Nobody looks upon that as manipulation, sadly, but it's multi-layered evil.
This is a lecture that is worth a lot of money. If you listen carefully and take in what is being said, you are gaining a lot of wisdom. That's what we pay for when we go to university. And here it is, free!! Thank you to all involved in producing this video, and Thank You to Dr Peterson, you are such a great Professor.
The actual question is, if all people have value, but some are smarter, are the smarter ones responsible for the well being of the less intelligent ones?
Mjollnir GREAT question. I have always felt that those with more power, knowledge, and general-know do have responsibility in helping the less gifted, mainly because I also feel low IQ is strongly affected by environments, maybe more importantly the environments of our ancestors. The relationships and movements between humans on the globe has shaped the IQ people reach from generation to generation.
Well said and correct. The ongoing question between people at an individual level, nationally, and internationally is "what do I owe you? How much of myself and my resources do I have to sacrifice for you?"
Because that was the entire point of creating race. Old rich white dudes created the concept of whiteness in order to ensure that poor white people constantly fought with poor black people instead of banding together in the 1700's and the 1800's. They needed a caste system that would be more powerful than your own economic self-interest. Poor white people have more to gain by working together with poor blacks than they have to gain by supporting the elite status quo. In fact, whiteness has a tangible value in America. You could see it when you walked into a building and it said "whites-only." That shit impacts the way that you see the world and how your whiteness is something that's beneficial. You start to treat it as something you earned rather than something that you were simply just born with. You feel that you cultivated this superior culture, but in fact, you just benefited legalized discrimination.
@@ineedhoez No, non-whites didn't have the same standards of hygiene and sexual purity/lack of vd as whites. So white people didn't want to associate with them.
Intelligence of any level needs to be tempered with morality, and the smarter someone is and the less moral they are the more of a problem they become.
@@thomasmaughan4798 The scientific definition? What's the difference between the scientific definition and the regular definition? Why are you asking me what the definition of words is? Look in a dictionary. Use Google.
@@cbalan777 "The scientific definition?" I probably ought to have said "objective" definition; but since the topic is scientific in nature, namely the science of intelligence, challenges to this science must necessarily also have a scientific grounding or basis. "What's the difference between the scientific definition and the regular definition?" As you probably realize, there is no scientific definition of "morality'" The regular definition of morality is that whatever you like is moral, what you don't like is immoral. An assumption exists that many or most people share these values; which if it could be scientifically verified, might then satisfy a demand for a scientific definition. Or at least a statistical defintion which is pretty much what you get from Intelligence Quotient. "Why are you asking me what the definition of words is?" Because you used words. What words mean TO YOU is important as what words mean to others may not mean what it means to you; particularly in fuzzy, poorly defined words like "morality". So what does it mean to "temper intelligence with morality"? That's a meaningless word salad, but presumably it means something to you, and it might be useful to me, but I don't know what you think intelligence IS or what morality is and how morality might therefore temper intelligence. What is "temper"? If I can solve a differential equation in my mind; in what way does my love for my dog alter or temper or limit my ability to do calculus?
@@thomasmaughan4798 What's the objective definition. Again, why ask me? You seem like you want to make this personal. It's like asking me for the definition of clouds. Why do you need me to answer that? You called it a "word salad" but that's projection.
@@cbalan777 "What's the objective definition." There is no objective definition for any word. There is YOUR definition, what you mean by the words you use; but of course, the words you would use in your explanation are themselves words. Hopefully we share enough "referents" that I can figure out what you mean even though you use words in slightly different ways. "Again, why ask me?" I thought of asking Susan what you mean but usually you would be the best person to explain what you mean. On the other hand, it may be that Susan knows what you mean and can put it into words that I would understand in a way closer to what you meant. "You seem like you want to make this personal." All youtube conversations are personal. It is irrelevant whether I want it to be that way. "It's like asking me for the definition of clouds. " Had you recommended that a study of trees be tempered by clouds, then yes, I might wonder what you mean by clouds and whether it was a specific kind of cloud that mattered to the point you were making.
I think that there are plenty of examples where we avoid certain discussion based on how it makes people feel. A good debate can be had as to whether intelligence should be one of those discussions, but to make such sweeping generalizations shows a sincere lack of empathy on your part and, frankly, real arrogance.
Sadly even in this unedited version, th-cam.com/video/qT_YSPxxFJk/w-d-xo.html JP doesn't exactly really discuss "ethnic differences in IQ scores" he dances around it with interesting tidbits. I had a discussion with an American Chinese woman who claimed that Chinese people have a higher IQ than the rest of the people in the world. The last I looked, Wikipedia supported that argument. I theorised that this high iQ result is because Chinese parents, and possibly also their schools, pay for additional after-hours training in such things as iQ tests which have an unusual question formation in which you have an advantage if you have experience with it and know the types of patterns and connections they are looking for. There is no discussion of such specifics here which is highly disappointing and arguably is ironically unintelligent for not confronting head-on the argument that is made daily in the real world and is even on Wikipedia.
You implied that I'm not in pain and I do not have Aspergers it took a lot of hard work but it was cut and dried but i know where you are coming from, and you challenged my perceptions about controlling it thank you
19:25 This is it. Systemic biases push results to support those biases. It's a positive feedback loop that continues those systemic biases. Once a group is set in a caste, even in a free state, it's hard to get out of that caste.
Corruption has several definitions depending on usage. What applies here is "the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased". Conscientiousness and grit are separate traits. Conscientiousness has a high correlation with success. By conflating conscientious with grit the suggestion is that grit is then also a high predictor of success. But this has been studied and no such correlation has been found for grit.
Grit has been rebranded to a type of "trainable" attribute, which from listening to Jordan Peterson's comments on conscientiousness saying in the ball park that there are no to very slim metrics on measuring it.
What Jordan cares about is telling the truth, and getting to the bottom of things. What people care about these days is trying their hardest not to offend anyone.
Jordan Peterson always delivers well thought out responses which is why I admire his style and his content. Looking forward to watching him talk in person again sometime.
IQ is important in conciderations for advancement. One that is not addressed is personality. A test, the multiphasic personality test accurately exposes sociopaths and borderline personality. These people will engage in criminal and socially damaging behaviour 100% of the time. They are 2% of the population causing over 90% of the social problems. We could in one week fix the world.
But IQ has been increasing for Asians, Americans and for the globe. Isn't it possible for the underdeveloped countries' average IQ to increase and get to an acceptable range? And if so, then how is IQ related to ethnicity itself rather than the resources available to the region when civilization rose and other factors unrelated to race? Are we referring to ethnicity in terms of biology here?
i don't know much about how civilizations were built but maybe there's something in their environment that didn't help, or didn't let them feel the need, to build a big civilization.
IQ like Ethnicity is highly Heritable so they are tightly bound in the averages. Healthy Diet & Environment will raise IQ by the level to which a lack of those things is suppressing it however that amount will be far less than 50% of what determines it. Also the current heritability & migration pressures are exacerbating the negative outlook for resource & IQ poor regions as any high IQ outliers will migrate elsewhere. Interestingly one of the ideas that emerges from pondering all this is one that is verboten but will solve for pattern the desires of various groups: Developed European Native & Founded countries do a deal with their immigrant populations & the countries from which they originate to facilitate an ethical Development Protectorate system (not colonialism) through training & re-migration of immigrant populations back to their homelands & permit continual temporary immigration to further train more of those populations to develop institutions & infrastructure in their homelands. This only works if all native populations in their homelands get to self-determined. It will also require the establishment of explicitly multi-ethnic regions/countries as well
It's just HUMANS undergoing WORLD conditions. Conservatives find this idea so impossible to understand. We all just have different history, but there is never something one human can do that another can't eventually do.
@@DOOMZEDAY define "eventually" the average 85 IQ person would need several hundred(thousand?) years to slowly plod their way to being able to design a modern electric car. Humans have differences. Shot Put competitions have been running for hundreds of years. to this day, the women still throw a weight that his half as heavy just to barely get up to the same distances that men throw with a heavier weight. at the Olympic level. the humans who are trying the very hardest to get as good as they can at a thing. so... you're just wrong.
@@0live0wire0 Only the High-IQ ones make the critical differences, in progress, maintenance, innovation and management. "donkeys to carry loads" there's always plenty - often too many.
@@lordindigonnisvoldebeastal3796 Robert Alexander It is my own experience when growing up, when in the military, when in the automotive-industry and Prof. Peterson himself claims that high-IQ dwindles - exactly in a period when it is needed the most. *Feudalism is the dumber of the population - corralling them into vassalage. The Feudal are also the TBTF/TBTJ/TPTB i.e. the globalists.* The High-IQ being culled are usually the Ashkenazi Jews (Ave. IQ 132 in Lithuania and 125 in Hungary) in Europe for the past 90 years, and in Israel last 50 years via "melting-pot" aka Genus-cide (=disturbing the genetic baseline & pool).
Andrew I see his brilliance as a soul searching man; who tells it like he sees it at this point in his life. When deception is the norm, it's refreshing to hear someone speak the truths he has gleaned. Win as if you are used to it. Lose as if you enjoyed it for a change.
When you challenge a genius to answer to you in a question and the amount of data folded within the answer is more than your capacity ...WOW . I am not entirely sure if all those people understood all of it , but i certainly hope so a big percentage did manage . Jordan is awesome !!!!
