6 ms·

He's a psychology professor, formerly at Harvard now at UoT. He knows about IQ, and he's not far right. You should convert some of that politically biased 'sk

He's a psychology professor, formerly at Harvard now at UoT. He knows about IQ, and he's not far right. You should convert some of that politically biased 'skepticism' into dispassionate inquiry.

youdontknowtho 9y ago
Yeah, it's ok to just "ask questions" about black people being subhumans. Right? The appeal to authority is cute, though.
- azangru 9y ago
  Are you of the opinion that some questions should not be asked (even if they can be formulated in a testable, formalized way) no matter what? Also, would you consider that it's all right to ask questions about correlations between race/ethnicity and the incidence of heart disease / hypertension / sickle-cell anemia etc., but not about correlations between race/ethnicity and IQ? (I don't have a dog in this fight, and I understand that IQ measurement is a very unreliable and culturally predicated way of measuring intelligence; I am just curious about the way that people who are indignant about such inquiries think.)
  - youdontknowtho 9y ago
    I think it matters who is asking the questions. IQ is BS and is just a stand in for implying inferiority.
    - azangru 9y ago
      > I think it matters who is asking the questions. That's unfortunate. Results of scientific inquiry should not depend on who is asking the questions.
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > and I understand that IQ measurement is a very unreliable What gives you the idea that it is unreliable? It is one of the most consistent and reliable measurements in psychology. > culturally predicated way of measuring intelligence In what sense? In the sense that it is only a good indicator for success because of the way our society is currently setup? Quite possibly. But I don't see that as a criticism of IQ. It is really a criticism of the disturbed individuals using "intelligence" as the key driver of human worth. By the way that kind of thinking is more prevalent with the intellectual elite who visit hacker news than it is of the average alt-right supporter.
    - azangru 9y ago
      I probably phrased it poorly. On second thought, I should have said that I am aware of the opinion that IQ tests are culturally biased (due to different linguistic and cultural background of test subjects) and thus may unfairly favor some groups over others. This is a pretty common (and therefore easily googlable) opinion, whose correctness I am unqualified to judge, but can accept it as an argument worth considering.
- DeusExMachina 9y ago
  Peterson never even asked a question like that, let alone give an answer. This is just a straw man. Do you have any evidence?
- wwweston 9y ago
  > Yeah, it's ok to just "ask questions" about black people being subhumans. Right? So... where did you get the idea that this is a credible takeaway from his work? (Also, he'd probably be the first person to agree with the assessment that university employment or credentials doesn't necessarily mean that your claims or research are any good...)
bqe 9y ago
Here's some dispassionate inquiry: he leans on IQ far too heavily to explain how the brain works. While there is correlation between jobs and IQ and some research that shows a mild inverse relationship between IQ and crime, it's not the end-all-be-all of psychology, as he claims, "If you don’t buy IQ research, then you might as well throw away all of psychology." What of all of the other areas of psychology? If IQ was found to be completely spurious, we'd still have other psychological research. IQ is not foundational like he claims. It's like Peterson has never read the criticisms[1] of the Bell Curve and believes it in its entirely. His lectures and interviews on the subject are really just a rehashing of the same, mostly discredited arguments. Even Charles Murray has stepped back from a single number determinant of a single kind of intelligence[2]. [1]: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.htm... [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20050205010706/http://www.skeptic.com/archives24.html https://web.archive.org/web/20050205010706/http://www.skepti...
- 1000units 9y ago
  He does not use IQ to explain how the brain works, in any way whatsoever. Can you link to (or synthesize) a criticism of something the man has said himself?
- DeusExMachina 9y ago
  He does not claim at what you say at all. I'll try to summarize his position on IQ without doing him a disservice. * IQ is highly correlated to intelligence (what is called technically g). Highly enough that you can use it as a measure of general intelligence. * IQ is the only test we have that accurately measures intelligence and that is not a self-report test. * IQ has been shown to be the highest predictor for success in life. Highest does not mean only. In fact, its correlation is .35. Conscientiousness is the second best predictor, but amounts to half of IQ. * There is no way to raise IQ, which is genetically determined. But there are many ways to lower it. It also very important to consider that a) he made a lot of highly cited research on the topic, b) he is very knowledgeable on the literature and c) he says many times that the results of these studies are disheartening and nobody likes them (him included). He never implied, for example, that there is an inverse relationship between IQ and crime, quite the opposite. IQ is related to the Opennes personality trait. Crime is caused by low Agreableness, which is another personality trait. He also cites often the work of Martin Daly, which studied how crime is correlated to a too steep inequality, where the social ladder is too hard to climb, which makes people turn to crime as the only alternative. So I don't know where you got that idea.

