2016 Personality Lecture 14: Openness and Intelligence

[@Tamlinsongs]

Prof. Peterson, thank you for posting these series. I took this course and Maps of Meaning with you in 2007-2008, and they changed my life since back then. I get such a different perspective and a much more in depth understanding of your lectures now that I have more life experience. ps. I think it's funny that you're saying "you know" a lot now, and I don't remember you saying the filler phrase back then. Then I remembered that your daughter must be a teenager now and you must have picked it up from her.

[@huili4364]

Lucy u

[@naveej]

I dont know why but the second part of your comment made it so wholesome!

[@carlinlentz6849]

I think that saying "you know" relates to trait openness. It's a way for the speaker to confirm he/she is coming across clearly to the person listening. I think that's why women are more known for saying it. I myself am a man and am also high in trait openness and I catch myself saying it a lot. It's so subconscious that people tell me I have said it a lot and have no real perception of how much I've actually said it. Dr. Peterson actually speaks to individuals in the audience and I believe that is why he says you know. He is trying to relate to them.

[@hv4285]

I've always wondered how many of his former students ended up pursuing psychiatry, psychology practicing or any of the related research fields, did you ended up following the same path?

[@blackwell2322]

"It's a good thing to know, even though it's horrible." Damn. Thank you for these lectures. I am an educator and this information is highly enlightening.

[@eyeseewho77]

Hahaha the last sentence in the lecture was the best sentence.

[@elisteele574]

This channel has made such a tremendous impact on my life. You have absolutely no idea. protect this man at all costs.

[@bijoyroy7860]

I'd definitely take all his classes. Haven't heard a professor in my uni as engaged and engaging as Dr. Peterson.

[@cauchy100]

Thank you for sharing your lectures, professor.

[@MrWarmchocolate]

If he's a professor, I'm a clown

[@toniduval4350]

I really don’t know what I’m talking about, but I really enjoyed wrestling with these ideas! :D Prof. Peterson said at 56 minutes; “You can have a pretty vicious personality disorder that’s characterized by extremely disorganized behaviour and a complete inability to put long term plans into operation and still have a high IQ. One of the things we really can’t figure out is [why] the relationship between IQ and Industriousness is zero. Most of the brain models are predicated on the idea that your ability to engage in long term planning is a factor that’s associated with intelligence. Industrious people seem to not only engage in long term planning but they seem to do it right; if they are more industrious they put their plans into operation then the plans actually work. But it’s not correlated with IQ.” I think IQ tests designate the range of how complex or simplistic your (long/short term) plans are, but IQ tests do not factor in necessary value systems that determine whether or not a complex/simplistic plan will be feasible. In other words, no matter how well thought out a plan is, it doesn’t guarantee the plan will work. I think people with high IQs are aware that failure is definitely a possibility (especially with more complex plans such as the long term variety) and when failure is thought to be more likely than success, it leads to the pre-mature abandonment of their plan. Industrious people seem more fixated on the “implementation of plans” rather than controlling the outcome of said plans. The goal is to 'work hard at implementing the plan', and a high or low IQ does not stop an industrious person from working hard. I think you may have more success in measuring industriousness if you had your test subject carry out a plan rather than process one (for example, offer your test subjects a blank page with the instructions of hiding 14 "N" letters among a string of "M" letters, and whoever had the longest string of letters is likely to be more industrious than the rest). If being Industrious means that you are more willing to work hard, then it follows that your tenacity allows any of your small accomplishments to become bigger ones (as per the Matthew Principle). Therefore, Industrious people are more likely to be successful in the long term, regardless of their IQ. That’s what I came up with, but like I said, I know nothing :D

[@joaohenrirosa]

"Therefore, Industrious people are more likely to be successful in the long term, regardless of their IQ.". That's a pretty strong claim with no data to back it up.

[@toniduval4350]

@@joaohenrirosa As I said, I know nothing, but for a couple thousand years perseverance has been recognized as a force all on its own to be reckoned with: "Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." (James 1:2-4) You don't have to be smart in order to fail and try again - you need to be courageous and patient with yourself and others. A smart person is demarcated by their ability to arrive at a conclusion faster than others, so intelligence isn't exactly a breeding ground for patience. Combine that with the fact that being born smart probably meant you've been readily praised for your accomplishments most of your life can translate to a life where you're not used to having to prove yourself or encouraged to get out of your comfort zone because you're already outside everybody else's comfort zone, solving problems they couldn't as easily contemplate. In other words, being smart doesn't save you from being cowardly.

[@in_vas_por8810]

@@toniduval4350 You made some pretty solid points. I want to share this quote that I got from my father a long time ago, because it reminds me of what you said about the connection between high IQ people and early abandonment of plans: "You can be so smart, that you outsmart yourself". A high IQ person can convince him/herself into not carrying out a plan based on logic, probability, or whatever reason; but a dreamer, or an "industrious" person might just see the plan through regardless of probability of success and that results in "miracles" or unlikely heroes. Another quote I have goes something like this: "the actions are whats important, not the outcome". Failure is the path to success, but that statement needs to be taken with a grain of salt because you don't wanna just do mindless things that will never bring you closer to success. So calculated plans that result in failure are much better than non-calculated plans that may result in endless failure and do nothing to help your overall. My stance is that you need a mixture of both logic and dreamer mentality. Too much of either creates an imbalance, and thats a problem in any natural system within our reality.

[@toniduval4350]

@@in_vas_por8810 I wouldn't say that industrious people are dreamers - I'm a 'dreamer' type personality and I hardly ever finish anything, always taken up with bright and shiny new ideas only to abandon them once I get bogged down in the details of implementing my dream. I think it actually boils down to more of a logic versus wisdom issue between those unsuccessful people with high IQs and industrious people. I'd agree with your statement that 'smart people can outsmart themselves' is fitting because they can instantly think of all the ways their plans can fail and are discouraged by the odds of success being stacked against them. It's been my experience that worker-bee personality types don't really 'look into the future' in that way - it's more like they just try their best and then go from there, and they do it all the time.

[@in_vas_por8810]

@@toniduval4350I agree with all of that, but I wasn't saying dreamers are industrious or vice versa; I was grouping them together because they can both pursue a plan regardless of low probability that the plan will work. A worker bee just works, and certain dreamers will do the same because they have a crazy dream, and will see it through no matter how the odds stack against them. I also dont believe people are just one way or the other. These traits of people come in a variety of balances. Not perfect 50/50s or 100/0s.