As an IQ researcher, with publications (unlike Jordan Peterson), just wanted to let you know he doesn't know what he is talking about, hasn't published anything with research since the 90s really, and is rattling off nonsense numbers which you can tell as he leaves out any accompanying statistical conventions that would give those numbers meaning. He even misuses the very operationalised word, in statistics anyways, "significant" repeatedly. The use of research conducted on former slaves who were not allowed to learn to read is also absurd, this stuff was debunked with the nazis after WWII. Not for folks like you and JP, I guess. I would argue it's a science literacy thing, you can have a golden tongue and also be wrong. I think it's a shame JP didn't find a better calling, he's clearly out of his depth with psychology. It's telling no other real universities want to hire him. I guess liberty university would, but I doubt he wants that hahaha. He would make a great engineer techno-babbling as a star trek actor, but scientist with a grasp on IQ research he is not.
I suggest you to watch this video multiple times if you have to . There is a small chance that your brain might comprehend what just happened there , how significant that dialogue was .
Interesting. I would like to hear his opinion on environmental stress and it’s affect in elevating cortisol levels in the body and the depressing effect it has on the developing brain. Permanent affects as early as age 4.
I could fill books about my 4 year old son. He had a file the size of a NY phone book I was told he may out grow the antisocial behavior, maybe . Years later, my son told me, "I could understand what might happen to me" (social worker wanted to put him in a home ) "But I just couldn't stop" He finally calmed down by the time he was in his thirtys....a physical illness killed him
I'm amazed at how quickly and nicely he can formulate a response to a question like that. I would stutter, hesitate, backtrack, go on tangents, contradict myself and so on. But Mr Peterson just delivers an almost perfect response just like that.
That was awsome. First the summary of the Topic pro-con and than the question where Peterson really has to think of. The Interviewer is really gifted. I would like to know the names of those which worked out and the University of this think tank. It is quiet extraordinary. I got a lot of information about IQ in 20 min. that I am totally astonished. I listened twice to get it all .
If other attributes (height weight etc..) can be attributed to racial and genetic differences, why can't intelligence? Because its not "nice" or politically correct? Science is NOT about being nice or politically correct....it about finding out the scientific truth wherever that lends up.
Not every interaction needs to be stated as a question. The host presented him with a situation and asked him what his thoughts were on the topic. By giving context, he helped people participate in the conversation who are less versed on the topic.
If we assume that getting rid of them at an early age is not ethically acceptable as it would involve an industrial scale mass execution of children we only really have one choice. We just have to accept they'll be a drain on society and give them extremely simple jobs that even they can do. The cost of keeping these jobs will be higher than the value of what they produce, but it's still better than just funneling money to them. No private company will want to burden itself with providing these jobs, so either they'll have to be given tax incentives or there will have to be special public companies designed specifically to provide such jobs. There is no good solution. There is only a least bad solution.
watteffer Jr your asking the wrong question. The 75-83 folks need a dragatus type solution. The below 75 need another. They'll fuck up and if society is to stay afloat the below 75 population needs...social workers, jails, and shelters.
What an exhilarating and almost (well in the end much I believe) philosophical discussion, the contrast that occurs when he's on the one hand stating that from a usefulness standpoint you can't do anything with 10% of the population and on the other hand highlighting that intelligence mustn't correlate with human value is just too interesting to think about..
The question was should we discuss average differences in IQ that appear among different races of people. I think he talked about everything else for almost 20 minutes except answering the actual question. He starts out with a story then goes into explaining to us what an IQ test is. Then discussed its Validity and its Probability determine an individual's success throughout their lifetime. Finally wraps it up With a warning about IQ not being the measure of a man, But in all of that he never actually answers the question
Yes, he did. He realized that inherent in the original question was a lack of the definition of I.Q…. Instead of just giving an answer that would cause chaos, he provided a true definition for what I.Q. actually is based upon his very own research - and then when he feels satisfied that everyone comprehends where his answer is coming from, THEN he provides his position to the question at the end… because if he had simply said what he said at the last minute, then they would have seen him as pandering; but now that they have been educated as to his view of I.Q., they can comprehend his response.
Gatekeeper Peterson, who wants you to have the cognitive dissonance that Haiti is just as good as Switzerland because, you know, humans have value regardless of IQ lol
I am sure Dr. Peterson knows that to discuss what has been found in overall differences in IQ between different races is absolute career and social suicide. Look at what happened to Dr. Charles Murray and the first intelligencs researcher who faced severe repurcussions way back in 1969 for his work. The most incendiary topic of all time is group differences in IQ...unless you study IW differences between Atheists and Christians. In which case, the average IQ of Atheists if higher than the average IQ of Christians. 😊
I too can't argue with the logic. Although I would rather find a way to make more of our population wealthier. The only way I have found is to reduce tax burden (as much as is feasible) across the board. I would like to hear you talk about your ideas about how people around the world can raise their individual responsibilities and carry the weight than most of our middle and upper class are covering.
When I cleaned houses in Palo Alto, [Stanford University], Dr Fredick Terman III [Radio Engineering genius] residence was one of my accounts. Because we had a common interest in Ham Radio, we conversed a bit. His father, Dr Fredick Terman II, wrote the first IQ tests and sold them to the California School System / Districts. Dr Fredick III told me that his father estimated there were 72 "areas" he could have tested IQ in but choose only 3! But Dr Terman III was stern in telling me to ignore whatever IQ I was rated at. lol As a bone-headed JC student working part time at Intel, it was nice to hear that. LOL So I have to read it twice, big deal! lol
I.Q tests focus on shapes and patterns more so than academic knowledge. A chess game essentially. What's your next move or moves within specific boundaries and pieces.
The better versions are far deeper than that. I was once tested by 2 psychologists simultaneously for over 6 hours for an IQ test. However, simply knowing information has little to do with actual intelligence other than ones ability to do so quickly/easily and relate said information with other relevant data.
So a 2 year old who is born from a teenage mother, who fed a steady diet of sugar, and doesn't nurture the child, is going to score as well on the test as a child from a privileged background who eats clean food and who has a 24-hour caregiver? Hell, your cognitive performance is impacted by hunger too. A hungry kids vs a full kid. Were you rested? You may think that these issues don't play themselves out on a large enough scale to impact the reliability but I would argue that they do. I'd argue that a lack of access to opportunity, Healthcare, housing, stable food supply impacts entire demographics because of the eaves and ability is what you can't discriminate and deny access to such services. You see how the circumstances could impact the results? Not to mention, if the test itself is actually biased because it was created by certain group. Very similar to how we are seeing racial bias in artificial intelligence because the people who created it import their racial bias. Funny how that works?
The closing statement was simply that being unable to perform more complicated tasks doesn't make you less of a person than those that can. The question he was answering is: what do you think of the differences in average IQ when comparing races. He responded: race is hard to define, there are cultures with statistically significant higher averages BUT that ability to do things better doesn't make them objectively better people altogether. It's actually so ingrained in our world that it's difficult to express in words.
for me, the key takeaway in IQ discussion is: do the most you can with what you have. we're all blessed - or cursed - with whatever genetics we get from birth.
Sounds like "the world needs ditch diggers too" to me. Someone's going to take that different parts to play idea and conclude their race gets the good parts and the other race gets the bad parts.
"Having a high IQ makes you better at 'complex things' ... and doesn't imply that intelligent people are of more value than less intelligent. That's a really interesting subject ... I was a software engineer for 15 years prior to being layed off work and ending up working the midnight shift in a factory assembly line to make ends meet. I can state without question that my arguably higher ability to do complex work did not manifest itself as me being better at doing menial work ... quite the opposite really. And the somewhat surprising thing was that that a significant amount of fairly intelligent people ... that just did not have the higher education for whatever reason .... People often mistake uneducated for unintelligent ... nope, not the same thing.... but i digress...
Man... Are... You... Really... Sure... that 15 yrs of software development prove your higher intelligence? "Stating it without question" will help you to work out the answer.
Mimimi it’s pretty hard to stay employed for 15 years as a software developer if you’re not at least reasonable intelligent. But , yes, that plus a 4.0 gpa and multiple academic scholarships would suggest I’m capable of doing fairly complex work... doesn’t make me a genius though, that for sure. Though I must say, I fail to see your point... and if there’s further doubt, I’ve been at my current job as a software developer for almost 15 years and now have a 6 figure income. But, really... you failed to grasp the main point of my post... “just because you’re more intelligent doesn’t automatically mean you’re more valuable”. My comment is in support of what Peterson says in the video...
@@jonchicoine Based on given information, i doubted that your claims about your own intelligence are true or, at least, are proven. That was my point. With more information given, it seems my guess was wrong.
@@jonchicoine you’re being nice is all. It does make you more valuable you’re this smart & don’t understand the simple concept you’re smart which means you’re more likely to problem solve vs a unintelligent person who would be counter productive usually it makes u more valuable considering with a high iq you can get into architecture everything im saying is so obvious yet you virtue signal why?
IQ is tied to value. Peterson wanted to imply moral value, but as he said, a high IQ person is more "useful" in a lot of tasks. And a person who isn't "useful" in the sense that they don't produce any valuble good or service, then they're not valuble to me. It's troublesome to say that people are morally valuble on the basis of "because I said so," because I can just disagree. I like Peterson's conclusions, but his reasoning to just say "value people anyway" is missing important links.
