Exactly. Innovation alongside creativity isn't something that can just have a numerical value placed on it. There are many categories of intelligence, some that are genetic, some that are cultivated. Someone may have the ability to memorize 100 books word for word but will contribute nothing notable to our technological evolution. Besides, I think the human brain is most likely never going to evolve to the state we need it to and that's where AI will come to play. AI is going to fill in the evolutionary holes and robotics will fill in our biological capabilities. One day, how you were born won't really matter, in fact we'll probably be able to genetically engineer superior humans - we can already alter genetics.

Drones don't invent.

If you have a 190 IQ but die a non-lifting virgin, did you really have a high IQ?

horrible article.

I agree with this guy.

Something from myself I've noticed about intelligence (being 36 years old and having done a few different things) is that there is general intelligence (being interested in a lot of different things, able to pick up any concept somewhat quickly without having to spend all day/every day studying, etc). Sure, that's general intelligence and some people have more of less of it.

But then there's specific types of intelligence. For me, I notice my intelligence is in chaotic situations. During those situations, my brain seems to pick up on details. I can remember sights, smells, colors, random fcking details and I can perform duties because my brain picks up on it. Most people (talking like 95% of people) freeze in those situations, get complete tunnel vision, can't function, remember nothing, etc.

Meanwhile, you can teach my algebra and 2 weeks later I'll forget every fcking thing you told me, yet some high school kid could come steam roll through and do calculus in that amount of time. U wot m8?

Intelligence is so different depending on subject matter, specificity, type of learning, etc.

Man of African origin "skips town"

youre right on that. I goofed on the facts there.

My point stands though. Iq measures reasoning, pattern recognition, and problem solving. The guy was suggesting that someones iq can’t be measured unless they have a classical education, which isn’t true.

You can have zero years of education behind you and have genius level iq, as was the case with the Indian brah.

i don't know why people call iq a joke. it has been the best indicator for success over very large sample sizes. if it was so obviously bs, why is IQ tested with things like the SAT/GRE etc with huge implications of your educational future?

Similar to Einstein if i remember right? Didn't he have minimal advanced education?

I actually think for the people of that intelligence level ... classical education might be a hindrance to a degree since it tends to pigeon hole your thinking instead of letting it assimilate information and ideas in completely unique ways. Might explain why there are a good percentage of billionaire businessmen that had little to no education? They're able to go to new heights because they weren't trained to think in very specific ways.

If IQ were correlated with social dysfunction then, since IQ's have risen, you'd expect to see ever lower rates of anti-social behaviour but that's simply not true. Look at the problems with the black population in America. The average black American today lags the average white in IQ but if he were to travel back in time to 1960 his 2018 score would net him an IQ score of 100 back then. Does the average black American in 2018 have the same rate of dysfunction as an average white American in 1960? Nope. Not in any quantifiable way. Likewise in other countries. The average working class Briton in 2018 would probably have an above average IQ if transported back 100 years. Yet the working classes in 1900 behaved far better. Contrast crime rates between then and now. Even allowing for the fact that crime stats are political these days and so manipulated it's obvious that criminal behaviour is far more common today. Here's one stat - violent robberies in Britain rose 52,000% between 1927 and 1996. Yet across the same time period the average British IQ rose. So frankly, who cares about IQ? Would you rather live among clever but selfish, anti-social people or would you rather you neighbours were technically less smart but better behaved people?

Lmao at the armchair psychologists ITT

Those disparities have more to do with changing demographics, fatherless homes, "thug" culture and gang activity than they do iq. The iq plays a part in it especially when it comes to schooling and the types of jobs people work but the rise in crime has more factors. If you look at people with an iq of 80 among different races the crime statistics are pretty comparable. As the iq range goes up you see the crime rate drop in all demographics. Also the flynn effect youre referring to has more to do with people as a whole becoming more used to 3d conceptualization and other complex tasks that have become more common in every day life and they actually factor that into the scoring now. People arent getting smarter over all theyre just exposed to different types of stimulus that help with pattern recognition which is a large part of the test. People becoming more antisocial is more a dependence on technology and disconnection from.those around them than anything. We went several thousand years without anything like a smart phone, people werent meant to spend their entire lifes staring at and interacting with a screen instead of each other.