[@Hiatus-Humanus]

Damn, the privilege to have learned from Dr. J.P. in person in a small classroom environment. Whoever you are out there I'm quite envious, you were very lucky. I got to shake his hand once at a speech he gave on his 12 more rules for life tour in Indiana. He asked my name, then complimented me on my Hail King Lobster shirt, 😅 we took a picture together and it is and always will be a highlight of my life. I fight hero worship as much as I can but Jordan Peterson got me.

[@jacobrose9606]

8:55 JBP coughs, make a joke about coke, and then continues like nothing happened... +1 like for authenticity

[@delmanjustkoerdboy]

Jacob Rose I don’t think that was a joke. The same kind of irritation is playing up in my throat for some days now, making me unable to sleep. As soon as I heard him say why he drinks carbonated I got myself a diet-coke. It actually helped.

[@smarty0728]

@@delmanjustkoerdboy lol perhaps the medication is causing the illness

[@RooGardeninJapan]

Didn't expect to get an answer on why I suck at drawing. Too much extrapolation and little observation of the actual thing I am meant to draw.

[@GwennDana]

Hello Dr. Peterson. To the problem of industriousness. Taking a guess, I would hypothesize dependency on a couple of factors: a) the ease to translate intention into motor function. If you have to think about something a couple of times before the action it carries out, then it consumes a lot more willpower. b) the relative absence of mixed emotions. Singular emotions translate into small decisions that have to be made on the path more easily, whereas mixed emotions need to be processed on a higher cognitive level, which consumes more resources. c) high attention, particularly to detail. d) good resilience from single, failing steps. Both a) and b) make a person more prone to distractions. Then industriousness and intelligence could contextually correlate dependent on how simplified one's internal model for the current situation is. If one has a very simplified model, the translation into action should be easier, and if the model is still complicated or yields ambiguous solutions, acting out plans should be easier. Then, intelligence may counteract industriousness when the situational awareness is high (for example as measured by Richard Davidson), i.e. the sequence of encountered situations contains many new observations that intelligence wants to integrate into the model. Following a plan should be easier when those additional stimuli remain subceptions. But once the model is complete, the inhibiting effect should be less. Another influential factor may be self-awareness, i.e. insula activity. If self-awarenness remains high during tasks that are related to industriousness, emotional contextualization should be reduced and thus alter inhibition or drive.

[@nicolasreyes2190]

It is simply ridiculous how wise this man is

[@jhkeum0124]

Comparing what he told in his video with neuro-scientist, he said there is no such thing as multiple intelligence by Gardener, but in the latest one he acknowledged it. Quite amazing to find out that even Jordan Peterson had known things wrong and changed his idea!

[@Paul-A01]

"I'll tell you the rest of the story later" He says on the last video of the playlist ;_;

[@joshbull1554]

TGGeko my sentiments exactly 😂

[@elbowdrop1426]

TGGeko search "2016 Personality Final"

[@LoloSweet1982]

TGGeko, that's exactly what I thought! My concern for what happened to the guy who stacked envelopes brought me to the comments section. Lol And thanks ELBOW DROP.... heading over for the conclusion now! ^_^

[@confetticraft]

@@elbowdrop1426 Thanks for the heads up! Hopefully someone will add the final video to the playlist.

[@MandA1900]

I’ve found these lessons so enlightening and informative, they are so interesting thanks for uploading them and keeping them up x

[@charliepeterson1745]

I’ve noticed people who are really good at getting things done and not procrastinating, tend to have tunnel vision. They’re really good at limiting their options to one thing. Because they’re often black and white thinkers that believe they’re right all the time, they have the confidence to act in difficult scenarios. That’s my "opinion" anyway

[@bestdjaf7499]

100% I procrastinate, b/c I cannot choose. In my mind I have a list of options, & even if I know exactly what to do, I have a list of implementations, & then when I try to select an implementation, I doubt my solution .... Basically, I can procrastinate about anything. Should we go to Mars or Moon? I would say, "Of couse the Moon. It's close & .....". But then I would start thinking, why do we need to go to the Moon in the first place? Maybe Mars is a better choice!?! And then why do we have these 2 choices?! Maybe Venus would be better?! And why do we even have to go anywhere?! .... So at the end I just gave up. * Industrious person doesnt have those questions. They just come up with a plan & implement it. It could be an idiotic idea, but they will still do it. So industrious people dont have to be smart of successful. They are just industrious.

[@oneuniverseable]

+Jordan B Peterson Small, small, smaaaaallllll point of factual contention: Dr. Grandin is actually a professor at Colorado State University, not Chicago. I've been following your channel and super appreciate your content. Getting on the Joe Rogan podcast brought me to your channel. Thanks for being a smart person.

[@vicgarcia5801]

As a matter of fact he studied in illinois where he got his phd..maybe he gave classes there in illinois and then moved to colorado

[@ericdodd4146]

19:07 - 19:53 really sounds like he's describing mindfulness or at least a facet of it or a way to get closer to it. Reminds me of the Richard Lang stuff.

[@TONYTINTON]

You are so awesome Dr J. Peterson.

[@fatlou6099]

To everyone who is intrigued by this, I recommend the book "Flowers for Algernon" by David Keyes.

[@BodyLanguageBoss]

Guh. This book made me bawl my eyes out. A fantastic read that will seriously change your worldview.

[@sharshabillian]

Usually when someone gives a recommendation, they follow it up with a reasoning.

[@stvbrsn]

Dr. Jordan Bucko Peterson. Now you know.

[@kevinc721]

stvbrsn hahahaha

[@FunkyJeff22]

@ about 54:40 he talks about IQ being correlated with long term success, and that it's better to be born in the 95th percentile of intelligence vs wealth.@ 1:02:47 talks about jobs and IQ

[@GelidGanef]

Jordan, have you read Gogol's The Overcoat? The premise is a man who is extremely hard working but not at all bright, such that he is adept in his current situation, but any promotion or novelty at all are impossible for him to handle. Dostoevsky sited it as an important influence. It's quite short, and you may even find it funny in its own dark, Russian way.

[@jacobrose9606]

Thank you, that was a godly comment. +1 holiness

[@topiastopias4611]

1:08:58 ihmiset joilla on liian pieni iq mihinkään työhön 1:09:42 Story about client who had verbal iq about 85 and worse nonverbal 1:14:53 ”So anyways, the moral of the story is if you’re smart, you’re privileged and, thank god, make use of it. And if you’re on the low end of the IQ sistribution, man, you’ve got one tough life ahead of you.

[@jeremyTheMOTIVATOR]

JORDAN PETERSON SPEAKS THE TRUTH

[@MrCjam79]

At about 1/2 hour in I had a thought that you might find interesting. In a previous video you discussed a period of time in your life that you started to watch yourself from an outside perspective and analyzed your thoughts to see if you were being honest. I wonder if that's why you started filming your lectures and eventually filming the video that changed your life forever and allowed you to reach an awesome amount of people. If this is true then I would guess that you watch your videos with the same analytical eye that served you very well in the pursuit of truth of yourself and ( I'm pretty sure )others.

