[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 386 KB, 1692x2374, Jordan_Peterson_June_2018.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14238968 No.14238968[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

How high is this man's IQ would you guess?

>> No.14239000

in the excess of 150

>> No.14239006

>>14238968
like 90

>> No.14239012

It fluctuates between 90-110

>> No.14239034

>>14238968
Eleventy-six

>> No.14239270

>>14238968
Equate the populations of every species of lobster known on earth bring it down to half, equate the square root to the power of the answer and divide by 7 and add 10% to be generous. That is his IQ.

>> No.14239279

>>14238968
90-ish

>> No.14239287

>>14238968
"Bucko"

>> No.14239295

>>14238968
Very high, considering he is a Zionist who has managed to trick Christians into thinking that Nietzsche supported a return to Christian morality.
And he manages to always quote Antisemites like Solzhenitsyn as arguments against Marxism while completely ignoring the fact that he blamed the Jews for the Holomdor.


Ive never seen someone twist and misrepresent the worldviews of Nietzsche, Jung and Solzhenitsyn as badly as JP does, and still be such a highly influential "Intellectual figure"

I guess Jews are gonna be Jews

>> No.14239329
File: 80 KB, 750x669, 1569435774124.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14239329

>>14238968
pretty sure he's a big boy -tier

>> No.14239680

>>14239012
Came to say this

>> No.14239689

>>14239295
He's the postmodern Messiah we deserve

>> No.14239695

>>14239295
His resposnse to Solzhenitsyn and the Jews was just "I can't do it" and then he moved on to another topic.

>> No.14239717

He definitely has a genius level verbal IQ.

He's more of a pop messiah than a serious academic though and shows no real analytic taletn. He dips his toes in a lot of fields but isn't really great in any of them including psychology itself. He's mostly good at literally starting cults through sheer charisma despite sounding like Kermit the Frog.

>> No.14239737

Probably between 120-135.

>> No.14239752

>>14239695
I know, Ive linked that video here before. Its hilarious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLnP0nJLl0E

>> No.14239753

>>14238968
he's a sub-80IQ person's idea of a 150+IQ person, which means he's probably like ~90IQ. Anyone smarter would feel disgusted to be held in such a esteem by retards.

>> No.14239777

>>14238968
My guess is between 125 and 145, probably closer to 145, he’s a dishonest charlatan and he’s no true genius but he’s not stupid

>> No.14239785
File: 611 KB, 434x689, 1574560373556.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14239785

>>14238968
>>14239006
>>14239000
>>14239012
>>14239034
>>14239270
>>14239279
>>14239287
>>14239329
>>14239680
>>14239689
>>14239695
>>14239717
>>14239737
>>14239752
>>14239753
>>14239777
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>> No.14239791

>>14239753
Nah hes a smart person pretending to be a retard pretending to be a smart person. he knows exactly what hes doing. Like all of the Intellectual dark web

>> No.14239796

>I hate his ideas so he is low iq
That's not how it works. It's obvious he has a hidden agenda since he uses dumb language in his biblical lectures/interviews while sounding articulate and logical in some of his class lectures. He's probably >140 even though he has bad ideas

>> No.14239800

>>14238968
He is a personification of a type of pseud where he is a pseud but appears smart to dumb people (some pseuds appear as pseuds). So he in between 90-120, at most lower 130. My guess is 120, a pseud capable of moving up in his field and nothing else. Disgusting.

>> No.14239806

>>14238968
bout tree fiddy

>> No.14239818

>>14238968
I don't know, how much IQ do you need to successfully scam teenagers into Christian atheism?
Just last week someone asked my friend, who has always been a hardcore atheist, fedora tipper tier, if he believed in God, and he answered YES, that he "believes in God as an archetype". I wanted to punch him. It was the most dishonest crap I ever heard him say.

>> No.14239822

>>14239796
he sounds dumb as shit in his lectures. Psychology is the primarily the domain of charlatans who don't have enough mathematical aptitude to do statistics, don't have enough rigor to do economics, and don't have enough abstract reasoning to do philosophy.

