Jordan Peterson

[Kozmos]

You like a prickly work environment but don't want women there? At the risk of sounding sexist - WTH??

Maybe I expressed myself poorly, I don't mind women at the workplace at all, but I like when people are direct and highly argumentative with some 'trash-talking' to foster team unity. My experienced in mixed working environments is that women most often don't do things that way. At the risk of me sounding sexist, everything turns a lot more...passive-agressive and political which I feel builds up a lot of poison in the air. At least with a honest shout match followed by drinks, the air is cleared or someone quits. Women who are not afraid to go trash talk another coworker out in the open are a treasure but oh so rare. Obviously my way of doing things is on the way out, but I'm not too sad about it. Maybe their way is better, I just know what feels better to me.

 

[Harv]

I don't know that this is a particularly surprising outcome. Cognitive ability does require some contextual knowledge of the questions asked still. Also, in addition to motivation score can change based on the individual's condition (rest/sickness/medical conditions). No tool is perfect, but this one still has pretty good predictive value.



Should it? Broadly speaking, are countries with lower average IQ doing better or worse than countries with higher average IQs?

We know correlation doesn't meant causality. We also know that even in terms of IQ tests, you have at least some contextual knowledge requirement...without which your reasoning is impaired relative to competition. You can safely predict a low score implies at least in the short term that a person will struggle. Knowing scores can be improved (to a degree), this directly implies so can people to an extent, including reasoning around contextual knowledge that is learned later and improved health/conditions.

First of all, hi! I remember some of your Civ IV AAR's and they were awesome! I have no idea if you still play at all. I never got into Civ V or Civ VI and I'm finding it harder to play later in life.

Starting with your question about countries with lower than average IQ, the best explanation I can think of in Civ IV terms, is they are behind in tech and their cities need more Libraries, Universities, and Research Labs. The surround land needs some work, too. Then the research rate will increase, along with the average IQ.

It is noted that you used "contextual knowledge" three times.

Just in case you never read anything on the Flynn Effect, here is the Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Here is a world map of estimated IQ by country, but I know little of the source. At least the source says to interpret the results with extreme caution.
https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country

Being perfectly honest, I'm still trying to put the pieces together. The factors I see in play are widespread education, many more people with high school diplomas and university degrees. We are also further removed from the farms, handling less equipment and more smart phones. Also, board games have become much more sophisticated! I saw a video where Flynn explains his theory, saying that today's people are much more open to the hypothetical than people from 100 years ago, and therefore perform better on IQ tests.

Regarding your comment that it is safe to predict that a low score implies that a person will struggle, JP is more blunt about it. He was listing common occupations by IQ range. When he got to less than 85, he said the problem is there is not much we can do with them, as far as finding an occupation goes. I just question if an average person from a country with an average IQ less than 85 will have the same kind of struggle upon moving to the USA. I have the same kind of question if you grab a normal kid from 1932, where the average IQ is 80 based on the 1997 scale. I wonder if IQ scales should be relative to country and time period.

Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article says the gains seem to be slowing down and most of the gains were in the lower end - and that would suggest improvements in basic needs and education and infrastructure.

Thanks for the response!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Regarding your comment that it is safe to predict that a low score implies that a person will struggle, JP is more blunt about it. He was listing common occupations by IQ range. When he got to less than 85, he said the problem is there is not much we can do with them, as far as finding an occupation goes. I just question if an average person from a country with an average IQ less than 85 will have the same kind of struggle upon moving to the USA. I have the same kind of question if you grab a normal kid from 1932, where the average IQ is 80 based on the 1997 scale. I wonder if IQ scales should be relative to country and time period.

Tim and I were both a little dubious on the 80-85 threshold earlier in this thread. That said, you would expect someone walking into a new culture with new background information to operate at a significant disadvantage.

I recently saw a question from the Wonderlic (this one for NFL players). One of the questions had a string of words "desert", "dessert", "flan", etc. and asked what you shouldn't eat. Since I heard the question out loud, my first thought was "none of these", until I heard desert said the second time. Mmmmm, attrition.

But let's say someone taking this test has never seen or heard of flan in his life, let alone had the opportunity to eat it. This becomes no longer a test of cognitive ability, but rather of knowledge (and in this case not particularly relevant knowledge to the occupation). Knowledge can be improved, therefore it is conceivable that someone who might get a question like that wrong (especially if it was instead four healthy foods and a junk food for example) would later get it right via learning.