[@looopaa9783]

who else is too scared to take an IQ test

[@KarlRF_]

@K H true but it is also the hands down single best measure of Intelligence - and the fact its highly correlated with virtually everything educational and professionally is an indicator of that such fact

[@Suit_and_tie_reptile_guy]

I learned I'm more intelligent then I thought but less intelligent than I had hoped

[@AMethond]

I know why highly intelligent people tend to be impulsive and unable to plan. It's because things come too easily to them, and they were not challenged enough as children to learn that getting to the upper percentile in skill takes a lot of concentrated time and effort. They learn early that they can get away with minimal time and effort on things and be rewarded the same as everyone else. They also learn that they can put things off and spend their time doing more immediately rewarding things instead. This is why I think programs for gifted children is important, such as the Top-Top Set Maths Project headed by Simon Singh in the UK. If we can help gifted children learn how to keep themselves motivated and disciplined, their work as adults will benefit society as a whole.

[@buffalobill2874]

wow, thanks for sharing all of these. Nice kind voice keeping me compnay. Trying to clean my room lol :)

[@garetclaborn]

I have a theory on industriousness v intellect. Based mostly on my relationship with my younger sister. As a kid she tended to think I was more intelligent and I'd argue with her that she's got a different type of intelligence pretty often. - she is highly industrious whereas I'm rather difficult to motivate lol. If you can get me going I practically never quit but that's quite a tall order. ANYWAY The more trivial the task was, I'd notice that I'd be bored very easily whereas my sister would see something she has a grasp of as opportunity to shine. She likes a challenge every bit as much as I do make no mistake but she liked to prove herself through effort. I see a feedback loop of challenge-->success stimulation-->continue, as the driving force behind all the smaller tasks that make up a 'macrotask'. It could be that for intelligent people they haven't had the exposure to things that are simultaneously familiar and challenging, requiring constant effort and a slow drip for success dopamine. If so, pathways would be less keen on noticing 'hey this is an opportunity to feel good about yourself!' but for some intelligent people it would vary greatly

[@jaedoncarlisle6267]

In regards to the correlation of industriousness and intelligence I would attempt to develop a patriarchal profile for the test subject predict from there. Hypothesis would be: high status father with high trait in assertiveness and disagreeableness would have a positive correlation to subject industriousness. Additionally, I would test the mother for IQ and try to develop a means to correlate the relationship to determine intelligence. Father (Order and industriousness) mother (chaos and intelligence)

[@christinesullivan1229]

Great lecture, thanks...the cough happens when you raise the voice volume above its natural volume , speaking high and loud often can lead to nodules on the vocal cords...hope that helps..diet coke wont...cheers

[@francescaverdi2555]

That's drawing using the right side of the brain - if you try to copy a photograph of a face turn it upside down and forget it's a face - now it's just a series of patches of colour, light and shade. You will be surprised how accurate it is.

[@CarterColeisInfamous]

35:00 that's a motivation to exercise

[@nybergjm]

This - albeit an excellent explanation of IQ test development and technical integrity - should be renamed "an introduction to psychometrics and intelligence testing" or something similar. This is not to take away from the absolute brilliance of his ability to verbalize this information, nor is it meant to detract from the relevance and practical utility of this information. I just think a different title might be more apt :)

[@td2288]

good lectures. i like how you compress it all into 1hr. but serious students should go an investigate each keypoint in detail...and verify for themselves thats we engineers did it

[@sandromaludze2300]

"Good thing to know even though it's horrible"

[@TONYTINTON]

I bought tickets to see you and you cancelled out last year. No Biggy Dr.. You have been such a great inspiration. You came back to Hamilton and I missed the show lol. Money well spent.

[@dariushkananimusic8049]

Thank you once again Dr. Peterson.

[@LukeJDavis]

IQ and Industriness : Have you actually spoken to any gifted people? Your assumption that procrastination is not industrious is mind bogglingly backwards. A good 8 hours of procrastination can save me upwards of 20-30 hours of work.

[@dmg46664]

Please post the associated slides. Thank you.

[@shessoheavy6130]

Wow....he looks so different. He looks a lot healthier in his more recent videos since being on the carnivore diet. He said he lost 50 lbs from the diet and by eliminating sugar and processed carbs.

[@SpiritualFox]

Talent is the child of Intelligence. Interconnectivity makes isolated mathematical systems obsolete. Psychology is one of the few sciences prepared to deal with that, in some sense.

[@powerpath659]

What’s interesting is that he is the genius of our time concerning Personality and his Cathy Newman interview has 10s of millions of views and this one barely has 200 k 🤦

[@patrickalaggio3560]

~55 minutes into this discussion there seems to be a significant gap in our wisdom as to why high IQ and a lack of sensitivity to disorderliness (disgust sensitivity) exists. The question that seems too difficult to figure out is "why is the relationship between IQ and industriousness zero?!" Could it be as simple as motivational influences upon a developing child? If a bright child ascertains that he can get everything he wants from his parents with proper behavioral responses then why struggle being industrious? Why bother when being polite and obedient takes up much less time and energy, which is then freed to pursue whatever activities are more pleasing and rewarding. Furthermore, if a person is exceptionally bright and those around him seem dull then why bother to compete? It's like a world class athlete being put up against a group of children. Where's the motivation in that? Disorderliness seems simple enough to explain; why bother arranging things that will take me away from far more important thoughts and endeavors when they will just become messy over and over again FOREVER! I've got more important things to do. Finally, why compete to satisfy a social norm if I care not about climbing over people on this rat maze imposed life of ours. After all, I have all that is needed and all the time in the world to enjoy my OWN creativity and I care not a wit about what others think about me. I respect myself, my passions and that is enough... I have no one to please except myself. Isn't this answer enough Professor Peterson? Either I am misunderstanding your dilemma or you are simply testing the class... or cannot see the forest through the trees with all of the limbic vs. frontal cortex considerations. Perhaps if I was a very smart cave man I would recognize that I did not have to hunt and kill the saber tooth tiger and risk death when I can simply boil the bones from the carcass, drink the broth and eat the marrow.

