Jordan Peterson – The Big IQ Controversy

Interviewer: For decades ethnic groups have on average scored significantly differently on IQ tests According to psychology professor Richard Hare, whom you interviewed on your channel- YouTube- There is no scientific consensus on the causes of these average differences in IQ test scores, yet according to Hare Psychologists do generally agree that general intelligence exists, that IQ measures it well and in a non culturally biased way, That IQ is highly predictive of success in educational and professional terms, and that for decades Ethnic groups have, on average, scored significantly differently. So, assuming this is true should we talk about it? Sam Harris raised this question in a podcast conversation with Charles Murray Some argue that we should not talk about this, as doing so could fuel the racial supremacist movements that you mentioned with potentially horrific consequences. Others, mainly on the intellectual dark web and to a very limited extent in academia, think we should talk about this topic, because average differences in IQ scores have existed for decades. They may have played a role in generating the disparate Educational and professional outcomes that we observe and care about and thus that we cannot properly analyze these disparate outcomes Unless we do talk about this subject openly. Geneticist David Reich recently argued in the New York Times that if scientists do not openly discuss the biological basis of race pseudo scientists could fill the vacuum with dangerous consequences. Furthermore, you professor Peterson are highly critical of the oppression narrative that permeates segments of the Academy and activist left, and knowledge about average differences in IQ scores between ethnic groups While tough to assimilate, could puncture this narrative. So the question is; what is your view on all that I’ve just said? Jordan: Jesus, you guys already did take a long time to prepare these questions didn’t you… All right, so When I went to Harvard, I came from the Gil and I had spent a lot of time with my Adviser there and a research team that he had Trying to understand the genesis of antisocial behavior and, Among adolescents mostly, so well as kids as well Antisocial behavior is very persistent, so if you have a child whose conduct disordered at the age of four the probability that they will be criminal at the age of fifteen or twenty is extremely high, it’s Unbelievably stable. It’s a very dismal literature, because you see these early onset aggressive kids and, And it’s persistent, and then you look at the intervention literature, And you throw up your hands because no interventions work. And believe me Psychologists have tried everything you could possibly imagine, and a bunch of things that you can’t in order to ameliorate that. So we’re really interested in trying to Understand, for example, if you’re antisocial by the age of four then there isn’t an intervention that seems to be effective. So, and The standard penological theory is really quite Horrifying in this regard because what you see is that male aggression peaks around the age of 15 And then it declines fairly precipitously and- and and sort of normalizes again by the age of 27 and standard phenological theory Essentially is this cold-hearted. It’s like, if you have a mult- if you have someone who’s a multiple offender, you just throw them in prison till they’re 27. And then they age out of it and That’s all there is to it. That’s that’s what we’ve got. Now, There’s some downside to that because there’s a corollary literature that suggests that the worst thing that you can do with antisocial people is to Group them together, which is what we do in prisons so so that’s a whole mess. Anyways, One of the things we were doing was trying to see if there might be cognitive predictors of antisocial behavior And so we used this battery of neuropsychological tests that was put together at the Montreal Neurological Institute Took about 11 hours to administer, and hypothetically assess prefrontal cortical function We computerized that and reduced it to about ninety minutes and then assessed antisocial Adolescents in- in Montreal, and found out that they did show deficits in the problem-solving ability that we associated with with prefrontal ability. Uhm… When I got to Harvard I thought well, that’s interesting We could use the neuro psych battery to predict negative behavior perhaps we could use it to predict positive behavior? So I thought; Well, what if we turned the neuropsych battery and Over and thought well can we predict grades, for example, because you know that’s a decent thing to predict so we ran a study we ran a study that looked at Harvard kids, University of Toronto kids, line workers at a Milwaukee factory and Managers and executives at the same Factory, and what we found was that the Average score across these neuropsychological tests- They were kind of like games They were game-like you know so in one in one Test you had there were five lights in the middle of the screen and a box was associated with each light And you had to learn by trial and error which box was associated with with each light. That was one of the tests So… So, We took people’s average score across the tests because they seemed to clump together into a single Structure. You can do- you can find that out statistically- if you take a bunch of tests you can find out how they clump together Statistically by looking at their patterns of correlations, and you might get multiple clumps Which is what happens with personality research where you get five or you might get a singular clump- which is what happens in cognitive research, and we got a single clump essentially. And then we were trying to figure out if at the same time I was reading the literature on performance prediction and There’s an extensive literature on performance prediction, a lot of it generated by the Armed Forces, by the way, Indicating that IQ is a very good predictor of long-term life success, and so here’s that here’s the general rule If your job is simple, which means you do the same thing every day, then IQ predicts how fast you’ll learn the job But not how well you you do it, but if your job is complex? Which means that the demands change on an ongoing basis- Then the best predictor of success is general cognitive ability. And, uh… And I learned that the general cognitive ability test clumped together into a single factor That’s fluid intelligence or IQ and then we didn’t know if the factor that we had found was the same factor as IQ And it and we still haven’t really figured out whether or not that was the case because