>> No.14239824

Pretty sure he has talked about his IQ and it was like 150, lots of angry little /pol/manlets who have an even worse understanding of Solzhenitsyn and Nietzsche (at least he has read the men) than him seething itt

>> No.14239832

He said it's 150 in this video. You can argue the validity of iq tests as a measure of intelligence but I don't see a reason for why he would lie about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2CEuUAmrJM

>> No.14239841

>>14239818
Tbh I want to punch your friend as well, he reminds me of the average /lit/ poster in that he's spouting some incredibly watered down take on what he thinks intelligent people are saying.
What the fuck does that even mean, JP has never made such an asinine and incoherent statement. But he's talked about archetypes, and non literalist interpretation of God

I am surrounded by midwits, and to be fair I'm probably a midwit too but at least I have some self awareness. I fucking hate this board so much

>> No.14239847

>>14239841
There's a few big brains here and they hang out with the midwits because they have no friends :)

>> No.14239886

>>14239785
>stop using studies that disprove me, they're noise
>these correlations are less obvious if we inject more randomness into the data
I think we all know who the fraud is.

>> No.14239948

>>14238968
low 3 digits when he's on meds, high 2 when he's freewheeling it

>> No.14239949

>>14239886
>these correlations are less obvious if we inject more randomness into the data

He's right. "Correlation" as you are calling it fundamentally assumes the true underlying signals being measured are jointly Gaussian distributed in a linear and their residuals are independent and identically distributed, and that the measurement tools we are using maintain that structure.

It's complete nonsense to be operating under those assumption *ever* in any setting in psychology, and also most settings in economics and social science generally. Like Taleb points out, this is because the people who go into psych are fucking morons who wouldnt understand the mathematics of a freshman physics course.

>> No.14239951

>>14239949
>>14239948
>>14239886
>>14239847
>>14239832
>>14239824
>>14239822
>>14239800
>>14239796
>>14239791
IQ is nonsense
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>> No.14239952

>>14239832
>I don't see a reason for why he would lie about it.

Oh, come on. Think a little bit harder on it.

>> No.14239967

Pumpkinperson says 141
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/11/29/open-thread-jordan-petersons-iq/

He does a lot of ratings. They are by and large rather good estimates.

>> No.14240069

>>14239967
>When asked by a reader what his IQ is, Peterson replies “it’s less than it used to be because it declines as you age”
>Actually professional IQ tests like the Wechsler are normed for age, so the average old adult and the average young adult by definition have an IQ of 100

Holy fucking shit, do the charlatan psych folks seriously norm their measurement instrument at *every* age group? That makes no fucking sense if they actually thought their tool/test was measuring an actual latent quality within a human, the scale measuring that value should not be altered through time because the same inherent quality is supposed to exist irrespective of the literal time you measure. By changing the scale, you're admitting that you are not measuring a phenomenon, but actually measuring within-group variation, and doing so because the instrument does not measure a constant signal. Also this isn't what "norming" means, but I'm guessing he means Z-score standardization.

Psychologists really are fucking retards.

>> No.14240200

>>14239951
What the fuck, are you a bot?

>> No.14240349

>>14238968
He's said 150+ and that's sounds right. Hate him or not he's definitely intelligent, he'd have to be to get to his position at least.

>> No.14240373

About three fity

>> No.14240381

>>14240349
t. certified brainlet

His books are embarrassingly simplistic

>> No.14240417

>>14240381
They're coherent and applicable for him to his field of study and purpose. His expansions on Jungian analysis are genuine.

>> No.14240570

>>14240200
Yes, or it's The Arab himself. It's being posted daily here. Probably butthurt because he belongs to a low IQ ethnicity.

>> No.14240638
File: 25 KB, 489x443, dr-evil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14240638

>>14238968
not as high


as
mine

>> No.14240668

>>14240638
kill yourself cuck

>> No.14240678

>>14240417
>They're coherent and applicable for him to his field of study and purpose.
They aren't coherent. Psychologists exist in a world where they just ignore (as in are ignorant) fundamental mathematics, probability and epistemology to offer hack theories with hack studies in order to prove their own invented "truth" via positive social feedback. To say "his field of study" is to dignify these psychology charlatans who engage in the ego-boosting feedback loop of intellectual dishonesty.