He's a psychology professor, formerly at Harvard now at UoT. He knows about IQ, and he's not far right. You should convert some of that politically biased 'skepticism' into dispassionate inquiry.

youdontknowtho 9y ago

Yeah, it's ok to just "ask questions" about black people being subhumans. Right? The appeal to authority is cute, though.

azangru 9y ago
Are you of the opinion that some questions should not be asked (even if they can be formulated in a testable, formalized way) no matter what? Also, would you consider that it's all right to ask questions about correlations between race/ethnicity and the incidence of heart disease / hypertension / sickle-cell anemia etc., but not about correlations between race/ethnicity and IQ? (I don't have a dog in this fight, and I understand that IQ measurement is a very unreliable and culturally predicated way of measuring intelligence; I am just curious about the way that people who are indignant about such inquiries think.)
- youdontknowtho 9y ago
  I think it matters who is asking the questions. IQ is BS and is just a stand in for implying inferiority.
  - azangru 9y ago
    > I think it matters who is asking the questions. That's unfortunate. Results of scientific inquiry should not depend on who is asking the questions.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > and I understand that IQ measurement is a very unreliable What gives you the idea that it is unreliable? It is one of the most consistent and reliable measurements in psychology. > culturally predicated way of measuring intelligence In what sense? In the sense that it is only a good indicator for success because of the way our society is currently setup? Quite possibly. But I don't see that as a criticism of IQ. It is really a criticism of the disturbed individuals using "intelligence" as the key driver of human worth. By the way that kind of thinking is more prevalent with the intellectual elite who visit hacker news than it is of the average alt-right supporter.
  - azangru 9y ago
    I probably phrased it poorly. On second thought, I should have said that I am aware of the opinion that IQ tests are culturally biased (due to different linguistic and cultural background of test subjects) and thus may unfairly favor some groups over others. This is a pretty common (and therefore easily googlable) opinion, whose correctness I am unqualified to judge, but can accept it as an argument worth considering.
DeusExMachina 9y ago
Peterson never even asked a question like that, let alone give an answer. This is just a straw man. Do you have any evidence?
wwweston 9y ago
> Yeah, it's ok to just "ask questions" about black people being subhumans. Right? So... where did you get the idea that this is a credible takeaway from his work? (Also, he'd probably be the first person to agree with the assessment that university employment or credentials doesn't necessarily mean that your claims or research are any good...)

bqe 9y ago

Here's some dispassionate inquiry: he leans on IQ far too heavily to explain how the brain works. While there is correlation between jobs and IQ and some research that shows a mild inverse relationship between IQ and crime, it's not the end-all-be-all of psychology, as he claims, "If you don’t buy IQ research, then you might as well throw away all of psychology." What of all of the other areas of psychology? If IQ was found to be completely spurious, we'd still have other psychological research. IQ is not foundational like he claims. It's like Peterson has never read the criticisms[1] of the Bell Curve and believes it in its entirely. His lectures and interviews on the subject are really just a rehashing of the same, mostly discredited arguments. Even Charles Murray has stepped back from a single number determinant of a single kind of intelligence[2]. [1]: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.htm... [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20050205010706/http://www.skeptic.com/archives24.html https://web.archive.org/web/20050205010706/http://www.skepti...

1000units 9y ago
He does not use IQ to explain how the brain works, in any way whatsoever. Can you link to (or synthesize) a criticism of something the man has said himself?
DeusExMachina 9y ago
He does not claim at what you say at all. I'll try to summarize his position on IQ without doing him a disservice. * IQ is highly correlated to intelligence (what is called technically g). Highly enough that you can use it as a measure of general intelligence. * IQ is the only test we have that accurately measures intelligence and that is not a self-report test. * IQ has been shown to be the highest predictor for success in life. Highest does not mean only. In fact, its correlation is .35. Conscientiousness is the second best predictor, but amounts to half of IQ. * There is no way to raise IQ, which is genetically determined. But there are many ways to lower it. It also very important to consider that a) he made a lot of highly cited research on the topic, b) he is very knowledgeable on the literature and c) he says many times that the results of these studies are disheartening and nobody likes them (him included). He never implied, for example, that there is an inverse relationship between IQ and crime, quite the opposite. IQ is related to the Opennes personality trait. Crime is caused by low Agreableness, which is another personality trait. He also cites often the work of Martin Daly, which studied how crime is correlated to a too steep inequality, where the social ladder is too hard to climb, which makes people turn to crime as the only alternative. So I don't know where you got that idea.