it kind of depends on how you do The analysis. But anyways, I- I got deeply into the performance prediction literature And I found oh well if you wanted to predict people’s performance in life there’s There’s a couple of things you need to know you need to know their general cognitive ability if they’re going to do a complex job You need to know their ”trait conscientiousness”, some of you might have heard that, Rebranded as gri, in a very corrupt act, by the way, because it’s a good predictor of long-term life success. Freedom from negative emotion- low neuroticism is another predictor, but it’s sort of third on the hierarchy, and then ”Openness to experience”, which is a personality trait is associated with with expertise in creative domains. The evidence that- Now, I should tell you, there’s such a complicated question I should tell you how to make an IQ test is actually really easy And you need to know this to actually understand what IQ is, so imagine that you generated a set of 10,000 questions Okay? About anything! It could be math problems. They could be general knowledge. They could be vocabulary. They could be multiple choice. It really doesn’t matter what they’re about, as long as they require abstraction to solve so they’d be formulated Linguistically, but mathematically would also apply. And then you have those 10,000 questions, now you take a random set of a hundred of those questions and You give them to a thousand people and all you do is sum up the answers, right? From- so, some people are gonna get most of them right and some of some of them are gonna get most of them wrong you just Rank order the people in terms of their score. Correct that for age, and you have IQ. That’s all there is to it, and what you’ll find Is that no matter which random set of a hundred questions you take The people at the top of one random set will be at the top of all the others and in it with very very very High consistency, so one thing you need to know is that if any social science claims Whatsoever are correct… Then the IQ claims are correct. Because the IQ claims are more psychometrically rigorous than any other Phenomena- phenomenon, that’s been discovered by social scientists. Now the IQ literature is a dismal literature. No one likes it. Here’s why, here’s an example; So here’s a, little here’s a fun little fact for you- for liberals and conservatives alike because conservatives think there’s a job for everyone if people just get off their asses and get to work and Liberals think while you can train anyone to do anything, it’s like No! There isn’t a job for everyone, and no you can’t train everyone to do everything. That’s wrong. And here’s one of the consequences of that. So, as I mentioned the Armed Forces has done a lot of work on IQ and they started back in 1919, and the reason they did that was because, well, for obvious reasons, say let’s say there’s a war and You want to get qualified people into the officer positions as rapidly as possible, or you’ll lose. So that’s a reason. Now the Armed Forces has experimented with IQ test since 1919 and in the last 20 years A law was passed as a consequence of that analysis Which was that it was illegal to induct anyone into the Armed Forces who had an IQ of less than 83 Now the question is why and the answer was all of that effort put in by the armed forces Indicated that if you had an IQ of 83 or less there wasn’t anything that you could be trained to do in the military that Wasn’t positively counterproductive. Now you got to think about that, because the military is chronically desperate for people. Right? There- It’s not like they’re it’s not like people are lining up to be inducted, right? They have to go out and recruit. And it’s not easy and so they’re desperate to get their hands on every body they can possibly manage and then especially in wartime but also in peacetime But then there was another reason to which was the Armed Forces was also set up from a policy perspective to take people in the underclass let’s say, and Train them and move them up at least into the working class or maybe the middle class, so there’s a policy element to it too, and so even from that perspective you could see that the military is desperate to bring people in But yeah, well, with an IQ of 83 or less it’s not happening. Okay, so how many people have an IQ of 83 or less? 10%. Now, if that doesn’t If that doesn’t hurt you to hear Then you didn’t hear it properly. Because what it implies is that in a complex society like ours, and one that’s becoming increasingly complex there isn’t anything for 10% of the population to do. All right, well. What are we gonna do? We’re gonna ignore that? We’re gonna run away from that? And, huh, believe me We have every reason to. Or we’re gonna contend with the fact that we need to figure out How it is- how it is- how it might be possible to… Find a place for people on the lower end of the general cognitive distribution to take their productive and- and worthwhile place in society. And that isn’t just gonna be a matter of Dumping money down the hierarchy, because giving people who have nothing to do money isn’t helpful. It doesn’t work. It’s not that simple. Well, so that’s kind of an answer to the question of whether or not we should deal with the- with IQ forthrightly. It’s like, if you can find a flaw in that logic, like, just go right ahead It’s not like I was thrilled to death to discover all of this by no- by no stretch of the imagination was that the case. So… So what, so IQ is… Reliable and valid. That’s the first thing. It’s more reliable and valid than any other psychometric test ever designed by social scientists by a factor of about three. That’s fact number one. Fact number two is it predicts long term life outcome at about 0.3. 