Jordan Peterson - Controversial IQ Facts (2023)

show

Original source:youtu.be/D7Kn5p7TP_Y
the psychology professor dr. Jordan B. Peterson lays out facts about intelligence that should not be disputed. How do we define intelligence and explain the different types of categories?

Dr. Peterson's new book is available for pre-order now:
12 Rules of Life: The Antidote to Chaos:https://amzn.to/2yvJf9L

If you dr. If you want to support Peterson, you can find his Patreon here:
www.patreon.com/jordanbpeterson

Check out Jordan Peterson's self-build routine, a powerful self-organization tool:
bit.ly/selfAuth(Official Affiliate Link for A Little Philosophy)

video

Well then..

It's about insight, ability...well...that's what matters.

How.

Can you capture intelligence? Super,? This is a big problem because your initial conceptualization will partly determine the strategies you use to study intelligence.

And..

When you say... when you reduce a sentence to "What is intelligence?"...

-.

This statement is problematic because it asks in part, "Do such things come into the world, and how are they manifested?" There is one fact or set of facts that corresponds to intelligence, but there is another problem.

very well.

What do you mean by "intelligence"? And? You have to get to the point.

If you have a debate about intelligence and it turns out not to be quite right, you're going astray.

So you have a definition problem and an empirical problem.

So..

This was especially the case in the 1990s.

Intelligence, IQ, is a well-established branch of psychology that has been studied since the 1920s.

I have to tell you one of these things.

- IQ studies - means if you don't buy IQ studies, you might as well throw away all other psychology.

And.

The reason is..

Psychologist.

First, the people who "designed" intelligence tests were among the first psychologists to introduce the statistical techniques that all psychologists use to test and test all hypotheses.

So.

You end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

And.

An "individual IQ" defines intelligence more strictly and precisely than our definition of almost all other psychologies, constructs, etc.

If you throw away the best defined ones, the problem remains what to do with all the rest of the things that are not well defined, measured or... or have less predictive validity and have been shown to be much less vivid and clear.

However,; Still, many different intelligences have been proposed, and rightly so, because.

If you think intelligence...

These are the things that could help you succeed in the world. obviously there is a whole range of phenomena associated with people that could fall into this category.

So we have..

..

People have made these distinctions.

For example, Bob Sternberg distinguishes between practical intelligence and analytical intelligence, which he considers "street smarts," and attempts to distinguish them from analytical intelligence, which is...more directly characterized through research.

I don't think he succeeded, and interest in his practical wisdom has waned since the 1990s.

Suddenly because...

If there is a neck race with standard IQ, IQ eliminates all variability.

As far as I know, that is exactly what is happening right now.

When we're trying to predict the course of people's lives, IQ serves well, and then one of the traits, conscientiousness, serves well — but it's not as effective as IQ.

Now.

Part of this may be because we don't measure conscientiousness very well. We're stuck on self-referrals, or maybe I can get references from your peers, or I can get references from your parents, or references from teachers, etc. I don't know you like you know yourself.

For yourself, this still has some accuracy.

You can collect reports from multiple raters on things like conscientiousness, which improves the validity of your predictions.

But at the end of the day.

In terms of conscientiousness, the best you can do seems to correlate with about 0.4 in long-term performance, and in terms of IQ, you could get 0.5, maybe even 0.6, in complex work.

So 0.5 is a variation of 25% - you square it -.

.6 accounted for 36% of the variance and .4 accounted for 16% of the variance.

So.

Even on the "low end"...let's say the "high end" of conscientiousness is 0.4.

or 16%.

At 0.5 or 25%, the "low" IQ score is 1.5 times more important than the "high" conscientiousness score.

Me too.

Just think about it. ,You will! Thinking "Why?"

Do we need to discuss this? Because? I'm pretty clear that intelligence is a major predictor of life.

Success; I mean... guys, - I measured the IQ of people at the University of Toronto - you know...

There are very few people in this room with an IQ below 120.

but why? Super..

Smart people go to college

Now.

Is it really a controversial statement? Well, that wasn't meant to be a controversial statement.

Of course! In fact, universities are designed to give intelligent people the opportunity to expand their skills.

That's why they exist! They are selected based on assessments, which are essentially about things like intelligence.

*student thinking* Yes.

But that's part of the controversy.

Is this "reasonable"? And? This is a measurement problem.

And! So, in a way, I'm giving you a guide to psychometrics because we actually know how to do it.

We know how to answer this question.

You are welcome.

So.

Let's see how intelligence is scored and why.

and after.

You can form your own opinion.

In spite of this.

Here are some examples of other "forms" of intelligence.

So.

So here comes the question: .

What does it mean to have different *forms* of intelligence? Would Form A and Form B be completely unrelated? , such as extroversion and neuroticism? the? Are they related at all? the? I will..

..

Strong correlation? and after,? You might be wondering: how correlated should they be?

..

Was it the same before? the,? How independent do they have to be before things become different? Actually, ? The answer boils down to something like "practical, practical" as...

Imagine I'm trying to figure out how well you did in college and I measure one thing...

It has a 0.7 correlation with another thing (I'm counting you).

Well, then I could say, "Are these two things the same or are they different?" They are very strongly correlated.

..

If you're good at one, you're good at the other.

well, so...

