Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About thehonjudgefudge

  • Rank

  1. My story and questions on intelligence and the practice of law

    I'll write you an even more giant in response to most of what you said (addressing most of your points). You know, peterson has been associated with research showing the flaws of only using IQ tests to assess giftedness (and part of this research has been used by a twice exceptional researcher peterson does research with-Scott Kaufman-, showing how, since IQ does not affect certain psychological traits that predict giftedness, that in the case of some children, you can have kids with below average IQ that are gifted)? All of this, while he publicly says very different things about IQ. I will link to studies below. I also want to make it clear now, I do not favor the abolishment of IQ. Just that there must be more holistic approaches to testing intelligence (and that is where the psychology research---again some done by Peterson himself--suggest). If you noticed in my original argument, that I said "some are advocating for IQ tests to be renamed"--I made that comment to show that while there is still support for IQ, it is believed to only measure a fraction of what is human intelligence and hence should be renamed to reflect that view. And twice exceptional children are a good argument against your view "that you need a certain amount of IQ to be successful". And, whether you believe it or not, the American Psychological Asssociation, the largest psychology association in the world, has an entire section of their website dedicated to twice exceptional children You're defending Peterson, saying you need a certain IQ to be successful? Did you know Peterson has published (in the past few years) research showing achievement in the arts is not dependent on IQ; or has a weak positive association with achievement in the sciences (with another factor, intellectual engagement-which IQ tests don't measure-- being the most powerful predictor of creativity in the sciences). Or did you know, one of his colleagues Scott Kaufman (who has a PhD from Yale, and is a psychologist at Penn), who peterson has authored some papers with, has an IQ that is classified as "borderline intellectually impaired" (which is a range that is 85 or lower--peterson claimed in a video anyone who has an IQ this low won't be able to work even rudimentary jobs); and the fact that psychologists have found twice exceptional children . Kids like peterson's colleague (its why he is into intelligence research, his own experience of being thrown into special education, then coming out of it by getting a 4.0 from carnegie mellon, masters from cambridge and PhD from Yale ) In a book that is part memoir (of him being relegated to special education, and after 6 years, finally fought his way out of it and part background on the science of how IQ only measures a part of intelligence (and that there are some forms of intelligence, in particular related to the arts, that are not related to IQ). See the review by Nature? That's considered one of the top science journals in the entire world. Many of the editors are big shot scientists; that's how big this research on gifted children (with below average IQ scores on account of various psych disabilities they have). (Nature is also one of the few science magazines that publishes articles from many domains of science, from social sciences like psychology and sociology to the natural science such as physics and chemistry, which is also another reason for its prestige)..... The book is called Ungifted, because it is partially a review of the limits of conventional intelligence testing (ie the sole use of the IQ test) and how there are many, many other psychological factors--not addressed by IQ tests--it's essentially contributing to the (growing) research showing how intelligence is much more than just an IQ score. An IQ score can not be a sum total of all one is capable of. The fact that there are children who show exceptional ability relegated to special education programs (on account of low IQ scores) is a problem Twice exceptional children are a reason why IQ scores need to be examined carefully...again they can have really low scores on certain IQ subtests that drag their scores to levels where they get placed in special education, despite simultaneously showing traits of gifted children. From Peterson's colleague (who Peterson has assisted in showing the limitations of IQ) on his experiences as a twice exceptional student... "As a kid growing up with my own auditory learning difficulties (first central auditory processing disorder and then high anxiety), I remember vividly (and painfully) what it was like to grow up with a dual identity. On the one hand, I felt as though something was very wrong with me, as though I was broken. On the other hand, I was yearning deep inside for more intellectual and creative challenges and felt capable of something more. But who was I to challenge the authorities? These conflicting identities led to a lot of confusion and an unstable sense of self as a child. Thankfully, I had a special education teacher who saw beyond my label to some hidden strengths that were bursting to come out from deep within me. She inspired me to sign up for more challenging classes and after-school activities (e.g., school orchestra, choir, musicals, etc.), which allowed me to finally put my ravenous curiosity and desire to take on creative projects to good use. Eventually, through a lot hard work as well as a love of learning, I worked my way up to a Yale PhD in cognitive psychology, where I was able to propose a new definition of intelligence. But I will never forget where I came from, and what it was like to grow up 2e. It may only be a sample size of one, but I personally know what is possible with even a little encouragement and support, and I truly hope this book can help many more children become what they are capable of becoming." There has been research in the last couple of decades done by psychologists showing the existence of something called the twice exceptional child. Children who have learning disabilities (which impact performance on IQ tests, as a result) but simultaneously show exceptionally gifted behavior. Kids who begin speaking words at the age of 7 (an example being stephen wiltshire), but have exceptional abilities (in wiltshire's case, art). His verbal IQ has been estimated to be as low 52. There is a ton of new literature (which reinforce the notion that IQ isn't everything when it comes to creativity and giftedness). I did not want to mention