tl;dr- Mixed feelz. It’s the exact same thing as the Cville debacle, which ended poorly for everyone involved because the Right is unwilling to form alliances with neighboring cities to fight the Persians. Vox’s point is ultimately correct, but his insistence that Peterson is lying by defaulting to the orthodox psychometric position on a controversial topic, rather than Vox’s own unorthodox, one-week-old line of reasoning, is completely autistic. With the intention of mitigating the damage, I’ll offer some constructive analysis.
Peterson may have a high IQ but it is verbally tilted and he’s admitted to feeling out of his depth in quantitative matters, so that his lack of mathematical intuition on this subject could be reasonably attributed to lethargy.
Given this and the intensive stress that is visibly aging him (via SSRIs, infamy, and a philosophy of unrelenting moral courage), I’d suppose he’s relying primarily on crystallized memory of conventional statistics rather than quantitative intuition proper.
a) The significantly higher than average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews (see this article in the Economist for a credible layman’s analysis; for a scientific take (one of many) see Gregory Cochran’s work: abstract and full paper). Consider that IQ is the most powerful single determinant of long-term socioeconomic success and influence (my lab has published on this issue). 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. Simply put: if a very complex job or role requires an IQ of 145, three standard deviations above the mean and characteristic of less than one percent of the general population, then a group with a higher average IQ will be exceptionally over-represented in such enterprises.
Your cutoff for high IQ is far too low. Try 145 (the figure I cite for serious intellectual advantage) and see how that works. That’s three standard deviations above the general population of mean of 100, not the 115 (one standard deviation) you used. One standard deviation above the average is helpful — it puts you in college — but it’s nothing compared to three standard deviations (in part because of the operation of the Pareto principle).
Three standard deviations advantage for the general population puts an individual at 99.9%. That’s .001 of the population, so .001 X 200,000,000 (using your figures) = 200,000 “white gentiles” with an IQ of 145 or more.
Two standard deviations advantage for the Jewish population (with an estimated mean IQ of 115) means an IQ above 97.7% of the Jewish population. That’s .023 of the population, so .023 X 6.000,000 = 138,000
138,000/(200,000+138,000) = 138,000/338,000 = 40.8% of the 145+ IQ population is Jewish. And you said “40% of millionaires and billionaires are Jewish.”
Isn’t it something how those figures dovetail?
This is a perfectly valid argument from orthodox psychometric figures. It’s ultimately wrong, but that’s due to incorrect premises drawn from other sources. Given the premises, the statistical argument would be sound. It takes a great deal of digging to learn that the positive correlation between IQ and success does not hold in the high end of intelligence, and Ashkenazi intelligence is a subject mired in the fog of war. You can have mistaken assumptions of this sort without being worthy of this sort of opprobrium:
Peterson’s argument is not merely incorrect, literally every single aspect of it is false. It is so resolutely and demonstrably false that it is not possible for Jordan Peterson to have constructed it in innocence by mistake. In my opinion, it clearly represents a purposeful intent to deceive his audience and falsely accuse those he labels “the far right”.
I do not know Jordan Peterson, but his incorrect and deceitful arguments and his unfair, unjustified attacks on his critics show him to be an inept and integrity-challenged coward who lacks commitment to the truth.
Vox bases this interpretation on:
1) A disagreement over the morality of identity politics (a point on which intellectually honest people may disagree).
2) A disagreement over the psychological motives of white identitarians.
3) A fringe psychometric theory that is supported by anecdote (and me) but typically dismissed by professionals in that field.
4) A statistic he calculated personally, and only published very recently.
5) Another statistic calculated from the statistic he calculated personally, and only published very recently.
6) The plausibility of his alternative hypothesis.
On the one hand, accusing Peterson of being a weakling and liar is excellent strategy if you want to foment dialectic around the meme of Jewish accomplishment, controlled for intelligence. White gentile leftists would rather see Alt-Right figureheads at each other’s throats than shut down their speech, so the dialectic aspect would likely be allowed to play out in public, relatively unmolested. The influential American Jews themselves will oppose it in general (with notable exceptions), but will be unable to mobilize their white shock troops, who would turn on them if denied the opportunity to engage in their reproductive strategy. It’s as if Milo and Cernovich announced a team deathmatch between their Twitter followers at the site of the Robert E Lee statue in Cville (the left supports gun ownership when it means the right is shooting itself in the foot). I expect Vox is quite aware of this angle.
On the other hand, I expect Vox is also truthfully reporting his motive as a prophet of perfect intellectual integrity, and believes Peterson is a bought-and-paid-for shill. To borrow one of Vox’s own heuristics,
There is definitely something deeply, insidiously wrong with any self-styled male feminist. Never forget that when they repeat their mantras of “don’t be evil” and “don’t inappropriately touch women”, they are talking to themselves.
Applying this to Vox’s mantra about dedication to truth, truth, truth, I must assume he’s under higher than average temptation to misrepresent himself. So I expect that he’s driven to this by opportunism (uncontroversially a consistent motive of his), enabled by the belief that he’s a holy lightbringer smoking out Satanist pedophiles and their intellectual apologists, and self-assured by the strategic soundness of his plan. However, he’s probably wrong about Peterson’s motives here, and calling the man a disingenuous intellectual coward is at least premature, and at worst vicious defamation.
(Also, it needs to be said that calling someone a liar if they won’t debate you is really bad behavior.)
If you’re a regular reader you know I’m not a Peterson acolyte, and I consider him an unwitting advocate of a Jungian Pagan cult with which Satan intends to replace Christianity. But, he is doing this quite honestly as a study of psychology, because lower-p paganism may be reasonably described as “the worship of libido”. (I oppose the invention of religion in general because man absolutely cannot be trusted to be honest in this realm, but fascination with religious subjects is entirely natural and not an indicator that someone is a conscious agent of the Synagogue of Satan.) One might even state the thesis of the Zodiacism theory as “In the absence of God, man regresses to the worship of his own mind as he sees it projected into the primordial chaos of the material universe.”
So, the man’s obviously not perfect or a devotee of Truth, but the vehement rhetoric suggests Vox has decided he’s a disgusting agent of Evil to be destroyed with fire from Heaven. I suspect this is due to his recent heuristic, which I’m informed is quite reliable and does not produce this sort of unwarranted over-reaction.