[@samis8098]

Patrick Alaggio abstraction (iq) allows us to separate the essences. Disgust sensitivity is a violation of the boundary. Something isn’t where it “should” be or it touches something it shouldn’t (I.e the mouth and nasal cavities shut when an improper thing attempts contact, that something could be toxic or harm causing)

[@georgebotelho288]

To my understanding (or lack o understanding) IQ as a predictor of ptsd, should correlate with the sensitivity to disgust. I feel like with higher IQ your sensitivity to disgust goes down, because or your capacity to rationalize and see past the stimuli. I am practically the exact model you referred to, with the inability to see cause/effect, to put long term planning into action, I scored 127 on an online test in the early 00's and in 2012 or 13 I scored 140, (granted I was severely impaired on both occasions being in the throes of chronic heroin addiction) so I don't put much weight on the results of either of the assessments and truly question the validity of both tests as the results were so inconsistent. I have taken the Briggs Meyers personality tests and registered as INTP. I couldn't believe that what I had regarded as my own unique thoughts and feelings had been printed in black and white for more than 100 years prior to my birth! Like I'd mentioned I had been a heroin addict for over 20yrs and I am going on 3 yrs clear of drugs and alcohol (with the exception of thc which I quit over the last year). One concept in particular made all the difference between life and death, and that is the concept of accountability. But back to the point, I regard disgust as something akin to discomfort, and if you are able to see through it, you can be as disorganized and disorderly as I am, while simultaneously able to understand how much of a detriment your rational mind is to your success and be seemingly incapable of doing anything to rectify it. I've been struggling against the grain for 3 yrs to achieve some level of success and I know there's some small corner I need to turn to get there. I am not averse to struggling, I am greatly disappointed with my performance and need to get to the bottom of this. You are a great help on the path!

[@avalonmist254]

Hi I have a high tolerance to disgust. I just took his personality test. It is$ 9.00. I have an addictive personality. Actually I feel those of us that have addiction do so as a result of not fitting in. I find we are sensitive and intelligent. I scored high on that too. So far I've been a mother, a Midwife , and an RN. I'm high on Entrepreneur. Yes I've had 4 businesses thus far. Only a true addict alcoholic realizes we need to be the boss lol. Thank you for sharing. I'm kinda in the same boat. I became chronically ill 15 years ago. Now what does a smart person do all day when in bed. I need and want to work. That's why I took his courses. Good Luck. Oh and the courses are very inexpensive.✌

[@topiastopias4611]

5:41 What does intelligence measure?

[@timsimmons5190]

I was taught intelligence is being able to problem solve. Not identify or describe but to solve problems .

[@user-mw4kg8cx8t]

He’s so smart in these lectures. But you can tell just how enormous the gap is between expert and master is between this and his latest. 10000 hours

[@andrewwabik5125]

I’m interested in finding out if there’s any correlation between intelligence and doing better later in life as opposed to the beginning of life (20’s). It’s been argued that the complexity of our world has extended adolescence well into a person’s 20’s. This was absolutely the case with me. I didn’t get my first job until I was 23. I’m 28 now. A lot of people I knew in high school didn’t start working until they were 18 or 19. Maybe I just didn’t get my act together until I was 23. I’m not sure. Any thoughts?

[@zilaz]

maybe ur just an outlier, cant rlly read across from person to society as a whole

[@lukecanning7013]

I calculated that he coughs in this video for 57.22 seconds

[@aniketsharma3154]

You are a master time waster

[@Abreviatur]

Does "higher intelligence" describe actually some added quality (like faster working of the biological structures), a more efficient structure (like use of better algorithms), a better ability to focus and shut out other mental noise, or the ability to manipulate "abstract" data as images? The last item was my impression after asking a number of gifted mathematicians and programmers about their mental experience when working on a problem. It seems that at least a fair number of highly intelligent people have a very stable imagination for abstracta which they can manipulate like ordinary folks play Tetris or some such. This also explains why some people love "abstract" problems. For them, there is nothing abstract at all!

[@blazearmoru]

Not being able to see the screen, and not having the sources are a bit annoying T-T Need sources for citation :(

[@Adam-wv2rm]

When prof. Peterson is talking about IQ, he’s using the Cattell’s scale, the Stanford-Binet scale or some different scale?

[@yakib4663]

Probably the Wechsler

[@Cinqmil]

An intelligent person might be losing more time than an industrious one. Maybe the industrious ones are better at creating habits and routines. They don't have to reinvent the wheel. - Intelligent: firing of neurones. Already a high amount of myelin. (which might be a reason that they are more 'safe' from Alzheimers) - Industrious: wrapping of myelin around the necessary paths, that are used to make it in real life. Maybe a not evenly distributed amount of myelin, so that not all paths are used efficiently, but only those that matter (a paradox? what is getting 'ignored' and even pruned away makes the rest work better?)

[@urbankoistinen5688]

Interesting observation about winning the argument and being right not being the same thing. How should we make them more equal, or is there a better way to find the truth?

[@JC-bg7pe]

I would think, from knowing people that are clearly higher in industriousness would have gained that from the way in which they were raised. Obviously nurture weighs on our personalities. For example, I am extremely high in openness with an IQ in the 85th percentile, but I also am extremely high in orderliness (97). I grew up in serious dysfunction which involved neglect, abuse and having a mother with BPD. These variables have arranged my personality in a contradictory manner. I'm also very low in agreeableness, which is not common for women. Due to being exposed to what I was as a child molded or, one might say distorted how I see the world. For example, I am acutely aware of people and their intentions (hence the disagreeableness) and I'm quite sensitive to cleanliness (the orderliness) but I'm super creative and my mind is "on" all of the time. My point is because I'm naturally creative/open it would be assumed I would not be orderly but I am. The high levels of disgust as well as being disagreeable come more from being in uncomfortable situations as a child than from my nature. Understanding myself and many (not all mind you) of the "whys" as well as knowing some industrious people I would dive more into background and childhood for reasons of high vs low industriousness...it's a thought.

[@thomaslove6494]

You were born in at least the 90th percentile in orderliness. Your past won't deviate you from your baseline very much. No matter what theory you've crafted about who you are and why you are that way.

[@MaciekMedyj]

9:13 good "Freudian slip" joke, why anybody laugh :)

[@vincentrockel1149]

If the apartment is on fire the guitars first, amps next, then pets... oh yeah better get those ungrateful children 🙂

[@jacobmarshall23]

Amen. Guitar was the first thing I thought of, and I legit couldn't think of anything else I'd consider grabbing, until Peterson named off a few. Lol

[@343clement]

What Prof. Peterson said here suggests he thinks IQ depends mainly on the nature side. Is that what he actually thinks? Is there another video where he talks about where IQ comes from? If not, does anyone know why he thinks people are born with a "fixed" IQ? Thanks.

