<p>Disclaimer: I am aware that this topic has the potential of becoming high political, but I have asked it nevertheless in order to receive some clarification on the subject. Please back all of your arguments with facts and studies. Please try and remain as neutral as possible in your comments.</p>

<p>Dr. Jordan B Peterson, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist claims (reference: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h02w5E7FGlY" rel="noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h02w5E7FGlY</a>) that "the IQ claims are more psycho-metrically rigorous than any other phenomenon that's been discovered by social scientists". </p>

<p>However, a quick googling would return many articles indicating that IQ tests do not accurately measure intelligence. It seems to me that these are radically opposing claims and I would like to ask if there is <strong>scientific agreement</strong> either way. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-07T13:26:52.780Z
Welcome to Psychology.SE.  Asking for opinions is off-topic for StackExchange sites so I have slightly altered your question to fit the scope.  Feel free to change it again if it is not quite what you are after.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-11T09:32:21.853Z
These claims are not in as much opposition as you think. Take the following two statements: (1) Intelligence tests do not perfectly measure intelligence. (2) Intelligence tests more accurately measure intelligence than any other psychological dimension (personality, etc) can be measured. Both of these claims can be true at the same time. Imagine if intelligence tests correlated 0.8 with "true intelligence" and a personality test correlated 0.6 with "true personality", then it is both true that the intelligence test is not perfect (correlation not 1), but it is better than personality test.
Eff
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-11T09:37:17.647Z
I would say that there is no question at all that intelligence research is the most psychometrically rigorous subfield in psychology. No question at all. However, there are entire books that can be written on the subject, and I simply don't know if I can find the energy to write an answer to argue the case. People (usually non-experts) generally oppose intelligence research on ideological grounds, but actual experts who do research in the topic know that it is the most rigorous of all of psychology. There are shelves upon shelves of literature testing various claims about intelligence.
Eff
<cognitive-psychology><iq>
How true are Jordan Peterson's claims on IQ tests?
Frank
# How true are Jordan Peterson's claims on IQ tests?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-12-07)

Disclaimer: I am aware that this topic has the potential of becoming high political, but I have asked it nevertheless in order to receive some clarification on the subject. Please back all of your arguments with facts and studies. Please try and remain as neutral as possible in your comments.

Dr. Jordan B Peterson, a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist claims (reference: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h02w5E7FGlY>) that "the IQ claims are more psycho-metrically rigorous than any other phenomenon that's been discovered by social scientists".

However, a quick googling would return many articles indicating that IQ tests do not accurately measure intelligence. It seems to me that these are radically opposing claims and I would like to ask if there is **scientific agreement** either way.

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, iq

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Welcome to Psychology.SE.  Asking for opinions is off-topic for StackExchange sites so I have slightly altered your question to fit the scope.  Feel free to change it again if it is not quite what you are after.  
> **username_2**: These claims are not in as much opposition as you think. Take the following two statements: (1) Intelligence tests do not perfectly measure intelligence. (2) Intelligence tests more accurately measure intelligence than any other psychological dimension (personality, etc) can be measured. Both of these claims can be true at the same time. Imagine if intelligence tests correlated 0.8 with "true intelligence" and a personality test correlated 0.6 with "true personality", then it is both true that the intelligence test is not perfect (correlation not 1), but it is better than personality test.  
> **username_2**: I would say that there is no question at all that intelligence research is the most psychometrically rigorous subfield in psychology. No question at all. However, there are entire books that can be written on the subject, and I simply don't know if I can find the energy to write an answer to argue the case. People (usually non-experts) generally oppose intelligence research on ideological grounds, but actual experts who do research in the topic know that it is the most rigorous of all of psychology. There are shelves upon shelves of literature testing various claims about intelligence.  

---

## 0 answers

