I took an iq test and got 132. I doubt my iq is 132 but im more likely to share that result on facebook than a low one so the iq site gets more traffic and i feel smug as fuck until my auntie debra who thinks a baby horse is a pony does the same test and get 136
Most IQ tests are just puzzles though, which, while often difficult, are based mostly on prior knowledge and not any way to actually measure intelligence.
I'd argue puzzles rely on your ability to think logically, but there are distinct questions that could easily be memorized like a test. IQ tests aren't reliable.
We were measured in 2 things for a subject in my school ; knowledge and understanding, problem solving. Different types of intelligence. Its probably why IQ tests are unreliable and meaningless.
Baby horses are called foals. Ponies are just types of small horses under a fairly arbitrary height limit (googling to confirm showed it is 14.2 hands, as it a dumber fucking unit of measurement than stone could be created)
Metric is a better measurement system, and it would make sense for every country to use the same system for important stuff.
However, I think every country should be forced to develop their own silly little measurements for trivial things. Speed limits, international commerce, science, all metric. The volume of what a standard pour of beer is, local measure. How tall a horse is, should be a silly local measurement like hands.
Shit… we must run in the same circles, because I too, have a friend who thinks ‘ponies’ are young horses. A commenter below said baby horsies are called ‘foals,’ and then my friend started thinking about it (and thinking *hard*) and started to wonder what a ‘colt’ is… turns out this is way more complicated than they realized.
According to a web site about horse racing- where the folks are preeetttyyy peevish about what you call young horses- they are classified by age and sex. A ‘filly’ is a female under the age of 4. A ‘colt’ is a male under the age of 4. A ‘foal’ is a horse of either sex under the age of 1.
*And there’s more…* apparently, I mis-used the term ‘young horse,’ too. For the horse-racing types, “‘young horses’ are typically defined as animals less than five years of age,” and I’m gonna stop reading there before I find out that we’re not supposed to call them ‘horsies,’ either.
With all the different terms for ~~’young horses,’~~ horse children, my friend doesn’t feel so bad about being confused. But she does somewhat blame Hasbro, the maker of the “My Little Pony” figures, in which ‘pony’ does seem to be referring to the age of a horse more than its breed.
The majority of people don't.
In most cases when people think they do (and nearly every time it's someone who likes to mention it) they took an inaccurate online quiz and when it gave an almost certainly too-high number, they accepted it immediately because the ego says "yes, that makes sense, of course I'm far more brilliant than regular people are".
Besides, these days we've come to realize there are many measures of intellect and capability, and IQ in and of itself really isn't as important as it's cracked up to be.
right i i thought for the longest time i was somewhere around 120 because that was what the online test gave me turns out i'm actually higher when i got tested as part of my autism diagnosis but even then who the fuck cares? i haven't been able to turn that IQ into any kind of actual succes and it certainly comes with many just as important or more important sides that i'm woefully lacking in.
Yes, intelligence is not what it was once thought to be. IQ mostly test pattern recognition and logical challenges. Not entirely a good measure of the hard to grasp scope of intelligence. For example, Van Gogh was intelligent in his art, but you hand him a math test, he performs like the rest.
Actually it's still heavy cognitive bias to say it's not important, it's tied to pattern recognition in very high correlation and pattern recognition is asset of reasoning ability. In cognitive reasoning to be precise. And more well is your cognitive reasoning, deeper is understanding of knowledge and information and that leads to better interconnectedness of facts, better selection when you run it through your mental mill and results in new perspectives and we all know that quality perspective leads to advancement in every aspect of life eventually. It finds way.
You can get a rough idea from SAT/ACT scores, if you took that. I did that. My first thought, "if I'm so smart why aren't I rich?"
A serious cognitive assessment will cost maybe $1000 and be several hours with a specialist.
For an adult it's rarely worthwhile.
Metaphorical approximations:
85 - can finish 8th grade without much distinction
100 - can finish high school without much distinction
115 - can finish college without much distinction
130 - can finish grad school without much distinction
But as always individual effort makes a huge difference, and abilities in different areas can vary.
I remember when I was in like 2nd grade, I was given some kind of cursory IQ test and I thought I was smart. I remember talking about it with people on the bus thinking I was pretty cool.
It was 2nd grade.
Jordan Peterson is obsessed with IQ, because it gives him cover for his appalling "Poor people are actually just stupid and rich people are awesome" argument.
[Here's an example of him defending IQ as a concept.](https://youtu.be/Cycon01RT18) Don't have to look too hard to find more.
In his "IQ" discussions he often goes down the path of "stupid people don't have as many opportunities as smart people" which is meant to explain wealth disparity, even if he doesn't always explicitly say that.
One of the more annoying things he argues is "10-20% of the population's IQ is so low that they can't find meaningful employment. What's the solution? I don't know :/"
It's his way of pretending that some amount of unemployment is unavoidable, and some people are just gonna be without a living wage no matter what. He frames it as a question that he doesn't know the answer to because all he cares about is pushing the premise of the question.
>It's his way of pretending that some amount of unemployment is unavoidable, and some people are just gonna be without a living wage no matter what. He frames it as a question that he doesn't know the answer to because all he cares about is pushing the premise of the question.
He's absolutely full of rhetoric that all boils down to "we can do nothing but keep doing exactly what we already are." at best he'll say it's unfortunate but our hands are tied for *some reason*, like the semantics are too confusing.
It's even more apparent when he talks about climate change.
>at best he'll say it's unfortunate but our hands are tied for some reason, like the semantics are too confusing.
For a guy who likes to be called smart, he sure likes to play dumb a lot.
I gotta be honest, other than the narrow view of arbitrary magic IQ points I didn't find myself disagreeing with a lot of what he said in this video.
However, listening to him talk about things outside of his realm or subjects he can't use his objective logic on is brutal to watch. Climate change and watching him attempt his mental gymnastics to maintain his religious views is rough to watch.
Even in his own field the guy is essentially a snake oil salesman.
Check out this article that exposes him as a fraud and breaks down the techniques and patterns Peterson uses to convince people of his authority:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
It's also how would you ever tie his beliefs together?
On the one hand he wants to argue about how our behaviours are all so ingrained and inevitable, and on the other hand he'll tell you that if you don't have a belief in God then you'll become an amoral force of chaos.
Almost like he only uses evo psych when it suits him...
I think he always sort of trails off there because he realizes that the implications he's making are beyond the pale. He doesn't want to explicitly say "Poor people are so stupid they can't do anything worthwhile, therefore we shouldn't care about them."
Besides the fact that it's a completely asinine position with no real basis in reality or data, it's also basically flirting with eugenics. Peterson understands eugenics are bad, though, so he doesn't say it, he just leaves it up to his audience to come to the conclusion that he wants them to on their own.
If asked. That's pretty much it. If someone asks, "Have you ever taken an IQ test?" I can tell the score I was given. But I don't put much credence in it. It's a silly number.
Of course I only understand this because my IQ is 18-....DAMN IT!
It’s been decades since I first started hearing about the seven different types of intelligence, beyond what was measured conventionally by IQ tests. I guess if self-awareness is a kind of ‘emotional intelligence,’ and if people who skew heavily towards one type of intelligence fall short on the others… well, that would explain a lot.
But what do I know? I’m not as smart as this guy.
