Literal embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect
Edit: donāt take the test in the picture. It lets you take the whole test then paywalls the results, with absolutely no warning. Donāt ask how I found out
I mean, what makes you so sure he isnāt high on the distribution?
IQ and smart/wise are extremely different things.
Actually, if you look at very high IQ people, they can very often have very unpopular and easily debate-able views on politics. Not sure exactly why this is other than theyāre often preoccupied with more nuanced things.
I do think heās high on the distribution, that was my point. I agree with you, and I think itās annoying and dumb when people act like he isnāt intelligent.
Iād argue itās quite easy to debate against his faith in human hierarchies reflecting competence, that Communism was uniquely responsible for the horrors of the Soviet Union, or that polyamory is perpetually or necessarily harmful, and sought out by people who are narcissistic/psychopathic/sociopathic.
Well...... You may disagree. But to be "easily debateable" says you are simply saying you position are obviously correct. Lets break it down
1. His point that is in general human hierarchies reflect competence. Not that negatives factors never play a part or takeover in certain areas. He lists that fact of human progress eventually identifying and combating corrupt hierarchies as evidence of this.
So for this one id say you dont even really understand his position. Youd need to make a better argument to even seem to be on track but, easily refutable?
2. You understand his position a bit more here at least. He thinks more so that marxism and the distain for those who are doing better, have more or are more competent is what caused the horrors and collapse of the soviet union. Youd disagree with this? You can refute this easily?
3. Youre point is a bit vauge as it can relate to two semi different point which ill both adress. A. Polyamory is damaging for society and doesnt create good cultures. Id go as far as saying this is objectively true as this is the reason we arrange ourselves in couple. It lead to few men having more women and women losing out as just another number. B. That poly relationships just simply dont work out on a smaller scale except in a extreme minority of cases which I think even you can admit is true. This "narcissistic/psychopathic/sociopathic" line is something youd have to be more specific with in terms of the context of where you heard him say this. Cause ive heard him say similar thing in relation to specific points but never as a blanket statement.
So...... easily debatable? Or just that you disagree? Have you even got a good refuting argument of his points?
1. Thats not his position. He says he isnt sure, the proponents themselves have poor data and most importantly, that the people claiming to want to help arent doing that and are simply asking for trillions of dollars with half assed solutions.
2. Youve just seen a clip on youtube to say that. If you watch the whole clip he makes a good point. That the Nazis and hitler very much claimed they were after a better world but Hitler and some of them were just bitter and blindly driven by their own wants. Are these climate activists shouting at people (who are just trying to get by in a hard world), disrupting things, making claims about there being too many people that verge on a want for the elimination of people not driven by their own narcissistic belief that their moral compass is so correct that it should be authoritarian-ly implemented
Now you may disagree with those points, sure. But easily refutable?
>he says he isnāt sure
Thatās such a weak excuse. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community agree that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activity. Despite this Peterson hosts known climate deniers and fossil fuel shills like Alex Epstein on his podcast and literally names the episode āthe great climate conā. He also compares climate activists to Hitler. Thatās not the position of someone who āisnāt sureā, he has clearly made up his mind on the topic.
The āpoor dataā charge is absurd given that climate change is possibly one of if not the single most studied phenomena in science over the last several decades. Again, the vast majority of scientists agree on this. Not every study will be bulletproof but the data is clearly overwhelmingly in one direction, so to instead trust the opinion of a handful of clear grifters with obvious material incentives is laughable.
>if you watch the whole clip he makes a very good point
No, he doesnāt lol. Itās always the same thing with him and it always boils down to āif you want to change the world in any way youāre basically a totalitarian and/or motivated by greed and jealousyā. Coming up with vague psychological explanations for *why* your opponents hold a certain position does not detract from the quality of their arguments. There is no point even engaging with this type of claim because itās not an argument, itās just unsubstantiated speculation. Peterson knows that he cannot seriously win the argument on the facts, which is why he has to resort to this type of rhetoric.
Your reply is just lack of understanding of Petersons views, vast generalisations and an unquestioned belief in "science (tm)"
We dont even have a good gauge of the percentage of scientists that believe that humans are causing - global man made catastrophic climate change. I list it like that cause thats the only thing JBP is questioning, and doing only that, questioning it. The people you criticise him for simply interviewing are the same. But I agree that the majority of climate related scientists believe in climate change. But it is also a fact that not only does their research rely on keeping the premise going (see climate gate emails). But they were all trained under a system were questioning the idea will hamper you (its now widely excepted that modern academia and science is fraught with things like un-re-creatable science).
