Jordan Peterson is like Milo Yiannopoulos and many similar Trump-age enabled e-celebrities, and from a scientist’s point of view, less, because Milo does not emphasize a scientific façade like Peterson does. The Alt-Right is a growing market niche where you can try “making it” by being edgy without too much sexual depravity. Being more perverted than the last guy is almost the only politically correct edgy still allowed in the mainstream, whether unfunny “comedians”, or pop music or … well even including hiring practices of universities, but it's called “inclusiveness” then. Otherwise, maximum edgy today is daring to touch the IQ question and the JQ, the Jewish Question, and so this is what Jordan Peterson and many others (e.g. Charles Bausman at the Russian Insider, "The Jewish Question: It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo") suddenly do – they never dared before as Bausman admits. For e-celebrities who are mainly after the money it is the So-called “Jewish Question”, this is how Jordan Peterson recently put it. And it has to be done sciencey and in support of Jews, otherwise there is no money but instead SPLC SLAPP lawsuits. Before continuing to criticize Peterson and his recent arguments, I should perhaps clarify a few things:
“Jew Question” (JQ) is the translation of the original German “Judenfrage” in “final solution of the Jew question”, which has far more strength as the sharp and merciless German original “Endloesung der Judenfrage”, using Hitler’s pounding voice, “g’s” as if they are “k’s”, rolling the “r” like machine-gun fire. However, that this refers to killing all Jews is anti German propaganda. Actually, the final solution involved the creation of a Jewish homeland such as Israel, but allowing for that Hitler may have agreed with some good ideas makes you evil.
Second, some may scoff that I exploit the JQ for being edgy and aiming at the Alt-Right market niche. As a serious “antifa”, I sincerely reached out to the far right for more than three decades now. And since childhood Aspergerian autistic, being an everywhere bullied high IQ outsider (just like the Jews, according to the only thing one is told as a young kid already in Germany about Jews) and having always been interested in the fundamental scientific roots of problems, and thus also in biological constraints of the human ape, such as race, the JQ has always been on my mind. I also mentioned it all along here, before 2016, and my coincidentally rather recent scientific publishing on the JQ, and subsequent discussing of the suppression of such work and the Jewish novel evolutionary trajectory and the JQ much more intensely here on Science2.0, was triggered by having become confident with certain calculations when criticizing the Discrimination of Men for example, see “Hyper-Aged Men finished off by Ageism and Misandry” (I put it on the vixra free speech archive later than the JQ, because I gave up publishing it elsewhere later – you see, publishing on vixra means having tried for several years, at least in my case!).
Now to Jordan Peterson’s On the So-called “Jewish Question”, which claims to “take apart the far-right claims”. There is a lot of blah-blah, starting with the supposed psychology of all right-wingers, that can also all be criticized, but I will criticize mainly the seemingly exact-scientific content concerning the over-representation of Ashkenazim Jews (AJ) in powerful positions, which, to Peterson’s credit, he at least admits. Perhaps I should start with his cherry-picking of data, including his linking to news about that Jews are supposedly discriminated against at elite universities like North East Asians (NEA) are. Given the numbers, the very opposite is true, and still increasingly so when considering the relatively recent decline in actual AJ achievement on SAT scores, math-Olympics and suchlike.
As has been considered long before Peterson ever stated, there are three main aspects, namely “The significantly higher than average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews”; AJ average IQ is about 10 to 15 points above that of ‘Whites’ (pigmentation-wise including NEA); then “IQ is the most powerful single determinant of long-term socioeconomic success and influence”, and, again quoting him:
“Consider also that the effect of a mean or average difference in IQ is dramatically increased at the tails of the distribution, so that a 10-15 point difference produces increasingly large inequalities in group representation in proportion to the degree that a given job requires higher general cognitive ability. This means that proportional Jewish over-representation increases as the demand for IQ increases.”
Oh wait, no, he delivers those three all together as one! Then he babbles on about the relation between high IQ and “openness” so much, he manages to make two items out of that – somehow in his attempt of making progressive “openness” relevant to where money and power are. The relation between verbal IQ and deceptiveness, including self-deception, is much more convincing, and my work makes no secret of that (also here) or of that only the AJ average verbal-IQ is that much higher than that of Whites, but such can of course not be published, not with wrong-think interpretations, not in established academia (intelligent guys surviving by writing/talking a lot related to deception? NOOO!), especially not close to the JQ (Jews and deception related? NOOOOO! NOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!).
