In my previous post on Jordan Peterson I introduced you to the provocative ‘worldview’ of Dr Jordan Peterson relating to IQ and its role in success and well-being.
.
Here is that 10 minute video again for reference:
.
I’ve been asked by a number of you what I personally think of the video and Peterson’s claims.
.
I’ve got a two-part response to this. Here’s part one – what I agree with.
.
First thing….keep in mind the following: Peterson has become a public intellectual. He deliberately adopts polemical positions. His views are often simplified, exaggerated – designed to have an psychological impact on his audience. He doesn’t adopt the virtues of scholarly doubt and skepticism; he has made his mind up about many contested issues and runs with his convictions.
First thing….keep in mind the following: Peterson has become a public intellectual. He deliberately adopts polemical positions. His views are often simplified, exaggerated – designed to have an psychological impact on his audience. He doesn’t adopt the virtues of scholarly doubt and skepticism; he has made his mind up about many contested issues and runs with his convictions.
.
I think that strengths of his claims in the video are as follows:
I think that strengths of his claims in the video are as follows:
.
The IQ-Wealth Link
Peterson believes the highest IQs get a bigger ‘slice of the economic pie’ and generally speaking he’s right. The evidence comes across most clearly with per capita income and GDP.
.
Here is some data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mean income increases fairly linearly with IQ decile (1/10 of the IQ bell curve). For this sample the lowest decile includes people with I.Q below 84, and the highest decile those with an IQ above 116. (Note that it is this decile that corresponds to the highest paid jobs in Peterson’s categorization of jobs based on IQ.)
Here is some data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mean income increases fairly linearly with IQ decile (1/10 of the IQ bell curve). For this sample the lowest decile includes people with I.Q below 84, and the highest decile those with an IQ above 116. (Note that it is this decile that corresponds to the highest paid jobs in Peterson’s categorization of jobs based on IQ.)
.
We might say – statistically speaking – that an IQ of 115 is a kind of threshold for entry into the highest paid managerial and professional job market.
.
.
That’s at the national level. What about internationally? In 2011, Rindermann and Thompson in their article Cognitive capitalism: the effect of cognitive ability on wealth, as mediated through scientific achievement and economic freedom analyzed IQ test scores from 90 countries and found that the intelligence of the people made a contribution to the strength of their economies. They found that for each one-point increase in a country’s average IQ, the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) was $229 higher.
.
.
Why is there an IQ-wealth association? Again – Jordan Peterson has it right. Enter the notion of ‘cognitive capital’ – an important aspect of human capital.
.
Economic realities have “increased the importance of human capital. One element of human capital is cognitive ability: quickness of mind, the ability to infer and apply patterns drawn from experience, and the ability to deal with mental complexity. Another is character and social skills: self-discipline, persistence, responsibility. And a third is actual knowledge. All of these are becoming increasingly crucial for success in the post-industrial marketplace.” Professor Jerry Muller, March 2013, Foreign Affairs.
Economic realities have “increased the importance of human capital. One element of human capital is cognitive ability: quickness of mind, the ability to infer and apply patterns drawn from experience, and the ability to deal with mental complexity. Another is character and social skills: self-discipline, persistence, responsibility. And a third is actual knowledge. All of these are becoming increasingly crucial for success in the post-industrial marketplace.” Professor Jerry Muller, March 2013, Foreign Affairs.
.
Muller’s ‘cognitive ability’ captures Peterson’s fluid intelligence (Gf) here – what is measured by matrices type IQ tests such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Muller’s ‘character and social skills’ corresponds nicely with Peterson’s ‘conscientiousness’ and ‘stress tolerance’.
Muller’s ‘cognitive ability’ captures Peterson’s fluid intelligence (Gf) here – what is measured by matrices type IQ tests such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Muller’s ‘character and social skills’ corresponds nicely with Peterson’s ‘conscientiousness’ and ‘stress tolerance’.
.
So far so good.
So far so good.
.
Cognitive Elites: the ‘Smart Fraction’
.
Peterson emphasizes the idea of the highest IQs and their importance. And he’s right to do so.
Peterson emphasizes the idea of the highest IQs and their importance. And he’s right to do so.
.
Rindermann and Thompson (2011) – see above – also showed that the IQ-income link was particularly strong for the smartest 5% of the population in each country – what they call an “intellectual class with high cognitive ability”. Among each country’s cognitive elites with an IQ of 125 or greater, for every additional IQ point (comparing the average elite scores between nations) per capita GDP was $468 higher.
Rindermann and Thompson (2011) – see above – also showed that the IQ-income link was particularly strong for the smartest 5% of the population in each country – what they call an “intellectual class with high cognitive ability”. Among each country’s cognitive elites with an IQ of 125 or greater, for every additional IQ point (comparing the average elite scores between nations) per capita GDP was $468 higher.
.