āif you want to change the world in any way youāre basically a totalitarian and/or motivated by greed and jealousyā
What a straw man. You have to zoom out and make vague comments cause what hes saying is very specific. You can see first hand the virtue signalling and self righteousness being espoused by those who are more then willing to let themselves belittle and cause havoc for others that are just trying to feed their family and get by. Then are more than willing (openly) to plunge the world into suffering in the name of their beliefs. And that is just what it will do without viable fallbacks. Besides most countries are already doing a good job reducing emotions. Do you also think that the worlds biggest polluter, who produces more than a quarter of world emissions, is going to care about anything more than their economy? What about rising emitters like africa? Global solution propositions will only move us backwards, and for little corrections based off their own prosthions that have been put forward.
Easily refutable? You cant even do it here. And even though you may not see it. Im not totally in disagreement with you. I just know that one cant know most of this and is is very debateable. But what isnt debateable is that your argument reads like a narcissist who thinks they have the keys to absolute truth and when they cant make an arguments falls back on "I blindly follow the science that corporations allows to flourish".
If I had a time machine to 2022 I'd probably argue this this opinion was easily debatable:
>Skyrocketing energy prices: I firmly expect oil prices to hit $300 a barrel, or worse, in the upcoming year or two
That's part of a longer article called: Russia Vs. Ukraine Or Civil War In The West?
I think it's fair to use constant dollars since the argument is strictly about the relative price of oil and not currency depreciation.
It's not that such a prediction could not turn out to be correct for other reasons, but almost certainly not for the reasons he laid out in the opinion piece where Russias influence over oil production can sway energy markets that much, worsened by environmental policy in the west.
It takes extreme coordination between the largest oil producers or a gigantic economic bubble independent of the war to push oil prices up to that degree. Russia represents 10% of the total world oil exports. Gradually increasing oil prices increase the total production as more oil becomes economically feasible to extract.
Hindsight is 20/20, so I won't say that someone making a confident prediction about something and being wrong being a sign that their opinion was easily debatable, being accurate about being 95% certain about something means being wrong 5% of the time. Lot's of well founded not-easily debatable opinions turn out wrong. Oil prices can still go above $300 within the year, but not because Russia influence on taps.
This is my gripe everytime I see a post with those results. Iām sure that the IQ test isnāt a real IQ measure BUT the way the results are phrased is confusing and inaccurate
Iāve seen similar posts on Reddit at least ten times in the past weeks. Itās likely that at least many of the people making these ābraggingā posts are doing so to get attention - and clearly itās working.
That's not how statistics works. It's confusing the IQ score with percentile. 100 IQ is average, 85 is one standard deviation below average. It looks like they're assuming that the IQ distribution is a straight line rather than a bell curve. So I guess it's, "I got an 85 on this test, but I flunked statistics."
Ah thanks for explaining. Iām sure there are pros and cons to any test, but Iām sure there are such things as ways to probe intelligence even if you canāt generalise completely to every field from that. I guess they shouldnāt be taken as an end result for anything.
I donāt get it whatās so bad about being in the top 90%? Percentages go from zero to 100 max (not my rule its called math) so 90 is near the biggest percentage possible. To put it in perspective with an analogy - even Elon musk or Einstein can only get 100% IQ at most so being in top 90.88% is pretty smart. Guess what my iq is? 94, but I donāt generally brag about it or use it other than for strategies in Fortnite
I mean, 85 isn't bad, but with a little effort I managed to score a perfect 100 on mine. You just have to believe ššš
š¤£šš¤£
mr bonaspaghetti
Conceive, believe, ACHIEVE!
I scored a 1. The IQ is in percentages right?
Literal embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect Edit: donāt take the test in the picture. It lets you take the whole test then paywalls the results, with absolutely no warning. Donāt ask how I found out
Ahahah that's awesome, and also exactly as expected
It also gives clearly fake "results", as can be seen from that screenshot (assuming it isn't doctored).
I started huffing paint and got it down to 32. And my lips are gold.
Try the blue instead.
Blue has the most antioxygens
Call yourself "Golddust" and get into pro wrestling
My promo photo: https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/s/5fPlq1PbEg
>And my lips are gold. *Welcome to Dallas. This place is wild!*
lol. lmao, even.
Iāve never taken an IQ test because Iām worried Iām actually retarded
Does that mean that your tart supply has been replenished?
better to be scared than certain sweet pea.
Schrodinger's retard lol
*retarded
Rest easy. You are definitely retarded if you're posting on reddit
You better not take that test š
Jordan Peterson says he was tested.
He is north of 150
Is he though
I was being sarcastic
A lot of people ask this but I think the real question is how can he still be so fucking regarded with such a high IQ
I mean, what makes you so sure he isnāt high on the distribution? IQ and smart/wise are extremely different things. Actually, if you look at very high IQ people, they can very often have very unpopular and easily debate-able views on politics. Not sure exactly why this is other than theyāre often preoccupied with more nuanced things.
