This podcast is brought to you and made possible by generous financial aid from Peter kanzler K. Ay n z l-- e-- r-- you can buy his Amazon books at your favorite Amazon Branch, for example, the original texts of lock Hobbs and the US Constitution of Pennsylvania put together into one book for only $15. Thanks for listening. Okay. So today we're going to talk about openness now you might say in some sense that openness is the last discovered that the big five traits and it's also the one I would say that comes up most weekly in the factor analysis. When hands sizing formulated his trait representation, which was extraversion neuroticism and psychoticism. he he felt that he encapsulated all of the fundamental variation in human personality and knit and he was loath to include intelligence as a personality trait. Now the relationship between psychoticism and openness is rather complex. Isaac basically felt that people could be extroverted and that would be the positive Dimension. It could be, you know high in negative emotion. I'd be the negative emotion Dimension and that they also could have a predisposition to psychosis and I guess that would be he was thinking about the brain systems that underlie schizophrenia and that that tendency to to dissociate and develop hallucinations. But also maybe the system in human beings that Are affected by hallucinogenic drugs, which seemed to affect human beings differently than they have Fair other creatures. So but I think psychoticism eventually was broken down into low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. It didn't predict the predisposition to psychosis at all and later factor analysis found that you could load out. Intelligence and creativity as a personality Dimension separately now it's a bit tricky because you have IQ measures and IQ measures are much more direct measures of intelligence than the personality measures. I mean the personality measure is something like Do you think you're smart? You know, I mean, I'm being a bit flip about that because it's more sophisticated than that. But when you talk about someone as a smart person, you're generally referring to the trait that we would describe as openness. You also are doing that when you refer to the To creativity as a predisposition and you can measure the smart part a lot better with IQ. And IQ is also a pretty good predictor of creativity. So Well, so, let's see how they're Associated. So he remember that. You have your big two traits stability and plasticity and stability breaks down into conscientiousness emotional stability and agreeableness. And then you can see how each of the aspects are correlated how highly they are correlated so industriousness and orderliness at about point for volatility and withdrawal and emotional stability or neuroticism actually about 0.6 and agreeableness and politeness at about point 4, and then the next trait Is extraversion and openness that makes plasticity? And people who are high in plasticity tend to be good entrepreneurs, by the way. and extraversion rates into sort of this and enthusiasm correlated at about 0.5 and then openness and intelligence and the correlation there is lower its .35 the average correlation between the big five as Point 2 and the correlation between the big to is about point two and so you have to remember you might ask yourself well, Is it correlation of point for twice as large as a correlation of point to announce about is no because you have to square them to compare them arithmetic lie. So of correlation of point to gives you .04 4% squared, right and of correlation point for gives you 16 percent squared, so there's actually a difference of factor of 4, and so you need to remember that when you're considering effect sizes so that you can understand Exactly what they mean now, you know, if your accounting for 16 percent of the variance, which would be a correlation of point for then that leaves 84% left unexplained. But that's a bit of a overstatement most of the time in Psychology because our measures are relative are rather imperfect and so For example, if you give someone a personality test and let's say that the validity of their self report is about 0.6 0.7 which is probably what it is. Maybe might be a little bit higher than that. So that's that means that their self-reported is only picking up fifty percent of the variation in their personality and if you pick up, you know, if if your are if an are derived from that measure accounts for 16% of the variance in some It's twice as powerful as it appears to be because the measure is so error Rhythm and the lot of the things that we measure in Psychology are error written and what that means is that the correlations are generally what it means. Although not invariably isn't the correlations are bigger than they look in any case the correlations that come up in personality research are certainly big enough to be meaningful and I would say meaningful in terms of predicting major life outcomes and predicting important economic outcomes, and that's Sort of thing. So all right, so One of the things you might ask yourself is exactly what does intelligence measure. So we'll start with intelligence from from the and that would be equivalent to intellect roughly speaking. So intellect in the big five the aspect seems to be associated with interest in ideas. Whereas the openness proper aspect seems to be associated with aesthetic Sensibility. And creativity that's the best way to think about it as far as we've been able to figure out and the biggest relationship is between into the intellect and intelligence as measured psychometrically now intelligence is an interesting concept. It's very controversial in fact, if you