[@TheRevScare]

The reason is that most psychometric studies find that much (perhaps most) of the variance in IQ between individuals can be attributed to heritable factors rather than shared and non-shared environment. This is particularly true for a popular statistical construct in psychometrics called the g factor, which is thought to be the underlying variable behind cognitive ability. Studies find that IQ tends to be constant with time (it doesn't change much over an individual's lifetime), and although numerous studies have investigated attempts to improve performance on IQ tests through various learning techniques (e.g., brain games, classroom exercises, direct lessons), they have yielded mixed results--showing little indication that IQ can be significantly improved. This is a pretty widely accepted paradigm in psychometrics (a field that tries to measure psychological abilities). It is called the "hereditarian" position on intelligence (i.e., the view that intelligence is largely a function of inherited traits), and it seems to be Peterson's position. While it is not without its share of controversy, most of what Peterson has claimed is generally supported. With that said, if you're interested in some incisive critiques of the hereditarian camp, I suggest you read the works of Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, Steven Rose, and Richard Nisbett for a start.

[@343clement]

Thank you sir for the lengthy and detailed reply :p

[@stormyascent6982]

So you dismiss the theory of multiple intelligences because of semantics? I don't think it hurts to make a distinction between different kinds of intelligence. Though, I wouldn't consider the ability to dance to be one of the types. And that is where talent comes in.

[@LeeFerikson]

it corrupts the word. It's a product of overly compassionate researchers. Intelligence is a highly revered trait, more so than ability to empathize, or do gymnastics. So they attach the word intelligence to these abilities so that those deficient in actual intelligence don't feel as bad.

[@lapatria100]

It encourages people to strive for better and forget about their past (insert IQ test taken last week or year here w/ bad results). Which is good for society in general. Let's remind people that high IQ is only a PREDICTOR, a high one that is. It only suggests that you have a higher chance in life providing you make the most of it. It does not mean you will succeed just by having it! I'm sorry and that's TRUTH. There are tons Adjunct professors, unemployed or bottom tier STEM graduates to name a few that have high/above average IQ yet are barely making it. Truth hurts!

[@XTrumpet63X]

To me industriousness seems like a very similar thing to discipline or self-control. In math tutoring we like to ensure people that are having difficulties that it's best not to think of talent as a factor in their success. Especially with math's stigma in american culture, it's easy for people to get discouraged. Nevertheless, it seems to me that talented - that is to say intelligent - people don't have to work as hard to do well in school. One then either decides to set harder goals, which would have to be external to school since you can't get better than an A, or one could become habitually lazy. So intelligence and industriousness can both result in success independently of each other, but I would expect that intelligent people that are not industrious all have some similar pathology so that they choose laziness.

[@Tugg_Speedman.]

I scored 100 percent in openness. I was wondering how common that is. Anyone else in the upper 90s to 100

[@VanHalensApprentice]

I’m at 98 I believe. So if you had 100 people in the room, you’d be the most open and I would be the 3rd most open person in the room

[@cornheadahh]

I got 95 percentile in Openness. It's by far my highest score. In comparison, my other scores tended to be lower. Extroversion was by far my lowest score with 6 percentile.

[@Will-fr9hg]

Where did you take this test?

[@Tugg_Speedman.]

@@Will-fr9hg i believe it was truity

[@fairpoet81]

94% Openness here. 😉

[@GelidGanef]

Sure intellect exists. We have talked about it for thousands of years. But it's rarely been seen as monistic. It might have a male and a female aspect which are quite separate and even opposed. It might carry potential in leadership and value in every common situation, but also carry the potential for a whole set of vices of its own, which are antithetical to success. But Intelligence probably has little to do with knowledge of trivia or innate curiosity, which today's IQ tests seem suited to measure. I should know. Curiosity for menial trivia I have in spades, but actual intelligence I'm still not so sure about. Or as the prof said, modern psychology might be better at rooting out those who are given to think they're intelligent, than the droves of those whose intelligence has gone unrecognized and underdeveloped. Again I would know, I think pretty highly of myself.

[@GelidGanef]

***** See? Even though I ended my post with a series of half-hearted attempts at undermining my own intelligence, I still came off as self-important and just trying to look smart. Like I apparently proved implicitly even more so than explicitly, IQ measures one's quality as a fake, self-important, pseudo-intellectual.

[@GelidGanef]

***** My main problem with the big five is exactly it's two main strengths. It's a-theoretical, and so we are forced to accept it without explanation. And it's heavily on self-ratings and assumption of the correctness of current cultural values. Assuming regular people are very good at assessing other's personalities is genius. Assuming they're perfect at it, or not fundamentally superficial about it, is assinine. And those assumptions, plus the limits of accurate measurement are the basis for limiting to 5 (or 6?) traits. An ideal system should give something like a set of perpendicular trait-dichotomies. Which would mean all traits would correlate extremely low. But it should also have a thorough explanation of how traits interact. And for that reason, it might be very desirable to have more than enough traits, with higher correlations, to include some "spin" information on personality-space, rather than just "vector" information. Adding just one dimension more than necessary could hollow out the traits, bringing all personalities to the "surface" at some extreme, as the surface of a 3d-sphere is a 2d-plane. Which the psychopathy/honesty trait might be able to do, a lot of cultures have thought that the "outside" of personality was vice and perfect centeredness or moderation corresponded to perfect virtue. But in archetypal systems like tarot, I see evidence of 7 or more dimensions. Even in the days of creation, there are at least 6 metaphorical dichotomies of perception.

[@GelidGanef]

***** Sorry, should've clarified my terms if I was gonna use obscure math metaphors. A vector is just pointing at a place. If you're looking at a globe and you point at a country, your arm and finger, and the country they indicate, are a vector. Modern personality theory--big 5, etc.--is all vectors, pointing out all the different personalities that individual humans can have, or metaphorically all the places they sit in personality space. It's probably decently good at this. Like you said, if Peterson's getting behind those guesses... So now without moving your finger, you give the globe a little nudge. Your finger, and any other fingers that were pointing at the globe, will all be pointing at new countries. This "spin," (which is also the technical name for it) just makes any set of vectors point at different things, without actually relatively moving them. In this context though, I'd call spins "personality transformations". Turning your hard-working nature into skills and knowledge, or turning your hunger for connection into a relationship. In our three dimensions, there's also three dimensions of ways to spin things, which keeps things simple. But smarter math people than me say that in 5 or 6 dimensions, like we have with personality, you might need upwards of 20 dimensions of spin to talk about all these kinds of transformations. So I'm not hating on the statistical big-5 style models that they haven't done this yet. It'd be super complicated, maybe beyond our current abilities. But since religion, myth, and archetype are already precisely in the business of telling us how to transform our personalities, it just makes the current statistical models feel _really_ not there yet for me. And I'm an atheist, giving props to religion over science on any issue kinda hurts :P But I'm really with you on being 180 degrees off. When it comes to stuff like emotions, I can think of loads of pairs of words that are almost perfect opposites, and for that reason are actually pretty hard to tell apart. It's like yin and yang.