Based on evidence like this, Prof. Rindermann argues for the “smart fraction” theory which states that the prosperity and performance of a society depends on the proportion of the population that is above a particular threshold of intelligence (such as 115 or 125 – two thresholds we have looked at above).
.
“ Our results underscore the decisive relevance of cognitive ability–particularly of an intellectual class with high cognitive ability and accomplishments in science, technology, engineering, and math–for national wealth.” Rindermann & Thompson.
“not only is IQ level an important lever for earnings and measures of professional success, it is also cognitive capital that is increasingly rewarding to individuals with IQs of 125 or above. …I think in the modern economy, human capital and cognitive ability are more important than economic freedom.” Rindermann
.
Climbing the Ladder
Peterson’s view of ‘success’ incorporates status, economic power and leadership as well as income and wealth. Peterson uses expressions like (to quote) ‘hierarchies of competence’ and ‘complex dominance hierarchies’ to get across this idea.
.
The link between status/leadership in institutions and IQ finds support in the extensive work of Rindermann on the ‘smart fraction’. Rindermann argues:
.
“IQ is relevant for technological progress, for innovation, for leading a nation, for leading organizations, as entrepreneurs, and so on”
.
Rindermann’s more recent research (e.g. this one in 2016) provides evidence supporting the theory of ‘cognitive capitalism’. Economic freedom is found to moderate the effect of IQ on economic productivity, particularly among the cognitive elites. In other words (to quote) “cognitive ability stimulates economic productivity, and its effects are enhanced by economic freedom….in free and open economies, where competition rewards merit and achievement”.
.
Other studies (1, 2) by Rindermann also support the idea that it’s not just economic freedom, but the quality of political institutions (e.g. meritocratic, respecting the rule of law, etc.), that mediates the impact of IQ on economic success.
Other studies (1, 2) by Rindermann also support the idea that it’s not just economic freedom, but the quality of political institutions (e.g. meritocratic, respecting the rule of law, etc.), that mediates the impact of IQ on economic success.
.
“…cognitive ability predicts the quality of economic and political institutions, which further determines the economic affluence of the nation.”
“…cognitive ability predicts the quality of economic and political institutions, which further determines the economic affluence of the nation.”
.
Polarization of Brains!
Peterson mentions the cognitive elites are getting an increasing ‘slice of the pie’.
.
“One of the things that’s happening is that as the high IQ tech geeks get a hold of the world, the demand for cognitive power is increasing, not decreasing.”
.
The evidence supports this idea. Due to the dynamics of our current economy and institutions, we live in a time that tends to polarize the impact of IQ as ‘cognitive capital’.
.
Cognitive elites who take up leadership roles in the mainstream professions are often drawn from Ivy League universities (statistically speaking) – e.g. Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford etc in the States, or Cambridge and Oxford in the UK. Many graduates from these universities are streamed into to top-paying professional and finance jobs in economic hub cities such as London in the case of UK students.
.
Data clearly shows average IQ in these universities is high and has become higher in recent decades – there’s been an increasing polarization of IQ at the university level. Going back to 1930 the average IQ of all college graduates in the US was 111. The average IQ of the elite top 12 ‘Ivy League’ colleges such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton & Stanford was 120.
.
.
.
If we jump forward to 1990 we can a very different picture. While the average IQ of all college graduates in the country has barely changed (from 111 to 113), the average IQ of Ivy League college graduates – the elite 12 universities in the US – has increased from 120 to around 140! That’s a huge difference and demonstrates a dramatic polarization effect in education (at least into the 90s), and this is closely related to professional success.
.
.
This kind of data may be behind Peterson’s (clearly exaggerated!) claim:
.
“If you want to be the best at what you are doing, bar none, then having an IQ of above 145 is a necessity and maybe you’re pushing 160 in some situations…that’s making you 1 person in 10,000 or even 1 person in 100,000.”
.
OK – so much for Jordan Peterson-think!
.
As you can see, a lot of what he says has evidence-based merit. If he isn’t already familiar with the work of Professor Rindermann he should be! (I’m pretty sure he is.) They would certainly see eye-to-eye in their understanding of the impact of IQ (and especially the highest IQs) in society I’d say.
.
In the second part of my response to Peterson’s video, based on clear, as well as basic I’ll let you know what – based on well-established evidence – is misguided, incomplete or simply incorrect about his picture of IQ and its role in success and well-being. Including in here is (1) his belief that IQ level is essentially fixed in stone. This underscores his view that you need to find your place in the ‘IQ hierarchies’:
.
“If you go into a job, and you’re not smart enough for that job, you’re going to have one bloody miserable time”
.
And (2) his gaping neglect of the well-established role of working memory and executive functions in success and well-being – i.e, the neural machinery targeted by IQ Mindware training programs and all the effective cognitive training programs developed by cognitive neuroscientists out there.
.