it; on account of writing a wall, but I guess I will have to now. I only mentioned richard feynman (and not more in depth examples), on account of keeping my original post short. Peterson himself said in a video I linked that he believed grad school requires an IQ of 130, Feynman's IQ of 123, and his status as one of the best scientists in the 20th century, is an easy challenge to peterson's claim. But if you want me to go into more depth, I will. So, (as I'll explain near the end), the Terman study is actually still going on. 200 of the people (who were identified as having 135+ IQs in the early mid 20th century) are still alive; so the study is still going on and wont end until all of the remaining participants have died. And every now and then, studies on these senior citizens is still published. Again, the terman study isn't over until all the kids who were identified by Terman as having above average IQs are dead. So it's not exactly an ancient depression era study as you suggest. It may have started in the 1920s, but it's still going on. I am not trying to discredit IQ tests. I never said that (as an educational psychologist, thats a big part of how my dad earns his living--giving IQ tests). He learned the limitations of IQ testing when he was in psych grad school--but was he taught to discredit them? No, but to acknowledge limitations. If you read the works of prominent psychologists in IQ testing, including Terman, Wechsler, and more contemporary ones, like Robert Sternberg (60th most cited psychologist of the 20th century--published 1500 papers) that IQ measures only a certain fraction of cognitive abilities. Hence Sternberg's Triarchic theory. There are limits to the IQ test, you can not have blanket statements saying that you need a certain IQ (see twice exceptional children below---some estimates are as large as 1/6 gifted children are twice exceptional-simultaneously have psychological disabilities that co occur with exceptional talents ). Wechsler noted that IQ scores only account for part of intelligence (that there are psychological factors not measured by IQ tests--or as he called them tests of intellectual ability--that form a part of intelligence). And why on the Wechsler scales, the scoring range stops at 130 (IQ scores at high ranges That was I was (and still am trying to say). IQ tests don't predict everything (and there is research backing---some done by Peterson ). Yes, Jordan Peterson the one who says you won't probably be able to survive a hard university if you're IQ is below 115, you're probably only grad school material if you're 130. He thinks IQ is a large enough predictor, it alone can predict whether you have the cognitive prowess to go to university and what kind of job you will obtain. Peterson is saying IQ can determine a lot of your life by itself (without taking into account other psychological factors--his own research shows there are other psychological factors that are more important), whether you go to university, what type of job you will have. Peterson has worked with researchers who study twice exceptional children, which opposes his blanket statements of IQ. And in addition, Peterson himself has worked with some of these psychologists (and co authored) papers showing there are other psychological traits separable from IQ that are found in gifted children, and some of these traits have no correlation with IQ. And not just that, but exceptional achievement in the arts relies on different traits than exceptional achievement in the sciences. With success in the arts not dependent on IQ at all (study and table linked below). I also want to acknowledge here that twice exceptional children have gained much attention (from the National Association of Gifted Children--one of the largest associations for gifted children in america; a psychologist wrote this article). Again gifted children can simultaneously have learning disabilities, and those learning disabilities can hamper scores on IQ tests (for example, some have poor vocabularies, and the verbal reasoning subtests on IQ tests tend to be the most heavily weighted). That narrative has been challenged recently by research on twice exceptional children ( attention has been given to this phenomena since mid 90s----gifted children with intellectual disabilities and low IQs). Peterson's own colleague, Scott Kaufman (that he has co authored multiple papers on creativity and giftedness), who has an IQ of "borderline intellectually impaired" (a blanket term of IQ ranges between 71 and 84) and has a PhD from yale and is a director of a research institute at Penn University, an ivy league (with his borderline intellectually impaired IQ). Peterson participated in studies with Kaufman that showed that IQ didn't correlate with exceptional achievement in the arts (operationalized as creative writing, visual arts, music, theatre/film) and only had a weak to moderate positive correlation coefficient with creative achievement in the sciences (0.3 to 0.4). One study they did (most of the studies they did together showing how IQ isn't the top predictor of creativity, i can not link, because they are not available online for free, and although i got them--I paid for them,it's not legal for me to share those), but for the studies that are available for free, look at the results (again this Peterson research that has shown that IQ only accounts for part of what is observed in creative behavior of gifted scientists, and has no correlation with gifted artists). Table 2 g stands for the general factor that IQ tests measure. See how it has no strong association with achievement in the arts, music, dance, visual arts, inventions, theatre/film, and of the traits it is associated with ( mainly scientific discovery) it has a correlation coefficient of 0.24 (considered a weak association). Peterson said in the video I linked above "you have an IQ of 145 you can do anything you want"......his own research shows IQ has no strong relationship with creative achievement in the arts, and only a weak positive relationship with the sciences (meaning you can still find successful scientists and science students who dont have above average IQs). To my knowledge he has never publicly mentioned these results. Table 4- They used a wald test for this section--- g (IQ scores) are all the way on the bottom. 