One of the things that continually happens over and over again in Psychology is that psychologists discover all sorts of new kinds of intelligence and you know the biggest to proponents of that sort of thing. I suppose. We're Bob Sternberg who came up with this thingy called practical intelligence and then Howard Gardner who came up with the theory of multiple intelligences, which had a very large effect on educational psychology when the theory was first proposed and that's not saying much because generally speaking it's very difficult to find A discipline that's more susceptible to Fabs than educational psychology. And as far as I can tell generally speaking each vat is worse than the previous one. So no Gardener posited that I think there were seven. Oh there they are seven or eight different intelligences linguistic musical logical-mathematical spatial body, kinesthetic intrapersonal and interpersonal and people talk about emotional intelligence and they talk about About practical intelligence. And as far as I'm concerned, all of that is complete rubbish and there's technical reasons for that. I mean there's Technical and philosophical reasons for that. The first thing is you can't just mess up a work, you know, the whole point of having a word is so that it defines some things that describes some things and doesn't describe other things, right and so you can you can make the word intelligence account for whatever you want so you can say that the ability to dances form of intelligence But the problem with that is you blur out the word so badly, you can't tell what it means anymore. And so and I would also point out we had perfectly good words for those major intelligence as we called them talents. And so it's perfectly reasonable to make a distinction between that talent and intelligence. Now, you might say well how the hell do you know the difference like if things look similar to some degree then how do you know if they're the same or different? Well, that's exactly what you do when you do the construct validity process. So let's say You rated a number of people on their dancing ability and then you rated the number of people on their ability to multiply two digit two two-digit numbers in their head and quickly. Well, then you see technically if both of those were intelligences, then the people who could dance Better Could multiply two digit numbers faster in their head and that they would be slightly positively. Sorry. See, that's what happens when I go to have any Diet Coke. So anyways, if intelligence was the right word to subsume both of those then what you see is that would be a high correlation of people who were good. Dancers would also be the ones who could multiply most rapidly and I mean multiply in their head. But that but you're not going to be able to extract out a single Factor like that. It's just not it's just not the case that those things associate like that. So for something to be one phenomena. the things that it Obviously, I've talked too much this semester. All the things that are subsumed under that definition have to be correlated and highly correlated because otherwise they're not the same thing. It's the definition of the same thing now argue is a very peculiar. construct A very unique construct from a psychological perspective, but also more generally from a social science perspective because IQ has the most predictive validity of anything ever discovered in the social sciences period now, another thing that is interesting about IQ, is that a lot of the people who are interested early in the measurement of intelligence. Were engineers turned psychologists and the engineers have actually had quite a whopping effect on psychology part of the reason that psychology has an advanced methodology and advanced statistical techniques is because we got invaded by engineers in the early part of the 20th century. And so the engineers made our measurements much more rigorous than they would have otherwise been and it's been a huge Advantage. I mean one of the things that's happening to psychology. Is that starting to eat other disciplines, so it's hot Massive effect on economics and it's going to have a massive effect on political science. And the reason for that is because we know how to measure things and it actually turns out to matter that you know how to measure things. Obviously. I mean if you're going to be talking about something that's specific and well-defined. First of all, if you can't make it specific and well-defined All you can really do is argue about it. And you know, there are better and worse arguments, but the problem is is that just because an argument is good doesn't mean it's right and that's a big problem. So also something to remember when you're arguing about people that you have a relationship with because you know, if you happen to be better at structuring your arguments and you're more verbally fluent and perhaps more assertive that may be less agreeable. You're going to win the argument. But that doesn't mean you're right. It's unfortunately it's not that simple and so as far as I can tell the empirical process is the only way of getting rid of the is restricting or eliminating that catastrophically detrimental effects pure Theory. now and well and our measurement techniques have been pretty good about that. Okay. So now what happens with IQ here I can Define IQ for you. Just so you know what it is. So imagine that you had a library of questions So here's some questions, so there's millions of questions in this data Bank. What's 2 times 68? What's the capital of Georgia What's the definition of hyper tricks? Anemia? What comes after in this sequence 2 4 8 16 Remember these numbers so I tell you