"the answer is: no one knows."
"we'll shovel money down the hierarchy"
We've completely changed topics here, but that is an answer and we know it works. Take a look at how the Homestead Act improved the generational wealth of whites. Most UBI experiments are working. Giving money and land to people down the hierarchy works.
We're way off topic from the military giving out vocational tests, or even his false assertion about the military giving out IQ tests.
"the problem isn't lack of money. I mean sometimes that's the problem."
I kinda laughed at this part. "Certainly let's continue to ignore socio-economics and intentional exclusion so I can carry on my invalid and unsound justification for eugenics."
"the problem is rarely absolute poverty"
Suuuuure. Because training programs work great for people that are starving. This is why the army statement was "work for free, stay at home, and feed yourselves!" and not "A steady income, a place to sleep, and three squares a day—going into the military was the best decision of my life!" Oh wait I think he has that backwards.
"it's not that easy to move money down the hierarchy"
I guess we have a Republican here who doesn't believe in trickle-down economics? At least he seems to intuitively understand the exploitative nature of Capitalism and why, even as originally conceived, required government intervention to guide it away from its excesses.
Also it's super easy to move money down the hierarchy if you're not actively trying to figure out how to keep it at the top. We can start with progressive tax systems. We can start with UBI. We've built a system where nearly every American can get their stimulus checks. It's actually easy and when we pushed the IRS to do it they could already give almost everybody money immediately. We've done it multiple times now.
So... False. There may not be much will give away money, and there may be good reasons not to do it, but it's really easy to do.
"it's not that easy to manage money"
Totally changing topics. He's switching from "it's too hard" to "I don't think it would help them" so fast it feels like a shotgun of false stuff meant to confuse you.
If he's talking about governmentally, completely false. If he's talking about the "underclass" again this is a pretty insipid assertion about people. It's important to note here too that vocational test they take doesn't test for money management skills, so this is another reason you can't use the military vocational test as a stand-in for general societal ability.
"it's a vicious problem man"
We agree here! He just misunderstands that it continues to be a problem because he's blinded himself with these invalid and unsound solutions to some obvious solutions to these problems. He's especially stuck on a vocational test that doesn't select well for general societal competence, which is probably true, but it's leading him in all sorts of wrong directions.
interviewer: "It's hard to train people to become creative, adaptive, problem solvers"
What does this have to do with anything we're talking about? I feel like the assertion behind this question is: The 1 in 10 that are too that the military doesn't want them aren't creative, adaptive, or problem solvers. It's not true because it's a vocational test, and I'm certainly not convinced the military is looking for "creative" individuals. It's not true even in his fantasy land unless his assertion is that intelligence is creative, adaptive, problem solving mastery to a certain degree. It's just... is the implication that dumb people can't paint or something? That art holds no value in society?
There's just a whole raft of conclusions this leads to that are obviously false and nobody here is recognizing their falsity to note that the conclusions that brought them here are wrong. Maybe in the fantasy land military he made up this all makes sense, but once you bring it back and then try to generalize it about society it fails nearly every simple test you can give it.
Peterson: "It's impossible. You can't do it. You can interfere with their cognitive ability, but you can't do that, training doesn't work."
There's a thread here that sounds reasonable, but has nothing to do with any of the other implications going on:
The military excludes certain people because they think they can't train them to do the job.
I'm sure there are people you can't train to be in the military. I believe I'm one of them, although I've been told that they are good enough at breaking people that if I were forced into that situation they might get me. I'd certainly never choose it though.
For most of my life they also excluded gays because they think they can't train them to do the job. They exclude women from certain jobs because they think they can't train men to operate alongside women.
Even if his premise weren't entirely false, that the military excludes people of a low IQ, that wouldn't be the only reason they exclude people. Even if it were, there's no sound or valid assertion made about how the inability to perform military service has anything to do with one's general use to society.
I don't entirely regret watching that because I got to really break down why each part of it is misguided and wrong, but I'm super tired of Peterson showing up to get people thinking about these fantasy scenarios as if they had anything to do with the real world.
"That said it seems to me to be a hard and valid question to ask: "what should society do about the fact that there will be some individuals at low IQ regardless of resources expended?" <- This is the question I think Jordan is posing in the video."