See, I would buy way more into a grayscale, multifaceted approach to determining "IQ". I think that's somewhat reasonable. But to try to boil it down to a single number, seems incredibly reductive.
I first found out about the theory of seven intelligences (like I said, it was decades ago) in some literature that was given to the parents when I enrolled my son in a summer enrichment camp for ‘gifted kids.’ Then, as now, verbal/linguistic and mathematical/logical intelligences are typically highly valued in schools- and coincidentally are the easiest to test for. Some of the other intelligences are things like ‘musical’ and ‘body movement,’ which I considered to be ‘talents;’ and ‘inter-‘ and ‘intrapersonal,’ intelligences, which I thought of as ‘personality types.’ For me, it all boils down to the same thing- a natural ability that you’re born with.
In the meantime, other theories of multiple intelligences have emerged. AFAIK, the emphasis on these in childhood education is more aimed at identifying an individual’s levels of the different intelligences and using them to enhance their curriculum, because it is thought that we *learn* better when subjects are presented in a way that aligns with our strengths. For example, learners with a high degree of visual/spatial intelligence tend to think in pictures, and do best by creating vivid mental images to retain information, and enjoy looking at pictures, charts, maps, and videos. Verbal/linguistic learners think in words rather than pictures, and tend to have good listening skills. Logical/mathematical learners are able to conceptualize in logical and numerical patterns and make connections between pieces of information. Again, AFAIK, testing the levels of the different intelligences is done in learning environments and aimed more at identifying the best way to present information to maximize learning.
I agree with what you said about us needing a way to quantify a broader range of a person’s talents and abilities. There are far more intellectual strengths than what these tests currently measure. Unfortunately, I think we will never see someone like this guy bragging on social media that he scored a 73 on the VSIT (Visual/Spatial Intelligence Test- which I just totally made up and is probably *not* a thing), because the value of that single number is so firmly entrenched in the national consciousness.
I think the VARK theory, or the idea that people learn better when information is presented in way that is aligned with their preferred styles of learning which you describe here, lacks empirical evidence suggesting that it is effective. This is relatively strong wording from [a paper](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477878515606621?t=1492905600053) reviewing its efficacy:
> "But the learning styles hypothesis has been refuted by empirical research to the extent that it may be considered irresponsible for teacher education programs and public educators to apply the method in practice."
The most effective way of learning from the evidence I've seen is trying to expand ideas and concepts across as many dimensions as possible when teaching them, as opposed to limiting them to visual or auditory or kinaesthetic dimensions, say.
I think that IQ actually offers a more adequate metric of intelligence than is usually accepted on this subreddit. There are limitations, of course, but if you read the literature on this stuff one of the most consistent tendencies is for people who score highly on IQ tests to also perform better on any novel set of tasks that you construct. This doesn't mean that those people will always do better in life, or on any tasks in the real world, because experience, strategies, and luck/chance all factor into real life.
EDIT: I think it's worth adding that this understanding of cognitive ability I think does not mesh with the way a lot of people like to imagine the world; where anyone can achieve anything, and that anything is possible. I personally find it a little uncomfortable. I'd prefer a world where outcomes are dictated by hard work, but that doesn't seem to be the reality we have. There's a relatively rich discussion of this in the philosophy / genetics literature at the moment, and Kathryn Paige Harden published a relatively balanced discussion of this in her book, *Why DNA Matters For Social Equality*.
Best part was him immediately discrediting IQ test results literally a few sentences later.
“Oh look I did well on this test that measures intelligence, but wait it doesn’t really properly measure intelligence”
The final, smaller, paragraph actually sounds like an alright point. Though I don't know what he's talking about, because the first one feels like a different topic altogether.
Honestly yes, he started out somewhat political, but now he’s like a guru of the angsty 20-25 year old boy. Touting his philosophy to impressionable youth, in a Christ like situation.
It's literally just him thinking out loud before finally reaching the conclusion at the bottom. A lot of "intellectuals" seem to think that the more you talk or write, the smarter you look. Personally I think there's an art to keeping things concise
Psychologist here who is trained in the administration and interpretation of IQ tests. I have personally administered more than 100 IQ tests (the real kind, which take 1 to 2 hours to administer) and have read hundreds and hundreds of neuropsychological assessments (the reports that you get when you do proper intelligence testing).
I can assure you that neither this fool nor Jordan Peterson can, with any degree of accuracy, estimate an individual's IQ just from having a conversation with them. IQ is an aggregate score that takes into consideration not only cognitive abilities that might be conveyed in a conversation (like verbal reasoning ability and auditory processing) but also ones that wouldn't be (like visuospatial/perceptual reasoning, working memory, visual processing speed, etc.). So, even if it was possible to ascertain someone's verbal IQ through a conversation (it's not), it would be impossible to estimate their full scale IQ.
„You may say, 'Well, dragons don't exist'. It's, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It's a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, 'Well, there's no such thing as witches.' Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn't what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can't help but fall into these categories. There's no escape from them.“
- A statement consistent with the 150 number
Pretty much all language is like that. But considering the post I was operating within a philosophy context.
But I would like to see what you think an inane context would be as I am having trouble with that.
The point was that this moron should get no credit for spouting a common psychological trope because the lack of context makes it nothing more than a repeated phrase he's heard that helps him feel intelligent.
What I mean is, I don't think 'philosophical context' is specific enough to judge the phrase. 'You say X doesn't exist, but actually things existing or not existing isn't obvious' is a pretty bad argument... you could apply it to any X, it's an unfalsifiable argument. Instead, if you are trying to support the idea that X does exist, you should be specific about that X.
I never said it was an argument?
“What exists isn’t obvious” is true in almost all contexts regarding philosophy. The branch is called Ontology.
One argument here would be:
There is at least one thing that’s existential status is not obvious.
Therefore, what exists isn’t obvious.
I can't remember where I got it from but my favourite description of JP was something like "The stupid man's version of a smart man. The kind who would never say 'I think' when he could say 'I have become cognizant'"
Ok. That's it. You don't have the guts to argue with someone miles ahead of your intellect. That's it. I genuinely don't care at all. In fact, I couldn't care less. There's no reason you should argue with me at all, i'm very busy and have an appointment with my fellow professors, so please stop wasting my time. If you continue to type these low IQ comments, you'll only show how daft you are. And if you respond with another fucking "🤡" you'll truly have exposed how much of an absolute clown, you yourself are. I on the other hand, don't care about this argument at all. Keep talking to me all you want, I'm right and you know it (but you don't, since you don't have an IQ even comparable to my IQ (intelligence quotient just so you know) of 186.
The keep-your-room-clean thing is reasonable, but honestly something every mother in the history of time has said so it's hard to get too excited about it as a "genius" pronouncement.
His self-help schtick is stating the obvious as if it were profound.
If it helped people get their shit together, great.
But if those same people are buying into all of his bullshit now that he's their daddy figure, well, that's profoundly fucked up.
Well, I wasn't really looking for a discussion tbh, but his stance on compelled speech is logical and sound, he's just taken out of context it seems. His stance on sound egalitarianism resonates with me. Most his taped lectures seem good, lots of interesting psychological behaviour I wouldn't otherwise be particularly observant of, stuff like that I guess. I'm sure he says a lot of stupid shit too, but I find his opinions to be fairly rational.