0.4, which leaves about 85 percent 70 to 85 percent of the story unexplained, but it’s still the best thing that we have. Well, it’s also the case that in places like Great Britain When IQ tests were first introduced they, were actually used by the Socialists, and they were used to identify poor people who had potential cognitive potential and to move them into higher Institutes of higher education, so there’s an upside, you know, a social upside as well. Ethnic differences. *Sighs* This is something you can’t say anything about without without immediately being killed. So I’m hesitant to broach the topic, but I’ll tell you one thing that I did in the last week that’s relevant to this. So the- and this just shows you how Complex the problem is. First of all, we should point out that race is a very difficult thing to define because racial boundaries aren’t tight. Right? So and so when you talk about racial differences in IQ you- you’re faced with the thorny problem of defining race And that’s a big problem from a scientific perspective, but we’ll leave that aside, and I wrote an article this week Somebody stood up at one point in one of my talks, and Vice, Bless their hearts, took this particular question and used it as an indication of the quality of the people who are my so-called Followers and by the way the quality of my so-called Followers is pretty damn high and you can find that out quite rapidly just by going looking at the YouTube comments Which are head and shoulders above what the standards said of YouTube comments, I can tell you that. *Audience laughs* So, someone asked me ab-about the ”Jewish Question”, right? And the-the Implication- it was actually someone Jewish- and the implication was that Jews are over-represented in positions of authority and power and And I- I was had just spoken for like an hour and a half And you know this guy had an axe to grind and I thought there’s no goddamn way I’m getting into this at the moment, and so I said- I said I can’t answer that question. But that’s not a very good answer, so I wrote a blog post this week, And I said look here’s the- here’s the situation all right? Jews are over-represented in positions of power and authority. But then let’s open her eyes a little bit and think for like two or three seconds and think hey guess what they’re also over-represented in positions of competence. And it’s not like we have more Geniuses than we know what to do with and if the Jews happen to be producing more of them Which they are, by the way, then that’s a pretty good thing for the rest of us? So let’s not confuse competence with power and authority. Even though that’s a favorite trick of the radical leftist, who always failed to make that distinction. Well, why does this overrepresentation occur? Because it does. It also- There’s also over-representation in political movements including Radical political movements. Okay, why? Well, answer 1: Jewish conspiracy. Okay, that’s not a very good answer. We’ve had. We’ve used that answer before Alright, but- but do we have an alternative? Well, here’s an alternative: The average Ashkenazi IQ is somewhere between 110 and 115 which is about one standard deviation Above the population average and so what that means is that the average Ashkenazi/ European Jew has an IQ that’s higher than 85% of the population That’s a lot higher. Now, that doesn’t make that much difference in the middle of the distribution okay? But geniuses don’t exist at the middle of the distribution- they exist at the tails of the distribution And you don’t need much of a move at the mean to produce Walloping differences at the tails, and the tails are important because a lot of where we draw we draw exceptional people from the exceptions, right? So, here’s an- another example of the same thing most engineers are male. Why? Because men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people and you might say, ”Well, that’s socio-cultural” It’s like no it’s not. And we know that because if you stack up countries by their- by their egalitarian social policies, which you can do, quite effectively, and then you look at the over-representation of men in STEM fields the over-representation Increases as the countries become more egalitarian. So it’s not socio-cultural. Okay, now men aren’t that much more interested in things than women, It’s one standard deviation, which is about the same difference, by the way, between the population norm and the Ashkenazi Jews. But if you’re looking at the person the one person in 20 or the one person in 50 who’s most- who’s hyper- interested in things- and thus likely to become an engineer- then most of them are men. Here’s another example of the same thing; Men are more aggressive than women. Now, you might, ask how much? An answer to that- is best place to look at that- is in Sweden where the egalitarian policies have been laid out for a long period of time and you can- you can get a more direct inference about biology. If you took a random man and a random woman out of the population and you Had to bet on who was more aggressive and you bet on the man You’d be right 60% of the time. So that’s not that much, right? It’s- it’s deviates from 50/50, but it’s not like ninety ten It’s 60/40. Okay… So? So what does that mean? Well, we got a tail problem here again. Let’s say that now you decide to go out onto the extremes of aggression and you identify the most aggressive one in a hundred persons. They’re all men. Guess who’s in prison? Those people. That’s why most of the people in prison are men. And so this is elementary. Part of the problem in our society is that we don’t understand statistics. We don’t understand that you can have relatively small differences at the population level that produce walloping consequences at the tails of the distribution Okay, so back to IQ. One final thing to say about IQ. The ethnic differences are difficult to dispense with. It’s not easy to make them go away. You can say ”Well, the tests aren’t culture fair.” Well, Here’s a test of that so imagine you you test Group A with an IQ test and you test Group B with an IQ test and then you look at their actual performance in whatever you’re predicting. If the test was biased against ethnic group A, then it would under predict their performance, and that doesn’t happen. Now you could say ”Well, there’s systemic bias in the performance measures and the potential measures”, and that’s a possibility All right. Now one other thing about that- there’s a real danger in the ethnicity IQ debate, and the- the danger is that we confuse intelligence with value. Or that we include- we- we confuse intelligence with, yeah, with human value, that’s a better way of thinking about it. And One of the things that we’re going to have to understand here is that that’s a mistake: Is that being more intelligent doesn’t make you a better person. That’s not the case. It makes you more useful for complex cognitive operations But you can be pretty damn horrific as a genius son of a bitch, right? It’s morally neutral. And we also know that from the psychometric data By the way, there doesn’t seem to be any relationship whatsoever between intelligence and virtue. And so if it does turn out that Nature and the fates do not align with our egalitarian presuppositions Which is highly probable, we shouldn’t therefore make the mistake of assuming that if Group A or person A is lower on one of these attributes than group B, or person B that That is somehow reflective of their intrinsic value as human beings. That’s a big mistake.