Perhaps another viewpoint would provide a foil for this. If it's not helpful, then my bad. I've been crunching through the same question that could lead to your conclusion. So. Perhaps the question is "valuable....for what?". For making life worth living, perhaps? I know of some down syndrome kids who bring more joy than some somewhat arrogant high IQ folk I know. I also know three high IQ people who make my life better, in like emotional manner. While I appreciate tech advances that come from IQ and related skill-produced value...I'd sooner have a friend to die with than jerk to live with; either being smarter or stupider being a secondary concern.
I got really confused from 19:10- At 19:30 when ‘under-predicting group A doesn’t happen’ And then, there could be: ‘Systemic bias in the performance measures and the potential measures’ Anyone able to explain a bit for me? 🙏
That was incredible to listen too... but the end is cut off. Where can we find the end? Does he really answer the IQ question? or did the Editor not think we could handle listening to it?
I don't think the person running the camera would be allowed in the military.
@Charles Heath '20 ya Charles what they said
I'm dying 😂😂😂😂😂😂 thank you!
Hold SHIFT to hold your breath
@Charles Heath '20 wtf dude
Albert Johnston why not ?
'We confuse intelligence with value …' and 'being more intelligent doesn't make you a better person' - personally, I found that interesting.
thats absolutely true, speaking from experience. like, at school, we have really intelligent people who are absolutely unbearable, braging about everything they do, bringing their discontent on everyone else, blaming 'em, with nasty character. and we have low iq people who can only pretend that they know what you or teachers are talking about, learning everything by memory, but at least are nice and hard working.
yeah but why is that? Then you have to define what value means. Someone with 130 should have more value to society than someone with 70 right?
@@noobtubeeeeeee He specifically states that IQ does not predict virtue. So I guess you could argue that a high IQ person +virtue could add more value but the same holds for high IQ with bad virtue, can do more damage and devalue... Based on how he explains it, i would look at it like we should look at value roughly as IQ x Virtue = Value. Just my thoughts. Definitely 100% agree IQ has nothing to do with value. I personally know very disruptive persons in the 99th percentile of IQ, and impactful Christians changing the world with average IQ(They have may have some divine intervention, but lets not get into that. :) ).
The fuq do you call a "better person"? A guy who is kind and does work for socaity?
Bijan 22 do more good for society?
The old saying is true. The speaker of truth has no friends.
Odd, because no matter what somebody says, there will be those who support and hate them. Your logic is actually completely non existent. This was about the dumbest thing I have read here, more stupid than Peterson.
J F It seems that your tidbit of insight would take some intelligence to come up with so I assume that you aren’t an imbecile. What makes you say that Peterson is? (Genuinely curious)
@@jf8138 this no longer applies because the the internet, you can't keep the truth hidden
@@dr.lyleevans6915 jf wont answer, we have hit and run trolls everywhere who cannot answer serious questions.
I think he has lots of friends, you, FE.....lol....
His comment about "human value" in the last 2mins of this video is so important, sometimes we forget what's really important in life. Thanks JP
Notice how his body language shifted when finally addressing race and IQ. He clearly stated it makes him uncomfortable and rightfully so. Talking about it truthfully and not strictly in a politically correct sense is career suicide as we've seen with geneticist James Watson.
Neither he nor Watson were IQ researchers. They both washed out for their long-ago debunked eugenicist ideas. Most of which are based on debunked US army studies not replicated elsewhere that administered a verbal reading test to folks they knew had been prevented from reading by actual slavery laws or hadn't had the opportunity. He constantly tries to reframe these studies with made up information. Beyond this he rattles off numbers detached from precise statistical conventions, his common strategy - because numbers equal math equals science!
The fact that he washed out and nobody will take him, not even liberty university, full of his acolytes, should indicate something to you..
that body language shift is sometimes called "word-shyness", people only do it when they know what they are saying is hateful.
@@jesipohl6717 This comment has some signs of hate... not what I hear from JP
Political correctness began in Russia where you couldnt say in public what yiu knew to be true. Its also where the ideas behind social justice came from. Even "all scientists agree..." came from the Soviet Socialist based in Russia.
@@jesipohl6717lol. You never watch the behavioral panel on YT obviously.
Fascinating his comment on learning to do it quickly but not correlated to actual performance. Reminds me of a story I tell from 4th grade. We were all working math problems and I had to explain how to do the problems to the table. At the end of the period, one person who didn't understand at the beginning had actually finished all the problems before I did. I'm fast to learn but slower to do. I always remembered this life lesson.
I have a good "working memory" learn fast, and forget fast unless I really drill and ingrain that knowledge. Even then I often need to be prompted or cued.
My training partner is the opposite. He is slow to learn, but once he's got it he recalls more easy than me.
So I learn the new drills and teach him, and he helps me when we review the old stuff.
@@theflamingone8729 martial arts?
@@raiklaub975 yes, Eskrima (in this case).
"learning to do it quickly but not correlated to actual performance"
not exactly true. if you can learn it quickly and do it on the spot.. well there's an awful lot you can succeed at. depends on what your goal is. let's be confident and not try to tear down others who have abilities we don't have. complimenting others instead makes you look 1) classy, 2) secure, 3) and magnetic.
A man with a grade 6 education once told me, the difference between education and intelligence, is how you view whats happening right in front of your eyes
And he was correct about that !!!!
Fact...And attention span helps.
Cocaine helps a lot with that.
this generation has children who became millionaires with Bitcoin
can you explain what this means? I don’t understand
Who is the ocd that places the markers on the board?
Noticed it too, was very satisfied for some strange reason.
You should arrange your markers first, before you go to rearrange the world... :D
It comforts me to know that that professor probably doesn’t leave any writing smudges on the board before moving on.
Leave my people alone.
They could have at least rotated the markers properly to line up the "Expo" labels.
I like how people get so bent out of shape over IQ yet do not think twice in acknowledging some people are better looking and/or more athletic than them.
Bodybuilding, an entire sport, is based in large part on geneticsin terms of proportions and muscle insertions.
As is height.
These are all things that we inherit from our parents.
Why is it so far fetched to think IQ is the same?
The mind is certainly different from the body. IQ is non-deterministic while your physical attributes are deterministic. The mind is able to reform and make new ideas/connections. Your body is only able change expression(epigentics). A lab can tell you how tall you can be simply looking at your current generic code. But IQ cannot be observed under a microscope. That has to be determined statistically by weighing you vs everyone else. Even if physical attributes that can be inherited affect IQ, such as cranium structure or breathing capability. But it may not be true for every one. That would just be another factor in the statistic.
f0yen4 :: At 21, can you change your height? How about your IQ?
Also, height is non-deterministic, in a similar way that IQ is. If you drink caffeine or consume creatine too early on it will stunt your growth. The same can be said about stunting IQ with different substances.
IQ has also been shown to be passed through genes (Wikipedia, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ AND Genetics Home Reference, ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence).
There is a variance in the data for IQ (i.e., it isn’t absolutely clear if IQ is simply based on environment, genetics, or a combination of both).
My point is that it is not absolutely clear how “non-deterministic” IQ is. It may be the exact same phenomenon as height; deterministic, but is also influenced by other factors, post-gestation.
Like f0yen4 said, it’s a fun statistical factor. Without having read the literature, I’ll say it has influence over social and emotional intelligence and is likely to take a large part in first assumptions, but it’s also no factor in anything past a first encounter or meeting. If you’re beautiful and stupid, people might be flocking to you on a regular basis, but the regularity of that basis usually would only last as long as it takes the other party to find out you’re a dunce. Hence why beauty and physical attributes aren’t sustainable in relationships. It’s falls on the individuals true character
Nobody at any point in this discussion even mentions whether IQ is related to genetically inherited qualities or not.
because there are always brilliant people came to this life from practically dumb people and vice versa . How come we heard about Nikola Tesla but never about his parents ? We all heard about Albert Einstein but nobody knows anything about his father ...for example . As far i am concerned Einstein's father could be a total let's say "idiot" but somehow he chose the right woman perhaps and they both brought a kid to life that eventually becomes "THE" guy in science with theories like relativity and so on . It is NOT entirely proved that intelligence can be inherited from generation to generation .
The fact that Mr. Peterson answered every aspect of a 1:57 question with clinical findings, personal experience, and statistical facts separates him from any presidential candidate in at least the last 20 years.
Surely there must have been smart Presidents eh?
Not to mention it was all stuff he knew off the top of his head.
JP is an overacted intellectual. some of what he says is spot on but id argue its all low hanging fruit. the rest is total garbage.
@@dyslexiusmaximus does it bother anyone else that his numbers are devoid of any attached statistical conventions. Correlations come in many forms, for example. Sounds mostly like a star trek engineer to me. I am actually familiar with the research he sites, but most of his most compelling "data" are debunked army studies proven to be improperly conducted. It's a farce that he can get away with reproliferating eugenics myths from literally more than a half a century ago, speaks volumes about the intellectual development of the average follower...dude hasn't even published research since the end of the 90s and people still listen. wtf.
@@dyslexiusmaximus lmao ok dyslexius
I could listen to Dr. Peterson ALL DAY. Such a brilliant mind!
@@FICKLEII Sorry but you don't sound very bright. I can't imagine anyone wanting to hear your thoughts. At least learn some elementary school English grammar before attacking anyone like that. English isn't my first language btw.
@@JasonB2025 He's probably trolling, don't waste time arguing with him
Me too! :)
...and thanks to modern technology you can! 👍
"Ethnic differences... *audible sigh* This is something you can't say anything about without immediately being killed, so I'm hesitant to broach the topic."