Does it make sense to measure these two things? And? Actually, here's how you solve this problem: you do it statistically.

So.

The goals we set can be your achievements in your studies.

and after.

We said, “So can we use a variable to better predict your performance in college? Or use two variables?' So if you feed both into the regression equation: – All regression equations: Actually: This is pretty easy. So you try to predict the destination.

..

The regression equation tells you how well you can predict that target.

...

If you know another fact.

Now it gets a bit more complicated since it's a dependency:

How well do you use A to predict B?

Well, regression would say: if you know A and B, you can predict how much C is.

..

or A, B, C, D, and E, since you can use more than one predictor.

..

You can weight them, so maybe 2xA +, 1xB, =, C.

And.

So this is a regression equation: yes. it's just multiplication and addition, very, very simple. Therefore, the two variables are quite different.

Operating..

...when you can use both to predict something interesting.

So again.

Here is a tool-like approach.

- that's what psychometricians do.

This is the reality.

Well it's true! If you can measure it and it can help you predict.

That's how it's defined.

So you might say, "Do these multiple intelligences exist?" So, the first question is, "What?"

Did you mean *there*? So the answer is, "Well, let's be specific," because we have to be scientific about it.

Let's predict how people will do in college: We'll start with a hypothesis.

Das: If intelligence has nothing to do with academic success, then you're probably not talking about intelligence.

Can anyone argue with that, right? Because you might say, "Well, intelligence has nothing to do with academic success."

It's a definition! Object! We have to agree from the beginning.

Is it reasonable to assume that intelligence...?

and success in college have anything in common? Well, I think you must be an idiot.

Reject the original offer. However, you can…

Because you could say it's a privilege or a socioeconomic status or…

..., many sociological phenomena, some of which are clearly related.

social class e.g.

Because, you know, if you come from a higher social class, all things being equal, including intelligence, then you're more likely to get into college than you are now if you're from a higher social class.

If you are from a lower social class, there are other factors: that...

..

It will affect your performance in college.

...but we're guessing one of them might be the Secret Service.

But.

Then you ask, "Um..." "...

If you measure social intelligence…” (what do you call it?) – “emotional intelligence”? By the way, there is no such thing...

Emotional intelligence, moral intelligence, language, music, logic, mathematics...,..., spatial, physical, kinesthetic, internal and interpersonal intelligence.

All different forms of intelligence.

OK, so what?

To answer the question "Is it there?"

First, you just need to choose a goal: - predict college performance, - then! They make a measure for each of them.

Then check if the metric measures the same thing in multiple cases.

..

within the same person.

This is a reliability test because...

...

What good is your ruler after all?

If it expands with use, then? ! - It has to measure the same thing: multiple times - and then you say, "Well, we're getting all this different information and...

...

The way we measure them.

...

First we will see how correlated they are.

Weil.

When they are complete - two of them come together perfectly - then you have one. You don't have two, because that's actually the definition of one, not two.

You can calculate them and see.

If you can figure out what all these have in common, that's a different story, because then you could say: .

"Well, intelligence is the common denominator of all these intelligence markers." This is a thesis.

This is not true! You have to decide if you agree with this or not.

But.

If you did that, you would use factor analysis and say, “Okay.

If one is more musical, even if one's language skills are high...” “..

And they are more logically and mathematically inclined.

If they have high spatial awareness etc then assume there is a factor behind all this achievement.

It's kind of similar. possible.

It will not exist! Then you take all the measures and translate them into some kind of multiple regression.

analyze..

You will predict your goals: - College, Achievement. , then you might say, "Wait a minute -- we don't just *leverage* college achievements," "Let's leverage high school achievements, high school achievements, achievements, college achievements, and career success!"

Suppose the only predictor of success in all these categories is...

And it doesn't matter what we define as intelligence - well.

This is basically how you get an IQ.

One could say that IQ is the common denominator of all possible sets of intelligence.

test.

Now..

..

People will fight because...

You still need to define what constitutes the test.

But.

The way psychometricians approach this question, and at least partially address it, is as follows:

..

We don't define everything we measure as intelligence.

So extroverts are more social – or something.

Shall we call it intelligence? NO! We call it "personality".

We call it "extroversion" and we call it stress tolerance.

You can say, well...

"Huh? You can take more pressure, you're smarter!" So, um, no – we don't define it that way.

We have defined this as inferior neuroticism.

Collaborators are smarter – that's 'emotional intelligence'. , Um what? , you, not so smart! Are you competitive? Oh no...

So we analyze it in a congruent way.

The question could then be: "Is there anything of this so-called 'intelligence'..." "...

Just checking personality and IQ? ", the answer is: No! Nothing.

You have nothing left! Anyone who pushes these ideas further continues to try to push them...

Because they don't like the idea of ​​real individual differences.

For me.

You're just putting your head in the sand because it's clear... there you go: you're going to have a baby.

Do you want your child's IQ to be 65 or 145? Decide.

So, everyone, let's vote.

Okay

Do you think any of you would vote for a kid with an IQ of 65? It was difficult for this child to even develop language skills.

You will never learn to read.

Chances are they will never leave home.

So which child would you choose? Super,? So do you believe in wisdom or not? Well, apparently...? If you're still sane...