Even he can’t deny the objective reality of relative domination, like we see in his first few paragraphs:
pointing to the over-representation of Jews in positions of authority, competence and influence (including revolutionary movements).
Well, Jews are genuinely over-represented in positions of authority, competence and influence. New York Jews, in particular,
So the only question becomes “what is the explanation?”
He reaches to “IQ”, and to whatever extent that may have validity to it, he neglects all other factors as negligible ( importantly, as you point out, nepotistic in group bias)
While reading his argument, things may stand out as flawed:
Simply put: if a very complex job or role requires an IQ of 145, three standard deviations above the mean and characteristic of less than one percent of the general population, then a group with a higher average IQ will be exceptionally over-represented in such enterprises.
This would only be the case if the groups in question existed in equal proportion, which they obviously don’t, whites are ~70% of the population while jews are ~2.5%. Ultimately, his arguments are all flawed in similar ways.
The last time I checked this page there were many comments, some of which tore apart his math and logic line by line. I was actually at the time somewhat impressed that he allowed them to remain up and that he even attempted a response to one of them, but looking now I can’t see them anymore, I guess the spineless coward got told to purge those if he wanted that nettanyahoo interview. Pathetic.
For what its worth, I still like Peterson in certain contexts. He does represent a popular figure who analyses the world in a manner outside of mainstream (Progressive and neocon) methods. Hell, he's to the right of American conservatives just being willing to discuss IQ as a predictive metric. I do think he's absolutely unwilling to get behind any practical solutions to the social ills he points out because the solutions to any given problem all have an unpleasant side. At the end of the day he's an old fashioned liberal who will default to "niceness" when all the chips are on the table. In short he is both often right and also the exact kind of person that created today's declining western society
if a very complex job or role requires an IQ of 145 ... then a group with a higher average IQ will be exceptionally over-represented in such enterprises.
He's not even remotely correct. The totality of IQ scores form a normal distribution / bell curve, but individual groups have different variances (width of the bell) and different means.
For example, say there's 5 genes for intelligence, but the 5th reduces IQ unless all 5 are present in which case it's a huge boon. A group that's been genetically isolated for thousands of years and doesn't have this 5th will have higher average intelligence because most of the time the 5th one interferes and lowers the average of others. But occasionally somebody in the other group will have all 5 giving them far more super geniuses per capita.
There are many genes for intelligence that operate in complex ways, so this is not even theoretical. Average means nothing as to the number of geniuses without the variances.
Even he can’t deny the objective reality of relative domination, like we see in his first few paragraphs:
So the only question becomes “what is the explanation?”
He reaches to “IQ”, and to whatever extent that may have validity to it, he neglects all other factors as negligible ( importantly, as you point out, nepotistic in group bias)
While reading his argument, things may stand out as flawed:
This would only be the case if the groups in question existed in equal proportion, which they obviously don’t, whites are ~70% of the population while jews are ~2.5%. Ultimately, his arguments are all flawed in similar ways.
The last time I checked this page there were many comments, some of which tore apart his math and logic line by line. I was actually at the time somewhat impressed that he allowed them to remain up and that he even attempted a response to one of them, but looking now I can’t see them anymore, I guess the spineless coward got told to purge those if he wanted that nettanyahoo interview. Pathetic.
For what its worth, I still like Peterson in certain contexts. He does represent a popular figure who analyses the world in a manner outside of mainstream (Progressive and neocon) methods. Hell, he's to the right of American conservatives just being willing to discuss IQ as a predictive metric. I do think he's absolutely unwilling to get behind any practical solutions to the social ills he points out because the solutions to any given problem all have an unpleasant side. At the end of the day he's an old fashioned liberal who will default to "niceness" when all the chips are on the table. In short he is both often right and also the exact kind of person that created today's declining western society
He's not even remotely correct. The totality of IQ scores form a normal distribution / bell curve, but individual groups have different variances (width of the bell) and different means.
For example, say there's 5 genes for intelligence, but the 5th reduces IQ unless all 5 are present in which case it's a huge boon. A group that's been genetically isolated for thousands of years and doesn't have this 5th will have higher average intelligence because most of the time the 5th one interferes and lowers the average of others. But occasionally somebody in the other group will have all 5 giving them far more super geniuses per capita.
There are many genes for intelligence that operate in complex ways, so this is not even theoretical. Average means nothing as to the number of geniuses without the variances.
tl;dr Peterson is being a dumb-dumb.
I watched the nettanyahoo interview; can confirm it was pathetic.