Personally I think that's a dangerous, misguided, and, to some degree, unimportant question. I'll start from the end.
Unimportant. Why do anything about this? Are the useless destroying society? At no point did Peterson assert that there's anything new about this state of affairs. He even said the research has taken place over 100 years. That's a pretty long time where 10% of the population being low IQ hasn't stopped the American train from running.
Misguided. As you've pointed out, IQ is unsettled science. We're creating a sloppy definition of the problem we want to solve here.
Dangerous. Peterson doesn't offer solutions, only things that he claims don't work. He leaves the space empty. Let's look at even this thread for what that space gets filled with: Genocide. We were seven comments or so in when somebody said something implying they shouldn't be allowed to breed. He's inspired you to come here and, sorry to risk Godwin's law here, consider "The Jewish Question" as valid. Peterson happens to phrase it as "The Stupids Question." If you disagree on this point I'd be very curious what you think he's implying should be done since he only enumerates ways in which we can't solve "The Stupids Question" that aren't genocide.
"I of course appreciate the sensitivity to eugenics and applaud you for being on the lookout for that. I simply see zero hint of it in this video or in anything Peterson has every said.
This all started with a Peterson US Military example of enlisting men that were below the previous minimum IQ/aptitude.
Best I can tell this is a pretty well-documented historical fact - that it happened and that it had horrible outcomes for those poor low IQ individuals and those around them.
You can google Project 100,000 or see the video below which is actually very interesting (albeit tragic).
As for "what should be done about this" (beyond the military suitability question but more generally) perhaps a Minimum Basic Income, perhaps other policy items. As you point out and I acknowledge, Jordan is not proposing a solution but rather a societal challenge
If you are so inclined I'm happy to continue the dialog in a private chat; but I've found that public Facebook dialog only goes so far... 🙂"
"Best I can tell this is a pretty well-documented historical fact - that it happened and that it had horrible outcomes for those poor low IQ individuals and those around them."
I don't have any particular argument against the military excluding people who don't pass their vocational test. My problem with Peterson's invalid and unsound claim is that either the consequences of keeping around low IQ people, or the military's solutions to the problem of low IQ participants is generalizable or acceptable to society as a whole.
If the military tried to recruit a bunch of people that couldn't pass their vocational test, and it turned out poorly for those people, then it's reasonable (but possibly still systematically exclusionary) to learn that lesson. What isn't reasonable is asserting that a failure in a vocation must be the same as general failings. All of the people who cannot be computer programmers are not a "problem" that we must solve.
"beyond the military suitability question but more generally"
The military already decided what they should do, which is to exclude them based on the results of a test. If one accepts Peterson's implication that low IQ people being in general society has the same effect as it had on the military, are we also to carry over the solution? To me it seems that Peterson is implying exclusion of low IQ people from general society is the appropriate answer.
"Minimum Basic Income, perhaps other policy items. As you point out and I acknowledge, Jordan is not proposing a solution but rather a societal challenge"
He explicitly rejects UBI/MBI as a solution because he claims it's too hard and it doesn't solve "the problem." He claims it's impossible to fix them to make them not low IQ.
My assertion is that he really does mean for you to take away that "exclusion" solution implied above and is intentionally shying away from what form that mechanism might take because it is genocide. People don't just leave out their proposed solutions from a talk like this for no reason.
"If you are so inclined I'm happy to continue the dialog in a private chat; but I've found that public Facebook dialog only goes so far... 🙂"
I understand. I have no interest in talking about it privately though. It's important to me to publicly challenge these ideologies and doesn't feel worth my effort to challenge them only privately.
I'll leave the audience with this: anybody that's finding this analysis reasonable should think about other systems that our military has used to exclude people. If all of the women did poorly in the military, is it reasonable to say they should be excluded from society in general? If it were true that women could not be soldiers, does this mean that women have no role in society whatsoever? This is the sort of reasoning Peterson is using here. You should reject it.
We come here in search of a place to express our thoughts outside of the direct control and surveillance of unaccountable, mega-corporations. There is no common theme that binds us other than these being the bonds we've chosen rather than those that have been chosen for us.