Does that explain the entirety of the difference? No idea, but it's a non-trivial source of a ton of noise and implies that two scores of 85 could signify differing potentials depending on context.

As I mentioned earlier in the point, it is at least conceivable that automation can become sufficiently advanced that numbers considerably higher than 85 could find their work obsoleted. This would not be a pleasant thing if it happens suddenly/by surprise, though it does seem positive for long-term.

 

[sophie]

Well... classes tend to be a bunch of people sitting down quietly watching some person standing at the front talking about physics. It's hard to see how you could "improve" that atmosphere in a way that would attract women. Or rather, it's hard to see what it is about that atmosphere that would specifically put them off. If there were a bunch of dudebros there having bench pressing competitions maybe.

Ask a female grad student what seminar environments are like.

I've been at UChicago now for 7 months. Seminars invariably end up being sexist as hell.

 

[Lexicus]

At the risk of me sounding sexist,

Protip: whenever you find yourself saying things like this, it's best to just stop talking.

 

[cardgame]

I don't see what's so wrong about his post. Have you ever seen a female-dominated work environment with the same atmosphere as, say, a construction crew?

It's the stuff of a comedy skit because it's so outlandish. Kozmos is simply saying he prefers such a 'rougher' atmosphere. I'm working now in a place with all men with two exceptions - the receptionist/administrator/payroll figure, and another 'grunt' if you will. So, one on the work floor of about two dozen guys. She fits in just fine though.

 

[Traitorfish]

Authoritarianism explicitly refers to state power, dude.

Attila the Hun was anti-authoritarian, good to know.

Do you know *anything* about modern-day conservatism? Peterson has actually avoided emphasizing that, and I think he shouldn't. The fact that those groups have high rates of poverty, violence and crime is a direct result of an unhealthy family structure. Pointing that out is the best way to resist parts of the right who think genetics are responsible, and is the only way to actually help those groups in the long-term.

You can frame it how you please, but if your position is "white people are better than black and brown people", most people are going to call that "racism". They probably aren't going to hang around to find out if you think this superiority is genetic or cultural; after all, what you could possibly have to say to them that they haven't heard before?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I recently saw a question from the Wonderlic (this one for NFL players). One of the questions had a string of words "desert", "dessert", "flan", etc. and asked what you shouldn't eat. Since I heard the question out loud, my first thought was "none of these", until I heard desert said the second time. Mmmmm, attrition.

But let's say someone taking this test has never seen or heard of flan in his life, let alone had the opportunity to eat it. This becomes no longer a test of cognitive ability, but rather of knowledge (and in this case not particularly relevant knowledge to the occupation). Knowledge can be improved, therefore it is conceivable that someone who might get a question like that wrong (especially if it was instead four healthy foods and a junk food for example) would later get it right via learning.

Especially if it was four healthy foods and a junk food...which of course would make it an entirely different question. An intelligent person never slows down to ponder what 'flan' might be, they know immediately that it is a dessert from the context and that the crux of the question lies in the two choices that are one letter apart; desert and dessert. They only need to bounce that choice off of 'not edible,' which is presented in the question, or recognize that any of the other choices are desserts.

The Wonderlic is designed to take advantage of the reality that what tests measure better than anything else is accumulated test taking skill. The faster your mind works the more of that skill you are likely to accumulate through a lifetime of test taking. At the heart of that design is a really hard time barrier. Anyone who spends time pondering what flan might be is going to short themselves at the end and it will show in their score, which is the purpose of that question.

 

[cardgame]

time-based tests are biased beyond comparison w.r.t. reading speed as well, just wanted to make that point.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

time-based tests are biased beyond comparison w.r.t. reading speed as well, just wanted to make that point.

No doubt...however I suspect that a very strong case could be made that reading speed correlates very well with intelligence.

 

[Kozmos]

Protip: whenever you find yourself saying things like this, it's best to just stop talking.

So cryptosexism is better than regular sexism? At least this way people get to yell at me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So cryptosexism is better than regular sexism? At least this way people get to yell at me.

Credit where credit is due, this is an excellent question.

 

[aelf]

Granted, I'm sure many will use what he says to justify their own beliefs, e.g. stretching Peterson's views on average gender differences in interest and personalities to justify a belief that men are inherently superior or something. Peterson is quite strongly anti-authoritarian, though, and I don't think there's much in what he says that could sustain the far right as a movement.

Oh yes, he's a fad in the far-right cultural struggle for sure. But it's a dangerous fad because of his seeming moderateness. He's a bridge between the far-right and moderates, a useful tool in chipping away moderate resistance towards the far-right and converting moderates into staunch opponents of the left. This is an ongoing process, but he's been good at helping it along.

 

[Mouthwash]

This is relatively unimportant but this is a good example of the kind of thing @Traitorfish is talking about with "soft Holocaust denial" (at least I think it is, correct me if I'm wrong)

No. Soft-core Holocaust denial is suggesting that things like Holocaust day or Holocaust education aren't necessary because just as many other people died somewhere else.

1) You were being flippant here?

2) Even being flippant about this topic suggests bad things

I was talking about Two-Spirits and Hijras and you bring up concentration camps? And expect a serious response?

Yes, lots of things can happen. Without any examination of what actually has happened, though, your statement is utterly meaningless.

Given how strong the ideology of today's conservatives mimics that of Buckley, I see no reason to assume the two are significantly different. Especially as the Trump presidency has revealed how pretextual that ideology really was for a large majority of conservatives.

So finally it's "conservatives are racist because I think so."

You can frame it how you please, but if your position is "white people are better than black and brown people", most people are going to call that "racism". They probably aren't going to hang around to find out if you think this superiority is genetic or cultural; after all, what you could possibly have to say to them that they haven't heard before?

So you think this is racist against Scots-Irish? Because I don't see how judging the behaviors of various cultural, ethnic and ancestral groups based on their origins is okay unless it's applied to black people.

 

[Harv]

what tests measure better than anything else is accumulated test taking skill.

This is quoted out of context, but there is a lot of truth to this! I was going to extend this to the education system in general.

Also, hi! I have been away for a long while.

Something I did learn rather recently is that test anxiety and stress are very real, especially if the stakes are high. A few weeks ago, I found this test online and I tried it and my heart was in my throat. At stake was my ego.

When I was a kid, I was very good at taking tests.

time-based tests are biased beyond comparison w.r.t. reading speed as well, just wanted to make that point.

I have to agree with this too, to some extent. The rest, I'm going to have to ponder for a while.

Time-based debates are biased beyond comparison! What is the difference between a live debate and a forum debate? On the forum, I can read what you write and sleep on it, and come up with some kind of counter point in the morning.

If I am presented with a test question, I must answer this question within the next hour or two. In real life, I might have a week to think about it or more. So the test might be measuring how well I have memorized material or how well I can imitate a procedure, without necessarily measuring real knowledge. However, the way we do education right now, it is a necessary evil.

I'm not sure how much of this makes sense.

No doubt...however I suspect that a very strong case could be made that reading speed correlates very well with intelligence.

What are we really trying to measure with an intelligence test?

One part of it is a sample of accumulated knowledge and the ability to apply it to a sample of questions. Another part of it is how quickly does a person acquire new skills.

I'm rambling a bit.

 

[metalhead]

So finally it's "conservatives are racist because I think so."

No, conservatives are racist because they act so. They claim ideological roots that are so. They support policies which are so.

"Progress" in the United States has a relatively narrow definition. Being an opponent of that pretty much requires being an opponent of racial equality. So you tell me how it's not racist to oppose progress towards racial equality, as conservatives affirmatively declare they are doing? Seems textbook to me.

 

[Mouthwash]

Oh yes, not wanting others to disrespect your nation's flag is definitely caused by hating black people.

 

[inthesomeday]

Oh yes, not wanting others to disrespect your nation's flag is definitely caused by hating black people.

Pretty much yeah

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh yes, not wanting others to disrespect your nation's flag is definitely caused by hating black people.

Ever been to a major sporting event? Ever noticed that the conservatives didn't get their panties in a bunch over all the people who choose the national anthem as a good time to grab a snack at the snack bar? Ever notice that the conservatives didn't get their panties in a bunch over all the people who figure the national anthem is played before the game starts so they have time to duck in a restroom and take a crap? Ever notice that the conservatives didn't get their panties in a bunch over all the people who sit through the national anthem reading their program, talking to their date, picking their noses, and whatever else crosses their minds to do?

But suggest that you are trying to bring attention to black people being murdered by the criminal justice system during the national anthem? Instant panty wad! Not at OUR game! How DARE you?

 

[Arwon]

I don't really understand why Peterson continues being talked about. He's just some random prof. Those who did not like what he said threw him into the spotlight, and they continue talking about him all while saying "he shouldn't be in the spotlight"

huh

He did a tour of basically every Australian media outlet, I don't think it's his opponents who are the ones publicising him.