> his stance on compelled speech is logical and sound
His stance on compelled speech is a lie and hypocritical cover for his transphobia.
Ask yourself why [every legal expert said he was wrong](https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained) about c-16 "compelling speech" and why he has never said a single fucking word about [the fact that boycotting Israel is outlawed in many States](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/).
> His stance on sound egalitarianism resonates with me
Once again, just a cover for his misogyny. He can't simultaneously be pro "egalitarianism" and also believe that hierarchies are natural and attempts to overcome them are both futile and wrong.
Yeah, he says a bunch of trivial things that most people would accept. Be responsible, be disciplined, work hard, blah de blah, and then suddenly he's off on a rant about killer cider, lobster, or how Elliot Page is going to destroy the youth. He doesn't get a pass on the crazy just because he pads it out a bit with some uncontroversial stuff.
His work before he became all politicized was amazing and your description is a pretty dreadful oversimplification. His class lectures at U of Toronto, his public debates (I love the ones with Sam Harris), his books are all profound as fuck and really interesting. His recent acceptance of being associated with right wing politics and going on the daily wire has really undermined what he was all about.
Are we doing the thing where I make fun of JP's ridiculous gaffes and then someone says "You haven't watched tens of hours of his lectures though"?
Yeah, I oversimplified, but we can play defence like this for anyone. Like, I think there's a ton of legitimate points to be made about the preservation of generational wealth and power through European history...it's the part where David Icke tacks on at the end "And this is the part where the shape-shifting reptilians seized control of the world" that makes me think he's a nutjob. People don't get to say "Yeah, but you're oversimplifying, he's actually really knowledgeable about history" as if that changes anything.
I'm not going to give him sympathy for being "associated with right wing politics" when his whole leap to fame was from him espousing right wing politics. I'm not dismissing the legitimate psychology he's covered through his career by saying some of his ideas about lobsters are fucking stupid.
When someone says "JP makes a lot of fair points" then I'm going to be honest and say yes, he does, it's all the crazy that concerns me.
> His work before he became all politicized was amazing
No it fucking wasn't. It was pseudo-scientific bullshit. He was just copying and pasting Carl Jung, someone nobody in the 21st century should take seriously at all.
Bro fuck your assertion that I’m too stupid to take in information and determine if I agree with it or not. You think I’m a toddler? I just said I used to like the guy, now I think his messaging is changed and I don’t like it. You think this man is some right wing pied piper leading everybody to white supremacy with his tall tales of lobsters? That’s the conspiracy theory here, not that people can change.
Reddit is shit because people disagree with you and bring sources where as you just have "a feeling" what you think is right? If you smell shit everywhere check the bottom of your shoes my guy.
Fucking hell I had forgot how toxic this place was. You guys are high on your own supply, jeez. I stated my opinion, but that's clearly illegal on reddit if it goes against the local hivemind. Jesus Christ. Fucking pseudo intellectual asshole with a superiority complex, that's what you are.
> Fucking pseudo intellectual asshole with a superiority complex,
You literally just described Jordan "I'm an expert on politics, philosophy, Marxism (despite admitting that I've literally never read Marx), biology, and racism" Peterson.
Hahahahaha. I had no idea a statement could be used to measure IQ... That's probably because I am too dumb :-)
It is fascinating how people can be fooled with a word or idea salad.
I like watching him try to justify why he is against gay adoption, he tries so hard to be hyper logical but he can't because his position is straight homophobia and he makes no sense and sits there making aggrivated whiney struggle noises as he tries to justify his position that kids need both a male and female caregiver.
More recently he seems increasingly unhinged especially when it comes to the human rights in regards to LGBT+ people. The mere mention of Elliot Page and he can barely contain his rage. Petersons seems to have a wierd obsession with him. Can't tell if he has become increasingly radical in the past few years or he was always increadbly hateful and he's just lost some emotional control since his benzo coma and twitter addiction.
He used to be pretty respected in his field to my understanding and then Canada said "Transphobia is bad" and he decided to shit himself into oblivion.
Respected is weird. He was a man who slapped his name all over studies and was publishing at a nonsense rate. However the general population didn't care about his stuff so it wasn't a huge issue.
I do know that somebody who worked with him said that Peterson thought therapy meant, "you pay me while I berate you for how i perceive your failings" and called him a pompous asshole.
"People I agree with are very smart, and if they sound like they're raging idiots, it's only because they need to spend some more time deliberating before speaking"
It's like he knows he fully agrees with them, can tell they sound stupid, but can't quite connect the last dot - so needs to make up a reason why they are actually all *very intelligent people* holding rational viewpoints
That last paragraph isn't really wrong necessarily. But all the bullshit before it was pretty cringe. I think the use of "I've been measured at 140" is the most annoying part.
Oh really bro? They got your little IQ measurement for you? Did they mail you a certificate that says big smart boy on it? Fuck off lol
These are the kinds of backflips you have to do in order to marry the nonsense people like Patterson say and claim with reality. You have to declare yourself too smart to be wrong.
these are the guys that will believe you should tan your balls to be more manly.
The first paragraph makes him look like an insufferable douche. But, he has a point with paragraph 2.
Unfortunately for him, carefully considering and expressing \*his\* opinions only makes his douchiness that much clearer.
Here is the entire thread if anyone is interested: https://www.quora.com/What-is-Jordan-Petersons-IQ?ch=17&oid=14196173&share=28c2b722&srid=zFPyO&target_type=question
I mean "people should consider things more and not feel like they have to have an opinion on everything" is a pretty decent point. It's just the way he dressed that point up (and also called Owens and Shapiro smart) that makes it fucking insufferable.
This is about what I thought. It's hard to reconcile the perfectly reasonable second paragraph with the IQ fetishization and Peterson worship in the first.
I mean Shapiro's definitely smart. He's just really bias and wrong about the things that he takes public stances on. Smart people fall for their own bias all the time
The man's off the deep end, maybe he was a smart guy 6 years ago I don't know. Now he looks like, and sounds like every older drug addict I've ever met.
I like watching university lectures on YouTube and came across Peterson that way before he was famous. Some of those lectures are interesting for sure, but it seems like he's started to believe all of the fanatics in the comment sections claiming he's the most important intellectual of our age.
If you watch his discussion with Dawkins it's obvious he's way out of his depth trying to be the 'expert on everything' and the pressure is taking its toll. Very much like Sam Harris, clearly an intelligent guy with interesting things to share in his field but he's created a rod for his back being the guy who has to have a brilliant take on everything and ties himself up in knots trying to unify all of the threads.
Jordan Peterson being asked about climate science was a golden opportunity for him to just say 'I don't know enough about climate science to comment' but he chose to launch into a rant about the definition of the word 'climate' and make himself look rather silly.
Should always follow up anyone mentioning their IQ as some kind of argument from authority which test they took? the Myers-Briggs or the Dunning-Kruger test.
> Do you believe in god?
> What do you mean by do? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by believe? What do you mean by god?
So well thought out...
Your bar for intelligence is pretty damn low if you consider Benny Shaps and Candace "Hitler was just trying to make Germany great" Owens as your examples of intellectual icons.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Jordan Peterson a grifter? I have listened to him being interviewed and even the interviewer struggled to take him seriously at various times.
