Jordan Peterson - IQ accurate as predictor of success, but not of ethical behavior
Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 2 months ago to Science
Interesting video discussion of the accuracy IQ predicts success. Comments at the end are especially interesting regarding high IQ and ethical behavior. No correlation whatsoever between IQ and ethical behavior.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m91vhePuzdo
But to interject for a moment: This is why I surmise that IQ is mostly, (depending on the test), a measure of compartmentalized information, and what truly makes a person smart, a person with reason and wisdom, is integration. the ability to Integrate comes with having and using the Mind and once one has and uses his mind comes to know his conscience.
It comes with the territory in my observation.
One could have an IQ of 100 or even 120 and posses wisdom, ethics and...create value, if they can integrate information.
“A true genius admits that he/she knows nothing.”
--Albert Einstein
The key here, as far as I see it, is integration. Integration enables one to self introspect, all the facets of awareness are integrated, therefore one is most likely to have a strong conscience controlling their behavior; and that control system seems to be universal.
However, as I included in my summation, the type of test is important as well, all IQ tests are not equal. I myself scored low in grade school because I did not care but still scored high to conceptual exercises but the IQ test I took years later in the army, after already having an asso. degree, scored very high in both areas. (above average)...laughing because that meant I wasn't stupid after all and my hyperactivity was to blame.
But still, the testing in school and the testing in the army were very different. The one's in school generally tested accumulated information...which as I state, is a measure of compartmentalized neuron formations.
There is a clear delineation between bicameral activity in the brain and unicameral activity in the mind.
My understanding is that IQ is an ability to "match patterns" and/or solve problems.
Ethical Behavior is VERY dependent on Culture. In some countries, it is ETHICAL to take advantage of someone. It is encouraged.
Is it Ethical to sell a 10 cent pill for $12,000? It depends... If it's YOUR pill, YOU get to choose what to sell it for! (Think about the Epi Pen Idiot,
and our corrupt government who got him on OTHER crimes! Which I find MORE unethical than what he did).
The challenge for us in this forum is that we (as a group) tend to believe in following rules, and are by USA standards pretty Ethical.
(And cognitive Bias allows for us to IGNORE when we aren't, or when we have cheated. I am proud to say that if I get too much change back, I make sure to give it back. I did NOT ALWAYS behave this way. It was unethical of me!)
Being able to solve problems and THINK AHEAD is a great skill. REALIZING that the world operates BETTER with Ethics, is a DIFFERENT Skill, and AKIN to Wisdom. KNOWING that not everyone is Ethical is key! (Trusting people tend to over trust. Unethical people pick up on this. They target those people as easy prey).
Keep in mind that our GOVERNMENT Prevents IQ testing from companies choosing employees. FORCING An Education System on us to do it for them. Unfortunately, like all Government programs, it degrades and is NO LONGER a predictor of IQ (ie, usefulness of an employee).
It's all related to what we value... Think about it this way. IQ gives you the ability to DELAY Gratification.
Ethics gives you the ability to RECOGNIZING if you are taking advantage of someone/something.
And Ethics can be thrown out the window in defiance... For example, if taxes are raised to 70%, is it Ethical to shut down your business and go claim unemployment benefits to help EXPEDITE the demise of the system? I think it is, and where I would normally NEVER be a looter (I have never collected unemployment in my life, despite being eligible at times, and having paid in...) I would CERTAINLY load up the truck at the point that the system needed to break!
It was actually kind of fun, especially when they told me "you will not be able to finish this test, so don't be upset when the bell rings and you are not finished."
I finished before the bell rang. :-) Got all the answers right, too.
Anyway, the owner of the company was not overly concerned about legality. He kept a shelf-full of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead for anyone visiting who wanted a copy. Learned a lot at that job, not all of it good, but it all was good FOR me.
We know from observation that intelligence does not guarantee ethical behavior, and should not expect it to be, but the the tests measuring correlation with IQ depend on what they claim to measure about ethics. Jordan Peterson did not define what he means by ethics. Some of it may be proper and some, such as his vague reference to "egalitarianism", is not.
Standards that you imply, such as honesty and not stealing, are not presumed in every theory of ethics, nor presumed to be priorities, in most cultures, such as under the influence of altruism and collectivism.
