TIL Jordan Peterson had an iq of 145 and taught at Harvard

submitted by yabbit from (self.TIL)

all 27 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Jackalope 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (14 children)

yabbit: Psychology is a scam and psychologists are quacks

also yabbit: Check out this really smart psychologist

[–]Canbot 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

JP really is an exception though. He is extremely thoughtful and honest. I don't know a single other psychologist like that. They are all pushing bullshit that they can't defend and so have to hide from public debate. JP on the other hand has to get silenced, slandered and attacked at every turn just to keep him from debating.

[–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I agree. The psychologists practicing therapy are quacks. However, psychology is not a pseudoscience (as claimed by OP in a separate post) as practiced by advertising companies, politicans and the media - in fact it is a very powerful tool of manipulation.

I don't advocate for the trash practiced by mental health professionals, but we should not foolishly pretend that the entire science of psychology is just quackery, and be aware of psychological manipulation techniques

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

It is not a science, it is an art. And it is not what it is purported to be. I think what you consider to be the virtues of psychology are more accurately described as sociology and counseling. But even the counseling can be literal lies which can help with disorders. But because the lies are the overwhelming majority one would be remis to not call it pseudoscience.

[–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I am thinking also along the lines of Skinner's operant chamber conditioning that has inspired the video game makers and social media companies to create addictive media, or Milgram's experiments asking participants to administer shocks. There is some aspect of science to this, and these guys were not really considered sociologists. But yes, I agree the majority of psychology is pseudoscientific pop psychology, 'mental wellness' and other such nonsense

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yes, I agree that work on conditioning is valuable and scientific. I just think that is what is on the brochure while the resort is on the island of Dr Monroe.

[–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I just think that is what is on the brochure while the resort is on the island of Dr Monroe.

Hahaha yeah, can't disagree.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What about REMOVING conditioning? If such a thing were feasible, how would that play into things?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Look into work that has been done deprogramming cult victims.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Interesting... I was more referring to "could individuals remove their own conditioning?" Such as, for example, stopping groupthink.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think you would have to identify it first which would be the hardest part. But beyond that I imagine it would be like breaking a habit.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is a pseudoscience. In fact, the actual exact science of the human mind does exist, and considers psychology to be a special-case particular, a bit like Natural number arithmetics are a subset of actual mathematics, psience considers psychology to be a small subset of the possible states and modes of the human mind.

But it just so happens that this subset is the only one being reinforced at every turn, so that makes psychology look more scientific than it is, and especially, yield much better results than it should.

But as this newer exact science spreads, we will see psychology become an old memory. I wonder what JBP would say about that.

[–]Jackalope 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is a pseudoscience.

psience considers psychology to be a small subset of the possible states and modes of the human mind.

But as this newer exact science spreads,

If psychology is a subset of the true exact science of psience, then it is not in fact pseudoscientific, but incomplete like all of our science.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It isn't a subset as a field. Rather it is a field about a subset of the mind. As such, it isn't only incomplete, it fails at encompassing the object of its study, the human mind, by admitting and recognizing only a small subset of said object. That is why it can be pseudoscience while being somewhat related to an actual science. A bit like you might say alchemy is somewhat related to chemistry, while being entirely different.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

145 isn’t THAT high.

[–]yabbit[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Top 1 percent prtty high

[–]Jackalope 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Top 0.3% actually

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You know. Top 1 percent. Means I’m fucking out of my kind smart.

Trust me.

It doesn’t mean as much as you say. Don’t put as much emphasis on intelligence.

I went to law school. And I was suppose to be a shining star, in the US. And I ducked up. Like law shit.

There are barriers, to being great. And if you don’t fit the cookie mold, it doesn’t matter how smart you are.

A little bit of fun. And next thing you know your life is ruined.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

It's pretty high. Given that it takes about 90 iq to be functional in the world, that's sort of the baseline, with 100 being average. But 110 feels like you're literally quite a good bit smarter than most, 120 feels like you are twice as smart as most, 130 about 3 times as smart, etc. By 145 you're squarely in genius territory.

But the worst curse you could imagine is having a truly staggering IQ of > 160. Lonely doesn't even begin to decribe it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I get the feeling, you have never met anyone with a high IQ.

You don’t know us. And don’t speak for us.

My family is like min IQ 135. We crush at chess. And we have all found our place in the world.

Please, don’t speak about high iq people unless you are one of us. You are not in our group. We did not let you in.

We are grunts just like you. We are not apart of the ruling class. We enjoy games just like you do.

To be clear, a 145 is not high for us. And we don’t consider it a win. We all work and contribute to the family.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I tested at 174. But what do I know about the loneliness of being a super-genius.

Except that being continuously surrounded by insane morons is not fun.

By the way, for all your reply's abrasiveness, you have never even addressed what I wrote. Sounding much more like a conceited asshole than somebody who is truly gifted.

[–]Cronch 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Except that being continuously surrounded by insane morons is not fun.

What is a consistent trait or behavior pattern you have noticed which irritates you the most of average IQ people?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Claiming to be objective, rational and logical while being subjective, irrational and emotional. Also, false skepticism: when being a "skeptic" means being a devout believer in groupthink.

But possibly the MOST irritating, topping all that, is when people project their own limitations onto others. Such as, for example, when people react to the amazing clarity that flows through my mind with the notion that I think I'm better than everybody else.

If I did, I'd be a dumbass, because I'd be shutting myself off from everybody else and preventing any possible relationship with people, AND at the same time shutting myself off from their point of view, which is valuable, because being smart is also having the ability to realize that my own point of view has its own inherent limitations.

Instead, THEY shut themselves off from me, claiming I think I'm superior. When I truly don't, because I realize that while I see things differently from most people, I'm smart enough to realize that comparison between individuals is insane, stupid, can't possibly yield anything interesting or valuable. We are all unique and that's all.

Am I perfect? Of course I am. Just like everybody else.

[–]yabbit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Damn. I never met somebody on his site who's nearly as high iq as I am.

[–]hfxB0oyA 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Had? What happened then? Did he eat lead paint chips or something?

[–]yabbit[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

why tf did this post get so many comments