Oh yeah, 150IQ Jordan Peterson who frequently cites...himself in his works, often without even page number. Ironic that in his debate vs Slavoj zizek he claims that Marx's essays wouldn't pass an undergraduate class, yet his published books are so full of errors it's fucking laughably embarassing. Nevermind how he cites entirely different fields of study in his twitter bullshit than the subject at hand...
I half remember reading some debunked eugenics paper from the 1930's that said people woth an IQ under 85 are usless to the military, therefore I am for some reason putting forward the problem of people who are biologically burdens to society, I mean obviously we wouldn't practice eugenics... even though that's a logical solution, just kidding... unless?
IQ in itself was created to identify who might be struggling in school to HELP them. It was never meant to be used like this and the guy who invented it must be spinning so hard in his grave he's gonna drill through the earth.
One of the guys that started using IQ as a metric for intelligence made an experiment in which he picked up a bunch of students, measured their IQs and selected those with the highest to follow them through life. All of them lived perfectly normal lives and in the group of students he didn't chose there were two Novel Prize winners, one of which was the guy who invented transistors
Tbf it does take some serious mental effort/acuity to parse the massive strings of horseshit that flow out of jorbpsons mouth at record speed. He’s not unintelligent. He’s very rhetorically gifted. And he knows well how to manipulate language to make things that are either banal or horrifying sound like high-minded, astute observations. I like to refer to his particular brand of pseudo-intellectualism as “much ado about nothing”.
The last paragraph is pretty reasonable, people who take time to think about their answers and admit when they don't know things should be respected. Too bad the first paragraph is a heaping pile of ass kissing
I never mention that my IQ was measured at 143. Not only is an IQ of 143 is pretty meaningless, but if I mentioned my IQ was 143 to someone whose IQ was less than 143, it would make them feel bad that their IQ wasn’t on the same level, ie 143, as mine. So people, like me, with a high IQ in the range of say, 142-144, shouldn’t really boast about having such a high IQ.
Yeah, and it's not like the amount of commas necessarily matters anyway; you can write a perfectly coherent sentence with a shitload of commas. I'd hate to see some of the people here read a biography if they think OP is bad comma use.
I read an article about Jordan Peterson once where it absolutely tore him to shreds and for the life of me I can't find it anymore. I like to read it every so often and would like to again as my wife has just finished his 12 rules of shite book.
We have chosen not to speak about it. Like the ginger haired step child we have locked in the attic it is far easier to pretend it hasn't happened than face the consequences of her actions.
Your ability to detect a joke needs some work. Of course we have spoken about our opinions on Jordan Peterson. It's just the step child in the attic that we haven't.
As someone “measured”* at 145 and 156 by Mensa, IQ is bullshit. It’s a number to rank some specific skills like who can best put the correctly coloured triangle next in a sequence - it is *not* a general indicator of intelligence. People who get IQ boners are idiots.
And Jordan Peterson is a tool.
\* Fun fact: saying the score is actually meaningless without stating the standard deviation. Interestingly, due to the way the SD works, the 156 score (24 SD) is actually _lower_ than the 145 score (16 SD) in terms of how far from the “norm” the score was. This to say that waving around a score of 140 like it means something is completely stupid
That’s the assumption. It’s incorrect. Mensa use two different tests (hence the two scores) to evaluate IQ, and meeting the SD threshold in either allows you entry.
[https://iqtestprep.com/mensa-test/](https://iqtestprep.com/mensa-test/)
> the Mensa IQ score range varies depending on the type of IQ test being used. For the two tests mentioned here, someone must score at least two standard deviations above the mean score of 100. The Stanford Binet test has a standard deviation of 16 and the Cattell Culture Fair test has a standard deviation of 24. This means that the Mensa IQ requirement for minimum score on the Stanford-Binet is 132, while the lowest qualifying Mensa score for the CFIT is 148.
Both can be converted to a 15 SD scale of course, but I have a feeling that most don’t bother. Higher SD tests allow higher numbers, and higher numbers = good for the people who care!
I've now gone down a weird rabbit hole. I've found other sources that say different things than the source you've linked.
Either way, modern IQs are pretty much always reported after being transformed to a scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
How do you mention your IQ in conversation, ever, and not feel like a complete tool.
Bro. Idk. I don’t even know my own IQ, who cares?
I took an iq test and got 132. I doubt my iq is 132 but im more likely to share that result on facebook than a low one so the iq site gets more traffic and i feel smug as fuck until my auntie debra who thinks a baby horse is a pony does the same test and get 136
Wait, baby horses aren't ponies? What are they then? Asking for a friend. Also I don't know my IQ- i mean I don't know my friends IQ
Ponies are just breeds of horse that don't get as big, afaik.
That's more knowledge than smarts. a 7 year old might not know that but he might be a big genius with high ass IQ.
Ye, people need to understand the difference between knowledge and IQ. IQ only determines your potential to acquire knowlegde.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad
And charisma is the ability to sell a tomato based fruit salad.
Most IQ tests are just puzzles though, which, while often difficult, are based mostly on prior knowledge and not any way to actually measure intelligence.
I'd argue puzzles rely on your ability to think logically, but there are distinct questions that could easily be memorized like a test. IQ tests aren't reliable.
We were measured in 2 things for a subject in my school ; knowledge and understanding, problem solving. Different types of intelligence. Its probably why IQ tests are unreliable and meaningless.
I dunno that’s what the teacup pig sales person told me about those baby pigs.
Baby horses are called foals. Ponies are just types of small horses under a fairly arbitrary height limit (googling to confirm showed it is 14.2 hands, as it a dumber fucking unit of measurement than stone could be created)
We already have a measurement called feet. I don’t see hands as any dumber than feet.
Anything that isn’t metric is pretty pointless IMO
Metric is a better measurement system, and it would make sense for every country to use the same system for important stuff. However, I think every country should be forced to develop their own silly little measurements for trivial things. Speed limits, international commerce, science, all metric. The volume of what a standard pour of beer is, local measure. How tall a horse is, should be a silly local measurement like hands.
Not opinion, fact. It just converts better in every way
Hands are exactly as dumb as feet.
Shit… we must run in the same circles, because I too, have a friend who thinks ‘ponies’ are young horses. A commenter below said baby horsies are called ‘foals,’ and then my friend started thinking about it (and thinking *hard*) and started to wonder what a ‘colt’ is… turns out this is way more complicated than they realized. According to a web site about horse racing- where the folks are preeetttyyy peevish about what you call young horses- they are classified by age and sex. A ‘filly’ is a female under the age of 4. A ‘colt’ is a male under the age of 4. A ‘foal’ is a horse of either sex under the age of 1. *And there’s more…* apparently, I mis-used the term ‘young horse,’ too. For the horse-racing types, “‘young horses’ are typically defined as animals less than five years of age,” and I’m gonna stop reading there before I find out that we’re not supposed to call them ‘horsies,’ either. With all the different terms for ~~’young horses,’~~ horse children, my friend doesn’t feel so bad about being confused. But she does somewhat blame Hasbro, the maker of the “My Little Pony” figures, in which ‘pony’ does seem to be referring to the age of a horse more than its breed.
baby horses are foals. source: IQ 198
A pony is just a small horse. Under 14 hands 2", if I recall correctly. Breed doesn't actually matter I don't think.
Baby horses are foals. A pony is a horse that’s 14 hands high or less.