You may also like...

100 Responses

  1. zofe says:

    It is the High-IQ being ganged against, at both individual and collective level.

  2. Torsten Torson says:

    Always hide the truth when it doesn't show us what we want to see. There's a reason most countries in Africa are horribly underdeveloped. There's a reason Europeans could slaughter Africans, South Americans and native Americans with little resistence, because those people were far behind the Europeans in terms of development. And of course, there are reasons for that. But let's not talk about them. Let's pretend the reality is something else, something more comfortable.

  3. tennAgra says:

    grouping together people with anti social behavior is the worst thing you can do and that's what we do in prisons……its also what happens on social media like facebook….

  4. Thomas Courchesne says:

    Men, be aware of Jordan Peterson, he is a man full of lies and a gatekeeper to a lot of conservative knowledge. Do not fall in his trap by worshipping what he says. If ever, you feel conflicted about this man, read Jordanetics by a very intelligent and wise man by the name of Vox Day. It is a full analysis on this man's character and how he leads most men to nowhere. Anyway, I warned you.

  5. Emir Özer says:

    IQ tests being accurate is scary since technically half of the world is bellow 100 and basically below 80 is retarted

  6. INeed333Quid says:

    intelligence of racial groups doesnt matter at the end of the day. we dont form groups of scientists based on their race we form them based on their individual intelligences. the whyyy there are differences might matter but its probably just the same as the other reasons we have racial differences, and if we're researching evolution of different races i'd like to know why my ears always block up in winter first.

  7. cedric charpilloz says:

    I don t think IQ score is related to your religious orientation. But… ok…

  8. RecoveringGenius says:

    I've got 3 people in Mensa in my family. Two super are happy and successful. The orher doesn't like people so she's basically useless. I myself have been tested between 135 to 150 IQ… and I do dumb things ALL the time.

  9. Sabreus says:

    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.

  10. Truth seeker says:

    answer the question!

  11. G Buz says:

    We should talk about racial IQ differences as much as we talk about results between races is systemic racism.

  12. Immortal Spirit says:

    Question lol… I almost fel asleep and forgot everything he asked him.

  13. Mac Coo says:

    Average IQ varies from race to race, period.

  14. News that matter says:

    Having a high IQ is only part of the equation to being successful and productive. Work ethic, being sound emotionally and mentally ( yes, you can have a high IQ and still be mentally unstable). Being able to to improve your score on IQ has been documented. By how much depends on how many practice questions and training you take part in. But you will significant improvement in your IQ score.

  15. Aldrich says:

    I been saying this on conversations since 2012….people, including professors and PHDs students dont understand what statistics are…they dont understand its nature….all they know to do is mesure it. The world never produced so many biased, bad wrong articles like produces now.

  16. Sam Ortega says:

    "You can be pretty damned horrific, as a genius son of a bitch"

  17. brent Robot says:

    Wow………… just wow…… he never once mentioned Pinocchio.

  18. Rosscoe Tracey says:

    I think you’ve had your 15 minutes of fame on the back of Joe’s over

  19. Ray Man says:

    Love the last 50 seconds of this:

    "One of the things that we're going to have to understand here is that that's a mistake:
    is that being more intelligent doesn't make you a better person. That's not the case. It makes you more useful for complex cognitive operations, but you can be pretty damn horrific as a genius son of a bitch, right? It's morally neutral. And we also know that from the psychometric data, by the way: there doesn't seem to be any relationship whatsoever between intelligence and virtue. And so if it does turn out that nature and the fates do not align with our egalitarian presuppositions, which is highly probable, we shouldn't therefore make the mistake of assuming that if group A or person A is lower on one of these attributes than group B or person B, that that is somehow reflective of their intrinsic value as human beings. That's a big mistake."

  20. ClandestineOstrich says:

    There is no relationship between our understanding of intelligence and virtue. There's more to intelligence than IQ.

  21. Stephen Dedalus says:

    What a shame the problem has to be evoked by such an absurd question: "Well there is the concept of IQ, and it has been proven to predict many aspects of one's life with a fair accuracy. But you see, the statistical data doesn't fit some people's realities and their wishful thinking, so maybe it's a good idea to bury the uncomfortable truth and pretend nature doesn't exist and it's all society's fault because the people who built it were evil."
    The paradox when no one should be different when at large in a group, but everyone should feel unique as an individual and express his/her differences. This aspiration to conformity at large/(an illusion of) nonconformity at a personal level should be known as the Snowflake paradox. It is one of the main ethical tenets of neo-communist doctrine. A shrewd plan to sneak in communism through the wide open gates of narcissism, vanity, consumerism, superficiality, anti-intellectualism, encompassing lack of strong enough moral principles and a nihilistic lack of meaning that permeates our modern society.

  22. Bernard5972 says:

    oh and dumping money down the hierarchy was my plan too

  23. Andrew C says:

    Surely you can flip a Mc Burger with an IQ of 83? How many would land on the floor, given appropriate training?

    Actually loads of things come from military studies, but you do get biases. It's not a completely random selection of the population and nor is it representative of your average job, or at least we English hope it is not. One wonders sometimes though.

  24. Jeryboulet says:

    He kind of answered his own question. If IQ predict 20-30% of future outcome, the fact that the military refuse people under 83 don't mean that under 83 there is nothing to do in society but that the marginal benefit of accepting people under 83 is negative. So for example, for every 10 entry of 83 and less, 8 people could do good but 2 would negate the action of the 8. In the end there is no value for thee army to accept under 83 cuz there is no better way to sort the good from the bad. However, in society there is some better way to sort good from bad that don't cause as much harm as in the army. For example fast-food jobs, the probability of extreme harm is low there…… So the number of people without use is certainly lower than 10% (only looking at IQ) But certainly not 0 also.

  25. Sandeep Choudhary says:

    WoW, get well professor. I miss your articulation.

