Don't want to trade places with fat people because I want to be healthy. Don't want to trade places with black people because I don't want to have a victim mentality.
"Intelligent" People Are Socially Awkward because the part of their brain most people use to process social complexity has been re-purposed to do other task that we would today refer to as "intelligent". Sometimes its the part of the brain that controls motor function that has been repurposed, making such people relatively clumsy or bad at sports. Remembering faces, remembering names and details about others used to be very important. For nearly all of human history navigating social complexity has been the primary purpose of our brains. Its the reason we have a big brain in the first place. But as we have settled down in ever larger communities, with more division of labor, the importance of having a high social IQ has diminished. Now "Intelligent" people can thrive while being very anti-social so long as they are not also violent.
People who want to make money and be higher up on the social hierarchy are the problem. Animal shelters, governments, non profits are all run by people trying to make more money and be better than their neighbors. People aren’t producing much good in the world when their concerns are money and social hierarchy.
This guy is an absolute freak who’s obsessed with intelligence, therefore he’s not intelligent. As the saying goes ; The gentleman doth protest too much .
"Which I couldn't sell because it was too accurate" - the pride of this man. You are selling all this pseudo intellectual nonsense massivelyexactly because it's massively inaccurate
Jordan Peterson does not have emotional intelligence. That's why he equates it with agreeableness. No, agreeable people can be so for so many different reasons other than being intelligent. Like for example when they are fearful/weak and not that intelligent? JP overall seems to want to equate intelligence with survival in society
Of course, you are assuming that "General Cognitive Ability" is a thing that exists, that the primate neural networks we have in our skulls - evolved over millions of years through evolution by natural selection - will be equally good/sucky at every category of problem. That they won't feature "shortcuts", "intuitions", "biases", heuristics that make them better at solving the specific sorts of scenarios their survival/reproduction typically hinge on, at the cost of ability to generalize. You could add a simple shortcut to a neural network like "assume that gravity is always in effect, with a value of 9.8 meters per second." and build a bunch of androids that outperform all competing models as fighter pilots, acrobats and engineers on Earth... at the cost of being utterly unable to function in space, or on planets other than Earth, for instance. You could have a more general model that spends an extra 5 years in "childhood", and never quite gets to the same level of split second, elegant decision making of the rival, but can tackle entire categories of problems they can't even dream of. Now... let's get really evil here. What if you built an android with a root directive instructing it to never - under ANY circumstances - lie? If this guy lived as a hermit, he would be just as competent and functional as the base model. As a researcher of the natural world, he would be equally adept - indeed, perhaps his deeply held "moral conviction" might shield him from some forms of self delusion, making him perform BETTER at it - but this guy would be UTTERLY UNABLE to function in society. He'd never get any grants to do science, to begin with.
The library of congress should preserve this man’s entire collection of work so that when the world explodes and our remains are found 2000 years from now they will know this was the best mankind had.
This video is three years old as I comment, so forgive me for being late to the discussion. I'll start by offering my own definition of intelligence, which doesn't necessarily exclude other definitions, but frames in a way that gives us an inroad to refined systematic categories: Intelligence is the ability to acquire or develop new categorical systems of thought. I'll give a simple example to illustrate when I mean by this. Let's say we need to categorize M&Ms. How should we do that? One obvious way is to categorize them by color. Another obvious way is to categorize them by what they have on the inside: Some have nuts, some don't, Some have pretzels, and so on. These two categorical systems are both valid and can be in play at the same time. What other systems of categories can they have? How about some not-so-obvious categories: Lot number. Each M&M was made in a certain serialized lot. How about quality control? M&Ms can be categorized on a pass/fail system and even subcategorized on the quality of failure, whether the wrong size, the level of coverage of candy coating, the placement and completeness of the 'M&M' marking, the criteria defining the proper shape, the spectral range of the color scheme, and so on. All things can be categorized. Definitions of words, sematic domains, and related etymologies are categories and categorical systems. Some categorical systems reflect ontology, some reflect teleology, some reflect epistemological qualities, some reflect ethical implications, many reflect related aspects of multiple of these kinds of things. So despite being able to work out implications of behavior in social interactions, one challenge for the exceptionally intelligent person is determining what level of categorical complexity someone else is capable of. In order to work effectively with people, the intelligent person needs to deal with them on their level, and that can be challenging in a mixed group. A general principle I have observed is that almost everyone expects most everyone else to have the same capacity for understanding that they do. If someone else doesn't understand something they do, the assumption is that they are deficient in this area, and this is often expressed in an acerbic fashion: "That idiot!" If someone else is far more intelligent and is capable of understanding far more than they are, the reaction is similar. The sense is that what the less intelligent person understands is sufficient, therefore what the exceptionally intelligent person understands that other people can't is unimportant. It took a long time for me to figure this out primarily because when I was younger, I was often gaslighted for being intelligent, even by my teachers, and I didn't have the maturity to deal with it well. It resulted in a few fights, and I ended up in the Marines instead of the classroom. I had the highest GT score in HQ company, HQ Battalion, 2nd Marine Division. I went back to school after my EAS and I earned a graduate degree. Now the difficulty in the work force is due to being able to produce far more intellectual value at a unique job than anyone else can do, such that my bosses don't know what to do about it. For years, they thought that my level of output was what should be expected of my position from any normal person and continued to assign more tasks as they thought I wasn't working hard enough. They know a little better now. The good thing is that few people try to gaslight me anymore, though I still get a few of those. I'm much older and wiser now and know how to handle these people. The point is that even though an intelligent person can maneuver sociologically, he or she still has social challenges unique to their particular giftedness.