[@tedoymisojos]

Great class, thanks for sharing

[@moogabib1]

'IQ has the most predictive validity of anything discovered in the Social Sciences'. Please can anyone link me to the studies that support this statement? I've heard Peterson say this before, that IQ predicts for education attainment, SES, wellbeing, longevity, etc., but I'm struggling to find the studies on it. I'm particularly interested to understand how IQ has been identified as a causation rather than a just a correlation. Thanks in advance for anyone's help.

[@TheSteinbitt]

Corrolation vs causation you use regression analysis in order to control various variables in predicting outcome. Say socioeconomic status, personality, race, height, gender, single mother upbringing and IQ when measuring success in an area of life. Read the Bell Curve, extremely well written.

[@danielorjenkins]

I'm curious if there is a point of diminishing returns regarding intelligence? I just read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, and he seemed to suggest that after a certain level, increases in IQ don't correspond to increases in positive life outcome. Essentially, once you're smart enough, you're smart enough so to speak. Also, and somewhat related, is there a crossover point where increases in IQ start to lead to problematic behaviors? Absolutely love your channel. Thanks!

[@cakeathon9983]

There is little to no information on people with over 140 IQ. But there is some. Mainly from the famous Genetic Studies of Genius experiment. One study compared those in the group selected for the Genetic Studies of Genius who scored 140+ to those who scored 180+. there are some differences but for most metrics they are undistinguishable, especially for men(keep in mind that women lived in an era when they were expected to be housewives). The reason seems obvious, somebody with a high IQ can pursue any intellectually demanding career he/she desires and be highly successful so career/life choices and personality will all have more influence on the actual outcome.

[@cheyennedumas7096]

Other than the potential genocide of the human race

[@chtomlin]

yes, even AI has diminishing returns.

[@dawglopez7195]

Suicides, is the clearest example of this. But has more to do with consciousness but the more intelligent the higher self awareness. So yes

[@MrJamberee]

Good question. In the matter of success, I have heard him say that high IQ and conscientiousness is a very good combination for success. That certainly makes sense.

[@wpahp]

8:52 someone get this man a diet coke!

[@Concojone5]

Respect to Jordan Peterson for being in the trenches with his client trying to get him a job! (see story at end of video)

[@ruanputka8048]

Jordan B Peterson But openness and intellect are strongly correlated, right? I can see how they are different and personally i can see people leaning very heavily in one of these to facets, so why they are correlated in the general population? It doesn't make sense.

[@ruanputka8048]

It seems like there are studies done using MRI of the brain that indicate that openness and intellect are indeed different types of cognitive process, so why they are correlated? Can it be that the way psychologists are measuring these traits are biased or not well founded? Just a quick note, i am a PhD in Electrical Engineer (electromagnetic / motors) in Ireland and i am surrounded by a lot of people who are smarter than i am and i really can't see these traits associated with openness in them. They are not very compassionate, emotional, are not prone to fantasize and are not moved by beauty as i am. On the other hand, they are extremely engaged in rational tought and intellectual stimulation. This doesn't seem to reflect that openness and intellect should correlate. Also, i have a daughter with down syndrome who is extremely sensitive and imaginative but doesn't like, and have trouble, to engage in intellectual, analytical stimulation. I find it very beautiful that openness and intellect could be different and unrelated constructs. It would explain very elegantly my intuition about people. And it bothers me that the science provides evidence that points to being correlated and also correlated do IQ.

[@ruanputka8048]

just some references of what i am talking about: scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/10.1111_jopy.12156.pdf scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Kaufman-2013.pdf www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805551/pdf/nihms163641.pdf s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/41453978/79_2014_-_Colin_G_DeYoung_-_OpennesstoExperienceIntellectandCognitiveAbility_retrieved_2016-01-22_.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1473082866&Signature=0qDQK32maKSnVI%2Bib9qjqBOZwD4%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DOpenness_to_Experience_Intellect_and_Cog.pdf www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19857008

[@franklogrim8510]

how disrespectfull people starting to leave when you are in the mist of telling a story.. anyways thanks for sharing this!

[@Liwaabeaini]

Peterson then hits different

[@renehenriksen1735]

Why is it that intelligence is often always associated with numbers and mathematics? Bobby Fischer didn´t especially cultivate mathhematics but did brilliantly at the chessboard anyway.

[@dwight4k]

I'm new to this channel. Why can't these lectures be taped professionally? No budget for that?

[@dwight4k]

Viper-241 OK. Good. I'm looking forward to it.

[@michaelconnell3778]

You can support higher production quality by funding his Patreon account -- that's what he's planning to use the money for. (Click on the little icon to the bottom, left of the video).

[@dwight4k]

+Frosty I don't understand why most people in the comment section react so aggressively. I said that I was new to the channel. If you visit other KZbin pages from different universities you will see that the lectures are taped professionally. My question was in reference to that. That's all. Now that I've been brought up to speed with Dr. Peterson his 'situation' I understand now why this great content is brought in this fashion. And to be clear: I love the content, no matter how it's taped. I can't even tell you how many videos I've watched on this channel.

[@dwight4k]

***** I don't know how to react to this. Really??

[@dwight4k]

***** You are over analyzing my comments. Good day.

[@Spractral]

Does any one know why it seems there may be two different 2016 ( and maybe other years? ) personality lecture circuits? For example there is, apparently, 2 different 2016 personality lecture 12 ... One with the title Conscientiousness : Industriousness and the other entitled "gender differences"...

[@Elle-ht3km]

This guy’s voice is unmanageable, never mind the tripe he comes out with

[@elizabethdesousa8290]

is there any correlation between disgust sensitivity and shame

[@elizabethdesousa8290]

@JONATHAN SUTCLIFFE I'm trying to understand how my question about, if there is any correlation between disgust sensitivity and shame have to do with Mormon principles? Are you inferring that in some way mormon principles are like in some manner one of these ?

[@ag5768]

Please respond to me Professor, how do you accurately measure the IQ of a person with extremely low level of Conscientiousness? I mean, to the point when a math requiring question becomes too difficult to the un-Conscientious person to engage with, the same way that, a smart but not motivated student might not take a math test at all.

[@justinz9225]

It can't rightly be measured if someone refuses to take the test. That's like a non starter.

[@christianityisunstoppable4155]

Are those bullet holes in the blackboard?