the numbers and then you'd have to tell me them back to four. One three five seven six 12 15 14 18 20 22 and then I might ask you in fact remember the backwards and that's a working memory task. So, okay. So those are all questions that require they require abstraction and mental operations. That's that's the key as far as I can tell so you might say well exactly what constitutes an abstraction and it looks to me like what an abstraction is. There's the capacity to formulate an abstraction. There's a Ask you to manipulate them to formulate an abstraction. I think what you do is you take a phenomena and you represent it with something. That's low resolution. That's more or less. What an abstraction is. So for example, if I imagine this classroom later, my my imagined representation is going to be a much lower resolution than the actual classroom, but it's sufficient for certain purposes. Just like a thumbnail on a computer is sufficient for sir. certain purposes and then once I simplify the the phenomena in question, then I can also perform certain operations on it's a in imagination or semantically and the capacity to generate that abstraction and the trends and me the ability to manipulate those seems to be the core element of intelligence and I think part of the reason why intelligence roughly speaking is a human Dimension, although you know, obviously Can you can you can to some degree rank order animals in terms of their capacity to learn but there's this whopping differentiation between human beings and animals in this area particularly is because we can use abstractions. Now. I heard a woman named Temple Grandin speak Watson is very interesting talk. She's very autistic and but very very very brilliant, which is not very common for people who are artistic because usually it's associated. It with a substantial amount of intellectual impairment, but she also had an extraordinary devoted parent who spent almost all her time trying to pull her daughter out of her autistic isolation. Now Grandin has gone on to become a University of Chicago professor and she works in the in the agricultural area and she has redesigned the shoots the walkways basically that take cattle to the slaughterhouse and she's done that to make them. Less much less stressful for the animals and part of the reason that she can do that as far as she's concerned is because she thinks like an animal and what that means as far as she can tell is that she cannot generate an abstraction not easily now she can speak so obviously she learned to do it to some degree, but she talked more about inner talk more about deficits in imagination or concretization of imagination. So one of the weird things that you see with autistic kids not frequently, but now and then and there's actually a famous example of this on the Well, there's a guy I think he's from Britain and you can take them in helicopters flying over a city and then he can stand in front of a pape piece of paper like 12 by 8 start anywhere and draw the entire city. No, and now and then you see autistic savants who were children who can draw perfectly realistically and so maybe they'll draw a horse and they don't even start the horse like a kid would like a normal kid would would sketch the outline of the horse and put some eyes in you know, they art anywhere and make the horse perfectly detailed and and what Grandin claimed was that so she said okay you think of think of house or think of church and she says what comes to mind if you think of church and maybe she'd say, well you get this little image of something that sort of shaped like this with a, you know, a steeple on top or a cross or something like that and that's the church and so maybe you think of house and it's like little kids house, you know, it's gonna it's got a rectangle and Alan Graham that's not a parallelogram. Whatever the hell you call that thing on the top and then it's got a chimney with smoke coming out of it right to Windows and the door house. Yeah, but there are no houses like that. Like each individual house looks a lot different than that. And so in order to have that conception of house what it essentially what you have to do is you have to take the class of all possible houses and extract out the features that are in common across all of them and that's an abstraction. And so as far as grandin's concerned she doesn't have abstractions like that. Which when you ask her to remember to think of church she remembers at church. It's always singular instances. Now, the thing about human beings is that you know, we perceive singular instances to some degree. Although I think our abstraction capacity often interferes with our ability to do that. But we also perceive abstractions and you can kind of tell this if you're ever trying to learn to draw like if I say draw Hand you guys most of you unless you have artistic training you're going to draw what's essentially a hero glyphic hand and I think the drawings the children come up with art drawings. I think their hero glyphs there are abstracted representations that are Quasi linguistic. They're not artwork there there proto-language, right? And so and here are glyphs. Of course. We're one of the earliest forms of written language. It makes sense because if you want to communicate about something why not draw an image, you know, and then they eventually the image turns into a word but I actually think that's I think that's the developmental progression of language among human beings. It's the abstracted image first. And then it's the word anyways, you know, if you drew a hand you'd like to draw a hero glyphic hand five fingers or maybe even four right because that's what they do. That's what animators do