>> No.14240693
File: 40 KB, 260x382, Care_Bears.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14240693

>>14240668
you care too much

>> No.14240735

>>14239785

Durr durr the most studied psychological phenomenon is BS durr durr.

God I hate this low IQ cope. If IQ is BS then why do ALL mathematicians have high IQs? Why do ALL physicists have high IQs? Why does anyone that does significantly better than others in their field have above average IQs? (Yes except for sports, good job you have long legs so you can run fast, good on you)

>> No.14240745

>>14239822

I'll concede the first two but maybe people go in psychology rather than philosophy because they would, you know, like to have a job.

>> No.14240817

>>14240745
>I'll concede the first two but maybe people go in psychology rather than philosophy because they would, you know, like to have a job.
Sure, and they also misuse math in order to misrepresent the validity of their (mostly dubious) claims, and then exploit that misuse for unjustified reputation and profit.

And you don't *have* to be a completely bullshit psych researcher who uses quantitative methods. You just have to abandon all the traditional psych field and basically do complex mathematics and machine learning on an estimated but not scientific projection of the human psyche onto a tractable mathematical space to make predicitions and draw inference. But you're more likely to find this being done at a research lab at Facebook than at a psych department, which is kind of shitty.

Why can't psych departments evolve? Well because they're gatekeeping charlatans. And also because you have to give up that you're doing "science", and give up the lie that quantitative evidence will show some naive and childish model to explain the human psyche,

>> No.14240830

Hilarious how people seethe over IQ. It seems the existence of IQ breaks people's political illusions

>> No.14241022

>>14240735
>Durr durr the most studied psychological phenomenon is BS durr durr.
Only because psychologists are studying it.

>If IQ is BS then why do ALL mathematicians have high IQs?
Because we're smart enough to know that decomposing a matrix of measurements from a test into a low-rank set of some unobservable signal has a non-identifiable solution, so any scale you derive from it has arbitrary direction which completely changes interpretation depending on how you rotate/translate it.

In other words, only a retard would think an IQ test extracts some unique and metaphysically correct axis of "intelligence".

>> No.14241104

>>14241022

>Using this much jargon to appear smart in a discussion about IQ

Just... Ok so how would one define intelligence, professor?

>> No.14241140

>>14241104
My response was about IQ as a quantitative scale derived from a test. that's nonsense.

>Ok so how would one define intelligence, professor?
Read a dictionary. It's an abstract concept, its meaning is derived from its use in language.

>> No.14241404

>>14241022
>dimensionality reduction is impossible
Brainlet detected.

>> No.14241466

>>14238968
I’ve read his books. His ability to synthesize knowledge is impressive, however I’m not sure you’ll ever see him put forth any truly new or revolutionary ideas. Probably 130-140

>> No.14241508

>>14240678
>fundamental mathematics, probability and epistemology
These aren't very relevant to helping people in a personal way.

>> No.14241578

>>14241404
lol dimensionality reduction give you nonunique solutions because the axes are nonidentifiable up to a rotation. This is fine because actual mathematicians don't think the dimensionally reduced matrix has unique axes that we should ascribe semantic interpretation to. Psych folks actually try to interpret the axes and then think they're doing science and not just cute conjecture.

>>14241508
That's the point. Don't misuse numbers to misrepresent the evidence for your claims. If someone doesn't understand math and probability, don't go around blabbering about correlation.

>> No.14241605

>>14238968
A solid 103, I'd say

>> No.14241615

>>14238968
Around 120. Obviously above average but for someone who presumably spends much of his time reading or writing his command of English is poor.

>> No.14241692

It has to be around 120, he didn't get into (Canadian) law schools back when LSAT was a real IQ test.

>> No.14241868

>>14239832
> why would pretend smart man lie about how smart him is?
> why would pretend rich man lie about how rich him is?