But your personal standard of not taking government payments you have paid for is not required by a proper ethics. You should try as as a matter of right to get back as much as you can of what they took from you and which you are entitled to under law. Then decide what you want to do with it in accordance with your own values in your own life. You are not the looter.
As to IQ, its kind of obvious that smarter people are better able to compete in a general society than people who are not as smart. I think smartness has two elements- the first being genetic in terms of how the brain works and how fast it works, and the second being cultural in terms of an element of being taught to think early in life.
I am not sure how these two things compare to each other in importance, but in the end the smarter people get farther in life.
As to being ethical, I would say that the smarter people just have more ability to be ethical or unethical.
“Walter White” is a great example, which anyone can learn from.
Not too many “Jokers” exist In comparison.
Cackles had no right to hide her college thesis idolizing Alinsky, even though she got the Wesley College library to do it for her for awhile. Since then a lot more has come out about how she befriended him, he offered her a job as a trainer in his methods, and her obnoxious graduation speech.
His oratorical 'golden tongue' was learned at the private school in Hawaii, and though it sounds 'intelligent' and requires a degree of some kind of intelligence it doesn't mean what we think of as real intelligence the way he impressed so many voters.
He did know how many states there are but was sloppy in thinking about what he was saying for whatever reason, and it was used to embarrass him. But it's not a like a grade school kid who doesn't know the number or believes it's something else.
Most of what he did behind the scenes as President was handled by a hoard of advisors; he may or may not have been personally aware of details on maneuvers like the secret FISA court, though it's hard to believe he knew nothing about it. It isn't possible for anyone to be involved in all the activities of the White House.
Someone else most likely wrote that book, and as I recall the results of the analysis it was likely or could have been Bill Ayers. But that doesn't mean he isn't intelligent. A log of smart people in high positions use ghost writers because they don't have the time themselves.
He learned to manipulate farther at the Institute for the study of Alinsky methods to promote Marxism. He, like an encyclopedia salesman, learned how to push a product (Marxism) and then to agitate and set race and gender against each other to create chaos, in hopes of bringing down the system and replacing it with Marxism. He was thought intelligent, because he could speak, and have we not often seen salesmen who are promoted for similar reasons, until the Peter Principle takes them down. Because he is cagey, does not equate to IQ. His advisors were mostly Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran born Jarrett. Thomas Sowell is very bright, Ben Carson also, but we got a player instead. Hi.
In all the stories circulating about his private life and education, including his own biography, it's hard to know what is accurate and objective. Some have tried to promote him, others to make him look as bad as possible. That he's a bad person doesn't mean everything biographically bad said about him is true.
Just be glad he's gone; we have another wave coming. What is important is the cause of that wave and what it takes over time to reverse it, not the details of the particular interchangeable bad characters.
If you want a more realistic understanding of Kennedy read Victor Lasky's JFK: The Man and the Myth.
Good judgement comes from living through the consequences of your poor decisions.
I am not a jordan peterson, but I bet the data is there somewhere for what I am saying.
The ability and willingness to do that certainly does differ between different people. The strength of thinking does, too, but it doesn't mean the intensity of emotions are less for a rational person, only the propensity for emotionalism replacing reason with emotions as a tool of cognition. Also people following their emotions are often still very much consistent with their bad ideas.
There is in the discussion a view that human behavior has two dimensions-
inteligence, and ethics. But there is as well- industriousness.
This quote is from General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, 1878 - 1943, who was in the Hitler bomb plot-
I divide my officers into four classes:
the lazy, the industrious, the clever, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together.
The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments.
Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used
for routine work.
The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament
and nerves to deal with all situations.
But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
College education may once have indicated a greater probability of success in the area studied, and for a few people who are diligent and have the ability to discern facts from political rubbish, that is still true, but as you said, it isn't mostly a result of education in college.
I knew that I had a lot to learn when I graduated from college. I also had 3 years of work in my field of study (a day job while taking night classes.) That experience had informed me of some of my own shortcomings, and just as importantly of the considerable shortcomings of some of the bosses I had to work for at the start of my career. A few were great to work with and to learn from. Many(college educated or not) had already risen to their level of incompetence.