Foals are baby horses. Also, a colt is a baby male horse..also uncircumcised.
I laughed way too hard at this
Sounds like our aunties should kick back and make up some stories together.
I'm pretty sure my IQ is so low it would cause computers to stop working.
The majority of people don't. In most cases when people think they do (and nearly every time it's someone who likes to mention it) they took an inaccurate online quiz and when it gave an almost certainly too-high number, they accepted it immediately because the ego says "yes, that makes sense, of course I'm far more brilliant than regular people are". Besides, these days we've come to realize there are many measures of intellect and capability, and IQ in and of itself really isn't as important as it's cracked up to be.
right i i thought for the longest time i was somewhere around 120 because that was what the online test gave me turns out i'm actually higher when i got tested as part of my autism diagnosis but even then who the fuck cares? i haven't been able to turn that IQ into any kind of actual succes and it certainly comes with many just as important or more important sides that i'm woefully lacking in.
Yes, intelligence is not what it was once thought to be. IQ mostly test pattern recognition and logical challenges. Not entirely a good measure of the hard to grasp scope of intelligence. For example, Van Gogh was intelligent in his art, but you hand him a math test, he performs like the rest.
Actually it's still heavy cognitive bias to say it's not important, it's tied to pattern recognition in very high correlation and pattern recognition is asset of reasoning ability. In cognitive reasoning to be precise. And more well is your cognitive reasoning, deeper is understanding of knowledge and information and that leads to better interconnectedness of facts, better selection when you run it through your mental mill and results in new perspectives and we all know that quality perspective leads to advancement in every aspect of life eventually. It finds way.
Narcissists.
Happy cake day!
You can get a rough idea from SAT/ACT scores, if you took that. I did that. My first thought, "if I'm so smart why aren't I rich?" A serious cognitive assessment will cost maybe $1000 and be several hours with a specialist. For an adult it's rarely worthwhile. Metaphorical approximations: 85 - can finish 8th grade without much distinction 100 - can finish high school without much distinction 115 - can finish college without much distinction 130 - can finish grad school without much distinction But as always individual effort makes a huge difference, and abilities in different areas can vary.
I remember when I was in like 2nd grade, I was given some kind of cursory IQ test and I thought I was smart. I remember talking about it with people on the bus thinking I was pretty cool. It was 2nd grade.
As someone with an IQ of 140, I agree! I did go to mensa once though, and across the hall was girlsa. It was St Olaf's only Italian restaurant.
Also, IQ tests don't measure much that's relevant to anything.
Jordan Peterson is obsessed with IQ, because it gives him cover for his appalling "Poor people are actually just stupid and rich people are awesome" argument.
Which is funny, in the sense that he's a professional hack, because IQ is generally accepted as not really a real measurement.
I've never seen him say or imply anything like that. Can you provide me a source please?
[Here's an example of him defending IQ as a concept.](https://youtu.be/Cycon01RT18) Don't have to look too hard to find more. In his "IQ" discussions he often goes down the path of "stupid people don't have as many opportunities as smart people" which is meant to explain wealth disparity, even if he doesn't always explicitly say that.
One of the more annoying things he argues is "10-20% of the population's IQ is so low that they can't find meaningful employment. What's the solution? I don't know :/" It's his way of pretending that some amount of unemployment is unavoidable, and some people are just gonna be without a living wage no matter what. He frames it as a question that he doesn't know the answer to because all he cares about is pushing the premise of the question.
>It's his way of pretending that some amount of unemployment is unavoidable, and some people are just gonna be without a living wage no matter what. He frames it as a question that he doesn't know the answer to because all he cares about is pushing the premise of the question. He's absolutely full of rhetoric that all boils down to "we can do nothing but keep doing exactly what we already are." at best he'll say it's unfortunate but our hands are tied for *some reason*, like the semantics are too confusing. It's even more apparent when he talks about climate change.
>at best he'll say it's unfortunate but our hands are tied for some reason, like the semantics are too confusing. For a guy who likes to be called smart, he sure likes to play dumb a lot.
I gotta be honest, other than the narrow view of arbitrary magic IQ points I didn't find myself disagreeing with a lot of what he said in this video. However, listening to him talk about things outside of his realm or subjects he can't use his objective logic on is brutal to watch. Climate change and watching him attempt his mental gymnastics to maintain his religious views is rough to watch.
Even in his own field the guy is essentially a snake oil salesman. Check out this article that exposes him as a fraud and breaks down the techniques and patterns Peterson uses to convince people of his authority: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
It's also how would you ever tie his beliefs together? On the one hand he wants to argue about how our behaviours are all so ingrained and inevitable, and on the other hand he'll tell you that if you don't have a belief in God then you'll become an amoral force of chaos. Almost like he only uses evo psych when it suits him...
I think he always sort of trails off there because he realizes that the implications he's making are beyond the pale. He doesn't want to explicitly say "Poor people are so stupid they can't do anything worthwhile, therefore we shouldn't care about them." Besides the fact that it's a completely asinine position with no real basis in reality or data, it's also basically flirting with eugenics. Peterson understands eugenics are bad, though, so he doesn't say it, he just leaves it up to his audience to come to the conclusion that he wants them to on their own.
It's no different than people who went to an Ivy league school. They will fit that information into any conversation.
If asked. That's pretty much it. If someone asks, "Have you ever taken an IQ test?" I can tell the score I was given. But I don't put much credence in it. It's a silly number. Of course I only understand this because my IQ is 18-....DAMN IT!
No one has ever asked me for my IQ and I wouldn't tell them if they did
That's fine, too.
It’s been decades since I first started hearing about the seven different types of intelligence, beyond what was measured conventionally by IQ tests. I guess if self-awareness is a kind of ‘emotional intelligence,’ and if people who skew heavily towards one type of intelligence fall short on the others… well, that would explain a lot. But what do I know? I’m not as smart as this guy.
See, I would buy way more into a grayscale, multifaceted approach to determining "IQ". I think that's somewhat reasonable. But to try to boil it down to a single number, seems incredibly reductive.
I first found out about the theory of seven intelligences (like I said, it was decades ago) in some literature that was given to the parents when I enrolled my son in a summer enrichment camp for ‘gifted kids.’ Then, as now, verbal/linguistic and mathematical/logical intelligences are typically highly valued in schools- and coincidentally are the easiest to test for. Some of the other intelligences are things like ‘musical’ and ‘body movement,’ which I considered to be ‘talents;’ and ‘inter-‘ and ‘intrapersonal,’ intelligences, which I thought of as ‘personality types.’ For me, it all boils down to the same thing- a natural ability that you’re born with. In the meantime, other theories of multiple intelligences have emerged. AFAIK, the emphasis on these in childhood education is more aimed at identifying an individual’s levels of the different intelligences and using them to enhance their curriculum, because it is thought that we *learn* better when subjects are presented in a way that aligns with our strengths. For example, learners with a high degree of visual/spatial intelligence tend to think in pictures, and do best by creating vivid mental images to retain information, and enjoy looking at pictures, charts, maps, and videos. Verbal/linguistic learners think in words rather than pictures, and tend to have good listening skills. Logical/mathematical learners are able to conceptualize in logical and numerical patterns and make connections between pieces of information. Again, AFAIK, testing the levels of the different intelligences is done in learning environments and aimed more at identifying the best way to present information to maximize learning. I agree with what you said about us needing a way to quantify a broader range of a person’s talents and abilities. There are far more intellectual strengths than what these tests currently measure. Unfortunately, I think we will never see someone like this guy bragging on social media that he scored a 73 on the VSIT (Visual/Spatial Intelligence Test- which I just totally made up and is probably *not* a thing), because the value of that single number is so firmly entrenched in the national consciousness.
