Do the arithmetic

Do the arithmetic.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

funny because this guy is a self admitted maths brainlet with """"""150 IQ""""""", I once watched a bit of a psychology lecture of his where he introduced the Gaussian curve to his psychology students
>y'know, the interesting thing is that almost everything is normally distributed, and that's a theorem in mathematics
instantly closed the video

The worst thing thing he says is probably the "Scandinavia has eliminated socio-cultural variance and now it's only the biological variance that's left, which "proves" my agenda that women and men are hardwired for specific gender roles of modern society, ignoring the vast majority of human history and e.g. the way tribal societies function" thing.

brainlet

>biological in-group preference doesn't exist
what did lobsterman mean by this?

>>biological in-group preference doesn't exist
He didn't say that. Racial groupings are largely meaningless because they don't account for actual commonalities, like language, history, and culture. Only in a country wherein racialism is emphasised to the extreme, will you find people even thinking about race (incorporating it into their psyche, is what I mean). You actually need to identify with a racial group, to then have an in-group preference, there is no clear-cut genetic imperative to fall into a racial group (in your psyche). The racial groupings have no real genetic basis, they have basis in some visible traits, which aren't too significant (genetically) but obvious significant socially. There is an inclination, in most societies (if varying appearances are normalised, without falling in racialism, then there is no inclination), to prefer someone who looks more like you, or rather, who you are more accustomed to, but this isn't genetic either. Furthermore, this 'who you are more accustomed to' isn't racial (though in countries where racialism is emphasised, it is, as their group is much broader), it considers narrower appearances. There is obviously a lot of variance in appearance within a so-called 'race'. Even within borders of so-called 'races'.

>>y'know, the interesting thing is that almost everything is normally distributed, and that's a theorem in mathematics

Is this a misinterpretation of the central limit theorem

>tribal societies
>not based on gender-specific task allocation
brainlet

>behavioral differences between sexes are genetic
>but not between races because lol

His verbal IQ is way higher than his computational IQ, probably 1-2 SD. I mean the guy is a verbal juggernaut, he just doesn't ever lose a debate and even if he would he would probably win the audience over with subtle persuasion techniques.

that's what I interpreted it as.
the funny thing is that he repeatedly talks at length about the pareto distribution whenever he wants to prove inequality is natural. So not only does he know that some things aren't normal, he knows about distributions that can't be normalized.

actually every distribution (poisson, binomial, etc.) converges to normality as the sample size approaches infinity

ples b trol

Has he ever actually admitted to being bad at math? Source?

I remember one video where he tried to calculate something statistical in his head and he said that his quantitative IQ was worse than his verbal IQ and that's why he was struggling to calculate it.

I've gone through so many of his videos I can't pin point the exact video but I remember it was one of his videos at home with a webcam.

I like his biological essentialism. Take away all his religious and political dogma and he’s a fairly smart guy in the field of Psychology. Probably the best in his field desu.

the way he views stories and their themes and meaning is so riddled with confirmation bias it bothers me. Bought his future authoring course tho....

>almost everything is normally distributed, and that's a theorem in mathematics
I needed this today.

Benatar won.

most likely

How?

怎麼?

Not sure if trolling or just a low IQ retard with reading comprehension problems. I'll to explain it more slowly: Jordan Peterson believes Scandinavia has """eliminated""" socio-cultural differences because men and women score differently on personality tests and there's a vast inequality in occupations. Meanwhile, in less "developed" societies, men and women on average score much more equal on personality tests etc. Jordan Peterson is literally a brainlet unable to see how he cherry picks various facts to support his conservative Western agenda.

What exactly do Scandinavia and 'less developed' places like Africa have in common? Not much, so I don't see your point. Is it really that mindblowing that his perspective is western when he lives in a western nation? I hate to say this user, but most of us don't give a shit about less developed countries. We don't live there.

>He didn't say that. Racial groupings are largely meaningless because they don't account for actual commonalities, like language, history, and culture. Only in a country wherein racialism is emphasised to the extreme, will you find people even thinking about race (incorporating it into their psyche, is what I mean).
This is completely false. Racial Nationalism has been found in many countries since Nations were a thing. Nazi Germany, Japan, China x10 times, pre-Soviet Russia, etc.. You just make shit up.

Imperial Spain and England too. North Korea today.

the one where he reveals his iq is a good example

It's not even that. Helping people is nice and all. But they've been "developing" for a long fucking time. We aren't now "developed", we're still developing, it's just were actually good at it. We are here because we said we wanted to be better and we did.

>What exactly do Scandinavia and 'less developed' places like Africa have in common?
Are you baiting for a /pol/ tier response? kek

No, my point is that they are two very different places and it makes perfect sense that his point of view is western, given that he lives in Canada, not a 'developing country'.

You clearly didn't understand it and have it the other way around.
youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
At the start of the video it says that Norway was CHOSEN as the most gender equal country. It's international ranking where countries are most likely rated on basis of, for example, whether women are legally allowed to work in traditionally male jobs, whether people discriminate sexes in public, probably amount of sex-difference related crimes and other similar factors. It doesn't mean it's completely destroyed (because no matter what people want, it will never be, you won't defeat nature and biology without genetic engineering and making all people fucking clones), but there is the least discrimination. I'd say that most of western civilization is already "equal", since allowing women into police and army is violation of the most basic biological "laws". Almost no state in Europe or North America is allowed to deny woman a position because of sex. They can do it because of lack of skills etc, which can be determined by biology, but boo fucking hoo, you aren't going to do anything about it. People demanding equality of outcome completely disregard efficiency and basic requirements for specific jobs. Anyway, JBP, like many others, noticed trend that the more "equality" there is, based on the ranking, the bigger gender disparity in jobs there is. Basically the less social pressure, the bigger proportion biology and genetics are, thus they play biggest role in determination of job choice. Tha's because of assumption there can be only biological and social factors. And it makes sense, because what other factors there can be considering we're dealing with normal humans, not some kind of margin like crippled people?

So yes, you can say scandinavia eliminated systematic sex inequality by by giving equal opportunities when it comes to government positions, and by forcing private sector to not discriminate via laws. The only thing that is left are actions fueled by stereotypes, which are punished by the state thus minimalized as much as state can minimalize it, and biology fueled differences which no one can do anything about.

JBP is right - the more systematic equality there will be, the bigger role biology will play, and if it grows the gap, it;s solid argument for biological differences. He didn't say Scandis eliminated differences because people score different, but people score different because Scandis eliminated differences. And the fact that they did isn't his own idea, but result of international ranking. It's more like you're brainlet with reading/listening comprehesion problems since you got it the other way around.
Hopefully now you understand.

nice, just put 100k in an index fund

sorry not sample size. parameters

>Probably the best in his field
lmao jusdt check his citation count. its nowhere near the top