  26. Raymond Berry says:

    So 10% need to be taken care of by the other 90%. Not a problem we say. Yes in capitalist countries there is enough income and wealth to take care of the 10% that score 83 on the IQ test. Now, what do we do with the next level just above the 83 scores, say up to 100? What do we do when they figure out they too can not work and be taken care of by society and never have to work? When we draw a line then there will always be a group just over the line.
    Example: If we give welfare benefits to anyone making $24,000 a year, what will the people making $25,000 do?

  27. Noted_Insolence says:

    Okay so is there a strong correlation theb between IQ and ASVAB scores? Obviously there is a surface-level correlation, but it sounds like according to Peterson, the ASVAB IS an IQ test. Most people say this is false, in part because you can fairly dramatically increase your score with study. And most people say IQ CANNOT be increased with study or practice (I personally don't believe this). Is there literature available that details the relationship between IQ and ASVAB?

  28. Madolite says:

    If I say (within a relevant context) that I have an IQ of 130+, I'd be perceived as a cunt or worse, because those doing so have already predefined IQ as "a measure of a man" and then projecting that shit onto me, as if I even remotely agree with that statement. This is the fake narrative that narcissistic dimwits employ, in place of a mature conversation and getting their own shit together in life. For the record, I was once outsmarted by someone of ~90 IQ. Explain that? Well, Jordan just did (indirectly). Also, has anyone ever considered "racial" difference in IQ being caused by genocide, like… Colonization?!! There could, in fact, be anti-racist reasons and goals for talking about IQ differences.

  29. DeathForSk8 says:

    20 minutes of Peterson eloquently dodging the question (I don't blame him though)

  30. Paul Harris says:


  31. Lalaland says:

    Myself having read the Rushton-Jensen papers which is the precursor to this question asked in this video shows something really interesting imho. Here is that 60 page document if you are interested >>> <<< However on page 8 om the pdf which is numbered 242 on the document it states the following " At the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, Rushton, Skuy, and colleagues gave the Raven’s Progressive Matrices in four separate studies under optimal testing conditions. Rushton and Skuy (2000) found 173 African 1st-year psychology students averaged an IQ equivalent of 84. Skuy et al. (2002) tested another 70 psychology students who averaged an IQ equivalent of 83. After receiving training on how to solve Matrices-type items, their mean score rose to an IQ equivalent of 96. Which tells me that either there is something lacking in the education, or IQ tests need to be altered to fit a more general understanding to us all, for it's general application. As to me it seems highly improbably that an IQ test is well made if results can be enhanced that quickly with just some basic math training. To me it the latter is not just a problem but makes this whole IQ debate a bit redundant as the test results can clearly be altered in such a simple manner that it's application can not really be called a valid method. As it makes me wonder how such a small and menial task as matrices-type solving can alter the results of an IQ test that dramatically. It sparks my curiosity to see what were to happen if the same training was applied across the board. Just my 2 cents on the matter. Be well and be blessed, have a magnificent day.

  32. Razor1602 says:

    Instead of getting side tracked in racial comparison, we should focus on the nurture part of intelligence, the part that people can actually do something about.

    I could motivate myself and others by affirming that even though nature gave me an upper limit to my intelligence, the real issue is that people are not taught, or do not put in the effort, to achieve perhaps half of their potential intelligence, their nurture factor.

  33. Andrew McKenna says:

    I think the idea of not talking about this is a bad idea, Would it be racist to look at the last 2 decades of Olympics sprinters, and long distance runners and look at there racial background, is that a racist thing

    The last "white" person to win the 100m olympics was in 1980 (and that was a year boycotted by a lot of countries, including the USA

  34. Solve Everything says:

    But is IQ real? Why is this allowed? Also who else here beleives in biologies? Is that science too? It's just a theory (a geuss).

  35. Jack Russell says:

    Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.
    Talent will not; nothings more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
    Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
    Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
    Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.' — President Calvin Coolidge

  36. TomG Gabin says:

    I think Malcolm Gladwell's perspective in Outliers is a lot more persuasive and realistic.

  37. Dim Sum says:

    a nut job, giving advice,all speculative, no actual statistics guy

  38. Half Insane Outdoor guy says:

    So one could say that there are more black men in prison for violent crimes than white men because they occupy the tails of aggression distribution? (there are other factors as well, one could for example chart populations with the most respect for authority, or populations with men who keep commitments etc.) oh great now I'm going to be branded a racist…

  39. Mihail Colun says:

    Even that outlet is surprised by his claims

  40. Ish Ehad says:

    I guess that explains how a tiny Israel was able defend itself against the entire Arab world. They are just smarter. So, no miracles.

  41. Sarah Wind says:

    He contradicted his earlier statement when he said having a low IQ had nothing to do with worth. Earlier he stated that the military found those with low IQ to be worthless. Why would the job market be any different? I think the whole idea of mentioning race and IQ is counterproductive. It only serves to anger people and is pointless.

  42. Curtis Scott says:

    IQ: It's the (1) parameter that I believe should be a factor for voting. In other words – your vote gets MULTIPLIED by the number of standard deviations you are above somebody who's barely able to "vote" at all. Due to the statistical spread, the LIBERTARIAN PARTY would be the most prolific in office — but that's only the case because Anarchists are A-political (& it can be argued quite succinctly that anarchy is the most moral form of governance).

  43. Niloufar F says:

    I like JP. But he’s completely wrong on this and he is purposely leaving out some very important information that disprove his point.