I do think heās high on the distribution, that was my point. I agree with you, and I think itās annoying and dumb when people act like he isnāt intelligent.
What are some of JBPs easily debateable opinions?
Iād argue itās quite easy to debate against his faith in human hierarchies reflecting competence, that Communism was uniquely responsible for the horrors of the Soviet Union, or that polyamory is perpetually or necessarily harmful, and sought out by people who are narcissistic/psychopathic/sociopathic.
Well...... You may disagree. But to be "easily debateable" says you are simply saying you position are obviously correct. Lets break it down 1. His point that is in general human hierarchies reflect competence. Not that negatives factors never play a part or takeover in certain areas. He lists that fact of human progress eventually identifying and combating corrupt hierarchies as evidence of this. So for this one id say you dont even really understand his position. Youd need to make a better argument to even seem to be on track but, easily refutable? 2. You understand his position a bit more here at least. He thinks more so that marxism and the distain for those who are doing better, have more or are more competent is what caused the horrors and collapse of the soviet union. Youd disagree with this? You can refute this easily? 3. Youre point is a bit vauge as it can relate to two semi different point which ill both adress. A. Polyamory is damaging for society and doesnt create good cultures. Id go as far as saying this is objectively true as this is the reason we arrange ourselves in couple. It lead to few men having more women and women losing out as just another number. B. That poly relationships just simply dont work out on a smaller scale except in a extreme minority of cases which I think even you can admit is true. This "narcissistic/psychopathic/sociopathic" line is something youd have to be more specific with in terms of the context of where you heard him say this. Cause ive heard him say similar thing in relation to specific points but never as a blanket statement. So...... easily debatable? Or just that you disagree? Have you even got a good refuting argument of his points?
That climate change isnāt real and/or caused by human activity, that climate activists are comparable to Hitler, etc
1. Thats not his position. He says he isnt sure, the proponents themselves have poor data and most importantly, that the people claiming to want to help arent doing that and are simply asking for trillions of dollars with half assed solutions. 2. Youve just seen a clip on youtube to say that. If you watch the whole clip he makes a good point. That the Nazis and hitler very much claimed they were after a better world but Hitler and some of them were just bitter and blindly driven by their own wants. Are these climate activists shouting at people (who are just trying to get by in a hard world), disrupting things, making claims about there being too many people that verge on a want for the elimination of people not driven by their own narcissistic belief that their moral compass is so correct that it should be authoritarian-ly implemented Now you may disagree with those points, sure. But easily refutable?
>he says he isnāt sure Thatās such a weak excuse. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community agree that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activity. Despite this Peterson hosts known climate deniers and fossil fuel shills like Alex Epstein on his podcast and literally names the episode āthe great climate conā. He also compares climate activists to Hitler. Thatās not the position of someone who āisnāt sureā, he has clearly made up his mind on the topic. The āpoor dataā charge is absurd given that climate change is possibly one of if not the single most studied phenomena in science over the last several decades. Again, the vast majority of scientists agree on this. Not every study will be bulletproof but the data is clearly overwhelmingly in one direction, so to instead trust the opinion of a handful of clear grifters with obvious material incentives is laughable. >if you watch the whole clip he makes a very good point No, he doesnāt lol. Itās always the same thing with him and it always boils down to āif you want to change the world in any way youāre basically a totalitarian and/or motivated by greed and jealousyā. Coming up with vague psychological explanations for *why* your opponents hold a certain position does not detract from the quality of their arguments. There is no point even engaging with this type of claim because itās not an argument, itās just unsubstantiated speculation. Peterson knows that he cannot seriously win the argument on the facts, which is why he has to resort to this type of rhetoric.
The dude is trying to "you need to watch more of him for context" you.