0.00 correlation with eminent achievement in the arts, 0.88 (considered weak correlation on a wald test) with eminent achievement in the sciences. Notice for the arts, openness and extroversion are highly correlated with creative achievement (over IQ) and for science, Intellectual engagement is more significantly associated with creative achievement in the sciences? And note that intellectual engagement and IQ do not have a strong relationship with each other page 242--notice the <0.3 correlation coefficients between verbal reasoning, working memory, fluid reasoning and intellectual engagement? With regards to conscientiousness, Peterson said it matters after IQ (ie IQ is more strongly correlated with grades than conscientiousness) (a post by peterson saying IQ is 5 times as powerful a predictor as conscientousness (go down to the part he bolded, he says it there). Note this account was made years before he became famous on youtube--so it's likely not a LARPer. There is other research out there (which I will link below) that shows conscientiousness is 4 times as powerful a predictor than IQ. Stuff that goes against peterson. What I said is the two factors are equal, or conscientiousness has been shown to be a better predictor of academic success. Are you familiar with correlation coefficient? That's how psychologists correlate the degree of association between traits. A stronger correlation coefficient means that there are stronger relationships between variables. Other studies have shown the opposite of what Peterson says; conscientiousness matters more than IQ. Conscientiousness has been (go down to Table 2) shown to be more important than IQ. The research is not conclusive. Peterson seems to think it is, when he says IQ is a more important predictor of school success (again, most of these articles are not free, you have to buy psychology articles from various online journals to see most of this research). The fact of the matter is, there is no one conclusive measure on what is the most important variable in academic/job success. Peterson does not mention research opposing what he says (that iq is the most important variable for grades, followed by conscientiousness) when there are other psychologists out there showing the opposite. So no, I am not saying the same thing as Peterson. With regards to the child prodigy study showing high working memory for the art prodigies, yes I did not acknowledge their high working memories. But I will now. The psychologists who authored that study acknowledge that although the working memories of the art prodigies was high but that due to sample size (ie only 3 arts prodigies they studied); not all eminent artists may have high working memories. The research I linked above ( for the IQ test Peterson and Kaufman used on larger samples, they used a working memory task found on IQ tests--participants were given a 'remember the last word of each sentence)--a working memory test that is used in the Stanford Binet scales. Zero correlation with creativity in the visual arts. No contemporary IQ test asks you to memorize an object, and then manipulate that object in your head and draw that object from a different angle (the type of memory the psychologists in the child prodigy study found that the art prodigies used to draw). In the article (the full published article the psychologists of the child prodigy study), they emphasize the small sample size of their study, and how you can not draw firm conclusions from that (ie they do not firmly conclude working memory is essential for exceptional activity). The reason why I posted the child prodigy study was to show that, since the arts majors all had average range IQs, they were still exceptional (and Peterson himself said, in the videos I linked above, going to a good university would require an IQ of 115); what if the child art prodigies ) with their 100 range IQs apply to a visual arts program at an Ivy League school? In fact, Peterson's own study showed IQ had zero relationship. What about people who go to university for arts, theatre, film or related fields. What if they want to get a MFA in visual design or creative writing, another area Peterson studied where IQ showed no strong correlation with. Peterson claims an "iq of 130 is generally needed for graduate school" in the videos I linked above; his own research on exceptional artists shows correlations with divergent thinking and extroversion, but not IQ. With regards to Terman's studies is (note:present tense---its still going on even though terman is long dead---researchers still collect data about this sample and publish articles about them in this day and age) the largest study on gifted children done in the history of psychology. Why it was- and still is--considered important is Terman collected the most number of high IQ people than in any other study in the history of the field. It's not perfect, sure, but the fact that so many of the high IQ kids didn't do much with their lives (after terman allegedly pulled strings and, as head of the psychology department at Stanford, arranged for some of his gifted sample to be accepted at stanford---which is as prestigious of a school then as it is now), and the fact that Terman missed children who would go on to make big contributions to society (two nobel laureates, as well as one of the cofounders of silicon valley to name a few), is what pushed psychologists to see what psychological variables he missed. The terman study is still going on in this day and age and data is still being collected on them; your view of it is a depression era study is flawed. Around a couple hundred of the people part of it are still alive, the study is technically still going on. I will tell you how it has influenced contemporary psychology.Ever since Terman's study failed, where he missed many children who went on to do exceptional things (and how many of his gifted samples didn't do much), he wrote this , (it was a call to psychologists to study what he missed in his study, why he missed children who made exceptional contributions to the arts and sciences and why many of the gifted children in his sample did not do anything significant with their lives). Since then, psychologists have measured traits that are associated with gifted behaviour, such as implicit learning, affective engagement, divergent thinking, intellectual engagement, aesthetic engagement. Many of these have no to weak to low moderate correlation with IQ, most of these studies that show this you can not access for free, so if you want to see what has led psychologists to note gifted behavior in those with average and below average IQs, buy some subscriptions to various Psych Journals, like Intelligence, or Nature (that publishes high quality psych research--most selective science journal in the world) and search "implicit learning and IQ", or "aesthetic engagement and IQ", etc.