When I was younger, they IQ tested all of the seemingly intelligent kids in order to see if they should be corralled into the gifted and talented program.

My Stanford-Binet score was 143. I had teachers bring it up several times all the way through high school.

As a result, I always considered myself to be an intelligent person.

Then one day I looked at my post count here and realized that IQ tests obviously have zero correlation with intelligence.

Well, even if you have a low base IQ that doesn't mean it's game over. IQ is not a static thing but dynamic and can be improved.

You and I are in agreement - it's culture that matters. That's the point I was making. The fact that low IQ's are linked with criminality doesn't really explain anything. IQ is a measure of developed potential, there exists no test which can measure the potential of a child coming into the world. Every measurement is done after the fact. A home life and surrounding culture which starves a child of intellectual development may also be one which promotes egotism and selfishness and eventually criminal behaviour. The simple act of a child eating a meal at a table with the rest of his family is said to be a major part of his development as a considerate social creature. Yet this is denied many children today. Apparently many criminals entering prison for the first time have never in their lives eaten a meal with others. Malnutrition in young people is connected to retarded IQ development and also with increased anti-social behaviour. Studies have been done where prisoners have been given vitamin supplements and subsequently become better behaved. Being born to a teen mother can also hinder IQ development but if a child born to a young mother is badly behaved later in life is it really due to his below average IQ or the degraded culture a teen mother is more likely to have raised him in? If you mention culture in discussions of IQ people will invariably say that culture is a product of IQ but what's interesting is that cultural degradation almost always starts at the top. 'The fish rots from the head down'. The lower classes were once incredibly conservative individuals since they had to be. They couldn't afford the costs of living an immoral life like the famously ill behaved upper classes could. The moral squalor many poor (and presumably below average IQ'ed) people them find themselves surrounded by today has its origins in the ideas of high IQ'ed intellectuals. There was no great desire from the lower classes for no-fault divorce laws, leniency toward criminality, the destruction of disciplined, selective school systems, a relaxation of gambling, drug and alcohol licensing laws or a wish for more explicit books, music, television shows or films etc. It was well educated, intelligent men and women who hollowed out the moral universe of the lower classes. They undermined the authority the lower classes relied upon for security and order. I remember reading once that village idiots don't tend to think up disastrous social policies. And it's true. They instead relied upon the distilled lived experiences of countless people both living and dead to guide them through life. They didn't need to be clever since they were wise. And that wisdom came from having to live with one's choices. Today though the welfare state helps people avoid the negative effects of the choices they make. It subsidises bad behaviour. While intellectuals continue to excuse such bad behaviour to demonstrate their broad mindedness and compassionate ways. All the while not having to actually live in the world they create for the lower classes. They're clever yet immoral. Most bad ideas require intelligence to believe and the verbal dexterity of an intellectual to defend.

A cow isn't very intelligent either but can share a part to society. Bobby Bob might have a low iq but he still makes the best Hot Dogs. Even with a low iq you can become good in something. Personality is a big player in this also.

Conscientiousness is one of the main personality traits associated with success. A high IQ high conscientious individual will earn more than a low IQ high conscientious individual (on average).

There are obviously flaws with IQ tests, and the data used to show IQ differences between populations. Sample sizes are too small, not all look at the backgrounds of those taking the tests.

But IQ is basically just a measure of processing power. If you take a test that measures short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition without any preparation andconsistentlyscore higher than someone whoconsistently scores lower, you likely possess better/faster processing power, which is what IQ essentially is.

You figure out solutions to complex problems more efficiently than low IQ people.

People can say the test are BS, but people with mental handicaps consistently score below average on IQ tests, and they have trouble with learning, reading and at the lower end even speaking.

I think I agree with this to a large degree. Peterson is adamant that things like emotional intelligence are BS, but if you possess a heightened ability to recognise the emotional state/wellbeing of others - something a cow or cat might be incapable of doing - you are exhibiting some form of higher cognitive ability, which is essentially what intelligence is. And it can benefit you in a society/species as social as humans are.