...and proceeds to change the topic. JP is not quite ready to commit career suicide.
Imean rightly so
I think he was a little worried it would be actual suicide
I'm he gets tired of people trying to set him up at every appearence lol.
He talk about is towards the end after he sets things up to try to avoid accusations of racism.
He did answer the question, just not immediately.
Holy shit-
That is some epic whiteboard pen placement
Spaced just right o shot I am mildly autistic.
I’d be more impressed if the pens where arranged in spectral order as well. That my friend would be dope.
I know...that was the first thing I noticed. I thought I was the only one to notice that
Yep. I'm aspie and I noticed this right away. So nice. Only complaint is that they are RBG, not RGB like they should be.
That was my thought also. But in order of increasing wavelength (blue, green, red), because wavelength order would also be political order (left=blue, center=green, right=red).
A phenomenal answer to a politically loaded question. It factually explains IQ, variations in performance by "group" and gives valuable background information, without buying into the identity politics dialectic that the question begs to address. I find most of Jordan Peterson's talks helpful in directing my worldview in a positive direction free of misinformation based bias.
I am an IQ researcher who has done assessments for research in german and english. Peterson's arguments are riddled with numbers detached from precise statistical conventions. To a fellow diagnostician, he sounds like the guy at the cocktail party trying to pretend to know everything, impressing a lot of rubes while pissing off any actual experts. Peterson further uses old problematic army study data wherein folks were rated on verbal IQ in reading, who had never been taught to read and in some cases were actively prevented from reading when they were slaves. This is not good data. Applying a reading test to someonr who hasn't been taught to read is not a test of native intelligence like most of the results of IQ Tests, it measures how much you are like those hovering around the central SDs in a fairly predictable distribution curve.
@@jesipohl6717 Not sure how you got to the information it was based on such data and method, the army tests - I do not think so.
Also, the setup where JP is talking is something like a cocktail party - especially if we are talking about this channel with random watchers.
I do not think it was all so bad from this relevant mass educational perspective. It was indeed a very good job, compared to the average content...
@@jesipohl6717 To be precise, you are not disproving IQ but Peterson himself and the examples he is using to explain his perspective on IQ, correct? Any more fun facts you can share about IQ as a researcher?
@@jesipohl6717how were people prevented from reading via slavery post 1919 when slavery ended in the 1860s? Assume someone was born in 1860. In 1919 they'd be 59 which is way past conscriptable age, even in wartime. There is no value to testing 59 yr olds. Within a couple of sentences you've indicated your research is ideologically, not data, driven. If that's not the case great, but given the standards of research in the west at present I'm not going to hold my breath. As an aside, has it occured to you that JP is trying to be accessible to as many as possible rather than speaking in a way that only specialists understand?
@jesipohl6717 and your sources are where?
Can i just take a moment to express my appreciation for JP, and how gratefull we should all be that there are still people like him.
You appreciate hucksters who quote numbers without statistical conventions and use vacuous useless words like "tremendous" to describe effect sizes? Hustlers who haven't published research since the 90s? What a joke. Peterson's fame is proof the public communication of real science is broken. Sheep-Folks would rather have a verbose actually washed-out academic then hear about real data.
Edit: JP seems like the kind of person to score high on the verbal and well under the norm for the maths (nonverbal) portion. Perfect for a mediocre born-into-money white guy who bets everything on a golden tongue.
he says common sense
@@RR-et6zp which is rare to find these days
No.
...was that long enough.....?
Everyone who weighs in on this topic seems to always miss the extremely important thing he says here at the end
With you man, I love that he ended on that
Absolutely. A lot of humanity's problems are caused by the "genius sons of bitches" JP refers to.
The last minute is almost the whole answer to the big question.
@timwins31 people in comas never commit crime while in a vegetative state.
I wouldnt put a hogh value on their contribution to society either.
@timwins31 Exactly. Our value as humans is in how we treat each other.
Peterson’s methods of analysis is brilliant. What is truly impressive is his ability to make it understandable without resorting to complex statistical gymnastics.
Sadly, many will listen to this and be angered by the admission of facts and totally miss the the real value of the information.
Thought the same
welcome to the cult
Peterson is out of his depth with IQ data. He throws around words no scientist uses like "Tremendous" and then rattles off numbers without giving them statistical conventions/units (alpha, power, etc"). In another life he could have been a expert technobabble engineer on star trek, stringing together real words into nonsense sentences to shock and awe a public ready to pretend. Tremendous, hahaha.
Edit: pop-sci literature is not research.
@@lilnoir4213, the primary feature of being in a cult is that you can't give a detailed reason why you're there. The OP literally just explained why he likes JP.
@@jesipohl6717
His publication record says otherwise.
This went places I didn’t imagine it would go to. If anyone’s on the edge about wether to watch this, please do. And keep an open mind, ‘cause this was an exceedingly intellectually honest discussion.
Mr. Bell Jordan Peterson? Well, if he is then it won’t be any time soon. He recently checked himself into rehab and is dealing with some serious family issues.
@@jcnot9712 how come
warro 1042 because IQ is a very polarizing subject that is very difficult to discuss without it getting too one-sided. However, this seemed very fair and balanced, which I wasn’t expecting.
@@MrBell-ho8ts Not very likely, he's Canadian.
using words like "exceedingly" is generally frowned upon in scientific debates as it promotes exagerations and is far-removed from operationalised languages that actually give us information about what is being reported. The way Jordan Peterson abuses these operationalisations , for example to describe results that are not "statisically significant" as "significant" is doubly problematic.
You can see this as well in how he reports numbers, usually devoid of any precise statistical conventions, for example, correlational analyses can come in different forms (eg R vs R²), significances are also of different degrees. I am not saying he needs these in public communications, but he is clearly using them for what I like to call "science woowoo validity".
It's no surprise he washed out and can't find a new position, and it's no surprise he hasn't succeeded in publishing any research since the 90s. I think his brain probably takes a hit from his consumption problems and that might play a role, wouldn't be surprised if he started drinking in the late 90s more intensively. It's very sad to see this cult fandom enabling him. I hope he can recover some day, but for the time being, he's a terrible person that just does a ton of harm in terms of communicating science and science literacy. He's like an anti-Eugenie Scott.
That's how walking on eggs looks.
Ignoring the elephant.
Can’t argue with simple clearly laid out logic.
except we all make the mistake of doing that from time to time.
so you can, it just makes you look ignorant.
Sure you can. WIth facts and data. Here on Jews IQ on radical politics th-cam.com/video/ljMPafQpfDU/w-d-xo.html
@@Kalleosini Here's the cure for ignorance: facts and data th-cam.com/video/ljMPafQpfDU/w-d-xo.html
or the clearly laid out markers
Yep. If this had to be summarized in a few words, that would be "There is no convinicng evidence that there is any difference in natural intelligence between ethnic groups".
So racist idiots should stop parroting this bullshit and learn how science works.
That’s an incredibly detailed and well thought out answer to an extremely complex and well presented question. I could have listened to several more hours of him answering that one.
Ha! Rarely do I have enough patience for so called intellectuals or debate enthusiasts to get to a point. But, Peterson lectures (at 1.5x speed) are sufficiently brief so as to make a fair listening palatable. Even though he couldn't have been as honest as he would have liked to have been due to the public forum's suppression of frank discussion regarding racial IQ differentials, this man's thoughtful and careful commentary is quite considered. Insightful. Bravo sir!
Predictors of life performance (in complex jobs):
1. Generative cognitive ability.
2. Trait conscientiousness.
3. Freedom from negative emotion / low neuroticism.
4. Openness to experience.
"If you can find a flaw in that logic go right ahead" - Jordan Peterson
20:28 the point made in the last 20 seconds is not talked about nearly enough whenever this debate comes up. For one reason or another, there's an automatic tendency to assume that differences in IQ imply differences in intrinsic worth, and so it's no wonder people get so heated when you try to point out that there may be veritable differences between populations. I feel like the idea of human value needs to be separated from this before we can start having productive discussions about what to do about the average job becoming more cognitively complex.
you want a society of idiots?
"The problem with our society is that people dont understand Statistic" ... this is probably the most important thing that Peterson ever said in his life and it has a huge Implication in how we think about things. Statistic is the Key of every Scientific Observation... which make us realise that Statistic is the Most Important Ingredient of knowing something. Brilliant Peterson, Just Brilliant!
I have trouble understanding why there is such focus on teaching calculus, which is difficult and has limited practical utility, and little interest in teaching statistics and logic which are much easier to learn and of such great practical utility.
@President Santana as you obviously know what is more important then help as to understand what is most important.
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu
No thats wrong.
Yes we have modern medicine from islam. So what?
We compare what we have today. And i argue that there is more people that invade westworld from islam country as other way around.
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu thank you for video but i dont debate like that. Its to easy.
Say it in your own words or let it go.
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu commentary ist towards the one who make the video.
Sugestions are clearly not debate.
But,
If we two not agree about same issue than it could be debate.
The markers on that white-board tray are almost perfectly spaced 😳
But not perfect, can't listen.
No they're not. The red and blue are visibly further apart than are the blue and green; you need to move the blue over to the left about 1/4 the length of the cap before they become even; and the fourth one on the far left (barely in view), besides being a different make, is way too far over to the right.
@@RockBrentwood The university needs to form a committee to look into this issue.
Those dry erase markers are so evenly spaced. This enhances my calm.
This man is amazing. I know no other person who could answer a question like this objectively without being labeled and smeared as a racist.
He did a good job laying out the controversy and providing some data, but didn't touch enough on what a positive reaction to the data might be.
One of the simplest consequences of accepting IQ data is accepting school tracking, that is grouping children of similar intelligence together and pacing their learning according, which has been long practiced but is under heat from the Left. The thing is when IQ is relevant it sets a ceiling for potential success, so equal outcome doctrine is obliterated and instead we should try to set people up for their best possible outcome.
The other implication might be making sure we can provide appropriate jobs for the less intelligent. Someone with a sub 100 IQ isn't learning to code, but maybe they could earn a living as a welder or plumber. Given the race and IQ correlation we probably need to focus the vocational training in minority schools and encourage business employing these trades to setup in minority communities.
The equal outcome believers can't accept IQ or these potential implications, but I think ensuring we have a variety of educational and vocational opportunities to reflect the various IQ landscape helps everyone reach their own potential, and we all benefit from that.
What i like most about Professor Peterson is that even though he’s extremely smart he still can get his point across clearly to peasants like myself,
understanding
psycholgy is intelligence? news to me
@@soccergalsara Understanding it to the degree in which he does ..yes, intelligence is involved or he would be talking like the majority of the other psychologists in the world which he clearly does not.
@@A.C.71 its all common sense 😂 cringe
@@soccergalsara And all people exhibit commonsense?
@digital warfare lets place that bet. Im doing a phd in mathematical physics at a 100 world class uni :)
he was really trying not to end his career in this one.
The last 50 seconds are a great argument. Really well done.
Peterson's way of explaining things is amazing. Its complex yet understandable.
As a scientist published in this field,unlike Peterson. I can assure you it was nonsense technobabble woo woo, the key thing to notice is he does not accompany his numbers with precise statistical conventions. Meaning nobody can truly understand what he is saying. Pretending you did is kinda sad and totally indicative of how this guy convinces his rubes. Peterson missed his opportunity to be an engineer on star trek.
@@jesipohl6717 jordan peterson was a highly cited scientist before his rise to faim with about 10000 citations (he has now more than 19000 this put him as the 12 th most cited clinical psychologist). ow to respond, of course he didnt acompany his response to an unprepared question with precise statistical numbers who has this kind of knoledge anyway. his arguments are pretty easily verifyable and it turns out they are all correct
@@jesipohl6717 Oh wow, you're funny.
Man!
What a bombshell at the end.
This man is a genius!
N.B. Thanks for referring to me indirectly.
KR,
A common TH-cam poster on your videos.
Finally, results explained using proper statistics. Small Movement in mean produces large movement in tails of distribution...
I am an Asian (Indian). I call Myself brown... Over here Jews are also a subset of Whites!
Are we all wrong?
Divergent evolutionary paths is a reality not racism.
Eric B Nazis believe so, so they did what they did, evolution in biology is the root to justify evil.
@@cymoonrbacpro9426 evil people use whatever they want to justify evil.
KawaiiAstronaut Humans are an evil species no matter what race and should be destroyed for the good of the planet. ✌️❤️ Love and light.
have you ever had a sibling or close family member who was much smarter than you? or vice versa. My family are retards in comparison to me but we came from your same "evolutionary paths". Why do we have black doctors come from the same stock as dish washers? Genius is not hereditary, it is an anomaly. MOST people are not very intelligent, only a few of us can be structural engineers or molecular biologists.
@@braggsean1026 did u know, majority of people who are dumb fucks gloat about their "intelligence", and a vast majority of people with high IQ don't gloat about their intelligence. I feel sorry for your family.
There is nothing like an objective, rational, and metaphysical approach to the complex topics of psychology and sociology. I really appreciate the work and studies that happened in order to attain the statistics necessary to make such determinations that Dr. Petersons consistently presents. Keep up the good work.
Bottom line is "Do the best with what you have." Don't criticize those who've been given less.
Personally, a Dude like Peterson (psychologist) and other Dudes (Teachers) said always, I would be quiet dumb since I was ~6 years old. That I could be glad, if I would ever find a Workplace. It got so bad, that I didn't talk to people for few years. Due to that, I got into the "lowest" Schools in my youth (In Germany we've "Gymnasium", "Realschule" and "Hauptschule" and in the later, you only learn the absolut basics)
Now I have an apprenticeship diploma, got in 1 1/2 years promoted twice, left & made my Colleged degree, studied successfully 2 Semester Physics and switched to Engineering 'cause it's more my personal thing + I can work more while I study.
... So, yeah, most psychologists become that, 'cause they have problems on their own. Would you trust a Mechanic which has a broken car and no idea how he could fix his own car?
@Madolite You've less.
Right on Chris
And more so,not to criticize those who've been given more.
Peterson has identified me as dumb and I just want to hug him.
Well as he said - you can be stupid and still be nice.
I could watch JP talk for hours across almost every topic imaginable. He cuts straight through all the political angles and gets right to the facts and figures. He makes you think about complex and relevant social issues in a way that you never could without that mental nudge in the right direction. Thank you JP. I hope you get well soon.
Calum Murphy agreed. I hope he is well.
Really? Have you ever heard him waffle on about religion??
@@qcsorter4626 No, enlighten us please. What is the point you are trying to make?
It’s not race . It’s culture.
Fool! Mr Peterson is a far right cultist! He THINKS that he knows climate change, lol. He thinks that it does nothing! That demonstrates how stupid he real is. Higher levels of carbon dioxide will result in high average temperatures which will melt the world’s ice fields. That will result in the ocean levels rising more than 200 feet!
yeah... I was a tear away..... and my dad went MILITANT on me. He beat me black and blue. Back in the day when it was socially acceptable to do so with a deserving child. He saved me. Difficult times. Don't beat kids up...... but the initial message of overly unruly, chaotic children are gonna end up as criminals. Nip it in the bud. I love my dad.
Also a 50% chance you swung the other way and turned into a complete psychpath...
The best thing that ever happened to me was to get backhanded by a guy when I was rushing into an elevator without letting him out
@@Scorch428 nah..... because i WAS old enough to know right from wrong.... but i thought I could get away with it.... like most bullies do.... and my dad was heavy handed but fair..... if getting the odd hiding when you deserve it lead you to become psychopath then any1 older than 50 would be a psychopath. it is only recently it has become so terribly frowned upon....
@Matthew Wehri Or, more likely, he was not "physically abused" but rather appropriately punished for unruly conduct.
@Matthew Wehri It's not abuse, in the rare cases that the parent has failed in some way and the kid has done something horribly wrong so beating is the only way (in the parent's eye). When you put it as abuse, the parent would be faced with A.) continuing failing with their method or B.) give up on the child which will inflict emotional trauma on the child.
Physical pain will go away, emotional trauma are not so easily healed. So stop labeling isolated one time occurrence of beating a child because they did some real shit as abuse.
Thanks so much for these uploads.🙂
Glad you like it here!
0:53. My god what a silly position. Don't tell people the truth because they may interpret it to an extreme.
Chico Papass it's true tho... Just read these comments. Most of them are very thoughtful but there are many which are just low life's trying to justify there own racism.
Peterson himself has said that something is true if it's useful. (Something I don't agree with)
I'd just to clarify that the question was THE topic discussed by Sam Harris because that's what most people are actually asking.
Chico Papass that’s like saying don’t teach kids sex Ed because they will fuck and get STDs.
@@saosaqii5807 well there is a point there. the year sex ed came out in schools, the pregnancy rate for teens went way up.
1 question, 20 minutes of great content. love it
I really enjoy watching Jordan think. This was enjoyable and I'm glad this ends by stating that intelligence is not indicative of virtue. I've been privileged to be among people of so-called lower intelligence who I felt had a near lock on virtue.
The compassion in this man is astounding. Did you not hear- if this doesn’t hurt you? I appreciate that with all his knowledge he can admit his faults- his temper being at the forefront. While all the data he is presenting is quite fascinating, just think about the damage we all do in life simply by being ourselves and getting up in the morning.
He's not presented any data here. Most of the numbers he rattles off were not attached to any units or statistical conventions. As a scientist more often and more recently published in the field of psychological assessments, including in both german and english the standard Wechsler IQ-Scale, I can tell you that Jordan would make an excellent engineer on star trek, but is currently a washed-out out researcher who has failed to publish any research since the late 90s.
Stop drinking colourful coolaides, it's not good for you!
@@jesipohl6717, your comments are funny. Wish I cared enough to research this in detail to debate you.
@@jesipohl6717 His h-index is 58. To say he wasn't an exceptional researcher would be like saying the sky is purple only on Mondays.
@@jesipohl6717 By the way, some of his best research (three with 1000+ citations) were published in the 21st century.
@@jesipohl6717 what do you expect him to deliver in this limited amount of time and in this setting? He has to simplify, summarise. And Peterson does an excellent job, while at the same time avoiding to feed the racists out there. As a published researcher in the field of "both german and english the standard Wechsler IQ scale" (as you describe yourself) you should understand that he can't start throwing in "alpha and power" (as you write somewhere else in the comment section). YOU are the one throwing around fancy "research" terms in order to appear an expert. Greetings from a psychologist with extensive experience in psychometrics.
I do not agree that scoring below 83 in an IQ test means you can not do any job. this score may not get you into the Army, however as a soldier you need to learn some reasonably complex skills like handling weapons safely and well, basic first aid, basic map reading, and basic tactics, I believe there are some simpler jobs that lower than IQ 83 could cope with.
The average estimated unemployment rate in developed countries is often below 10%.
You are making the exact same mistakes J. Peterson warned. IQ correlates with 0.3 to 0.4 of people's success. It is definitely not hard to understand why the unemployment is below 10% in developed countries since getting jobs are not only about IQs. That does not mean that they can perform the job without being counter-productive. It's just that they are not being fired for other reasons. Maybe the guy's incompetence are covered up well by other people who are capable and can follow up on his/her mistakes that it doesn't become apparent enough for boss's concern, which is usually the case. Maybe the guy is a really good guy and makes the workplace a good place to do work. I don't know, but there are plenty of other factors that contribute to having low unemployment rate.
You don’t understand what unemployment means. The definition applies only to people actively seeking work, the employment rate is a better measure. Also, it is obvious that you were never in the military. You described one job that the army offers, sort of. They have cooks. They have people who clean guns. They have people who dig holes, or change tires. You’re out of your element.
In America, at least, the official unemployment rate is determined by how many people have applied for unemployment benefits, not how many are actually unemployed. So after 26 weeks (usually) their benefits end but even if they’re still unemployed they are no longer included in the official unemployment rate.
Everyone in jail/prison and mental institutions are not included.
Stay-at-home spouses/parents are not included.
Individuals who support themselves by criminal means, e.g. drug-dealers, are not included.
The homeless population is not included.
College students are not included.
Individuals age 18+ who live at home and who don’t work or go to school are not included.
@@JeffTY77450 I think you just listed where the 10% went. Honestly, it seems that women in society have a much easier option here, to stay at home and raise the kids. Low status men will likely not have that option, as women tend to be more selective and the low status men are not desirable. Hence the crime.
Matt Wilkerson, thank you for commenting. Agreed. A reasonably attractive woman with a pleasant disposition who has below average intelligence still has a reasonably good chance of, say, a middle-class life if she plays her cards right. Much less true for a man with below average intelligence.
Most feminists will deny it with their dying breath but women quite naturally have a nesting instinct and are more nurturing. I’m sixty and over the years a number of women I’ve worked with, who were making very good money in defense-contracting, have conveyed to me that they’d rather be home taking care of their families but that they wanted the standard of living that required two incomes and/or they were aware that some marriages don’t last.
About twelve years ago I read an article by a woman who had achieved success on Wall Street. She said that there was still a bit of a glass ceiling but that that wasn’t the single biggest thing holding women back. What she saw was that a lot of women weren’t bringing their “A-game” to the job. They had the attitude that they’d work for five or six years and if their career wasn’t going the way they wanted they’d opt for plan-b, get married and be a stay-at-home mom. Whereas the men had no such attitude. They knew that for them there was no plan-b. “Plan-B” was being a barista at Starbucks. So, on average, she saw the men just hitting it harder. They had more “fire in the belly.”
"When you talk about racial differences in IQ, you're faced with the thorny problem of defining race."
*! ! ! ! !*
The question is about differing ethnic groups. Race is an approximation of subspecies arising from genetic distance.
Humans gets quite mixed nowdays. Race definition is not just hard, it is plainly useless. Any personal test would apply to person, not the "race". So why even bother?
@@heyhoe168 Not true. A fuzzy edge is still an edge. There are differences, physiological, psychological (behavioural) and cultural. Plus, not everyone is OK with the Neo Marxist-supported Globalist agenda to mix out diversity for a super-state.
@@kebman Lets assume you found edges and differences. What will you do with that? Any direct manipulation to the population is plainly and undiscussably wrong. Simply because 1) people are tend to get corrupt. You cant put any person in the populacional control. 2) no one is wise enough to decide what traits are really crucial for humanity. You cant put any person in control of population yet anain.
All you can influence is immigration policy but it does not really work due to illegal immigration. The only option left is to build heathy society. Healthy society should uplift talented persons no matter what race they are. So the question is the same: why even bother investigating races? Aside of morality, it would not benefit your society anyway. There is just no good ways to use this information.
@@heyhoe168 It's already used to manipulated low IQ peeps to become the new working class of the West, on the bill of the native pop, my friend. ;) Nobody looks upon that as manipulation, sadly, but it's multi-layered evil.
The problem is that people think intelligence is only important when doing complex things, but everything is complex.
Not everything is Complex😂😂
EQ is pretty important.
made up@@sherriflemming3218
Great point made here that we rarely consider... that is: "statistics don't lie, but statisticians do".
Well, these comments are gonna be fun...
ilovedrummin The eugenicists are already here.
ilovedrummin my question, you should read it. And cool username.
not really, from what I have seen so far it's very civil
+1Nate987 Glad to hear that. I shall venture forth then :P
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu are you trolling posting that video that noone likes? its even the opposit of a Deep dive
This is a lecture that is worth a lot of money. If you listen carefully and take in what is being said, you are gaining a lot of wisdom. That's what we pay for when we go to university. And here it is, free!! Thank you to all involved in producing this video, and Thank You to Dr Peterson, you are such a great Professor.
It's free in the university too. Or maybe you're an American? I hear you have to pay for education in the USA.
The actual question is, if all people have value, but some are smarter, are the smarter ones responsible for the well being of the less intelligent ones?
Mjollnir GREAT question. I have always felt that those with more power, knowledge, and general-know do have responsibility in helping the less gifted, mainly because I also feel low IQ is strongly affected by environments, maybe more importantly the environments of our ancestors. The relationships and movements between humans on the globe has shaped the IQ people reach from generation to generation.
Well said and correct. The ongoing question between people at an individual level, nationally, and internationally is "what do I owe you? How much of myself and my resources do I have to sacrifice for you?"
"Ethnic", "Person of Color" etc. What's with all the euphemisms for non-white? Why are whites considered separate from the rest of the races?
Prolly because of my nigga yakub
Because that was the entire point of creating race. Old rich white dudes created the concept of whiteness in order to ensure that poor white people constantly fought with poor black people instead of banding together in the 1700's and the 1800's. They needed a caste system that would be more powerful than your own economic self-interest. Poor white people have more to gain by working together with poor blacks than they have to gain by supporting the elite status quo. In fact, whiteness has a tangible value in America. You could see it when you walked into a building and it said "whites-only." That shit impacts the way that you see the world and how your whiteness is something that's beneficial. You start to treat it as something you earned rather than something that you were simply just born with. You feel that you cultivated this superior culture, but in fact, you just benefited legalized discrimination.
@@ineedhoez No, non-whites didn't have the same standards of hygiene and sexual purity/lack of vd as whites. So white people didn't want to associate with them.
wms72 japanese and korean would be grossed by most whites hygiene and sexual purity.
@@ineedhoez Did you read that in the "Protocols of the Elders of Old White Dudes?"
Dr Peterson, This generations needed prophet.
Vice.... Bless their hearts. Peterson knows how to drop a left handed compliment for giggles.
Intelligence of any level needs to be tempered with morality, and the smarter someone is and the less moral they are the more of a problem they become.
"needs to be tempered with morality"
So what is the scientific definition of morality?
@@thomasmaughan4798 The scientific definition? What's the difference between the scientific definition and the regular definition? Why are you asking me what the definition of words is? Look in a dictionary. Use Google.
@@cbalan777 "The scientific definition?"
I probably ought to have said "objective" definition; but since the topic is scientific in nature, namely the science of intelligence, challenges to this science must necessarily also have a scientific grounding or basis.
"What's the difference between the scientific definition and the regular definition?"
As you probably realize, there is no scientific definition of "morality'" The regular definition of morality is that whatever you like is moral, what you don't like is immoral. An assumption exists that many or most people share these values; which if it could be scientifically verified, might then satisfy a demand for a scientific definition. Or at least a statistical defintion which is pretty much what you get from Intelligence Quotient.
"Why are you asking me what the definition of words is?"
Because you used words. What words mean TO YOU is important as what words mean to others may not mean what it means to you; particularly in fuzzy, poorly defined words like "morality".
So what does it mean to "temper intelligence with morality"? That's a meaningless word salad, but presumably it means something to you, and it might be useful to me, but I don't know what you think intelligence IS or what morality is and how morality might therefore temper intelligence. What is "temper"?
If I can solve a differential equation in my mind; in what way does my love for my dog alter or temper or limit my ability to do calculus?
@@thomasmaughan4798 What's the objective definition. Again, why ask me? You seem like you want to make this personal. It's like asking me for the definition of clouds. Why do you need me to answer that?
You called it a "word salad" but that's projection.
@@cbalan777 "What's the objective definition."
There is no objective definition for any word. There is YOUR definition, what you mean by the words you use; but of course, the words you would use in your explanation are themselves words. Hopefully we share enough "referents" that I can figure out what you mean even though you use words in slightly different ways.
"Again, why ask me?"
I thought of asking Susan what you mean but usually you would be the best person to explain what you mean. On the other hand, it may be that Susan knows what you mean and can put it into words that I would understand in a way closer to what you meant.
"You seem like you want to make this personal."
All youtube conversations are personal. It is irrelevant whether I want it to be that way.
"It's like asking me for the definition of clouds. "
Had you recommended that a study of trees be tempered by clouds, then yes, I might wonder what you mean by clouds and whether it was a specific kind of cloud that mattered to the point you were making.
Refusing discussion based on how it makes people feel is absolutely insane. How anyone could even question this frightens me.
I think that there are plenty of examples where we avoid certain discussion based on how it makes people feel. A good debate can be had as to whether intelligence should be one of those discussions, but to make such sweeping generalizations shows a sincere lack of empathy on your part and, frankly, real arrogance.
@@psmith1843yes let ppl be delusional
Why are these all cut off before they reach any resolution? It's pathetic.
Sadly even in this unedited version, th-cam.com/video/qT_YSPxxFJk/w-d-xo.html JP doesn't exactly really discuss "ethnic differences in IQ scores" he dances around it with interesting tidbits. I had a discussion with an American Chinese woman who claimed that Chinese people have a higher IQ than the rest of the people in the world. The last I looked, Wikipedia supported that argument. I theorised that this high iQ result is because Chinese parents, and possibly also their schools, pay for additional after-hours training in such things as iQ tests which have an unusual question formation in which you have an advantage if you have experience with it and know the types of patterns and connections they are looking for. There is no discussion of such specifics here which is highly disappointing and arguably is ironically unintelligent for not confronting head-on the argument that is made daily in the real world and is even on Wikipedia.
You implied that I'm not in pain and I do not have Aspergers it took a lot of hard work but it was cut and dried but i know where you are coming from, and you challenged my perceptions about controlling it thank you
19:25 This is it. Systemic biases push results to support those biases. It's a positive feedback loop that continues those systemic biases. Once a group is set in a caste, even in a free state, it's hard to get out of that caste.
Cameraman fell asleep and then suddenly awoke at 18:45.
lmao he's struggling
19 minute answer to a 2 minute question, this was awesome.
And he never gave a direct answer to the question through all 20 minutes. I get it, I really do, but this was worth mentioning.
Does anyone know why he says that conscientiousness being rebranded as grit is corrupt?
Corruption has several definitions depending on usage. What applies here is "the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased". Conscientiousness and grit are separate traits. Conscientiousness has a high correlation with success. By conflating conscientious with grit the suggestion is that grit is then also a high predictor of success. But this has been studied and no such correlation has been found for grit.
Grit has been rebranded to a type of "trainable" attribute, which from listening to Jordan Peterson's comments on conscientiousness saying in the ball park that there are no to very slim metrics on measuring it.
“Let’s not confuse competence with power and authority” just one of his passing clarifications that level the whole thing
From 01:03 he doesn't move at all for a whole minute, that's focus
That's passion, or other emotional excitement.
No, it's just a bug it was fixed in last update. He was rebooting...
What Jordan cares about is telling the truth, and getting to the bottom of things. What people care about these days is trying their hardest not to offend anyone.
Jordan Peterson always delivers well thought out responses which is why I admire his style and his content. Looking forward to watching him talk in person again sometime.
IQ is important in conciderations for advancement. One that is not addressed is personality. A test, the multiphasic personality test accurately exposes sociopaths and borderline personality. These people will engage in criminal and socially damaging behaviour 100% of the time. They are 2% of the population causing over 90% of the social problems. We could in one week fix the world.
Probably the most intelligent discussion I’ve heard on the subject. Fascinating.
But IQ has been increasing for Asians, Americans and for the globe. Isn't it possible for the underdeveloped countries' average IQ to increase and get to an acceptable range? And if so, then how is IQ related to ethnicity itself rather than the resources available to the region when civilization rose and other factors unrelated to race? Are we referring to ethnicity in terms of biology here?
i don't know much about how civilizations were built but maybe there's something in their environment that didn't help, or didn't let them feel the need, to build a big civilization.
IQ like Ethnicity is highly Heritable so they are tightly bound in the averages.
Healthy Diet & Environment will raise IQ by the level to which a lack of those things is suppressing it however that amount will be far less than 50% of what determines it.
Also the current heritability & migration pressures are exacerbating the negative outlook for resource & IQ poor regions as any high IQ outliers will migrate elsewhere.
Interestingly one of the ideas that emerges from pondering all this is one that is verboten but will solve for pattern the desires of various groups:
Developed European Native & Founded countries do a deal with their immigrant populations & the countries from which they originate to facilitate an ethical Development Protectorate system (not colonialism) through training & re-migration of immigrant populations back to their homelands & permit continual temporary immigration to further train more of those populations to develop institutions & infrastructure in their homelands.
This only works if all native populations in their homelands get to self-determined.
It will also require the establishment of explicitly multi-ethnic regions/countries as well
It's just HUMANS undergoing WORLD conditions. Conservatives find this idea so impossible to understand. We all just have different history, but there is never something one human can do that another can't eventually do.
Yes the reasons for the flynn effect are unknown
@@DOOMZEDAY define "eventually"
the average 85 IQ person would need several hundred(thousand?) years to slowly plod their way to being able to design a modern electric car.
Humans have differences.
Shot Put competitions have been running for hundreds of years.
to this day, the women still throw a weight that his half as heavy just to barely get up to the same distances that men throw with a heavier weight.
at the Olympic level. the humans who are trying the very hardest to get as good as they can at a thing.
so... you're just wrong.
It is the High-IQ being ganged against, at both individual and collective level.
High and low both because they are abnormalities.The world goes round because of the middle section. They are the flowing river.
@@0live0wire0 Only the High-IQ ones make the critical differences, in progress, maintenance, innovation and management. "donkeys to carry loads" there's always plenty - often too many.
@@zofe What a perfectly globalistic mindset, although not altogether untrue.
@@lordindigonnisvoldebeastal3796 Robert Alexander It is my own experience when growing up, when in the military, when in the automotive-industry and Prof. Peterson himself claims that high-IQ dwindles - exactly in a period when it is needed the most. *Feudalism is the dumber of the population - corralling them into vassalage. The Feudal are also the TBTF/TBTJ/TPTB i.e. the globalists.*
The High-IQ being culled are usually the Ashkenazi Jews (Ave. IQ 132 in Lithuania and 125 in Hungary) in Europe for the past 90 years, and in Israel last 50 years via "melting-pot" aka Genus-cide (=disturbing the genetic baseline & pool).
The man is brilliant
Andrew I see his brilliance as a soul searching man; who tells it like he sees it at this point in his life. When deception is the norm, it's refreshing to hear someone speak the truths he has gleaned.
Win as if you are used to it. Lose as if you enjoyed it for a change.
I have a question. Where'd you get that suit? I didn't know Robert Hall was still in business.
at 10:03 what does he mean by "positively counterproductive"?
When you challenge a genius to answer to you in a question and the amount of data folded within the answer is more than your capacity ...WOW . I am not entirely sure if all those people understood all of it , but i certainly hope so a big percentage did manage .
Jordan is awesome !!!!
As an IQ researcher, with publications (unlike Jordan Peterson), just wanted to let you know he doesn't know what he is talking about, hasn't published anything with research since the 90s really, and is rattling off nonsense numbers which you can tell as he leaves out any accompanying statistical conventions that would give those numbers meaning. He even misuses the very operationalised word, in statistics anyways, "significant" repeatedly. The use of research conducted on former slaves who were not allowed to learn to read is also absurd, this stuff was debunked with the nazis after WWII. Not for folks like you and JP, I guess. I would argue it's a science literacy thing, you can have a golden tongue and also be wrong. I think it's a shame JP didn't find a better calling, he's clearly out of his depth with psychology. It's telling no other real universities want to hire him. I guess liberty university would, but I doubt he wants that hahaha.
He would make a great engineer techno-babbling as a star trek actor, but scientist with a grasp on IQ research he is not.
@@jesipohl6717Aren’t you full of yourself! Go troll somewhere else.
Would you mind to share some publications? I would love to read some of your work.
• Dude-bro: *asks question*
• JP: *rambles on for 20 minutes*
• Dude-bro: *sitting there like a statue with a mic in his hand*
I suggest you to watch this video multiple times if you have to . There is a small chance that your brain might comprehend what just happened there , how significant that dialogue was .
Mabuse: I don't like what's being said, so I put my head under the sand and pretend it's incomprehensible. 5 years later: Mabuse: Allahu Akbar.
Interesting. I would like to hear his opinion on environmental stress and it’s affect in elevating cortisol levels in the body and the depressing effect it has on the developing brain. Permanent affects as early as age 4.
I could fill books about my 4 year old son. He had a file the size of a NY phone book I was told he may out grow the antisocial behavior, maybe . Years later, my son told me, "I could understand
what might happen to me" (social worker wanted to put him in a home ) "But I just couldn't stop"
He finally calmed down by the time he was in his thirtys....a physical illness killed him
I'm amazed at how quickly and nicely he can formulate a response to a question like that. I would stutter, hesitate, backtrack, go on tangents, contradict myself and so on. But Mr Peterson just delivers an almost perfect response just like that.
That was awsome. First the summary of the Topic pro-con and than the question where Peterson really has to think of. The Interviewer is really gifted. I would like to know the names of those which worked out and the University of this think tank. It is quiet extraordinary. I got a lot of information about IQ in 20 min. that I am totally astonished. I listened twice to get it all .
If other attributes (height weight etc..) can be attributed to racial and genetic differences, why can't intelligence?
Because its not "nice" or politically correct?
Science is NOT about being nice or politically correct....it about finding out the scientific truth wherever that lends up.
I wouldn't bothered responding to a 99% statement / 1% question...I'd say "would you like to ask a question"?
Exactly what a waste of everyone's time!
Not every interaction needs to be stated as a question. The host presented him with a situation and asked him what his thoughts were on the topic. By giving context, he helped people participate in the conversation who are less versed on the topic.
So what is the answer for people below IQ 83 in complex societies? What should these people do?
watteffer Jr become a rapper?
Eugenics
If we assume that getting rid of them at an early age is not ethically acceptable as it would involve an industrial scale mass execution of children we only really have one choice. We just have to accept they'll be a drain on society and give them extremely simple jobs that even they can do. The cost of keeping these jobs will be higher than the value of what they produce, but it's still better than just funneling money to them. No private company will want to burden itself with providing these jobs, so either they'll have to be given tax incentives or there will have to be special public companies designed specifically to provide such jobs.
There is no good solution. There is only a least bad solution.
But, isnt there a way to increase IQ of those under 83 over time?
watteffer Jr your asking the wrong question. The 75-83 folks need a dragatus type solution. The below 75 need another. They'll fuck up and if society is to stay afloat the below 75 population needs...social workers, jails, and shelters.
Complexity and smoothness of his speech are most impressive.
Somebody has a mancrush
Lol true. No homo
sorting by newest gave me a boost in serotonin
This video is eye opening for me. Thank you Jordan.
What an exhilarating and almost (well in the end much I believe) philosophical discussion, the contrast that occurs when he's on the one hand stating that from a usefulness standpoint you can't do anything with 10% of the population and on the other hand highlighting that intelligence mustn't correlate with human value is just too interesting to think about..
The question was should we discuss average differences in IQ that appear among different races of people. I think he talked about everything else for almost 20 minutes except answering the actual question. He starts out with a story then goes into explaining to us what an IQ test is. Then discussed its Validity and its Probability determine an individual's success throughout their lifetime. Finally wraps it up With a warning about IQ not being the measure of a man, But in all of that he never actually answers the question
Yes, he did. He realized that inherent in the original question was a lack of the definition of I.Q…. Instead of just giving an answer that would cause chaos, he provided a true definition for what I.Q. actually is based upon his very own research - and then when he feels satisfied that everyone comprehends where his answer is coming from, THEN he provides his position to the question at the end… because if he had simply said what he said at the last minute, then they would have seen him as pandering; but now that they have been educated as to his view of I.Q., they can comprehend his response.
Gatekeeper Peterson, who wants you to have the cognitive dissonance that Haiti is just as good as Switzerland because, you know, humans have value regardless of IQ lol
I am sure Dr. Peterson knows that to discuss what has been found in overall differences in IQ between different races is absolute career and social suicide. Look at what happened to Dr. Charles Murray and the first intelligencs researcher who faced severe repurcussions way back in 1969 for his work. The most incendiary topic of all time is group differences in IQ...unless you study IW differences between Atheists and Christians. In which case, the average IQ of Atheists if higher than the average IQ of Christians. 😊
I too can't argue with the logic. Although I would rather find a way to make more of our population wealthier. The only way I have found is to reduce tax burden (as much as is feasible) across the board. I would like to hear you talk about your ideas about how people around the world can raise their individual responsibilities and carry the weight than most of our middle and upper class are covering.
The only thing that ameliorates that is giving up the anger. And that leads to the cause(s) of the anger. And who wants that question asked?
When I cleaned houses in Palo Alto, [Stanford University], Dr Fredick Terman III [Radio Engineering genius] residence was one of my accounts. Because we had a common interest in Ham Radio, we conversed a bit. His father, Dr Fredick Terman II, wrote the first IQ tests and sold them to the California School System / Districts. Dr Fredick III told me that his father estimated there were 72 "areas" he could have tested IQ in but choose only 3! But Dr Terman III was stern in telling me to ignore whatever IQ I was rated at. lol As a bone-headed JC student working part time at Intel, it was nice to hear that. LOL So I have to read it twice, big deal! lol
5:20 NO! "There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Nogi Deker - one of the best comments I’ve ever seen.
I was totally thinking that.
JBP looks like he needs a huge vacation.
In light of his recent trip to rehab, that’s exactly what he’s getting.
I.Q tests focus on shapes and patterns more so than academic knowledge. A chess game essentially. What's your next move or moves within specific boundaries and pieces.
The better versions are far deeper than that. I was once tested by 2 psychologists simultaneously for over 6 hours for an IQ test.
However, simply knowing information has little to do with actual intelligence other than ones ability to do so quickly/easily and relate said information with other relevant data.
So a 2 year old who is born from a teenage mother, who fed a steady diet of sugar, and doesn't nurture the child, is going to score as well on the test as a child from a privileged background who eats clean food and who has a 24-hour caregiver? Hell, your cognitive performance is impacted by hunger too. A hungry kids vs a full kid. Were you rested? You may think that these issues don't play themselves out on a large enough scale to impact the reliability but I would argue that they do. I'd argue that a lack of access to opportunity, Healthcare, housing, stable food supply impacts entire demographics because of the eaves and ability is what you can't discriminate and deny access to such services.
You see how the circumstances could impact the results? Not to mention, if the test itself is actually biased because it was created by certain group. Very similar to how we are seeing racial bias in artificial intelligence because the people who created it import their racial bias. Funny how that works?
I think the takeaway from this video is if you ask a question sometimes the answer is not what you want...
"Are you as educated as you are intelligent " ....another awesome Peterson quote
I think the closing statement is the key takeaway: every person and every group has a part to play, even if that part is not rocket science.
I have been around a lot of smart people with little heart, and dumb people with lots of it....which would you rather hang out with?
The closing statement was simply that being unable to perform more complicated tasks doesn't make you less of a person than those that can.
The question he was answering is: what do you think of the differences in average IQ when comparing races. He responded: race is hard to define, there are cultures with statistically significant higher averages BUT that ability to do things better doesn't make them objectively better people altogether. It's actually so ingrained in our world that it's difficult to express in words.
for me, the key takeaway in IQ discussion is: do the most you can with what you have. we're all blessed - or cursed - with whatever genetics we get from birth.
Sounds like "the world needs ditch diggers too" to me. Someone's going to take that different parts to play idea and conclude their race gets the good parts and the other race gets the bad parts.
"Having a high IQ makes you better at 'complex things' ... and doesn't imply that intelligent people are of more value than less intelligent. That's a really interesting subject ... I was a software engineer for 15 years prior to being layed off work and ending up working the midnight shift in a factory assembly line to make ends meet. I can state without question that my arguably higher ability to do complex work did not manifest itself as me being better at doing menial work ... quite the opposite really. And the somewhat surprising thing was that that a significant amount of fairly intelligent people ... that just did not have the higher education for whatever reason .... People often mistake uneducated for unintelligent ... nope, not the same thing.... but i digress...
Man... Are... You... Really... Sure... that 15 yrs of software development prove your higher intelligence? "Stating it without question" will help you to work out the answer.
Mimimi it’s pretty hard to stay employed for 15 years as a software developer if you’re not at least reasonable intelligent. But , yes, that plus a 4.0 gpa and multiple academic scholarships would suggest I’m capable of doing fairly complex work... doesn’t make me a genius though, that for sure. Though I must say, I fail to see your point... and if there’s further doubt, I’ve been at my current job as a software developer for almost 15 years and now have a 6 figure income. But, really... you failed to grasp the main point of my post... “just because you’re more intelligent doesn’t automatically mean you’re more valuable”. My comment is in support of what Peterson says in the video...
@@jonchicoine Based on given information, i doubted that your claims about your own intelligence are true or, at least, are proven. That was my point. With more information given, it seems my guess was wrong.
True, but you were able to be hired for the manual labor job. The opposite scenario does not occur.
@@jonchicoine you’re being nice is all. It does make you more valuable you’re this smart & don’t understand the simple concept you’re smart which means you’re more likely to problem solve vs a unintelligent person who would be counter productive usually it makes u more valuable considering with a high iq you can get into architecture everything im saying is so obvious yet you virtue signal why?
IQ is tied to value.
Peterson wanted to imply moral value, but as he said, a high IQ person is more "useful" in a lot of tasks. And a person who isn't "useful" in the sense that they don't produce any valuble good or service, then they're not valuble to me.
It's troublesome to say that people are morally valuble on the basis of "because I said so," because I can just disagree.
I like Peterson's conclusions, but his reasoning to just say "value people anyway" is missing important links.
Perhaps another viewpoint would provide a foil for this. If it's not helpful, then my bad. I've been crunching through the same question that could lead to your conclusion.
So. Perhaps the question is "valuable....for what?". For making life worth living, perhaps? I know of some down syndrome kids who bring more joy than some somewhat arrogant high IQ folk I know. I also know three high IQ people who make my life better, in like emotional manner.
While I appreciate tech advances that come from IQ and related skill-produced value...I'd sooner have a friend to die with than jerk to live with; either being smarter or stupider being a secondary concern.
he can't just say whites smart blacks dumb then walk away without catastrophe can he? don't you think?
I got really confused from 19:10-
At 19:30 when ‘under-predicting group A doesn’t happen’
And then, there could be:
‘Systemic bias in the performance measures and the potential measures’
Anyone able to explain a bit for me? 🙏
That was incredible to listen too... but the end is cut off. Where can we find the end? Does he really answer the IQ question? or did the Editor not think we could handle listening to it?