Jordan Peterson interview on C4

professore

Wibbs wrote: »

A long time cultural self selection and praise for academic intellect. Over time this will result in more individuals reaching the top in such pursuits. Another group that doesn't select for that will have far more untapped individuals.

Exactly. Just as the Irish emphasis on stubbornness, oral tradition and open debate and argument, and distrust of authority, and respect for education produced fantastic literary figures.

There is also a genetic element in that if people exhibiting those traits have better reproductive success they will pass that to their children. Just as western society seems hell bent on producing a generation of self obsessed materialistic idiots.

professore

twinytwo wrote: »

Another major pit fall for us is the lack of a 2nd european language.A huge % of jobs require a second languge which a lot of Irish people do not have.

I think it also took too long for the government to bring languages and computer realtion topics to primary school.

There should be a major push in languages/maths/science and computers from an early age.

Good points. Also the way languages are taught here is terrible. It should be all about speaking the language.

silverharp

professore wrote: »

Exactly. Just as the Irish emphasis on stubbornness, oral tradition and open debate and argument, and distrust of authority, and respect for education produced fantastic literary figures.

There is also a genetic element in that if people exhibiting those traits have better reproductive success they will pass that to their children. Just as western society seems hell bent on producing a generation of self obsessed materialistic idiots.

this is the future of the west

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL1-340ODCM

xtal191

Brian?

Koala Sunshine wrote: »

Do you think you are speaking to white nationalists on this thread?

Yes. I do. It's a public forum with participants from a broad political spectrum. I have encountered many alt right/white nationalist supporters on boards.

I asked the question about the fascination with IQ to see if I was dealing with someone of that persuasion.

Brian?

professore wrote: »

Exactly. Just as the Irish emphasis on stubbornness, oral tradition and open debate and argument, and distrust of authority, and respect for education produced fantastic literary figures.

There is also a genetic element in that if people exhibiting those traits have better reproductive success they will pass that to their children. Just as western society seems hell bent on producing a generation of self obsessed materialistic idiots.

Is that genetic or is it cultural?

Brian?

Celticfire wrote: »

Would you by any chance have a couple of examples of this?

I'll happily drop the issue rather than watch the interview again to find examples to be honest.

Brian?

professore wrote: »

Ben Shapiro is a master of debate.and talks at 100 miles an hour. Not making excuses for Rogan mind you, but Shapiro is a formidable opponent.

Is Shapiro a master of debate? I've never seen him engage with anyone who will provide an intelligent, robust debate. He loves a soft target. There is a particular type in genius in picking the right opponents to make yourself look like an intellectual giant.

If you have any examples of Shapiro engaging in honest debate, I'd like to see it.

FWIW I don't expect Rogan to engage Shapiro or any interviewee in debate. It's an interview after all. I would like to see him keep an interviewee honest though.

twinytwo

Brian? wrote: »

Is Shapiro a master of debate? I've never seen him engage with anyone who will provide an intelligent, robust debate. He loves a soft target. There is a particular type in genius in picking the right opponents to make yourself look like an intellectual giant.

If you have any examples of Shapiro engaging in honest debate, I'd like to see it.

FWIW I don't expect Rogan to engage Shapiro or any interviewee in debate. It's an interview after all. I would like to see him keep an interviewee honest though.

Not many people would engage him in debate I would think, those that do are generally idiots and get their ass handed to them.

Koala Sunshine

If it turned out some "races" were innately more intelligent than others I can't say that I would be bothered by it. I get the impression some people would in that circumstance enter a state of denial. They need the world to be a certain way.

The Rape of Lucretia

Koala Sunshine wrote: »

If it turned out some "races" were innately more intelligent than others

I think it has turned out that way : Asian>Caucasian>African.
Although the gaps are small on the average point (about 1-2 IQ points) , and the overlap great anyway.

The same as it suits some to try to big this up to suit their purpose, it suits others to pretend you shouldnt even look into the matter because the results dont suit their preconceived agenda either.

Brian?

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I think it has turned out that way : Asian>Caucasian>African.
Although the gaps are small on the average point (about 1-2 IQ points) , and the overlap great anyway.

The same as it suits some to try to big this up to suit their purpose, it suits others to pretend you shouldnt even look into the matter because the results dont suit their preconceived agenda either.

My position is that IQ is a poor measure of intellectual capacity. I question the entire paradigm.

The are differences between ethnic groups, anyone who denies this is delusional. White nationalists try to use the differences to proclaim superiority, when most of the time the differences are cultural and not genetic.

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

My position is that IQ is a poor measure of intellectual capacity. I question the entire paradigm.

So you saying you wouldnt find a pattern of high IQ in an "astrophysics " course in college versus say more average IQ in a non prestigious course? and most likely the average iQ students wouldnt have the mental capacity to take the IQ course?

Pepefrogok

There are differences between races, in fact almost everything is different, skin, organs, bones, skulls, mussel fibers etc, it astounds me that people believe that the only part the same between all the races is the brain.

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

So you saying you wouldnt find a pattern of high IQ in an "astrophysics " course in college versus say more average IQ in a non prestigious course? and most likely the average iQ students wouldnt have the mental capacity to take the IQ course?

No. Don’t start trying to build a straw man.

Can you present your counter argument in a cogent manner?

Do you believe IQ is the ultimate measure of intellectual capacity?

Brian?

Pepefrogok wrote: »

There are differences between races, in fact almost everything is different, skin, organs, bones, skulls, mussel fibers etc, it astounds me that people believe that the only part the same between all the races is the brain.

There are indeed differences. Who said there isn’t?

xckjoo

Pepefrogok wrote: »

There are differences between races, in fact almost everything is different, skin, organs, bones, skulls, mussel fibers etc, it astounds me that people believe that the only part the same between all the races is the brain.

Part of the issue when you start down that road is that it's hard to define race. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's an accepted scientific/biological definition.

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

Do you believe IQ is the ultimate measure of intellectual capacity?

I don't know what "ultimate" would entail. I do know that someone with a low IQ is intellectually hampered compared to someone with a high IQ so its good enough especially if people are obsessed with averages. At an individual level its less important and not something to beat yourself up over.

Wibbs

xckjoo wrote: »

Part of the issue when you start down that road is that it's hard to define race. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's an accepted scientific/biological definition.

It's a tricky area. There is certainly the understandable and necessary caution around the definition. On top of that human populations are "fuzzy" around the edges with much overlap. It can be argued that there are roughly a few broad populations with a more shared genetic heritage than others. These populations would roughly translate into "races", with quite a bit of sub populations within. EG African populations would be seen as one "race" by many, but the same populations are the most genetically diverse on the planet, so there can be a pretty wide genetic gap between two African individuals that look pretty much the same and may only live a couple of hundred miles apart. Europeans would be more closely related across the population and geography. Asian populations would be somewhere in the middle diversity wise.

Professor Moriarty

The only definitive way to assess the origin of IQ is to find a way of testing babies. Even at that, you would have to factor in the mother's nutrition, health and lifestyle.

Pepefrogok

Not just IQ/intelligence, but are there emotional intelligence differences? Aggression? I mean look at the stats in the USA, 13% of the population committing over half of all murders, and it's not just socioeconomic, there are more poor whites/Hispanics in America than blacks, I am sure it's not the only reason but I suppose the slave drivers only took the strong, athletic men, we can see that in a positive example now with many of America's greatest sports men having harnessed the natural gifts but perhaps it's not too crazy a thought that the higher athleticism/testosterone/competitiveness also carries slightly higher aggression etc? In fact if imagine if it was found to be the case program's could be put into place to give young black kids the tools to cope and could result in less deaths, better lives and less racism in society but that would of course need liberals to accept such differences are possible and accept research into it but too many of them would rather we ignore it and just let the black kids die, less racist that way.

Let's face it, there are differences, we are not going to pretend that on average certain Asian groups will have a higher IQ than us white Europeans, what good would it do to deny it? I mean it's just because we had different environments to evolve in, given enough time in the same environment together we will all become identical but until then learning and embracing our differences could make things better for all.

Ulysses Gaze

Brian? wrote: »

Is Shapiro a master of debate? I've never seen him engage with anyone who will provide an intelligent, robust debate. He loves a soft target. There is a particular type in genius in picking the right opponents to make yourself look like an intellectual giant.

If you have any examples of Shapiro engaging in honest debate, I'd like to see it.

FWIW I don't expect Rogan to engage Shapiro or any interviewee in debate. It's an interview after all. I would like to see him keep an interviewee honest though.