[@ANGEL-eh6pd]

I wondered the same thing. Lol

[@Cinqmil]

22:28: A book by a writer named Nescio. Screw the pets.

[@BritneyGrills]

8:53 lol i just spit out my diet coke at this bit

[@matthewgillam149]

18:10 - 18:30 So what your saying is (lol) meme's came before the word?

[@InquilineKea]

How can Temple Grandin score so highly on Raven's Matrices when her imagination isn't high?

[@topiastopias4611]

54:26 iq vs family wealth on succes in life

[@farmerfootball27]

How much detail to include in the abstraction is incorrect just as soon as you find out more uses for the abstraction. The epitome is software. As soon as any user of a program assumes a component can do something that it cannot, the abstraction has failed. You might say well that's not what the component was designed for. But then evolution comes in and you're out of business.

[@bagelstruth9313]

When you talk about problems with the information coming out of educational psychology, it makes me think about the book called Mindset. Do you know of Carol Dweck's work and if you do what do you think of it?

[@kerfufflebus9690]

People who are more industrious - less trauma weighing them down?

[@chunksapat]

I haven't commented on a youtube video in years, this is very incorrect.

[@kevinc721]

Kerfufflebus what exactly do you mean by that?

[@roddydykes7053]

@@kevinc721 you can imagine how neuroticism would prevent someone being otherwise industrious: Fear of failure, injury, or stress keeping them from picking up a pen, hammer or whatever

[@thedjudjubeast]

This angle is awkward, especially when compared to the 2015 lecture series.

[@ephphatha230]

thedjudjubeast If you look closely you can see a great mind.

[@rh001YT]

Dr. Peterson always gives thorough presentations of the subject matter. But when it comes to psychology I am not very convinced about it's accurateness or usefulness. I like to think of stuff that seems to defy or minimize it's accuracy and usefulness. I'll give just two examples to be brief: 1) Regardless of one's intelligence, assuming one is not an imbecile, the outcome of one's life will vary greatly according to how much wisdom one has accessed or been fed. 2) Exceptions are very interesting, and don't always disprove the rule, since the rules are for the masses. So we might want to consider that a different set of pyschological axioms/theories are needed for the exceptions...but how would those be pieced together. I like the example of Dr. Manmohan Singh, who was born and raised dirt poor in a shack in Pakistan without piped water or electricity, lost his father at an early age, and attended K-10 in a shack of a schoolhouse. How did he get from there, to university, to working for banks in England, amassing a fortune of a hundred million, then appointed finance minister of India, then served two terms as Prime Minister and flipped the economy from communism/socialism to capitalism/socialism, creating an unprecendented sudden increase in prosperity like nothing ever seen before. And he's not a playboy, not an extrovert, not super energetic, aactually very soft-spoken, and he's a religious person, a Seikh. He's not even a politician in the sense that he never sought political office. He probably was intelligent but his other traits don't support his truly massive success.

[@rh001YT]

***** Hi! We certainly disagree about the relevance of exceptions. There are examples of outrageous exceptions, but there are many more of let's say moderate exceptions. All the exceptions together add up to a pretty significant slice of pie. Intelligence as typically measured will of course show correlation between higher intelligence and better outcome in a society which is structured to reward the ability to learn rules, remember them and apply them in specific ways. In the West, what we measure as intelligence is STEM intelligence. Western laws favor STEM intelligence. It's good I think for everyone to develop their STEM intelligence as much as they can. And many people do. But STEM intelligence primarily makes a person useful to "the machine" part of society. It does enable people to sort of hang on as the spinning disk tries to spin them off. It does enable "hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way" (from Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon." It enables them to remain cocooned in the Matrix (reference to the movie "The Matrix). Now back to the exceptions, I claim they are many, both the most stellar and the not quite as stellar, and they set the trends for everyone else. Can a test be developed to detect exceptions....I don't think so. If there was it would have to be developed by the stellar exceptions themselves, however they've never really done that, too busy being stellar to write about how one may become stellar or how to detect it with a test. Now I don't recommend tests for psuedo intelligences, like dance intelligence or emotional intelligence as remedy. But if the stellar one's would give some of their time then maybe some kinds of test could be created to detect ability to think out-of-the-box in ways that are actually effective and not just obtuse. As really useful such tests are presently lacking, students can at least avail themselves of autobiographies of stellar individuals. I wish Manmohan Singh would write a book titled "How I went from dirt poor in Pakistan to fabulously rich and successful, and then without doing much at all in the way of campaigning, to Finance Minister and Prime Minister of India". I will end this comment noting that as an engineer I have become aware of some kids who left high school with barely passing grades that actually do have fairly good intelligence but they lack what I call a comprehensive framework of common sense. I have found it possible, not easy but not hard, to help them construct the framework and I have seen that work wonders in terms of increased employability and increase in wealth. So then I would recommend lessons in K-12 about common sense, and tests for that, and I think one common thread among the many different stellar ones is that they have good common sense.

[@rh001YT]

