Sure, intelligence is genetic. but the type of intelligence measured by IQ is not predictive of success in society. Those who study and work hard will progress humanity more than those born to high IQ parents who don't. So in a sense, "culture" is the primary driver of success. Not sure where this idea that people's impact on society are decided by their DNA comes from. This goes against the conservative tenet of self-efficacy-- that you can better yourself and your situation with hard work.
That's not true at all... IQ is actually the biggest predictor of success, across all measures, though it's technically a correlation as causal links are hard to prove in this area. There are plenty of studies showing this to varying degrees, but if you're a Jordan Peterson fan, here is one of the lectures from one of his university classes on the subject https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM.
Does everyone have to be some Nobel laureate doctor President who cured cancer to be successful? Certainly not. Some people can, and will, and have, gone their whole lives without doing anything that we might consider "successful". But they still contribute to society. They help the gears turn. In turn, society offers them little pleasures, which keep them occupied. Some people are not destined for greatness. Some are not destined for even mediocrity. But with the right systems in place (we're certainly a ways away from this being true, but baby steps here), every single human being can find purpose, contribute something of value to the sum of humanity, and enjoy their lives on Earth.
That guy is really well-spoken. But in the end what he said doesn't really interact with what I think-- that success in life depends greatly on the work you put in.
Now if he suggests that higher IQ people are predisposed to putting in that work, then maybe Peterson and I are in agreement. Although I don't see how having drive and ambition could be connected to IQ, specifically because the way IQ is measured doesn't have any reference to work ethic, and psychometricians have taken great care to try and isolate their number to just natural cognitive ability.
But if we make the reasonable conclusion that IQ is independent of work ethic, the question becomes does work ethic matter at all? I'd say yes. Those who study hard in university to develop practical skills that they can apply to better society I deem successful, irrespective of what metrics about jobs or grades Peterson uses. That's sidestepping the fact that there are many definitions of success. The link between work ethic and success is much more clear than the correlations between IQ and success shown in longitudinal studies, which have many problems of their own.
Moreover, his whole talk controls for agreeableness, sociability, and many other factors which can contribute to success. While this is great for isolated studies about soundness of IQ, this is not great for studies about prediction of success of individuals. I think its dangerous to reduce people's ability to succeed to IQ studies, and ignore other factors. Let's not doom lower IQ people to "manual labor" over their IQ; I think we will agree it's an oversimplification.
Thanks for the link, pede. Writing this out has helped me organize my $0.02 on the subject.
Sure, intelligence is genetic. but the type of intelligence measured by IQ is not predictive of success in society. Those who study and work hard will progress humanity more than those born to high IQ parents who don't. So in a sense, "culture" is the primary driver of success. Not sure where this idea that people's impact on society are decided by their DNA comes from. This goes against the conservative tenet of self-efficacy-- that you can better yourself and your situation with hard work.
That's not true at all... IQ is actually the biggest predictor of success, across all measures, though it's technically a correlation as causal links are hard to prove in this area. There are plenty of studies showing this to varying degrees, but if you're a Jordan Peterson fan, here is one of the lectures from one of his university classes on the subject https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM.
"Success". What is success?
Does everyone have to be some Nobel laureate doctor President who cured cancer to be successful? Certainly not. Some people can, and will, and have, gone their whole lives without doing anything that we might consider "successful". But they still contribute to society. They help the gears turn. In turn, society offers them little pleasures, which keep them occupied. Some people are not destined for greatness. Some are not destined for even mediocrity. But with the right systems in place (we're certainly a ways away from this being true, but baby steps here), every single human being can find purpose, contribute something of value to the sum of humanity, and enjoy their lives on Earth.
That guy is really well-spoken. But in the end what he said doesn't really interact with what I think-- that success in life depends greatly on the work you put in.
Now if he suggests that higher IQ people are predisposed to putting in that work, then maybe Peterson and I are in agreement. Although I don't see how having drive and ambition could be connected to IQ, specifically because the way IQ is measured doesn't have any reference to work ethic, and psychometricians have taken great care to try and isolate their number to just natural cognitive ability.
But if we make the reasonable conclusion that IQ is independent of work ethic, the question becomes does work ethic matter at all? I'd say yes. Those who study hard in university to develop practical skills that they can apply to better society I deem successful, irrespective of what metrics about jobs or grades Peterson uses. That's sidestepping the fact that there are many definitions of success. The link between work ethic and success is much more clear than the correlations between IQ and success shown in longitudinal studies, which have many problems of their own.
Moreover, his whole talk controls for agreeableness, sociability, and many other factors which can contribute to success. While this is great for isolated studies about soundness of IQ, this is not great for studies about prediction of success of individuals. I think its dangerous to reduce people's ability to succeed to IQ studies, and ignore other factors. Let's not doom lower IQ people to "manual labor" over their IQ; I think we will agree it's an oversimplification.
Thanks for the link, pede. Writing this out has helped me organize my $0.02 on the subject.