  2. My story and questions on intelligence and the practice of law

    Jordan peterson is a sketchy psychologist when it comes to some of the stuff he says. My dad works as an educational psychologist, gives IQ tests for a living. I also took a clinical psychology class once in undergrad, and the clinical psychologist who taught the test (who also administers IQ tests for the government) emphasized these tests are not the same thing as intelligence. Also, since my dad is a member of the American Psychological Association, he has access to their journals, and from what he has told me, there is consensus among most psychologists that IQ tests are not an absolute measure of intelligence, and above all, are very malleable by the environment you are in. Rule #1 my dad learned in psych grad school is that IQ tests do not measure the full domain of intelligence.... They measure a certain number of cognitive abilities. Some intelligence researchers are even calling for the IQ test to be renamed. There was a study a few years ago on child prodigies, a couple of them had IQs in the average range (around 100). The most commonly used IQ tests in the world are the Wechsler scales (WAIS, WISC, etc.) and are considered the gold standard by many psychologists. The psychologist who created these tests, David Wechsler, emphasized this one 90 minute test was not a global measure of intelligence and he want as far as saying anyone who says so is severely misinterpreting his work. This has been shown with biological evidence, psychologists administered a test of cognitive abilities that had to be done in chunks over a few days and then a 90 minute typical IQ test all while neuroscientists were imaging the participants' brain.....the IQ test only activated a small portion of the brain compared to the several day long test administered by psychologists. As one of the cognitive neuroscientists who led the study said "we call the brain the most complex organ in the universe, but we think a 90 minute IQ test can sum up all of your cognitive abilities". In the early 20th century, there was a study on gifted children by a psychologist by the name of Lewis Terman (the largest study on gifted children in history). The results? Almost none of the gifted sample did anything spectacular with their lives, many chose jobs such as firefighter or police officer. Two of the boys who didnt pass the IQ cutoff for "gifted" (Luis Alvarez and William Shockley) went on to gain Nobel Prizes as adults and gain the reputation of being among the most accomplished physicists of the 20th century.....this was when psychologists stopped using "genius" as a classification on IQ tests. Richard Feynman, a physicist who proved Einstein wrong (with regards to reconciling aspects of quantum mechanics with Einstein's theory of General Relativity) had a measured IQ of 123. He is regarded as one of the most eminent physicists in the history of the field, and he went on to win a Nobel prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics....he also taught himself calculus when he was 12 years old. Feynman is another case study psychologists refer to when studying genius, and on how IQ clearly isn't the full measure of it. TLDR: Peterson is an IQ charlatan, ignore him. Plenty of psychological studies show conscientiousness (how much effort you put in and how organized you are) play just as big a role, or even more, than intelligence when it comes to school performance.
  3. Index score of 74.6 chances?

    Bit nervous about the "back end of waitlist" because the wait list becomes Manitoba residents only at some point in the summer and I'm out of province.... Been seeing some people with index scores of slightly above 75 getting in the acceptance thread, so hopefully that's a good sign for me. Thanks for giving your feedback, I appreciate it.
  4. Out of province applicant; GPA is 3.94/4.5 and LSAT is 157.
  5. Selling the LSAT trainer by Mike Kim for 35 dollars. Selling the powerscore bibles for 40 dollars each. Prices are negotiable.