***** HI! Thanks for the reply. I really enjoy your many videos and your very careful and thorough explanations and good examples. I understand objections about teaching practical or common sense knowledge. To be brief I will say that especially in Christian cultures much of what could be taught is considered too cynical, too cunning. Many in the West, including Chritians, do learn much of this through certain texts and experience, but it is not talked about in polite company. In other cultures, for instance in most of Asia, it is not so taboo. So for instance Chinese are quite successful wherever they go. Chinese people played a big role in the creation of Singapore, and are typically business owners in the Philipines, Africa and everywhere. This is more or less true for a lot of Asians/S. Asians. The downside of Asian common sense is that it fosters corruption and people are hard on each other. Yet extended families are the norm and support is given within the family. Not only is much of common sense and practical thinking a taboo subject in the West, it is difficult to teach it as an academic discipline because it relies a lot on sayings, like "a stitch in time saves nine", "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", "I scratch your back you scratch mine", "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer", and so on. None of that stuff is provable but I think useful for acquiring and maintaining wealth. Yes, conscientiouness is rewarded by the machine, until one is laid off. Tests of parameters that are useful to the machine are predictive of success only as long as the machine is working and not laying off or going out of business. Here's something a bit out of the box, which is never taught to students: get a job in a good company, large or small, and then study how it works, write down the names of key vendors, learn how the customers are brought together with the product, get some promotions so you have access to more and better intelligence, and then leave and start your own copycat business. That happens a lot but it isn't taught in schools and perhaps if it was more people would not suffer unemployment despite being conscientious. The movie Donny Brasco is telling, and based on a true story. Soooooo conscientious, such a good employee, even took risks for his employer, the DEA of USA, and all it got him was a divorce and a medal given in a ceremony by a politician who took no risks and used the medal pinning ceremony for his own agrandizement. Donny Brasco could have benefited from some common sense and practical education...he would have suffered less. But I can attest to the value of having conscientious employees. Yet for me that is not enough, so sometimes when a question is asked I tell them to figure it out for themselves. I really enjoy doing that, but am careful to do it only when they are ready. This pays off in reducing the number of questions I have to answer. One of my bookkeepers is the most conscientious lad in all of India. He logs on around 10:30 pm Indian time after doing his college homework. He has another part-time job as well. He's on scholarship to U of Kolkata and is otherwise penniless and without family. I taught him bookkeeping and he was for many months so rule-oriented. When I gave him the "figure it out yourself" pill, I included some words about being a goat led through life by the ring in his nose, or being the one leading the goat. He was not accustomed to being talked to like that but he took it well. Now he figures things out on his own. BTW, when the lad began bookkeeping he thought he would just submit an informal record of hours worked, much as he had done in his impoverished childhood, half of which was spent on the streets. I said NO, if you want to get paid submit an invoice. His first invoice looked crappy, and I rejected it. He had seen my vendor's invoices but did not think to copy that style. I told him the invoice has to look professional or it will be rejected. His next invoice was better but not pro so I rejected it again. He somehow figured it out and the third invoice was pro....he got it from a tool in his Paypal account, which was there all the while but he had not looked for it. I say things to him like "you already have the answer you just have to open your eyes". He is conscientious, but slowly I am teaching him about business and to think for himself, which is not at all common among students in India. Beethoven is an interesting case study. A slob, yet probably hade high IQ. Most of what sets his work apart is the way he focused on breaking rules of composition. He was nearly excommunicated twice for saying what was not allowed to be said. Historians say that from reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason an other works Beethoven claimed that there are no rules. I suggest that encouraging students to study the exceptional ones may be good for them and good for society. Cheers

[@ruanputka8048]

But openness and intellect are strongly correlated, right? I can see how they are different and personally i can see people leaning very heavily in one of these to facets, so why they are correlated in the general population? It doesn't make sense.

[@ruanputka8048]

It seems like there are studies done using MRI of the brain that indicate that openness and intellect are indeed different types of cognitive process, so why they are correlated? Can it be that the way psychologists are measuring these traits are biased or not well founded? Just a quick note, i am a PhD in Electrical Engineer (electromagnetic / motors) in Ireland and i am surrounded by a lot of people who are smarter than i am and i really can't see these traits associated with openness in them. They are not very compassionate, emotional, are not prone to fantasize and are not moved by beauty as i am. On the other hand, they are extremely engaged in rational tought and intellectual stimulation. This doesn't seem to reflect that openness and intellect should correlate. Also, i have a daughter with down syndrome who is extremely sensitive and imaginative but doesn't like, and have trouble, to engage in intellectual, analytical stimulation. I find it very beautiful that openness and intellect could be different and unrelated constructs. It would explain very elegantly my intuition about people. And it bothers me that the science provides evidence that points to being correlated and also correlated do IQ.

[@ruanputka8048]

just some references of what i am talking about: scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/10.1111_jopy.12156.pdf scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Kaufman-2013.pdf www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805551/pdf/nihms163641.pdf s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/41453978/79_2014_-_Colin_G_DeYoung_-_OpennesstoExperienceIntellectandCognitiveAbility_retrieved_2016-01-22_.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1473082866&Signature=0qDQK32maKSnVI%2Bib9qjqBOZwD4%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DOpenness_to_Experience_Intellect_and_Cog.pdf www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19857008

[@AsIfInteractive]

What was the name of the commercial IQ test used in professional placement? (Spelling please?)

[@chtomlin]

Prof Peterson, you are working with several logical fallacies about industrious people. For example, you say it seems they can regulate their own behaviour to not procrastinate. Well this is near totally false. It's not a cognitive ability at all. Not only can they not regulate their behaviour, but this inbred trait borders on a disorder itself, but one that often tends to be an overall benefit to the afflicted. They can't sit still or not be industrious. The skill and self control they lack is to slow down, analyze and collect enough info to act in a more informed manner. Normally someone smart enough will recognize the awesome asset of the industrious person and direct their massive efforts in a productive fashion, often in a mutually beneficial way.

[@td2288]

RIP CHRIS CORNELL . SOUNDGARDEN

[@Oilartnelson]

Intelligence: The skills and abilities for knowledge and learning as well as the skills and abilities to apply that knowledge to manipulate one's environment. This relates to dancing, painting, mathematics, science etc. There is a definition. The question is, /......How do you define the differentiation of natural collections, such as talent or the application of skills and abilities without knowledge, to practiced applications or those acquired for manipulation? Abstraction is simply an absurd correlation due to a missunderstanding of the advent. It would be foolish for one to think otherwise.. .Excuse my spelling. Spilled Coffee on keyboard.

[@brianholden7981]

Question: When he talks about the difference between conscientiousness and openness, I get the impression that he is implying that one cannot be high in both. Am I misinterpreting what he's saying? Can you be high in more than one trait, or high in all traits? Or is the psyche limited and only a certain percentage of it can be allocated to the traits (i.e. if your high in one, you don't have enough psychic energy left over to be high in others)?

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

I'm wondering the same thing.

[@arytheia]

I took the understanding myself test and I'm really high in all traits. So I think they can vary independently.

[@MrJamberee]

Yes, you can be high in more than one trait. When he speaks of personality and the various traits, he is generalizing because the level of each trait in each person will vary ( and the measurement is good but not precise), so everybody's different, of course.

[@montanahovatter5746]

Hell yeah! JP JP JP!! HOOOOOOOT DOGGY DO I LOVE THIS SHIT!

[@Hugo-zo7zz]

+Montana Hovatter Woo-hoo! Go JP!!!! (I 100% share your enthusiasm!!!)

[@xDMrGarrison]

This lecture ended on a very heavy and serious note...

[@samis8098]

1:03:32 what?????????????????????

[@whyimustusemyrealname3801]

why it's only 13 episode?

[@TheEvanmati]

how do you view all the classes in this series

[@CaseyCJL]

What's peterson's IQ?

[@Andreastheduck]

255

[@IsaiahHarper11]

Realistically 135-145, just by pure numbers only 2% of the us population have an iq over 130. Being that he’s a professor at a high tier university, minimum 120, being that he is a top professor at a top university min 130, now factor in his cult following and his ability to see all sides 135-145.

[@Kate-vd3hl]

Would an autistic artist unconsciously implement archetypes into their art in the same way a traditional artist would?