    IQ tests don’t determine intelligence. They determine a certain KIND of intelligence known as abstract thinking. The tests are flawed because they don’t measure social intelligence, emotional intelligence or creativity. All of which are equality if not more important than abstract problem solving skills, which is specifically what IQ tests measure.

    IQ is also determined by socio-economic status. The best proof of this is studies between identical twins who were raised under different socio-economic and educational means. There is plenty more information about how IQ tests vary based on how developed a country is/it’s value on education, etc. Also, what he mentions about the test in the military is incorrect. The test isn’t even an IQ test. If you’d like to know more about this, here are my sources:

    Now think about this. If you’re growing up in a less developed country, where your focus has to be on survival, abstract thinking is the last place your mind needs to go. You will most likely develop other parts of your intelligence as a means for surviving in that specific environment. However, if you are well fed and less worried about money, shelter and survival, your brain has the time and space to allow for abstract thinking.

    This is a much better explanation for the differences in statistics. I’m ashamed that Peterson, a man who’s knowledge of psychology has helped me personally grow so much, fails to mention or take any of this important information into account before coming to such a harsh and somewhat racist conclusion.

  44. Matt Ball says:

    Question was too fucking long

  45. vollyballgirl25 says:

    19:44 He makes such a great point!

  46. syntaxed2 says:

    I dunno about IQ but I'll show you something big…

  47. warro 1042 says:

    but what happens if we statistically analyse attributes ( for example aggression) of groups of people that could be used to measure value as human beings

  48. RobK Photo says:

    All Peterson was thinking was "how to answer this without answering the thing he is actually getting at" haha

  49. Brahm Schultz says:

    anyone wanna talk about how IQ has been proven to change over people's life time? Or how the experience of going to school and getting a good education has been shown to affect IQ? The first 60 seconds of this video are misleading, there is no scientific consensus. IQ tests are almost pseudoscience..

  50. bazza d says:

    so black people are stupid i think he is saying

  51. Kaliep Murangi says:

    what a minute. before you use a measurement tool should you not first make sure that tool is accurate and also then define its level of precision. Is IQ a measure of intelligence or is it a measure of some form cognitive processing? do you really know what you are measuring? Even if you get the correlations will your conclusions still be incorrect because your using a rule in a one dimensional basis to determine density.

  52. dcgregorya says:

    I don't know how we can peel these things apart. Race is a huge generalization with blurry lines. Irish is not Italian is not Russian – all are "white", hence its basically worthless from a statistics standpoint. But beyond that there's how your parents behave, how you're raised, what kind of role models they are, so on. We know IQ is environmentally fungible but I don't see how we can roll up that sort of analysis across a group of people. You could likely find a stronger correlation between how many books you read before 6th grade and IQ.

  53. Chris Goldthorpe says:

    If society was unintentionally (or intentionally) biased in the SAME way the IQ test was, then the argument against IQ test Bias would be "ameliorated"!

  54. SC P says:

    you should talk about it because thats the only way to find a functional plan to raise or try to raise the lower end of the iq pools.
    simple to complex, complex to simple. if things remain complex theres either a good reason for it or a lack of advancement.

  55. Ali l says:

    The question of IQ in accordance to race is such a harmful question because it immediately opens a gateway to hundreds of possible fatalities in perspective caused by the people with those perspectives in the first place. And then this question is being posed to Peterson with the possibility of being bashed at, and being seen as carrying all of that negativity in the face of an audience of multiple races. Asking that question is being extremely harmful without the intention of being harmful from those people that formulated that question..but with good intentions because it would have been nice is Peterson did have a seemingly perfect answer to that question ya know.

    Just me or did this 20 min video seem like 2 mins? 😁

  56. KUROneko says:

    thisman just knows so much. I would not even come up with that races are not clearly devidable. god damn i luv him. so much to learn. imagine he would be your mentor )))

  57. Faustin Gashakamba says:

    There's nothing to do for folks with an IQ less than 83.
    Have you tried 'escorting'?

  58. Lou Minatti says:

    I can't fathom the monster(s) Jordan had to contend with to achieve this level of intelligence and wisdom. I struggle so fiercely with my own demons, and yet he casually throws out answers to problems that have plagued me for years, as though they are merely a passing thought. I can't express how much benefit I've received from listening to his talks.

  59. Him Next Door says:

    Go on Jordan; suck that cock of Zion.

  60. netizen kane2 says:

    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!

  61. Yair Shahar says:

    Not surprisingly he has many mistakes

    And no IQ tests have to be done in a correct manner so that the questions cancel an all bunch of social/financial advantages

    Brain capabilities are very flexible. He knows nothing about neuro scoemce, which is not surprising

    Race? Science has a very clear answer about us humans. We are one race

    He is completly mixing causation amd correlation and not taking into account an amazing array of social issues that influence intellectual capabilities

    He is very unscientific

  62. Mark Schmidt says:

    I think the military argument is a little weak. Imagine that NASA for some reason needed to recruit a million people in a hurry. They certainly would have an IQ requirement, which would exclude some people. Just because the military is ''desperate'' for soldiers, doesn't mean that people who ''aren't smart enough to be soldiers'', can't be something else. Jordan emplies that being a soldier is the least cognitively demanding job you can have. Not the case at all. Not everyone gets to be soldiers, just as not everyone gets to work for NASA.

  63. Mark Henry says:

    The opening blah blah was classic it's funny how these people try too out smart Jordan I live it ✌️🇦🇺

  64. Bill Kerman says:

    I am by no means pc and dont give a fuck if jews are smart but I just refuse to accept 10% of people are retarded. That is like a 1 in 100 chance of me being stupid!

  65. Garret Narjes says:

    It's ridiculous to make rigorous scientific claims about race/DNA and IQ based on 1919 IQ tests. It's really simple why: show me the DNA data from 1919. I'll wait.

  66. Leandro V C Castelani says:

    How come there is nothing for 10% of population to do if the unemployment in many countries are lesser than 10%?

  67. Antal Szilagyi says:

    A firm Law could help against antisocial and criminal behaviors, if one survives until 27 wit some missing limbs , for sure will learn to fit in society…

  68. Daniel Williams says:

    wow, what a waste of time. This entire line of argument is complete bullshit, predicated on bullshit, predicated on poorly formed/executed studies, predicated on bullshit.


    If the validity of IQ tests has been confirmed, then why are more and more colleges eliminating the SAT and ACT tests in their admissions processes ?  Lack applicants because the baby boom has passed ?

  70. klaar nou says:

    So, if women and LGBT's are bulling you, Peterson is your savior.
    Just buy his books and make him rich.

  71. Syno says:

    this reminds me of the Sibyl system found in Psychopass

  72. Vikas Kumar says:

    I have an iq of 105. Should i get the rope?

  73. Chris says:

    IQ has NOTHING to do with ethnicity. It has to do with personality. As an example, I am borderline INFJ and INTJ. With wife, from rural Philippines, is INFJ. I think it’s obvious that she’s Asian and poor. I am poor and rural White. Guess what?! We both became engineers! IQ has no bearing on where you came from, race, country of origin, social or economic status but rather who you are. Perhaps genetics plays a part but even geniuses can have idiot kids.

  74. Eye of the Forest says:

    There was some australian professor who said environment has more to do with iq than race and he was in hot water for even stating the opposition's arguments. Now he's fighting for free speech instead of developing his original point. Race is a geographic construct, and nothing is more environmentally related than geography, so this whole topic seems trivial and hot for no reason.

  75. Hodl and 2 the moon says:

    I'm a mathematician and statistician.

    The conversation is all wrong and the conclusions insinuated are incorrect as well. Jordan Peterson and people in general for that matter, should not comment on matters they don't fully understand. They're parrotting out-of-context information from one another without knowing or even understanding the details and exact scope of these researches.

    They're philosophizing on the incorrect premise that these results are meant to be general indicators of intelligence for respective ethnic groups as whole. They're not and I will explain why not.

    The bell curve can for the most part be considered a representation of your society and its facets. Looking at intelligence specifically, it can be said that society has a bunch of lower intelligence people, that it then grows to a large average and subsequently flattens toward the above average individuals.

    If you were to run this research in the US, among the so called white European ethnic majority, assuming you've done a good job at gathering a representative cohort, you'd have a representation of American intelligence reduced to some numbers.

    However, this research, when extended to ethnic minorities, and again, if you've done a good job at gathering a representative cohort, is a representation of ethnic minorities in the US, not a representation of that ethnicity as a whole. This is because the minorities in the US are not a full representation (think bell curve) of their ethnicities as a whole. They're a representation of individuals who've migrated to the US.

    For example, a majority of Mexicans in the US are part of the lower social class of Mexico. They're not the best and brightest of Mexico. If you were to do the same intelligence research in Mexicans in the US and Mexicans in Mexico, you'd get completely differen't results.

    Examples of other minorities are Indians, Iranians, Chinese, etc. They score significantly higher than so white ethnic European Americans. This is again because a differen't subset of those ethnicities came to the US.

    I hope this clarifies it for whoever reads it. Before you start philosophizing about results, make sure you understand the results.

  76. edpistemic says:

    19:44 – By clearly making this point, Peterson proves he is more of a genuine progressive than almost all the people claiming that moniker to bash him.

  77. Jackson Laframboise says:

    Why is JP lookin like some kinda anime villain in the first minute or so?

  78. snakeling22 says:

    He just can't answer that, without being thrown out of Canada, literally…Such a politically incorrect question…He had to speak for 20 minutes beating around the bush just to collect himself and figure what to say…Truth is difficult sometimes.He kinda answered a little, not exactly but somewhat….
    I admire the guy for asking those question, such a courageous move.

  79. Johnny English24 says:

    Dark humor 15:45 . We have used that answer before

  80. salzy18 says:

    More importantly, how many people are prancing around with an average or superior IQ who can't seem to make it through the day without psychotropic meds?

  81. Jason Lindley says:

    Alt-right racists "NO ONE ALLOWS YOU TO TALK ABOUT IQ".
    Actual intelligence scientists "Ummmmm…we literally do all the time, what the fuck are you talking about you dork?"

  82. Djerun88 says:

    Here in Germany those 10% idiots study journalism or become a teacher. bad solution but hey, they have something to do.

  83. tim lines says:

    more goorrooes ?