He had a debate with Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks and Shapiro won that hands down. Uygur came across as not having a clue what he was talking about and ended up putting the audience down. He could not refute Shapiro's fact based arguments at all.

bnt

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The only definitive way to assess the origin of IQ is to find a way of testing babies. Even at that, you would have to factor in the mother's nutrition, health and lifestyle.

No need to go back to babies. There are ways of assessing socio-economic status (SES) and factoring that out. There are also twin studies, where twins separated at birth (for whatever reason) are assessed later, to try to gauge the impact of nature vs. nurture. This has been going on for decades, it's a mature field and it's all part of the research. (Like you're the first person to question how IQ is researched, no-one's ever considered such objections and addressed them?)

Professor Moriarty

bnt wrote: »

No need to go back to babies. There are ways of assessing socio-economic status (SES) and factoring that out. There are also twin studies, where twins separated at birth (for whatever reason) are assessed later, to try to gauge the impact of nature vs. nurture. This has been going on for decades, it's a mature field and it's all part of the research. (Like you're the first person to question how IQ is researched, no-one's ever considered such objections and addressed them?)

Ignoring your silly final sentence, much as the aetiology of abnormal psychology is mired in the nature/nurture debate, the origin of 'intelligence' is similarly opaque. If you find definitive research that categorically and scientifically factors out all other influences other than genetic inheritance, then you will be right. Until then...

bnt

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you find definitive research that categorically and scientifically factors out all other influences other than genetic inheritance, then you will be right. Until then...

Um ... what? Who is claiming that IQ is entirely genetic? I'm not, and I've never seen anyone else claim that it was. The best figures I've seen place the hereditary component in the 40-60% range. So it's not an exact science, and (again) no-one's claimed that it was. Yes, there is room for error, but the statistics still show IQ is correlated with heredity. The correlation is not perfect (1.0) but it's real. Would you at least try reading Wikipedia before dismissing a whole field of research?

Professor Moriarty

bnt wrote: »

Um ... what? Who is claiming that IQ is entirely genetic? I'm not, and I've never seen anyone else claim that it was. The best figures I've seen place the hereditary component in the 40-60% range. So it's not an exact science, and (again) no-one's claimed that it was. Yes, there is room for error, but the statistics still show IQ is correlated with heredity. The correlation is not perfect (1.0) but it's real. Would you at least try reading Wikipedia before dismissing a whole field of research?

So it's not entirely genetic. Great. That blows a large hole through all of thie racial sh1te. Glad we're agreed.

AbusesToilets

Wibbs wrote: »

It's a tricky area. There is certainly the understandable and necessary caution around the definition. On top of that human populations are "fuzzy" around the edges with much overlap. It can be argued that there are roughly a few broad populations with a more shared genetic heritage than others. These populations would roughly translate into "races", with quite a bit of sub populations within. EG African populations would be seen as one "race" by many, but the same populations are the most genetically diverse on the planet, so there can be a pretty wide genetic gap between two African individuals that look pretty much the same and may only live a couple of hundred miles apart. Europeans would be more closely related across the population and geography. Asian populations would be somewhere in the middle diversity wise.

I despise the credence given to "Race" in our cultural nowadays. Such a wildly inaccurate and divisive way of viewing the world.

Pepefrogok

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I despise the credence given to "Race" in our cultural nowadays. Such a wildly inaccurate and divisive way of viewing the world.

I just see us as any other species, dogs, monkeys etc all have different breeds, we are the same, some breeds are tall, some small, some more intelligent, some more aggressive, we arnt special, just a species that hasent been here long and will probaly be extinct soon enough.

B0jangles

Pepefrogok wrote: »

I just see us as any other species, dogs, monkeys etc all have different breeds, we are the same, some breeds are tall, some small, some more intelligent, some more aggressive, we arnt special, just a species that hasent been here long and will probaly be extinct soon enough.

Do you actually think breeds are the same as species?

Every wonder why all dog breeds can mate with each other but you can't cross a chimpanzee with a gorilla?

Breed /= Species.

No-one has been breeding different groups of people to develop different traits, so trying to compare populations of humans to dogs is... grossly misinformed at best.

bnt

Look - I do understand that there's a natural reluctance to admit to objective differences between races, but the differences in IQ are no more remarkable than seeing runners from East Africa dominate every long distance race. It's certainly no excuse for any kind of discrimination. As Peterson and others have said, this carries major policy implications in a future where manual labour jobs are becoming more scarce due to automation. Education is going to be hugely important, too - and right now, in the USA, it's failing African-American boys in particular.