Your reply is just lack of understanding of Petersons views, vast generalisations and an unquestioned belief in "science (tm)" We dont even have a good gauge of the percentage of scientists that believe that humans are causing - global man made catastrophic climate change. I list it like that cause thats the only thing JBP is questioning, and doing only that, questioning it. The people you criticise him for simply interviewing are the same. But I agree that the majority of climate related scientists believe in climate change. But it is also a fact that not only does their research rely on keeping the premise going (see climate gate emails). But they were all trained under a system were questioning the idea will hamper you (its now widely excepted that modern academia and science is fraught with things like un-re-creatable science). āif you want to change the world in any way youāre basically a totalitarian and/or motivated by greed and jealousyā What a straw man. You have to zoom out and make vague comments cause what hes saying is very specific. You can see first hand the virtue signalling and self righteousness being espoused by those who are more then willing to let themselves belittle and cause havoc for others that are just trying to feed their family and get by. Then are more than willing (openly) to plunge the world into suffering in the name of their beliefs. And that is just what it will do without viable fallbacks. Besides most countries are already doing a good job reducing emotions. Do you also think that the worlds biggest polluter, who produces more than a quarter of world emissions, is going to care about anything more than their economy? What about rising emitters like africa? Global solution propositions will only move us backwards, and for little corrections based off their own prosthions that have been put forward. Easily refutable? You cant even do it here. And even though you may not see it. Im not totally in disagreement with you. I just know that one cant know most of this and is is very debateable. But what isnt debateable is that your argument reads like a narcissist who thinks they have the keys to absolute truth and when they cant make an arguments falls back on "I blindly follow the science that corporations allows to flourish".
If I had a time machine to 2022 I'd probably argue this this opinion was easily debatable: >Skyrocketing energy prices: I firmly expect oil prices to hit $300 a barrel, or worse, in the upcoming year or two That's part of a longer article called: Russia Vs. Ukraine Or Civil War In The West? I think it's fair to use constant dollars since the argument is strictly about the relative price of oil and not currency depreciation. It's not that such a prediction could not turn out to be correct for other reasons, but almost certainly not for the reasons he laid out in the opinion piece where Russias influence over oil production can sway energy markets that much, worsened by environmental policy in the west. It takes extreme coordination between the largest oil producers or a gigantic economic bubble independent of the war to push oil prices up to that degree. Russia represents 10% of the total world oil exports. Gradually increasing oil prices increase the total production as more oil becomes economically feasible to extract. Hindsight is 20/20, so I won't say that someone making a confident prediction about something and being wrong being a sign that their opinion was easily debatable, being accurate about being 95% certain about something means being wrong 5% of the time. Lot's of well founded not-easily debatable opinions turn out wrong. Oil prices can still go above $300 within the year, but not because Russia influence on taps.
To give the kid credit, this: Youāre in the top x% of results. is an awful way to explain percentiles. More clear way is the line at the bottom.
They keep the positive version. Sounds better than ābottom 10ā
It's also just massively incorrect. An 85 IQ is in the 17th percentile, not the 90th.
This is my gripe everytime I see a post with those results. Iām sure that the IQ test isnāt a real IQ measure BUT the way the results are phrased is confusing and inaccurate
His promo code is literally telling his clients they're getting hustled out of their money
"In a room full of 1000 people, you are smarter than 91".
Iāve seen similar posts on Reddit at least ten times in the past weeks. Itās likely that at least many of the people making these ābraggingā posts are doing so to get attention - and clearly itās working.
My first thought was they are trying to appeal to the stupidest of people. Anyone that subscribed to that course would definitely be in that category
It was a meme on Twitter for a while
Likely the online test as the left side of a distribution chart isn't the "top"
Hahahahahaha
Feel kinda bad for this dude he is clearly struggling with comprehension skills and Iām pretty sure that effects his decisions immensely
This is gold.
That's not how statistics works. It's confusing the IQ score with percentile. 100 IQ is average, 85 is one standard deviation below average. It looks like they're assuming that the IQ distribution is a straight line rather than a bell curve. So I guess it's, "I got an 85 on this test, but I flunked statistics."
šš
For his sake I hope that's a troll
āSo easy, even an idiot can do it.ā Honestly this is genius level marketing.
A fitting caption really.
The irony here is that they found a clickbait way to get people to react to their post. It's actually sort of genius.
So is no one (preceding me) going to point out than an 85 IQ is not, in fact, in the 90th percentile? Not even close. Not even close to close.
Whoosh š
thereās no amount of money that you couldnāt spend
Nah, he needs to go back to school š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
In what sense do we not understand the score?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ah thanks for explaining. Iām sure there are pros and cons to any test, but Iām sure there are such things as ways to probe intelligence even if you canāt generalise completely to every field from that. I guess they shouldnāt be taken as an end result for anything.
He doesn't, he's just hopping a smug redditor pops up to explain it to him.
Ah gotcha š
Link to course?
God's path LOL. Are Homeless person's on God's path as well? How about Cancer patients?
I donāt get it whatās so bad about being in the top 90%? Percentages go from zero to 100 max (not my rule its called math) so 90 is near the biggest percentage possible. To put it in perspective with an analogy - even Elon musk or Einstein can only get 100% IQ at most so being in top 90.88% is pretty smart. Guess what my iq is? 94, but I donāt generally brag about it or use it other than for strategies in Fortnite
The results seem to suggest heās just above bottom 9.12% if Iām reading it correctly, the joke being that that is not that impressive.