Hmmm, after pre-natal/early childhood brain development, you are pretty much stuck with your mental processing capacity.

Decent post but learn to paragraph brah.

*Source: 'magazine' started by university students.......

I read your whole article linked and the while the author doesn't use "big words" as much as Peterson he definitely mixes truths with opinion that he presents as fact; exactly what he is criticizing Peterson for.

He is also clearly closer to alt left than he is neutral, his article reeks of it.

He also asserts that "Some of it is probably because alt-right guys like that he (Peterson) gives a seemingly scientific justification for their dislike of “social justice warriors.” -Okay.jpg.....because it's only people of the alt right that think social justice warriors are fukwits

Newsflash: Most middle of the road politically neutral, reasonable people of varying intelligence identify with much of what Peterson says because he promotes reason, logic and what should be common sense.

Everyone saying that IQ is developed is dead wrong... Intelligence correlates very strongly to the integrity and thickness of white matter tracts in the brain. Smarter people literally have better connected and more efficient brains and this all comes down to genetics. Some point in the future we will be able to predict somebody’s IQ as an infant with huge accuracy. IQ also exponentially increases as you go up in points, a 145 is way smarter than a 130 and nearly computer like to a 100. So much cope ITT, I have sum bad nuwz...

I dont think I'm highly intelligent or anything but most people definitely seem dumb as rocks and are oblivious to everything. I can tell most people are like sheep who have no grasp on what its like to think about something for more than 30 seconds. I'm pretty sure myself and a lot of people on here would school the average person in knowledge srs. It's sad but most people can't relate to any kind of an intelligent conversation and it's just getting worst

sounds like me, very smart and can cure cancer.lol. but always in the wrong environment or around trash

This definitely is not true. The vast amount of lower IQ people do the tightly defined, short term, repetitive drone/worker-ant work the more intelligent people come up with and put in front of them as part of a much larger long term strategy.

inb4, or possibly after, miscers claim 350 iq...

IQ scores are misleading.

An IQ of 100 is pretty much a potato, but smart enough to stab people in the back and fake it to make it.

95% of people in the world are below average intelligence. It's only unfortunate that the IQ score, which is a normal distribution measure, does not capture how vastly different an IQ of 110 vs 100 actually is. I consider people with IQs above 115 to be normal. The rest are who you see rotting away on social media and being distracted from the fake news and propaganda out there.

I know people like to point out how it’s awfully convenient how people on the internet all seem to have higher IQs, but it’s also not surprising. Internet message boards tend to attract certain types, so you’re likely to see a higher representation of males, introverts, smart people, and socially awkward types. I know college students are said to have higher than average IQs, so I’d definitely also expect that from a male dominated message board.

So think about how dumb a lot of fellow Miscers or college students (people generally on the smarter side of the bell curve) can seem to be. And then consider the people who are on the other side of the bell curve, below the average. Yikes. It’s definitely true that civilization as we think of it is the result of the shared work of a very, very small handful of geniuses each generation and that most people are useless potatoes. Also imagine dat feel of being a genius and being so far above most people you meet in terms of intellectual capability. I wonder if geniuses perceive above average people the same way above average people perceive the 80 IQ potatoes? Seems like a maddening and lonely existence.

As long as you’re at least average, I would be probably say that interpersonal skills are most important anyway.

Holy fuk this is a garbage article. You should be embarrassed for posting it

Did you just google "Jordan Peterson bad" and post the first link?

iQ is, put simply, a means for autists and pasty basement dwellers to feel superior even though they're a failure.

it's like those faux-motivational people on ********. Nobody who's actually succesful behaves like that.

You think Chad, who wakes up to snaps from dozens of girls every day, who 'doesn't really know what he wants do to in life' gives a **** about IQ?

You think good guy Greg who's getting invited to half a dozen parties every weekend because he's a wholesome guy with a nice smile, good social skills, and a keen dress sense gives a **** about IQ?

Peterson, once again, is pandering to the basement dwelling, MGTOW demographic because they are who make him a very rich man.

Also LOL @ people ITT talking about doing online iQ tests, they are ALWAYS junk. You have to go to an actual psychiatrist to get one administered.