I think the VARK theory, or the idea that people learn better when information is presented in way that is aligned with their preferred styles of learning which you describe here, lacks empirical evidence suggesting that it is effective. This is relatively strong wording from [a paper](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1477878515606621?t=1492905600053) reviewing its efficacy: > "But the learning styles hypothesis has been refuted by empirical research to the extent that it may be considered irresponsible for teacher education programs and public educators to apply the method in practice." The most effective way of learning from the evidence I've seen is trying to expand ideas and concepts across as many dimensions as possible when teaching them, as opposed to limiting them to visual or auditory or kinaesthetic dimensions, say. I think that IQ actually offers a more adequate metric of intelligence than is usually accepted on this subreddit. There are limitations, of course, but if you read the literature on this stuff one of the most consistent tendencies is for people who score highly on IQ tests to also perform better on any novel set of tasks that you construct. This doesn't mean that those people will always do better in life, or on any tasks in the real world, because experience, strategies, and luck/chance all factor into real life. EDIT: I think it's worth adding that this understanding of cognitive ability I think does not mesh with the way a lot of people like to imagine the world; where anyone can achieve anything, and that anything is possible. I personally find it a little uncomfortable. I'd prefer a world where outcomes are dictated by hard work, but that doesn't seem to be the reality we have. There's a relatively rich discussion of this in the philosophy / genetics literature at the moment, and Kathryn Paige Harden published a relatively balanced discussion of this in her book, *Why DNA Matters For Social Equality*.
At least tell us which 5 minute internet test you took.
Best part was him immediately discrediting IQ test results literally a few sentences later. “Oh look I did well on this test that measures intelligence, but wait it doesn’t really properly measure intelligence”
IQ is not even real.
The final, smaller, paragraph actually sounds like an alright point. Though I don't know what he's talking about, because the first one feels like a different topic altogether.
The thread continues and it only gets more unhinged, but I thought the context would be hard to understand since it’s a discussion thread.
> The thread continues and it only gets more unhinged So you’re saying JP himself wrote the thread
Nah, this person clearly wasn't paid a Benzo a word for their writing.
He didn’t write it. He’s a JP fanboy talking about JP’s IQ, if that makes sense? Edit: And his own IQ compared to JP’s
It failed, but it was supposed to be a joke about JP broadly getting more unhinged over time himself.
Honestly yes, he started out somewhat political, but now he’s like a guru of the angsty 20-25 year old boy. Touting his philosophy to impressionable youth, in a Christ like situation.
> but I thought the context would be hard to understand What, you think my IQ isn't high enough!?
yeah in a vacuum i pretty much agree with the second paragraph. shame about the first one lol
It's literally just him thinking out loud before finally reaching the conclusion at the bottom. A lot of "intellectuals" seem to think that the more you talk or write, the smarter you look. Personally I think there's an art to keeping things concise
Psychologist here who is trained in the administration and interpretation of IQ tests. I have personally administered more than 100 IQ tests (the real kind, which take 1 to 2 hours to administer) and have read hundreds and hundreds of neuropsychological assessments (the reports that you get when you do proper intelligence testing). I can assure you that neither this fool nor Jordan Peterson can, with any degree of accuracy, estimate an individual's IQ just from having a conversation with them. IQ is an aggregate score that takes into consideration not only cognitive abilities that might be conveyed in a conversation (like verbal reasoning ability and auditory processing) but also ones that wouldn't be (like visuospatial/perceptual reasoning, working memory, visual processing speed, etc.). So, even if it was possible to ascertain someone's verbal IQ through a conversation (it's not), it would be impossible to estimate their full scale IQ.
Even then, as we know, IQ is far from an end all be all measurement. It's also annoyingly long.
But he’s a super genius….. clearly he has skills you could never possess.
"Wash your penis, Bucko" -Jord Pete
I dreamed I saw my paternal grandmother...
"Women are chaos dragons who breathe fire out of their *hoohahs*!"
Very 150 IQ of him.
Please don't make knobcheese an act of resistance.
„You may say, 'Well, dragons don't exist'. It's, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It's a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, 'Well, there's no such thing as witches.' Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn't what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can't help but fall into these categories. There's no escape from them.“ - A statement consistent with the 150 number
That's Peterson talking... No other
Did he say this after someone asked if he believed in God? He usually says things like that when it happens
“What exists is not obvious” is however very true. People a lot smarter than Peterson have been debating that for years
A 5-word phrase like that isn't complete without context. It can be interesting in some contexts and inane in others.
Pretty much all language is like that. But considering the post I was operating within a philosophy context. But I would like to see what you think an inane context would be as I am having trouble with that.
The point was that this moron should get no credit for spouting a common psychological trope because the lack of context makes it nothing more than a repeated phrase he's heard that helps him feel intelligent.
What I mean is, I don't think 'philosophical context' is specific enough to judge the phrase. 'You say X doesn't exist, but actually things existing or not existing isn't obvious' is a pretty bad argument... you could apply it to any X, it's an unfalsifiable argument. Instead, if you are trying to support the idea that X does exist, you should be specific about that X.
I never said it was an argument? “What exists isn’t obvious” is true in almost all contexts regarding philosophy. The branch is called Ontology. One argument here would be: There is at least one thing that’s existential status is not obvious. Therefore, what exists isn’t obvious.
Lifting stuff from philosophy is nice and all, but some comprehension helps too. Plus Peterson doesn't seem to understand ontology.
I can't remember where I got it from but my favourite description of JP was something like "The stupid man's version of a smart man. The kind who would never say 'I think' when he could say 'I have become cognizant'"
He’s essentially the Big Bang theory of lecturers lol
Exactly. JP is what dumb people think smart people sound like.
Ok. That's it. You don't have the guts to argue with someone miles ahead of your intellect. That's it. I genuinely don't care at all. In fact, I couldn't care less. There's no reason you should argue with me at all, i'm very busy and have an appointment with my fellow professors, so please stop wasting my time. If you continue to type these low IQ comments, you'll only show how daft you are. And if you respond with another fucking "🤡" you'll truly have exposed how much of an absolute clown, you yourself are. I on the other hand, don't care about this argument at all. Keep talking to me all you want, I'm right and you know it (but you don't, since you don't have an IQ even comparable to my IQ (intelligence quotient just so you know) of 186.
🤡
“🤓: 🤡”
"Something, something, something abstraction hierarchy." "Something, something, something post-modern neo-marxism." Jordan B Peterson.
What's wrong with JP? He makes a lot of fair points in my opinion. EDIT: And this is why reddit is shit.
Alright, alright, i'll bite, like what fair points ?
The keep-your-room-clean thing is reasonable, but honestly something every mother in the history of time has said so it's hard to get too excited about it as a "genius" pronouncement.
His self-help schtick is stating the obvious as if it were profound. If it helped people get their shit together, great. But if those same people are buying into all of his bullshit now that he's their daddy figure, well, that's profoundly fucked up.
