Jordan Peterson

[Kozmos]

I think what everyone is overseeing really is the conclusion to the IQ-debate which, like it or not, is eugenics. A society that puts productivity and usefulness as their foremost pursuits will always leave those behind that don't fit the societal norm of "useful". The example I gave earlier is highly revealing I think. What do we do with people who, according to Petersons logic, do more harm than they do good? The implication is obvious, I think. And this is how Peterson perfectly fits into that niche of intelligence professionals like there are so many:

from Blumenbach, Cuvier, Humboldt to Rushton, Jensen and Gould, Peterson is merely the logical conclusion to this line of thought. Note that while scientists like Jensen and Rushton constantly push their agenda that, for example, sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ in the low 80s, meaning they, on average, are very close to "mentally deficient" in terms of intelligence, they never offer any solution. Why could that be? Why is there never the idea of helping these people? Their conclusions have already been drawn tacitly. Of course someone with a tenure from a respected university cannot easily come out and ask for the sterilization of entire southern Africa, but that is what they are driving toward. Note: I have done my own research and found vastly different (higher) numbers for IQ in sub-saharan Africans, but I wanted to represent Jensen et al the way they represent themselves.

I don't know man. From what I've heard him tell of it in his stories of clinical practice and training, he sounded like he was more for employing those 'low IQ' people in any kind of jobs, simply because it makes them feel better, even if they aren't necessarily as efficient as other people. I also remember him saying people on the left need to be listened to because income inequality is a problem. The bulk of peoples issues with him is his stance on the role of men/women in society and siding on the 'biology is king' side of the aisle.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

He does, though. He refuses to use trans people’s pronouns, propagates the two genders myth, and opposes the advancement of trans rights.

I can't pretend to have heard ever word he's ever uttered, but refusing to use trans people's pronouns and refusing to allow the state to make it the law that he MUST do that (even if he's erroneous in that belief) are not the same thing. In fact I'm sure when he's been challenged with that he's directly said that it's not something he'd refuse, or does refuse, to do. If you have seen him state something to the contrary to that I'd be interested to see it. The "advancement of trans rights" is quite a broad term and could mean any number of things. What you see as the advancement of trans rights, he may see as the trampling of civil liberties (see above example). As for the two genders myth - I don't think he denies that there are not more than two genders, or that gender can't be seen in that way, he just states that the vast majority of people identify with one of two genders, and that these genders show a strong correlation with biological sex, which is clearly true.

 

[Traitorfish]

Liberalism is a right-wing ideology.

As a left-liberal I find this conceptual scheme to be entirely ridiculous

Hot take: leftism is right-wing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hot take: leftism is right-wing.

Except for extreme leftism, which extreme leftists believe is the only leftism, since everyone else is to their right.

 

[Traitorfish]

Except for extreme leftism, which extreme leftists believe is the only leftism, since everyone else is to their right.

Pfft, the extreme left is centrist at best. "Workers' state", what's next, "workers' capitalism"?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Workers Free-Market Corporate Bourgeois Fiefdom!

 

[Kyriakos]

Pfft, the extreme left is centrist at best. "Workers' state", what's next, "workers' capitalism"?

"Dictatorship of the proletariat"

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I mean bits that turn me off are mainly that you need religion to have morality...

That's not exactly harmless when you consider that there are people who genuinely believe that only Catholic schools turn out kids with morals, and therefore mandatory prayer needs to be brought back in to ALL schools, no matter which system they're in - Catholic, public, alternative, or home schooling. If you get enough of such people into the political system and their party gets elected, you could find the provincial school curriculum being revised to push this agenda.

Of course nowadays it wouldn't pass a Charter challenge, but that's never stopped any government from trying to push an agenda.

It's worth noting that religious organizations seem to get away with a lot of instances of violating the Charter rights of pregnant women and LGBT people, and when they're called on it, they point to the Charter under "freedom of religion" and assert that their Charter rights give them the right to violate others' Charter rights. How is this moral?

What exactly does a 150 IQ even mean

It means that the person is good at taking IQ tests. I've pulled off 150+ a couple of times... but a lot of the questions were similar to ones in the Dell Variety Puzzle Books I've done for decades (used to keep one tucked away in my binder in high school, so during the 2-minute break in our 2-hour classes, I'd pull out my book and do a math or word puzzle).

I'm good at some things, mediocre at others, and hopeless at a lot of other stuff. So is every person on the planet.

 

[Yeekim]

What do we do with people who, according to Petersons logic, do more harm than they do good? The implication is obvious, I think.

Your entire post feels like an argument made in such a bad faith I really can't wrap my head around this.

The guy points out a fact* and you conclude, "ergo, he secretly wishes to commit genocide by sterilization". WTH?

*It can be debated whether it is a fact, i.e. whether people with IQ of 80 can be gainfully employed or not. However, you aren't saying he is wrong, you're saying it must be taboo to mention it, no matter the truth value of this statement.
This is a horrible stance which imho puts you in a morally indefensible position. It implies that people should be lied to, because they can't be expected to handle truth. It also implies you don't wish to risk making an argument that people have worth beyond their economic utility, so you attempt to preempt the whole argument with a false dogma.
With a lot of people increasingly worried (and with a good reason) about whether those of us with perfectly normal IQ are going to be "productive" enough to support themselves in a generation or so, we urgently need a solution to this problem.
And this false dogma comes in the way of finding that solution.

EDIT: To be clear, I know nothing about Peterson, except I watched that one video where some interviewer was constantly trying to put words into his mouth.

 

[aelf]

*It can be debated whether it is a fact, i.e. whether people with IQ of 80 can be gainfully employed or not. However, you aren't saying he is wrong, you're saying it must be taboo to mention it, no matter the truth value of this statement.
This is a horrible stance which imho puts you in a morally indefensible position. It implies that people should be lied to, because they can't be expected to handle truth.

The same can be said of a racist, sexist, etc. claims. Unless you're arguing that no claim is not worth making...

 

[Lexicus]

This is a horrible stance which imho puts you in a morally indefensible position.

Somehow seems like it's less morally indefensible than literally designating swaths of the population unemployable subhumans.

 

[warpus]

Why don't we stick to what the man actually said, and not what we "think the conclusions therefore should be" ?

 

[Kyriakos]

Why don't we stick to what the man actually said, and not what we "think the conclusions therefore should be" ?

Like Synsensa said - and others said in so many words/inferred - one really has reason to intuitively dislike a person who tries to claim that he has high iq and thus is something of importance.
Iq tests, indeed, can be said to mean something only if one is not familiar enough with them (ie knows what they are about -- particularly in the spacial math questions). If one does tests and has read their logic, they can score a high mark like 150 without that requiring so high actual iq.
From his videos it seems he is some kind of mildly articulate person, who is a legend in his own mind. He is certainly no genius. Let's not reach the ignoble point where Peterson can be presented as a genius ^^ Guy wrote a self-help book, and then (apparently) a theoretical treaty on some very spacious theme on psychology (how the brain works, tied to myths etc). I will try to find some article of his, but everything i read/saw of him does not allow the conclusion he is something good.

 

[warpus]

Who cares about his IQ? You make it sound like this guy shows up at your house at 6am, plays something annoying on a trumpet, and in a loud voice announces that he has a super yuge IQ

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Say what you like about the accuracy and meaningfulness of IQ tests, but I find it really weird to hold the position that deducing IQ from how well you think someone speaks in some videos is somehow MORE accurate.

 

[Kyriakos]

Who cares about his IQ?

Well, here is one who does:

@Manfred: sure, i suppose you can claim that psychiatry is wrong in deducing many elements of intellect from speech tone and other speech traits. Peterson is a psychologist, so i am not sure he would readily dismiss this way of thinking, though. So i am in good or bad company, already, but either way, your point isn't a good one.
Although - given we are nearing web tv discussion with this - my point, again, is not a thesis by itself. I did note that this a standard examination, ie speech traits (and NOT solely how elaborate speech is itself; ie my point was not about his speech re whether it is elaborate or not) are examined in regards to how one is thinking.

 

[Yeekim]

Somehow seems like it's less morally indefensible than literally designating swaths of the population unemployable subhumans.

1) There obviously is a level of IQ below which one won't be able to work productively. With a lot of simpler jobs being lost to automation, this level is probably slowly climbing.
2) The above does not merit calling such people "subhumans" (WTH?), nor does it mean they are "unemployable". It might for example make good sense to pay subsidies to those willing to employ them, so they can be empowered and earn a fraction of their "upkeep".
3) Again, with advancement of AI and robotics, we might live to see the day this applies to people with completely normal IQ, which might lead to complete overhaul of our economic system as we know it.
EDIT: Apparently 80 is considered "dull" but starting point of "normal"'.

@aelf If one makes a racist or sexist claim, surely it is normal to explain how and why the claim is wrong, or at least irrelevant, rather than go: "Shh! You're not supposed to mention it!".

 

[Manfred Belheim]

but either way, your point isn't a good one.

I think it is. You're deducing his IQ (or at least some sort of upper limit on it) based on how you rate his public speaking skills from a few videos. That's just silly. It's particularly silly that you think this method trumps formal IQ tests.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think it is. You're deducing his IQ (or at least some sort of upper limit on it) based on how you rate his public speaking skills from a few videos. That's just silly. It's particularly silly that you think this method trumps formal IQ tests.

Well, a symbol you don't know can easily come across as silly too. I am sure it won't take you long to google psychiatry and speech, and find info on this, cause it is a well-known view and in practice - in fact it is one of the main practices in that field. In this case, indeed, the unknown symbol is perfectly established and known elsewhere.

 

[Yeekim]

Well, a symbol you don't know can easily come across as silly too. I am sure it won't take you long to google psychiatry and speech, and find info on this, cause it is a well-known view and in practice - in fact it is one of the main practices in that field. In this case, indeed, the unknown symbol is perfectly established and known elsewhere.

So your research into Kafka now makes you a qualified practitioner on the field of psychology and psychiatry? Color me impressed.