Estimating Jordan Peterson's IQ

[Crepitus]

I stumbled upon this last year, and it's worth listening to. The presenter estimates his IQ to be 115-120 and arrives at that estimate using reasonable inferences from known data.

Peterson claims an IQ of 150 though yet has never measured it.

I thought he was just some semi famous drug addict.

Is he supposed to be smart?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I thought he was just some semi famous drug addict.

Is he supposed to be smart?

He has a cult-like following, they hang on his every word, he's good at speaking at length yet saying absolutely nothing of significance.

 

[Crepitus]

He has a cult-like following, they hang on his every word, he's good at speaking at length yet saying absolutely nothing of significance.

A Timothy Leary type?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jordan Peterson

The dumb man's idea of a smart man.

 

[JoeMoma]

Why?

I've watched plenty of videos of him speaking in which he demonstrates hi intelligence.

 

[Meathead]

I thought he was just some semi famous drug addict.

Is he supposed to be smart?

Sherlock Holmes was, but he wasn't real.

 

[jwoodie]

The dumb man's idea of a smart man.

I guess you would know!

 

[jwoodie]

Do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you exclusively rely on your betters?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you exclusively rely on your betters?

Yes, I think Peterson is vacuous.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I guess you would know!

Criticize the mangod, and his cultists attack...

 

[JoeMoma]

Jordan Petterson became famous because of his stand against the compelled speech law in Canada that required people to use "preferred pronouns". He has articulated his stance extremely well, leaving his detractors resorting to mere insults.

JP doesn't need a stupid person like me to defend him against the gender mafia, he does well enough on his own.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jordan Petterson became famous because of his stand against the compelled speech law in Canada that required people to use "preferred pronouns". He has articulated his stance extremely well, leaving his detractors resorting to mere insults.

JP doesn't need a stupid person like me to defend him against the gender mafia, he does well enough on his own.

Sure, if you don't mind fallacies and dubious premises.

 

[JoeMoma]

Sure, if you don't mind fallacies and dubious premises.

Feel free to point those fallacies and dubious premises out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Feel free to point those fallacies and dubious premises out.

I do, when I watch him. Which is now going to be never.

Feel free to hitch your wagons to such a fraud.

 

[jwoodie]

If YOU had a higher IQ, you might have noticed three salient points about this "pinning down" of Jordan Peterson:

1. The questioner intentionally obfuscated his first example by referring to "making a cake for a gay wedding." This was an obvious reference to the SCOTUS decision which upheld the right to refuse personal services (decorating a gay cake and serving a gay wedding) based on religious grounds. Peterson agreed with this decision.

2. The questioner then provided an example of "making a cake for a black couple." As he should have known, simply selling cakes to customers is not a personal service, but part of public commerce. As such, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race. Peterson agreed with this.

3. The questioner then surreptitiously conflated these two examples in the guise of a simple civil rights comparison. Peterson then agreed that, on that basis, neither black nor gay people should be refused commercial access. Far from being "pinned down" by the questioner, Peterson's agreement within this context was an example of high IQ open thinking.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If YOU had a higher IQ, you might have noticed three salient points about this "pinning down" of Jordan Peterson:

1. The questioner intentionally obfuscated his first example by referring to "making a cake for a gay wedding." This was an obvious reference to the SCOTUS decision which upheld the right to refuse personal services (decorating a gay cake and serving a gay wedding) based on religious grounds. Peterson agreed with this decision.

2. The questioner then provided an example of "making a cake for a black couple." As he should have known, simply selling cakes to customers is not a personal service, but part of public commerce. As such, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race. Peterson agreed with this.

3. The questioner then surreptitiously conflated these two examples in the guise of a simple civil rights comparison. Peterson then agreed that, on that basis, neither black nor gay people should be refused commercial access. Far from being "pinned down" by the questioner, Peterson's agreement within this context was an example of high IQ open thinking.

Peterson admitted error and apologized too, you left out that fourth salient point.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If YOU had a higher IQ, you might have noticed three salient points about this "pinning down" of Jordan Peterson:

1. The questioner intentionally obfuscated his first example by referring to "making a cake for a gay wedding." This was an obvious reference to the SCOTUS decision which upheld the right to refuse personal services (decorating a gay cake and serving a gay wedding) based on religious grounds. Peterson agreed with this decision.

2. The questioner then provided an example of "making a cake for a black couple." As he should have known, simply selling cakes to customers is not a personal service, but part of public commerce. As such, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race. Peterson agreed with this.

3. The questioner then surreptitiously conflated these two examples in the guise of a simple civil rights comparison. Peterson then agreed that, on that basis, neither black nor gay people should be refused commercial access. Far from being "pinned down" by the questioner, Peterson's agreement within this context was an example of high IQ open thinking.

Allow me to direct you to a more thorough critique of Peterson:

Current Affairs 2018: The Intellectual We Deserve

A snippet

This much should be obvious from even a cursory reading of him: If Jordan Peterson is the most influential intellectual in the Western world, the Western world has lost its damn mind. And since Jordan Peterson does indeed have a good claim to being the most influential intellectual in the Western world, we need to think seriously about what has gone wrong. What have we done to end up with this man? His success is our failure, and while it’s easy to scoff at him, it’s more important to inquire into how we got to this point. He is a symptom. He shows a culture bereft of ideas, a politics without inspiration or principle. Jordan Peterson may not be the intellectual we want. But he is probably the intellectual we deserve.

Enjoy.

 

[Crepitus]

Sherlock Holmes was, but he wasn't real.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic.

 

[Dante]

I stumbled upon this last year, and it's worth listening to. The presenter estimates his IQ to be 115-120 and arrives at that estimate using reasonable inferences from known data.

Peterson claims an IQ of 150 though yet has never measured it.

It can't be higher than Trumps

 

[Resnic]

I should tell you, he's known as the stupid man's smart person, just remember that.

You seem to really dislike him for some reason I can't understand. If you don't like him then don't listen to him speak and don't make threads about him you keep coming back to over and over again. You seem to be perpetuating your own unhappiness regarding a complete stranger that no bearing on your life at all.