Peterson’s blog post becomes only interesting through the added update on April 24, where he tries to prove how open to dialogue he is by quoting a critic. Among other valid points, the critic provides a calculation, one example similar to what my work proved in a generally valid way: Given the population numbers, average verbal IQ does not reproduce the observed over-representation, certainly not the overwhelming influence of AJ in powerful positions such as Media/ Courts/ Finance/ State Department/ …, but also not even the “mere” 30% of AJ in measures of intellectual high achievement such as Nobel Prizes. From my abstract:
“Ashkenazim Jews (AJ) comprise roughly 30% of Nobel Prize winners, ‘elite institute’ faculty, etc. Mean intelligence quotients (IQ) fail explaining this, because AJ are only 2.2% of the US population; the maximum possible would be 13% high achievement and needing IQs above 165.”
Notice that I derived the value of 165; I did not put it in as an assumption! What the critic does, in effect (not consciously like Peterson later), is assuming some special “IQ-threshold to success”. The critic takes the assumed average Jewish IQ of 115, in effect, as the “IQ-threshold to success”, and then shows that there are far more Whites than AJ above that threshold:
“If there are 6 million Jews in the United States with an average IQ of 115 (so 3 million are 115+) and there are 200+ million white gentiles with an average IQ of 105 IQ (so roughly 30% are 115+ IQ). So 200 million x .30 gives us 60,000,000 whites with an IQ of 115+. So, we would think, if all things being equal, then that whites would proportionally represented in positions of power commensurate with their IQ and numbers. Jews should, according to the idea that IQ leads to representation in positions of power, should be 5% or so of millionaires (3 million Jews / 60million gentiles at 115+). But this is not the case. Jews make up a disproportionate number of millionaires and billionaires (40% according to Forbes) according to the IQ theory Jordan B. Peterson is utilizing.”
Peterson’s reply is in many fields of established science in one way or another often employed trickery. Obviously, given that the high end tail of a Bell curve goes to infinity, the right most Bell curve, here that of the AJ, will at some point overtake all others, regardless the population sizes. If you simply adjust the ‘IQ-threshold to success’ to a high enough value, you can reproduce any value of over-representation you like. Having found the necessary value, you simply need to come up with some hand waving about why this value is a significant threshold anyway. Then you put that hand waving before the calculation you already did to find the necessary threshold, and voila, the assumed threshold reproduces the data on the over-representation.
This is precisely what Peterson does, and using the critic’s already wrong population data, including the mixing up of AJ and Sephardic Jews, Peterson’s threshold is lower than 165. Peterson tells us to take 145 instead, calling this the figure necessary for “serious intellectual advantage” – I call this seriously unscientific BS. Then he presents us with the calculation that allows him to write, surprise oh surprise: “Isn’t it something how those figures dovetail?”
Now again, I have explained AJ over-representation seriously, and my work does not(!) employ any thresholds, not even the less arbitrary ‘smart fractions’. In fact, the paper explicitly criticizes such in order to emphasize the need for the presented, scientifically rigorous arguments instead – sadly, such impresses so-called “scientific peer review” none. Nor can my more rigorous naturalization of AJ over-representation move Peterson to feel supported, because rigorous science reveals reality, and the reality is again right in the abstract:
“Alternative mechanisms such as intellectual AJ culture or ethnocentrism must be regarded as included through their IQ-dependence. […] the relevance for ‘social sciences’ as sciences and that human intelligence co-evolved for (self-)deception.”
By now, you can publish on every single item mentioned in isolation, and there is an increasingly successful right-wing academic niche that dares publishing on Jewish ethnocentrism. My work rejects that explanation, and I also refused to distort science in exchange for being supported in that scientific sub-community. But for the Petersons, the main concern is this: Celebrity level success and money is seriously endangered if you lay the items out together. Verbal-IQ, intelligent guys producing a lot of words to survive, being related to deception? Jews and deception? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
