- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
FM, I think MathFan might be leading you into opinions like this deliberately...
Patronizing your allies, it is a bold strategy.
Evidently, it is lost on you that the overwhelming majority of people who stay the formal route, in anything, are the inferior minded sheep while the gifted are lone wolves (or small pack of wolves) that disengage from the hierarchy in order to have full autonomy of thought (as well as other benefits). I can go into quite a bit more detail about this if need be, though it is clear FM already understands the point--as it is also apparent it will remain lost on you no matter how thoroughly exposed.
Also, do note, FM was far too humble individually & far too generous with you in a previous thread/comment--his IQ is most definitely superior to yours.
Jordan Peterson is roughly a 2/10 in intelligence (1/10 being average).
I generally agree, though would put him at a 3/10
When I judge a person's intelligence I am not simply referring to intelligence in the classical sense, but basically every intellectual capacity someone could have including creativity, wisdom, knowledge on particular subjects etc.
Good. Personally, the metric I use first looks at 2 staples, and then works to 'branch' & 'twig' areas thereafter. (1) Everyone is born into this life with their own personal 'chessboard'. How sensibly have they played that game? (2) Whether there is evidence of high level of success in areas that they apply themselves in. That is, are they good at what they do when they really try? After (1) & (2), I will analyze other areas, some of which you discussed in your response.
One out of two of the points goes to him for understanding psychology on an academic level
He does not--in fact, this is the first thing I noticed about him upon introduction. There are many examples that could be given to demonstrate this, though perhaps the most significant (and blatantly false) is his position on the matter of Ashkenazi Jew IQ. Peterson claimed the average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115, which, if true, would necessitate for all other Jews on the planet (i.e. non-Ashkenazi) average IQ to be less than 85. See, Israel is 75% Jewish, from which 47.5% are Ashkenazi, making up 36% of the total population. Now, the reported Israeli IQ is 95, and the average reported Jordanian IQ of 84 standing for Arab Israelis, then an Ashkenazi average IQ of 115 would necessarily imply that all other Jews on Earth have an average IQ of 84--lower than African American, and a standard deviation below European whites. Does that sound correct to you? Or, rather, does it sound like a superficial thinker stating common, erroneous talking points without bothering to look into the matter personally, and is also statistically illiterate as he does not possess the requisite learning, nor Left-Brain strength, to interpret what he is looking at (the collective data points)?
the other is for his ability to form arguments and analyse.
This he has above average ability in, yes. Though, that is precisely why it would be intellectually honest to describe himself as a Philosopher pushing his own views/philosophy, rather than claim the authority of science, unwarranted. A person who demonstrates a severe lack of integrity on even one matter puts all other of his work into question.
One thing I've noticed is that he is not good at spotting alt accounts or telling when he is being trolled. His intelligence seems to be very technical and he is not very good at social "mindfuck" games or things such as manipulation.
This is a fair criticism, as I tend be naive in this regard--it leaves me particularly vulnerable to Gamma personality types (i.e. manipulative masterminds & deceivers who often pose as Betas or Deltas for leverage).
You seem to be entirely unaware of how unreasonable a claim that is. By necessity, you must then take the position that JP's IQ is a standard deviation or so above Einsteins--and, simultaneously, there is zero evidence he would be able to do even Undergrad Phys. or Maths (hence why he insists upon stating Psychotherapy is a "science" and does bizarre, concentrated, premeditated hand motions when explaining a "complex" (i.e. incredibly simple/obvious) idea).
You have managed to demonstrate, once again, your utter inability to comprehend the skills & abilities attached to specific IQ brackets.
I would direct you to a previous thread of mine on the topic for further details.
That said, he's still an incredibly smart guy.
Jordan Peterson is not particularly intelligent, nor informed about the topics he speaks about. The main advantage he brings to the table is that the vast majority of humanity, objectively, severely lacks basic cognitive skills as well as personal confidence in their own abilities, due to reasons FM & I have discussed elsewhere. Consider, people of IQ less than 120 are functionally illiterate--which is 90% of humanity. Given that, it is not difficult to see how many can be decieved by an ambitious, somewhat cunning charlatan.
I would recommend you Jordanetics, if interested in the topic.