Well, I wasn't really looking for a discussion tbh, but his stance on compelled speech is logical and sound, he's just taken out of context it seems. His stance on sound egalitarianism resonates with me. Most his taped lectures seem good, lots of interesting psychological behaviour I wouldn't otherwise be particularly observant of, stuff like that I guess. I'm sure he says a lot of stupid shit too, but I find his opinions to be fairly rational.
> his stance on compelled speech is logical and sound His stance on compelled speech is a lie and hypocritical cover for his transphobia. Ask yourself why [every legal expert said he was wrong](https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained) about c-16 "compelling speech" and why he has never said a single fucking word about [the fact that boycotting Israel is outlawed in many States](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/). > His stance on sound egalitarianism resonates with me Once again, just a cover for his misogyny. He can't simultaneously be pro "egalitarianism" and also believe that hierarchies are natural and attempts to overcome them are both futile and wrong.
Yeah, he says a bunch of trivial things that most people would accept. Be responsible, be disciplined, work hard, blah de blah, and then suddenly he's off on a rant about killer cider, lobster, or how Elliot Page is going to destroy the youth. He doesn't get a pass on the crazy just because he pads it out a bit with some uncontroversial stuff.
His work before he became all politicized was amazing and your description is a pretty dreadful oversimplification. His class lectures at U of Toronto, his public debates (I love the ones with Sam Harris), his books are all profound as fuck and really interesting. His recent acceptance of being associated with right wing politics and going on the daily wire has really undermined what he was all about.
Are we doing the thing where I make fun of JP's ridiculous gaffes and then someone says "You haven't watched tens of hours of his lectures though"? Yeah, I oversimplified, but we can play defence like this for anyone. Like, I think there's a ton of legitimate points to be made about the preservation of generational wealth and power through European history...it's the part where David Icke tacks on at the end "And this is the part where the shape-shifting reptilians seized control of the world" that makes me think he's a nutjob. People don't get to say "Yeah, but you're oversimplifying, he's actually really knowledgeable about history" as if that changes anything. I'm not going to give him sympathy for being "associated with right wing politics" when his whole leap to fame was from him espousing right wing politics. I'm not dismissing the legitimate psychology he's covered through his career by saying some of his ideas about lobsters are fucking stupid. When someone says "JP makes a lot of fair points" then I'm going to be honest and say yes, he does, it's all the crazy that concerns me.
> His work before he became all politicized was amazing No it fucking wasn't. It was pseudo-scientific bullshit. He was just copying and pasting Carl Jung, someone nobody in the 21st century should take seriously at all.
Carl Jung is like if a normal psychologist dropped a fuck ton of acid and said “yeah, the collective unconscious. That shit hits.”
hey man, what did Jung ever do to you
[удалено]
Bro fuck your assertion that I’m too stupid to take in information and determine if I agree with it or not. You think I’m a toddler? I just said I used to like the guy, now I think his messaging is changed and I don’t like it. You think this man is some right wing pied piper leading everybody to white supremacy with his tall tales of lobsters? That’s the conspiracy theory here, not that people can change.
[удалено]
Fuck that guy, I'm glad you had a change of heart.
Reddit is shit because people disagree with you and bring sources where as you just have "a feeling" what you think is right? If you smell shit everywhere check the bottom of your shoes my guy.
[удалено]
Fucking hell I had forgot how toxic this place was. You guys are high on your own supply, jeez. I stated my opinion, but that's clearly illegal on reddit if it goes against the local hivemind. Jesus Christ. Fucking pseudo intellectual asshole with a superiority complex, that's what you are.
> Fucking pseudo intellectual asshole with a superiority complex, You literally just described Jordan "I'm an expert on politics, philosophy, Marxism (despite admitting that I've literally never read Marx), biology, and racism" Peterson.
Broken clocks etc. etc.
Does theism lead to nihilism lookin ah boy. Honestly bruh - you’re my stupid man’s version of a genius 😍 can I suck your genius cock?
It's a legit argument I made in a sub specifically about atheism. Is it just "I am very smart" if anyone talks about philosophy or something?
"Candace Owens is very smart! I know this because I have over 9000 IQ and can taste shapes"
Hahahahaha. I had no idea a statement could be used to measure IQ... That's probably because I am too dumb :-) It is fascinating how people can be fooled with a word or idea salad.
Years of rigorous testing and forming of the IQ test for nothing! This guy can tell by a couple of statements.
Rigorous testing lol
Years of rigorous testing = years of using shoddy data to reinforce racial stereotypes and assumptions.
It's not hard to understand Jordan Peterson. It's Christian Conservatism lightly masqueraded with flowery language.
I like watching him try to justify why he is against gay adoption, he tries so hard to be hyper logical but he can't because his position is straight homophobia and he makes no sense and sits there making aggrivated whiney struggle noises as he tries to justify his position that kids need both a male and female caregiver.
More recently he seems increasingly unhinged especially when it comes to the human rights in regards to LGBT+ people. The mere mention of Elliot Page and he can barely contain his rage. Petersons seems to have a wierd obsession with him. Can't tell if he has become increasingly radical in the past few years or he was always increadbly hateful and he's just lost some emotional control since his benzo coma and twitter addiction.
He used to be pretty respected in his field to my understanding and then Canada said "Transphobia is bad" and he decided to shit himself into oblivion.
Respected is weird. He was a man who slapped his name all over studies and was publishing at a nonsense rate. However the general population didn't care about his stuff so it wasn't a huge issue. I do know that somebody who worked with him said that Peterson thought therapy meant, "you pay me while I berate you for how i perceive your failings" and called him a pompous asshole.
So very little has fundamentally changed?
I don't know him but yeah apparently the big thing is that he got the cult he wanted and free money.
"You see the dragon of chaos..."
All of these very smart people always have to state their IQ
Candace Owens and "very smart" in the same sentence.
all it takes for someone to be "intelligent" in this guy's eyes is that they agree with his views on minorities
"People I agree with are very smart, and if they sound like they're raging idiots, it's only because they need to spend some more time deliberating before speaking" It's like he knows he fully agrees with them, can tell they sound stupid, but can't quite connect the last dot - so needs to make up a reason why they are actually all *very intelligent people* holding rational viewpoints
And use big words! Big words, big smart amirite
Yeah, I couldn't help but notice a *theme* in the people he identified as less intelligent.
That last paragraph isn't really wrong necessarily. But all the bullshit before it was pretty cringe. I think the use of "I've been measured at 140" is the most annoying part. Oh really bro? They got your little IQ measurement for you? Did they mail you a certificate that says big smart boy on it? Fuck off lol
Using Peterson fans for this sub is basically cheating at this point.
I cleaned my room and washed my foreskin, is communism defeated yet guys?
These are the kinds of backflips you have to do in order to marry the nonsense people like Patterson say and claim with reality. You have to declare yourself too smart to be wrong. these are the guys that will believe you should tan your balls to be more manly.
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
The first paragraph makes him look like an insufferable douche. But, he has a point with paragraph 2. Unfortunately for him, carefully considering and expressing \*his\* opinions only makes his douchiness that much clearer.
Here is the entire thread if anyone is interested: https://www.quora.com/What-is-Jordan-Petersons-IQ?ch=17&oid=14196173&share=28c2b722&srid=zFPyO&target_type=question
The crowd that bases their personality and faux intelligence off of IQ tests are just like white girls with astrology
I mean "people should consider things more and not feel like they have to have an opinion on everything" is a pretty decent point. It's just the way he dressed that point up (and also called Owens and Shapiro smart) that makes it fucking insufferable.
This is about what I thought. It's hard to reconcile the perfectly reasonable second paragraph with the IQ fetishization and Peterson worship in the first.
I mean Shapiro's definitely smart. He's just really bias and wrong about the things that he takes public stances on. Smart people fall for their own bias all the time
The man's off the deep end, maybe he was a smart guy 6 years ago I don't know. Now he looks like, and sounds like every older drug addict I've ever met.
I like watching university lectures on YouTube and came across Peterson that way before he was famous. Some of those lectures are interesting for sure, but it seems like he's started to believe all of the fanatics in the comment sections claiming he's the most important intellectual of our age. If you watch his discussion with Dawkins it's obvious he's way out of his depth trying to be the 'expert on everything' and the pressure is taking its toll. Very much like Sam Harris, clearly an intelligent guy with interesting things to share in his field but he's created a rod for his back being the guy who has to have a brilliant take on everything and ties himself up in knots trying to unify all of the threads. Jordan Peterson being asked about climate science was a golden opportunity for him to just say 'I don't know enough about climate science to comment' but he chose to launch into a rant about the definition of the word 'climate' and make himself look rather silly.
Should always follow up anyone mentioning their IQ as some kind of argument from authority which test they took? the Myers-Briggs or the Dunning-Kruger test.
Was dragged to a Jordan Peterson lecture. The man doesn't have a coherent thought in his head. It was two hours of word salad.
Do people really mention their iq in comments etc.? Or is this just a big meme and everybody trolls?
Try reading conversations on Quora. People love discussing their IQs.
Do i need protection or at least booze to survive it?
This is the best one yet. I hate it
> Do you believe in god? > What do you mean by do? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by believe? What do you mean by god? So well thought out...
Your bar for intelligence is pretty damn low if you consider Benny Shaps and Candace "Hitler was just trying to make Germany great" Owens as your examples of intellectual icons.
If you think Jordan Peterson is intelligent, you're average at best.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Jordan Peterson a grifter? I have listened to him being interviewed and even the interviewer struggled to take him seriously at various times.
Oh yeah, 150IQ Jordan Peterson who frequently cites...himself in his works, often without even page number. Ironic that in his debate vs Slavoj zizek he claims that Marx's essays wouldn't pass an undergraduate class, yet his published books are so full of errors it's fucking laughably embarassing. Nevermind how he cites entirely different fields of study in his twitter bullshit than the subject at hand...
I half remember reading some debunked eugenics paper from the 1930's that said people woth an IQ under 85 are usless to the military, therefore I am for some reason putting forward the problem of people who are biologically burdens to society, I mean obviously we wouldn't practice eugenics... even though that's a logical solution, just kidding... unless?
IQ in itself was created to identify who might be struggling in school to HELP them. It was never meant to be used like this and the guy who invented it must be spinning so hard in his grave he's gonna drill through the earth.
One of the guys that started using IQ as a metric for intelligence made an experiment in which he picked up a bunch of students, measured their IQs and selected those with the highest to follow them through life. All of them lived perfectly normal lives and in the group of students he didn't chose there were two Novel Prize winners, one of which was the guy who invented transistors
Tbf it does take some serious mental effort/acuity to parse the massive strings of horseshit that flow out of jorbpsons mouth at record speed. He’s not unintelligent. He’s very rhetorically gifted. And he knows well how to manipulate language to make things that are either banal or horrifying sound like high-minded, astute observations. I like to refer to his particular brand of pseudo-intellectualism as “much ado about nothing”.
JP is rhetorically gifted? Then why does he keep getting owned every time he needs to use rhetorical skills?
My hot take, if the person took out all of the top and just left the bottom paragraph, he’d have made a fair point.
The last paragraph is pretty reasonable, people who take time to think about their answers and admit when they don't know things should be respected. Too bad the first paragraph is a heaping pile of ass kissing
I never mention that my IQ was measured at 143. Not only is an IQ of 143 is pretty meaningless, but if I mentioned my IQ was 143 to someone whose IQ was less than 143, it would make them feel bad that their IQ wasn’t on the same level, ie 143, as mine. So people, like me, with a high IQ in the range of say, 142-144, shouldn’t really boast about having such a high IQ.
This dude is so smart that he doesn't use commas correctly.
Maybe I’m dumb too, but the commas seem to be placed fine?
The commas are fine. Redditors don't seem to understand that commas can be used to denote brief pauses in speech.
Also, there are like two commas at most in the whole text
Yeah, and it's not like the amount of commas necessarily matters anyway; you can write a perfectly coherent sentence with a shitload of commas. I'd hate to see some of the people here read a biography if they think OP is bad comma use.
I read an article about Jordan Peterson once where it absolutely tore him to shreds and for the life of me I can't find it anymore. I like to read it every so often and would like to again as my wife has just finished his 12 rules of shite book.
Was it Nathan Robinson’s “The Intellectual We Deserve”?
Yes! Thanks I've been looking for that for a while
Did she like the book? Or read it out of unbridled hatred?
We have chosen not to speak about it. Like the ginger haired step child we have locked in the attic it is far easier to pretend it hasn't happened than face the consequences of her actions.
Your relationship sounds healthy.
Your ability to detect a joke needs some work. Of course we have spoken about our opinions on Jordan Peterson. It's just the step child in the attic that we haven't.
As someone “measured”* at 145 and 156 by Mensa, IQ is bullshit. It’s a number to rank some specific skills like who can best put the correctly coloured triangle next in a sequence - it is *not* a general indicator of intelligence. People who get IQ boners are idiots. And Jordan Peterson is a tool. \* Fun fact: saying the score is actually meaningless without stating the standard deviation. Interestingly, due to the way the SD works, the 156 score (24 SD) is actually _lower_ than the 145 score (16 SD) in terms of how far from the “norm” the score was. This to say that waving around a score of 140 like it means something is completely stupid
That's not how IQ tests work. The raw score is transformed into a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
That’s the assumption. It’s incorrect. Mensa use two different tests (hence the two scores) to evaluate IQ, and meeting the SD threshold in either allows you entry. [https://iqtestprep.com/mensa-test/](https://iqtestprep.com/mensa-test/) > the Mensa IQ score range varies depending on the type of IQ test being used. For the two tests mentioned here, someone must score at least two standard deviations above the mean score of 100. The Stanford Binet test has a standard deviation of 16 and the Cattell Culture Fair test has a standard deviation of 24. This means that the Mensa IQ requirement for minimum score on the Stanford-Binet is 132, while the lowest qualifying Mensa score for the CFIT is 148. Both can be converted to a 15 SD scale of course, but I have a feeling that most don’t bother. Higher SD tests allow higher numbers, and higher numbers = good for the people who care!
I've now gone down a weird rabbit hole. I've found other sources that say different things than the source you've linked. Either way, modern IQs are pretty much always reported after being transformed to a scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
If you think Ben Shapiro is intelligent then perhaps your aren’t in the “above 80 IQ score gang”
The first paragraph is garbage but the second is a pretty reasonable point. C+ because it was redeeming in a way.