  84. TH3MS says:

    Another way of looking at it is in the academic performance. If you take a group of african americans living in the USA and compare them to african finnish persons lets say. You would find a difference in performance most likely, with advantage the african finnish persons. Why? Because the average finnish academic resultas are higher, than that of the americans. Then you could compare with some margin off error as usual, how the performance between african finnish persons and a caucasian finnish persons looks like. Most likely the results (mean wise), would not show any difference what so ever, and if it did it would probably be insignificantly small. That is why we have difference in performance between countries, it's a multivariet 'ANOVA', of reasons why things end up the way they are. Economical, political, cultural and so on. In other words, IQ is not the same as looking what race that dominates long distance run, it more like comparing what countries that dominates Ice Hockey and why. Moreover, Canada for example is no joke when it comes to Ice Hockey as most people know, yet it does not mean they are better people, they are just better at Ice Hockey in general. Also stating that a person is better because of high IQ, is the same as stating someone is better because of their appearance or how much money they have, or how many "friends" they have.

  85. ejje1k2 says:

    i was doing things while watching this, but one thing that stands out to me is that he didn't at all mention that the difference could quite simply be because of socio-economic differences rather than race. I find that a very plausible and relevant theory as it also fits with all the data I've seen so far.

  86. Jennifer Lay says:

    the highest iqs are the ones that cheat, lie, copy, steal to survive and armed with mass surviellance, e.g. passwords to the cameras, guess who has access to the cameras? what kind of humans are they?

  87. Ed Lamont says:

    heres the truth that NOBODY wants to talk about. I have a big brain. Yes big brain indeed. You have small brain. Now, discuss….

  88. Patty G says:

    He totally skirted that question. I understand why he felt the need to do so, but it was disappointing nonetheless. I would be interested to know his thoughts on Murray's work, and to explain how the rise of European western civilization occurred while nothing much was happening in Africa. We know that groups are not individuals, so if your group scores low, you, as an individual, can still score high (and vice versa – there are many low intelligence whites). He's right that intelligence is not the same thing as intrinsic human value or even virtue, and that even as a strength, it should be kept in perspective. Too bad with all that in mind, we can't have an honest conversation about race and IQ.

  89. Silver Fox says:

    'Jews are overrepresented in IQ' – accurate, but that's per capita. Whites still have more total geniuses, and are underrepresented in ivy league college admissions. Jews are massively overrepresented in ivy league colleges -even when adjusted for IQ-. There must be some preferential admittance for being Jewish, or another explanation than IQ alone.

  90. IamMephobia says:

    Just because there is a greater amount of egalitarian policy that doesn't mean that cultural factors, that take place outside of politic, wouldn't cause differences in men and women career interest. So much of this is filled with factual information but whenever an actual disputable claim comes up he states loudly "it's wrong" and moves on. Peterson is the definition of the Texas sharpshooter and his "intelligence" surrounding other claims would make a listener think everything he is saying is true but is truly fallacy.

  91. Chris G says:

    First time i disagree with JP. Military might have iq requirements, but min wages jobs don't. Don't underestimate the skills required to join.

  92. LongTimeAgo says:

    The last 50 seconds are a great argument. Really well done.
    Peterson's way of explaining things is amazing. Its complex yet understandable.

  93. Nick R says:

    The major differences in IQ are related to the material and social conditions that individuals are placed in. It has nothing to do with Race.

  94. Cooking with Cale says:

    Is it testing how smart you are or how stupid your are?

  95. Tillman Adkins says:

    I feel like I'm missing something. He was grumpy from the start. What roughed him up?

  96. Bubble Bass 420 says:

    Yo it's lil peep!

  97. Stephan Moesman says:

    I used to suck at speedchess as a kid, but when they gave both players one hour playtime each, nobody could beat me. Perhaps none of the people I met were any good at playing chess, but the point I am trying to make is that IQ will be the easiest thing for AI to beat, because it is all about the speed in which you can solve relatively simple problems. EQ, which might have a lot more to do with the rating of one's personal happiness, or creativity for problemsolving will probably stay around for a while as exlusive human characteristics. So, when we finally figure out how to replace money, as the main fuel for greed, those overall poorly paid competences could be rehabilitated
    as valuable human skills again. And perhaps it would not be such a bad thing, if humans would become a little less compatative during this AI enforced transitional process. And no, I am not a leftwing radical, I allways try to vote for reason based on facts and solutions that make things a little better for most people instead of biased sentiments.

  98. hollywoodjaded says:

    As an aside: Initially, in terms of the hygiene theory and “societal value”… first they tracked down those with disabilities and attempted to do away with them via institutionalization; sterilization, etc. This was the the group in Pasadena known as the
    Human Betterment Society.

    Google it and see the founding & main members.
    Hitler read about it and sent some of his best (read: diabolical) men over to So Cal. The outcome? T-4. Those with disabilities were the first to die in the Holocaust.

  99. SheyD78 says:

    It seems to me there's an easy solution to this, more cross-breeding. If there are no different races and we all become just human beings then there's no potential for prejudice. As a side note I seem to remember that on average people of mixed race are more attractive to both. (That's a barely remembered factoid that could have nothing to do with actual fact though) In the end all we can really do is allow equal opportunity for everyone regardless of race and do our best to counter any inherent bias with understanding and reason. And also make sure jobs exist for the bottom 10% as far as possible with perhaps a little more support for making the most of those jobs. Hope for the best, plan for the worst and be tolerant of differences without necessarily defining ourselves by them.

  100. LPTV says:

    They're just talking about intelligence in the realms of the definition that they've assigned. Intelligence isn't just a number. Anything they can do to look for some kind of a way to think of themselves as better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *