Military Gear & Army Surplus Gear Blog

Jordan Peterson – Controversial Facts about IQ

Jordan Peterson – Controversial Facts about IQ

Okay, now… down to cognitive ability.
Well… How can you conceptualize intelligence? Well, this is a major problem, because your initial conceptualization determines, in part, the strategies that you’re going to use to investigate intelligence. And… when you say… when you pare a sentence down to “What is intelligence?”… – the sentence is problematic, because part of it is a question about “if and how such a thing might manifest itself in the world?” There’s a fact out there -or set of facts- that corresponds to intelligence but the other problem is, well, what do you *mean* when you say “intelligence”? And you kinda have to nail that down, if you’re gonna have a conversation about intelligence that doesn’t go entirely astray. And so you’ve got a definitional problem as well as an empirical problem. And so… There have been -and this was especially true in the 1990s- People have been studying intelligence, IQ intelligence, since the 1920s and it’s a very well established branch of psychology. One of the things I have to tell you about it -IQ research- is that if you don’t buy IQ research, you might as well throw away all the rest of Psychology. And the reason for that is that… The psychologists, first of all, who “developed” intelligence testing, were among the early psychologists who instantiated the statistical techniques that all psychologists use to verify and test all of their hypotheses. So you end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And the “IQ people” have defined intelligence in a more stringent and accurate way than we’ve been able to define almost any other psychological construct, and so… if you toss out the one that’s the most well defined then you’re kind of stuck with the problem of what are you going to do with all the ones that you have left over that are nowhere near as well defined or as well measured or as… or whose predictive validity is much less and has been demonstrated with much less vigor and clarity. Anyways, despite all that, people have posited a number of different intelligences and reasonably so, because, if you think of intelligence as… that which might move you forward successfully in the world; obviously, there’s a fair number of phenomena that are associated with individuals that might fit into that category. So we have… … people have made these distinctions. Bob Sternberg, for example, has distinguished between practical vs analytical intelligence and he kind of thinks of practical as like “street smarts” and has attempted to dissociate that from the kind of analytical intelligence that …that characterizes more straight IQ research. I don’t think he’s done it successfully as well, at all and since the 1990s interest in his practical intelligence has declined precipitously, because… when it is matched head-to-head with standard IQ intelligence the IQ intelligence eats up all the variability. What’s really happened, as far as I can tell so far, is that when we’re trying to predict people’s course through life IQ does a very good job, and then one of the traits does a very good job as well which is conscientiousness – but it doesn’t do as good a job as IQ. Now, that partly might be because we can’t measure conscientiousness very well. We’re stuck with self reports or maybe I could gather peer reports about you or I could gather your parents’ reports about you, or teacher’s reports and each of those seems to pick up a little bit more of the pattern, because you know yourself, but other people know you differently than you know yourself, and there’s still some accuracy in that. You can get multiple rater reports of something like conscientiousness, and that will up its predictive validity. But, in the final analysis, the best you seem to be able to do with conscientiousness is about a .4 correlation with long term performance, whereas with IQ, in complex jobs, you can probably get .5 and maybe .6. So .5 is 25% of the variants -you’re going to square it- .6 is 36% of the variants and .4 is 16% of the variants. So even at the “low end”… let’s say, “high end” for conscientiousness is .4… or 16%, “Low end” for IQ is .5 or 25%, “Low end” estimates of IQ make it 1.5 times more powerful than the “high end” estimates of conscientiousness. And I think that’s about right. You’d think “Why do we even have to debate this”? Because it’s so bloody obvious to me that intelligence is a major predictor of life success; I mean… You people – I’ve measured the IQ of University of Toronto people- you know… People in this room who have an IQ of less than 120 are rare. But why? Well… Smart people go to University… now, is that actually a contentious statement? Well it shouldn’t be a contentious statement; it’s self-evident! Universities are actually set up so that smart people could expand their abilities, that is why they were there! You’re selected on the basis of assessments that are essentially there to assess something like intelligence. *Idea from a Student* Yes, but that is part of the controversy – is it *reasonable*? And this is a measurement issue. And that’s why I’ve been instructing you, to some degree, in Psychometrics, because we actually know how to do this, we know how to answer that question. So, let’s take a look at how intelligence has been assessed and why. And then, you can make up your own mind. Anyways, here’s some of the examples of other “forms” of intelligence. And so, then the question is: what does it mean to have a different *form* of Intelligence? Would Form A and Form B be completely uncorrelated? Like extroversion and say, neuroticism? Or would they be slightly correlated? Or would they be… … highly correlated? And then, you might ask: well, how highly correlated do they have to be… … before they’re the same thing? Or, how uncorrelated do they have to be before they’re different things? And actually, the answer to that comes down to something like “practical utility”. It’s like… imagine I’m trying to figure out how well you’ll do in University. And I measure one thing… and it’s correlated at .7 with another thing I measure about you. Well, then I might say “are those two things the same, or different?” They’re pretty highly correlated… … your high on one means you’re going to be high in the other. Well, so… is there any utility in measuring both things? And the way you figure that out, actually, is: you do it statistically. So, we take the target, which might be your performance across University. And then, we say: “Well, can we predict your performance across University better by using one variable? Or two variables?” So, when you enter them both into a regression equation – all a regression equation does: It’s quite simple; So, you’re trying to predict a target… … and the regression equation tells you: how well you can predict that target… … if you know another fact. Now, then it gets a little complicated, because that’s a correlation: how well you can predict B with A. Well, a regression will say, how much you can predict C if you know A and B… … or A and B and C and D and E, because you can use multiple predictors… … and you can weigh them, so it might be 2xA + 1xB=C. And that’s all a regression equation does; It’s just multiplication and addition, very very straightforward. And so, two variables are sufficiently different functionally… … if you can use both of them simultaneously to predict something of interest. So again, it’s a tool-like approach -this is how the psychometricians do it. It’s something real. Well, it’s real if you can measure it and it helps you predict. That’s how it’s defined. So, then you might say: “Are there these multiple intelligences? Well, the first question would be: “What do you mean by *are there*?” And the answer to that would be: “Well, let’s specify the question.”, since we’re going to be scientific about it. Let’s predict how well people do in University: we’ll start with the assumption that: If intelligence isn’t associated with University success, then you’re probably not talking about intelligence. Now, you could argue that, right? Because you could say: “Well, Intelligence has nothing to do with University success.” But, that’s a definitional matter! We’d have to agree to begin with. Is it reasonable to start with the presupposition that intelligence… … and university success share something in common? Well, I think you have to be daft to deny that initial proposition; although, you could… Because you could say it was privilege, or socio-economic status, or… … any number of sociological phenomena, and some of those are obviously relevant. Social class, for example… Because, you know, if you’re in a higher social class and all things being equal, intelligence included – – if you’re in a higher social class, you’re more likely to go into University than you are if you were on a lower social class. So, there’s other factors that… … are going to influence whether or not you’ll do well in University… … but we’re going to assume that one of them might be intelligence. But, then you would ask: “Well…” “… if you measured social intelligence…” (What do they call that?) – “Emotional intelligence”; which DOES NOT exist, by the way… Emotional intelligence, Moral intelligence, Linguistic, Musical, Logical, Mathematical… … Spacial, Body kinesthetic, Intrapersonal and Interpersonal. All different forms of intelligence. Okay, so, to answer the question of “whether they exist”… What you do first is pick a target – prediction of university performance – then, you make a measure for each of them… Then, you test to see if the measure measured the same thing across multiple instances… … within the same person; that’s a reliability test, because… … what the hell good is your ruler if it stretches when you use it?! -It has to measure the same thing multiple times- And then, you would say: “OK, we’ll take all these different intelligences, and… … the way we’ve decided to measure them… … the first thing we’ll do is see how highly correlated they are. Because, if they’re complete – two of them are completely correlated – then you have one; You don’t have two, because that’s virtually the definition of one instead of two. You can factor-analyze them and see if you can pull out what’s common across all of them; that’s another thing, because then you might say: “Well, intelligence is what’s common across all the measures of these intelligences.” It’s a proposition, it’s not a fact! You have to decide if you’re going to agree with it. But, if you were going to do that, you’d use a factor analysis, and you’d say: “Well, if somebody was more likely to be Musical, if they were also high in Linguistic ability…” “… and more likely to be logical and mathematically inclined, if they had a high spacial ability, etc.” then you’d be hypothesising that there is one factor behind all of those manifestations that’s somehow similar; and maybe, there wouldn’t be! And then, you’d take all your measures and put them into something like a multiple regression analysis… and you’d predict your target – University performance. And then, maybe you’d say: “Wait a minute – let’s not just *use* University performance” “Let’s use Junior-High performance, High-School performance, University performance and Job Success!” And then, let’s say that the only things that predicts success across all those categories… and, that are all the same, we are going to define as intelligence – well, that’s basically how you end up with IQ. You could say that IQ is what’s common across all possible sets of intelligence tests. Now… … people are gonna debate that, because… you still have to define what constitutes a test. But, the way the Psychometricians have managed it, and have taken care of this at least to some degree, is to say… … we’re not going to define everything that we measure as intelligence. So, extroverted people are more socially fluent – or, are we going to call that intelligence? No! We’re gonna call that “personality”. We’re gonna call that “extroversion” and we’re gonna call stress-tolerance.
You could say, well… “If you can tolerate more stress, you’re more intelligent!” It’s like, well, no – that isn’t how we’ve defined it. We’re gonna define that as being lower in neuroticism. If you’re cooperative, you’re more intelligent – that’s “emotional intelligence”. Well, what? You’re less intelligent if you’re competitive? Well, no… So, we parse that off to agreeableness. So then the question might be: “Is there anything left of these so-called ‘intelligences’…” “.. once you control for personality and IQ?” and the answer is: NO! Nothing. Nothing left of them! And the people who keep pushing these ideas, keep trying to push them… because they don’t like the idea of real individual differences. And to me, that’s just a matter of stickin’ your damn head in the sand, because it’s obvious… Here: you’re going to have a child. You want the child to have an IQ of 65 or 145? Decide. Okay, so you’re all going to vote… Okay, you think any one of you is going to vote to have a child with an IQ of 65? That child is going to have a hard time developing even Linguistic ability. They’re never going to learn to read. They’re never going to leave home – in all likelihood.
So which child are you going to pick? Well, so do you believe in intelligence, or not? Well, obviously… if you have any sense…

Reader Comments

  1. God knows everything. He who knows God knows everything. Intelligence is based on how much you know God. Truth comes from above not a university. I know you think Einstein became smart by going to school, but Einstein was smart, because he forgot everything he was taught in school and he said if he wasn't right, then he's feels sorry for the Lord.

  2. This guy is explaining intelligence and he babbles like an idiot. Why is that? Before IQ tests, people were quite able to tell who was bright and who who is dull.

  3. if a child has an IQ of 65 doesnt that mean that there is something else wrong with him? Woulndt it be better to consider low IQ as a form of dissease rather than just labelling people as less capable?

  4. This really boils down to simple isometrics

    I think what people don’t realize is that the socio economic pressures on the intelligence hierarchy is flawed at best.

    So if we collectively have a proclivity towards corruption of the basic fundamental principles underlying the hierarchy then the whole substructure is corrupt to begin with

    As professor Peterson has said this is basic arithematic. What he fails to see or demonstrate is that this problem can’t be solved within the hierarchy because the whole system is corrupt.

    What’s needed is criticism or constructive criticism from beyond the hierarchy.

    Would you want your defense to be judge and jury at a judicial hearing? I think not.

  5. It’s a hard truth to swallow. But I suppose it also depends on what you deem “success”. One’s success is not another’s. Although what one believes is success might actually juxtapose what they experience in their life in the face of actual success. I don’t want to say we are all after the same goal but to some degree we are. But we shoot at different nets and get similar results. So again, one’s success is different from another’s, and I don’t think we’ve clearly defined “success” yet.

  6. here's my definition of ''intelligence'': the essence-quality, culmination/extrapolation that allows you to sense and interpret the external/internal stimuli – both abstract, general, and specific. too broad? clue: intelligence is not God/Allah.

  7. "What good is your ruler if it stretches when you use it?"…..I .think that defines alot of mentality today….when the ruler doesn't say what ppl want to hear ppl stretch the ruler

  8. The White race is superior and Black inferior. When You mix each other that abomination Will be more intelligent than the black but less intelligent than the White. Dont degenerate our race

  9. Would you call this kind of lecture concise and helpful? This has to be the most manic behavior Jordan Peterson has ever exhibited while being filmed. Do you think he's reviewed this lecture to evaluate himself? Objectively, he seems on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

  10. Yes some are gifted learners it just comes natural. I think the only problem with the IQ is it is not neccesarily an aptitude test. I also say aptitude tests really dont mean anything.
    If someone is inrerested in something they will learn at know end to be great at it. Some people are interested in different things then others. I would blow JP's mind in many skilled trades. And I could say JP lacks common sense because he doesn't know what I know in skilled trades. But the truth is, he wasn't necessarily interested in skilled trades. As I get older I am very interested in psychology. And JP is an amazing person to learn it from. I can also say in 2.5 years watching JP videos I have learned more about my self and others then I have the rest of my 48 years of life.

  11. If you see this, Jordan Peterson, might you consider making a video about underachievers? I have met quite a few women who due to neuroticism, anxiety or just a low self-esteem held jobs that are very low status in society although it was clear that they were capable of so much more, but they didn't have the courage or felt unsafe somehow. Perfectionism is linked with narcissism but these people were clearly not narcissists, yet their perfectionism was really burdensome. I know this is off topic. I know you have spoken about male underachievement in the past, so..

  12. Maybe there are good IQ tests but the ones I did were focused on a certain kind of logic and the ability to see specific patterns. Even though I scored high, it still doesn't mean shit for my ability to succeed in life. Some things are easy and some aren't, like for everyone.

  13. Neuropsychological testing are also in a sense self-reported as intelligence is not observed directly. You cannot fake a good result, but faking a bad result is easy, and could have its uses in court.

  14. I just call all of these, Talents. More talented people have more chances of success in the fields they're talented in. High learning ability, Good hearing, Good smell, Good taste, Good kinestetics, Good character, High stubborness in work, Good concentration, Strong body etc. etc. etc.

    More Talented people, will have more success in life. Intelligence is one of the ways of measuring Talent.

  15. Every statement a person is subjected to is filtered trough personal feelings and personal interests. If the statement does not pass both filters the individual is lightly to reject it, regardless of the facts presented.

  16. "G" for general intelligence as a proxy for success in life. What in effect you have done is put the temporal lobes, the parietal lobes, the frontal lobe, and the occipital lobe in that particular order of importance to what you benchmark and deem "intelligence". Whats more is confusing practical intelligence in modern society, except spatial which was also useful in the stone age as general intelligence is basically fucking stupid. Do you honestly think chinese are smarter than germans because what IQ tells you? Funny how the center associated with general intelligence the PFC is THIRD on the list of functional processing importance in your IQ measure for why a lowly 100 IQ gene pool invented the known world. It suggests even intellectuals dont know what IQ represents. They seriously think ashkenazi jews are anything but peacocking through selective pressure for the most visible intelligence types. I suppose the jordan peterson lines of mankind werent sufficient in number to have the luxury of an evolutionary arms race within themselves, instead having to resort to more border collie engineering methods, where I am a wolf. Again IQ doesnt correlate with the frontal lobe so the race with more of it, look pretty dumb dont we until you look at what we've built. Who do you think gets replaced last in this onward march of neural net based artificial intelligence? The most creative race on planet earth?

  17. I am a scientist who is well-aware of the principles of statistics and mathematics behind it. I am appalled by the fact that some people are giving thumbs down to this video. You gotta be a J. Peterson hater or simple dumbass to do that.

  18. IQ is overrated. I mean who cares. I got a number that would make most people suicidal, but I can still probably become teh next rich guy.

  19. Yup, I would have gone to university but my liberal highschool teacher kicked me out out of her class and failed me because I pronounced "Italy" wrong… Not to mention I was working nightshift and going to school in the morning so I would not be able to afford University… So no Mr. Peterson, I know you are right on everything but not when you say "every smart person goes to university".

  20. I might be missing something here, but I'm pretty sure success in college and ABSOLUTELY success in high school would be much more correlated with conscientiousness. In fact, highly intelligent people with low conscientiousness (or maybe agreeableness as well) would almost certainly be guaranteed to do poorly in modern school. I partially speak from personal experience. I am a pretty intelligent, but not generally highly conscientious individual (though I am highly agreeable), and I have struggled immensely with school. I was a straight C student through middle and high school, and have done even worse in college, and yet much of that is because I get distracted and start studying the things I shouldn't be studying! I score pretty highly on tests and generally make friends with professors, but then fail to come through on showing up to class and getting assignments in. I know many very intelligent people in society have similar stories. I am in no way advocating that intelligent people should be allowed to or should be associated with low conscientiousness, only that many "successful" students today are just very conscientious individuals. Of course having both conscientiousness and intelligence is a better combination, but not a necessary one in today's academic climate

  21. What's the difference between a "gifted" child and a slow learner? Genetics. The brain is a biological organ governed by genes and if genetics account for differences in individuals it only follows that it accounts for differences by group. The left has been denying these obvious facts for decades with their racial equality dogma. We are not equal when compared individually and we are not equals when compared as group. It is what it is. Nature has no concern with equality.

  22. Men tend to have better visual spatial skills, this may be linked to greater male intelligence. The reason is because it is discovered that images help simplify complex information more than words, as men tend to have a higher spatial working memory, they tend to have more competence in the area of intelligence that simplifies complex information better than other cognitive skills, visual spatial skills or the translation of concepts in words to corresponding images. Thus on average men process and then understand complex information more easily. This difference is most pronounced at young adult ages

  23. id like to see peterson debate howard gardner on the topic of intelligence maybe get Harris to moderate

  24. What is knowledge but a already packed. History lession . And already . Walked road without coctailing or blending creativity with it?

  25. 😉👌 I like the offbayten road less traveled. The one NOT PAVED . where creativity. Lives . Againdt the stream all the rest of the rich carpet flow easy on



  28. Knowledge ins just absorbtion..IQ is problem solving mygiver ingredients reason to situations and working it ..

  29. Ya happen to find a nice intenet soap box in ☝️ you tube to . Show off your education. technology is a winner for ya huh chicken dinner?

  30. A dolphin has the capacity for understanding and observation of knoledge . lol don't change the fact its ..brains the size of a walnut

  31. For instance if I know somojes telling me to ( train my psychopath . I need some common sense with my knowledge you give to realize. IM BEING .BRAINWASHED TO BIPOLAR NUT STATUS AND MAYBE SCREW THE KNOLEDGE OF BEING DUMB

  32. This guy is NOT totally accurate in what he claims. But he's making plenty of money lecturing and touting his books, and probably doesn't have time for advanced, accurate, progressive research anymore (if he ever did research thoroughly and sufficiently!)!

  33. There are two things:
    1) reading a book and understanding what the author is saying
    2) reading the same book, understanding what the author is saying and being able to entertain alternate, perhaps better, options on the same subject. Or realising all the pertinent things the author – deliberately or not – left out because they do not align with his narrative. Or because they are beyond his understanding.

    Mechanically absorbing information – like propaganda – or critically evaluating the information – why is the person saying that? to what end? how well does he cover the whole spectrum? – and creatively imagining new information and testing it.

    For instance, my older brother had high-functioning Aspergers and would get stuck at #1.

    After acslow, laborious struggle, it would finally dawn on him what the author is saying and once he had absorbed it and understood it, that would be it, that would be the final, exclusive, complete truth and anything else would be not only "wrong" but would be the "enemy" that had to be destroyed, it would be "immoral", "political", "evil".

    He lost his religion and became a Marxist.

    Anything he didn't understand was, according to him, "bullshit".

    If he didn't understand it, it didn't exist and had no possibility of existing.

    He once told me that "nobody really likes classical music, they only pretend to in order to seem superior", because he liked rhythm and blues and not classical.

    He could not imagine the validity of any experience he was not privy to.

    Very black and white.

    This and nothing else.

    Everything else is "fake".

  34. Yes I agree county truth if you ask most people at colleges if they have a least three years of college who created electricity the car the bicycle the net the TV the stereo which race you think they would pick I don't think they would know watching the Internet today at colleges by the way it's the white race

  35. Hm, he didn't take into account cultural differences and interpretations of the test by people being tested. This is the problem with Jordan Peterson, he wants everything to be concrete and clear. Unfortunately the business of study the human species, is hardly ever something that can be neatly put in a box. IQ tests may be much more refined these days, but to have the confidence to say that an IQ test today best captures how intelligent any individual is who has taken such an assessment is also dangerously deficient.

  36. Not all smart people have the financial ability to go to college, and they are also smart enough to not go into huge debt to do so. The system can screw you on both ends.

  37. 5:58 I love how he unconsciously represents low correlation as two orthogonal vectors with his hands. Probably most of the students watching wondered what he was doing!

  38. The best definition of intelligence I have come across, up to now: "Intelligence is the ability to extract that which is relevant".

    Does not seem Psychometrics is close to the accurate answers, I was hoping for more from JBP.

  39. What an idiot. First IQ tests are statistical tests not ability tests. Second people have biological selective intelligence, the rest is learned and mastered. There are people who can easier memorize things or others who have higher focus on logical tasks. Any of those things can be trained or neglected.

  40. I would argue there are some jobs that straight up do not require IQ. EXAMPLE: Porn star. It does not take a genius to be in a porn (someone else can do the technical stuff like lighting, editing, etc). Questions: Given that the previous statement is correct (and it may not be, but you'd have to convince me otherwise)what is it about this job that would allow it to work for someone with a smaller IQ? Does it have to do with it being automatic natural part of existing? Does it have to do with the fact that intercourse requires more than one person to be involved? Are there any jobs out there that require 2 people where so long as one of them has a high enough IQ the other person doesn't matter?

  41. I really doubt most of the people in that room are above 120 IQ. Would be interested to see the statistics.

  42. Risking your future to got to school and get into debt for a job that you might not even like which you have to pay back the school cuz you’re a slave … so much for a high iq

  43. My only complaint is that the students don't have the luxury of pausing the lecture, as I do, to consider his points and possibly expand or respond — except for the one girl who got a question in. Not saying it's not a brilliant talk, just firehose and non-Socratic. Maybe they're freshman and aren't much for interaction, but that's the general Peterson style, anyway.

  44. Speaking truth again. Jordan Peterson is brilliant. Sorry folks, intelligence is mainly genetic. It’s a hard fact to swallow but if both of your parents are dumb, then you have a high likelihood of being exactly just as dumb. 70% or more of what determines intelligence is your genes. Libtards hate this reality but it’s true.

  45. The left wants everyone to be the same so I.Q tests scare them to death. It dissolves their Diversity Construct.

  46. 126 IQ here, tested when I was 8 years old. You know what having an above average IQ contributes to? Being lonely and disattached. Even if you are modest about it, I myself mention it very rarely because I view it as showing off, you'll end up realizing that people around you rarely share any interests with you. I'm personally obsessed with existentialism and how to live a fulfilling life and make some meaning on your own. Doing so is quite hard when people around you don't reflect and merely exist rather than what I CONSIDER living. Or you can also make it known to those around you. Hey, I have a high IQ. How do you think people are going to react to that? "Yo, he's thinking he's better than us" or some people might get intimidated and see you as a number rather than a human being.

    I have nothing against IQ, people are different, but to me it's no more than a number. I won't let anyone tell me what success is or tell me what's best or right just because they have a higher cognitive capacity.
    High IQ is like having a supercomputer as compared to your typical Macbook or whatever. Sure, its processing capabilities are innumerably higher, but what does it matter if you use it to play minesweeper. What matters about IQ is what you do with it, not IQ on itself which I see is how it's portrayed.

  47. I don’t know how practicable intelligence is defined today but wouldn’t it be ones speed and ability in evaluating, learning from, and applying their experiences?

  48. This video explains my lack of success despite my high IQ, because am low on Conciencousness. It's kind of a side effect of ADHD.

  49. where does the 120 IQ data come from in respect to university, in scotland a high percentage of people go to university, so not sure that stat translates here. Soon all nurses will have to go to university, many mundane jobs require a degree here

  50. No such thing as emotional intelligence – I am glad to finally hear this being said out loud. I was always taught that women especially had greater emotional intelligence but my psychology teacher never explained what this was. Indeed it was always difficult to find any information on this so called emotional intelligence because it doesn’t exist

    But there are intelligent ways to express emotion, take the greatest artists, poets, song writers and musicians who can express on a piece of canvass, in the written word or by the beauty of sound feelings and emotions the rest of us can barely express in words. They are 99% men.

  51. When I was about 9 years old I was tested for IQ in school I found out later that I tested at 86 percent and that's how I was looked at through school as having an IQ of 86 percent. I quit school after 13 years of schooling I was blind and dyslexic . So school for me was a boat load of fun, NOT'

  52. The first 2 minutes and 15 seconds is so damn good to hear. When you first lay down and accept your disbelief to suspend it for a moment, you may enter the realm of places, of things that do not yet exist. For those things we have not made, and do not have, there is space left to make them. For that is a key part of imagination. But to separate imagination from reality is even more key, and this is done for however long-or-brief a moment but, it's necessity is followed-through nonetheless. A key moment for any good argument to be sure.

  53. Not everyone on the street is low IQ. The lower IQ people are at the bottom, of course. But nobody is a good criminal without having a decent IQ.

  54. How can you conceptualize intelligence ? Lol! What a stupid question.honestly the more i listen to Peterson the more I think he is a jack ass.

  55. IQ is a snapshot data. IQ can either decrease or increase precisely due to brains plasticity. You just need to stimulate it. Think of your brain as a muscle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *