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.