Jordan Peterson

[Hygro]

You think you know others' IQ by an ability to metagame what makes a smart person.

 

[Lexicus]

Hating Jordan Peterson is an agenda point of at least an ideology group or two and I'm still trying to sort out why.

Well, his insistence on not calling trans people by their pronouns is gratuitous nastiness of the sort that quite naturally produces lots of ill will.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Tldr, Tim, if probability was adapted IRL one-to-one, you'd get half heads and half tails for every even number of coin throws. But because it is probability, it works for a vast number of attempts, ie not 700, not 1 million, not even 300 million. Of course more parameters can be added, but afaik in the case of iq there isn't some clear groups of parameters you can then use probability with - at which point you'd also have issues with adapting the result to the irl event.

Now I will gloat some more.

IQ is the parameter. The probability of a given randomly selected individual having an IQ of 150+ is one in a thousand, or .999 against. If you have two people the chance that both will be not 150+ is .999 squared. For any sized group the probability that none of them will be 150+ is .999 raised to that power.

DO THE MATH.

 

[Kyriakos]

You think you know others' IQ by an ability to metagame what makes a smart person.

How one speaks is indicative of thinking ability; not something which is in contention, it is also why in (eg) therapy one pays attention not just to what the patient says, but any phenomenon tied to it (tone, speed, pauses etc etc).

Now I will gloat some more.

IQ is the parameter. The probability of a given randomly selected individual having an IQ of 150+ is one in a thousand, or .999 against. If you have two people the chance that both will be not 150+ is .999 squared. For any sized group the probability that none of them will be 150+ is .999 raised to that power.

DO THE MATH.

You gloat with no reason; the math and the IRL event are not tied in a one-by-one basis; namely probability requires a very large number of tries or a group of very large size, if it is going to correspond IRL numerically to the same result.
I even gave you an easy to try example. Try using a coin flip, and see if in a few attempts you will get 50% heads or the progression if you prefer.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How one speaks is indicative of thinking ability; not something which is in contention, it is also why in (eg) therapy one pays attention not just to what the patient says, but any phenomenon tied to it (tone, speed, pauses etc etc).

Speech can be trained. High IQ implies easier training. But Good speech can be trained into lower IQ candidates, it just requires more effort by them and their instructors. Similarly, high IQ coupled with lack of interest and/or lack of instruction will not produce quality speech.

 

[Kyriakos]

Speech can be trained. High IQ implies easier training. But Good speech can be trained into lower IQ candidates, it just requires more effort by them and their instructors. Similarly, high IQ coupled with lack of interest and/or lack of instruction will not produce quality speech.

I am not referring to his speech being good or not. I mentioned his tone. A person can be a genius and stutter, for example, or appear perplexed for a number of mental reasons. I actually was noting his rather mundane tone; though i hope you don't require a printed thesis on my assumption.

 

[Hygro]

You gloat with no reason; the math and the IRL event are not tied in a one-by-one basis; namely probability requires a very large number of tries or a group of very large size, if it is going to correspond IRL numerically to the same result.
I even gave you an easy to try example. Try using a coin flip, and see if in a few attempts you will get 50% heads or the progression if you prefer.

IQ is normalized to 100. A standard deviation is 15. Above 150 IQ is ~3.5 standard deviations, or 0.0004 times the population.

A random roll of the dice would say that any random person will not have an IQ above 150.

Who you watch in a global media environment is not a function of that roll of that dice.

I am not referring to his speech being good or not. I mentioned his tone. A person can be a genius and stutter, for example, or appear perplexed for a number of mental reasons. I actually was noting his rather mundane tone; though i hope you don't require a printed thesis on my assumption.

Kyriakos now judges someone's intelligence by his own reaction to that person's vocal tone. Particularly, how not mundane the tone sounds to his ear.

 

[Synobun]

Speech is largely a physical talent. IQ has little bearing on it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You gloat with no reason; the math and the IRL event are not tied in a one-by-one basis; namely probability requires a very large number of tries or a group of very large size, if it is going to correspond IRL numerically to the same result.
I even gave you an easy to try example. Try using a coin flip, and see if in a few attempts you will get 50% heads or the progression if you prefer.

Why would I use your "easy example" when I could present the ACTUAL MATH. What I prefer is that you DO THE MATH. Or just accept the result.

 

[Kyriakos]

IQ is normalized to 100. A standard deviation is 15. Above 150 IQ is ~3.5 standard deviations, or 0.0004 times the population.

A random roll of the dice would say that any random person will not have an IQ above 150.

Who you watch in a global media environment is not a function of that roll of that dice.

Kyriakos now judges someone's intelligence by his own reaction to that person's vocal tone. Particularly, how not mundane the tone sounds to his ear.

Just take the 'like' and go away
/meh, you people fight with little urge, and even less will to identify what supposedly triggered your antagonistic sentiment.
Fine, next time i make a claim i will either produce a thesis to back it, or just also say that my iq is in excess of 150.

At Tim: you aren't funny.

 

[Hygro]

and even less will to identify what supposedly triggered your antagonistic sentiment.

How would you even know what thoughts I have outside my post?

Or rather, why would I share, "man, I really like a lot of what JP has to say, particularly as his words relate to both what we discuss on this forum (civilization and its people) as well we personally who discuss here, and we have a slow brewing discussion about JP about to happen, we just need the right triggering video, and here comes hipster Kyriakos always trying to position himself for himself, taking a weaker and uninteresting video where he answers a personal audience question as our starting point for a JP consideration is a most disappointing fashion, spoiling the potential for the better thread that was days to weeks away. Good thing the end of this weak OP was the weakest part, where he compares a 150 IQ to Einstein, dumb on so many levels [for brevities sake I will exclude those that crossed my mind], that I will take my annoyance and highlight the mistakes made in the OP. Now that I have that out of the way, I shall proceed to pin-poke your balloon." when I could just skip to the pin-poke and talk about how it's not weird that someone like Jordan Peterson could have a high IQ.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Be the pin, @Hygro, be the pin.

 

[Kyriakos]

How would you even know what thoughts I have outside my post?

Or rather, why would I share, "man, I really like a lot of what JP has to say, particularly as his words relate to both what we discuss on this forum (civilization and its people) as well we personally who discuss here, and we have a slow brewing discussion about JP about to happen, we just need the right triggering video, and here comes hipster Kyriakos always trying to position himself for himself, taking a weaker and uninteresting video where he answers a personal audience question as our starting point for a JP consideration is a most disappointing fashion, spoiling the potential for the better thread that was days to weeks away. Good thing the end of this weak OP was the weakest part, where he compares a 150 IQ to Einstein, dumb on so many levels [for brevities sake I will exclude those that crossed my mind], that I will take my annoyance and highlight the mistakes made in the OP. Now that I have that out of the way, I shall proceed to pin-poke your balloon." when I could just skip to the pin-poke and talk about how it's not weird that someone like Jordan Peterson could have a high IQ.

You sound douchey there, bro. Have it your way, and by all means, defend the seriousness of discussion on cfc ot. Accept my sincere apologies for straying from it, yet sometimes i opt to discuss matters i find serious outside this forum, and also post matters i find funny in this forum.
Maybe in the future you will have another place to be serious; but if not, well, at least you will be a force for the betterment of this game's off-topic

 

[Hygro]

"This guy sounds dumb. No way he has rare IQ"
"It would make sense he could have rare IQ"
"You don't know your triggers"
"These were my triggers, I still chose to address you at face value"
"I was joking"

 

[Kyriakos]

+1, forum improvement unlocked, well done Hyg
Maybe there is a place you can get feedback or share those, eg trade for circling activity?

 

[Synobun]

"This guy sounds dumb. No way he has rare IQ"
"It would make sense he could have rare IQ"
"You don't know your triggers"
"These were my triggers, I still chose to address you at face value"
"I was joking"

Just wait until you get hit with the "ehm, I don't care about this anyways" zinger.

 

[Kyriakos]

Just wait until you get hit with the "ehm, I don't care about this anyways" zinger.

You are pulling our leg now; it is known that one has to care about something so as to start a thread about it. Come on, play fair, else it is a travesty and uncool.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hating Jordan Peterson is an agenda point of at least an ideology group or two and I'm still trying to sort out why.

El_Mac, chatting with a family friend "The problem with Jordan Peterson is not really because of anything he's said. The problem is that fascists like him."

Family friend "I see, well, I really actually enjoyed his book"

El_Mac "As I said, fascists like him"

[cue table erupting in laughter at my sick burns]

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Be civil toward each other, or I will close the thread.

 

[Recon Rover]

The little geniuses at our universities in Ontario and Canada primarily dislike him because they equivocate his alternative opinion on a variety of subjects to advocating violence and causing actual physical harm.

Let me give everyone a little insight into how you get into university in much of Canada (which is considered a higher form of education than college).

All you need is an 80% or greater grade in university level (college level is insufficient) English in your Grade 12 year of high school. Simple as that. You've secured yourself a spot in any social science your little heart could dream of and afford.

Then there are those who enter science programs must actually have mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology university level courses taken successfully in high school.

I can't help but notice that all these people concerned about Jordan Peterson tend to be from the social sciences. And I can't help but notice the social sciences are jam packed and overcrowded. And I can't help but notice its the social science grads that are unemployed. And I can't help but notice its the social science grads with the insurmountable student debt.