you can't fit all those sausages on one Circle, you know, so they just simplify it down to four and no one even cares you watch an animation animated program, which is highly abstracted. Right? I mean Homer Simpson looks think like an actual person like really tremendously unlike an actual person that's completely irrelevant, you know after two or three seconds, it doesn't matter at all, which is also why I think 3D movies never really it's never a technology that's ever caught on in South to the first four seconds who the hell cares. It's it is irrelevant whether you see it in three dimensions because you don't need much information to actually structure your perception. Now if you want to see your hand weirdly enough so that you can draw it. You have to snap out of your normal mode of perception. I find it's often a lot easier to do that with one eye closed because it flattens it out and then you have to stop looking at your hand as if it's a hand you have to look at it again. Like it's an object as soon as you do that. It's actually rather. Shocking because it's such a strange looking thing. Like if you if you put your hand in the non-canonical position, that's a canonical position. I would say put your hand in the non-canonical position and then look at it. It's it's the weirdest shape think it's quite shocking to see it and then you can draw it once you can actually see it like that. But before that you're pretty much stuck in hand, so so anyways, I think what happens with intelligence is that people are capable of obstructing and then they can manipulate. Abstractions and so let's take another look at what obstructions might be. So Now part of the reason I think that abstraction is so useful is because things are really really complicated and it's going to be a lot more difficult to manipulate the actual thing that to manipulate some representative abstraction of it. So if you could get an abstraction that that captures the gist of the entity now how we do that is not exactly obvious. But if you can then you can expend a lot more resources concentrating on the relevant parts of the of the entity and a lot less time concentrating on the irrelevant. So, you know, so for example, if you ask a child to draw house what color the house is is irrelevant now why it's irrelevant is not exactly obvious. I guess it's because color can vary across houses and color varies across all sorts of other things and so color turns out to be a non canonical element of house. So you can just dispense with it when you're thinking about a house you'd say, well, it doesn't matter what color the house is. It's still a house. So what exactly defines those features that something a house rather than something else are not that easy to figure out, you know, you could say well house has four walls and a roof. And those are the external walls and I guess you could identify the minimum necessary components, but even that's not so so simple and you could say house is also something that someone lives in which allows you to put caves as houses because caves obviously share very little in common with, you know standard house. So my point is that it's difficult exactly the figure out what set of features we do use to determine whether something is a member of a class. There's this guy named bigger answer who's thought about this a lot. He thinks that we that they're a combination of objective and functional basically and that enables us to do things like come up with the category of things you would take from your apartment if it was on fire, which is really interesting category, right? Because most of the things that you're going to take bear very little resemblance hard to see why they make a category pets. Family members probably in that order photo albums identification. What else might you take if you were your phone I suppose what else would you take out of the department during a fire? Well, you guys would be out on the street Stark naked obviously. So well you get the point is that you know, those things that I just mentioned seem to share very little in terms of objective features in common, but there's some reason that they still go here is a category. All right. So anyways, why do you need tabs track? Well, because you can handle the complexity of the world better. Even your perception is a form of abstraction, you know, because when you look at someone a lot of the abstraction is done for you because you just can't perceive very well. When you look at someone first of all, you will receive the surface of them. That's face it you would not the other surface. So that's a big limitation. You only see them now in this, you know, split-second rather than extended across time. You don't see any of their microstructure right beyond the beyond the you know, General pattern of the physiology at this level of resolution. You don't see anything below that I can't see your cells or your organs or anything like that, which is actually real problem often for us and I can't see The systems that you're part of so right off the bat just to perceive gives you a low resolution representation and that lot of thats limitations of your processing your eyes just can't zoom in that far. You don't have the cortical capacity to improve your vision, you know plus how much do you really want to see it one time? No more than necessary. Whatever that means and evolution seems to take care of that problem. So your perception abstracts for you right away, but then I would say maybe you make a leap from perception to Something like that. And so that would be the leap from the perception of the actual object to the image of the object and then a leap from the image of the object to the word. So it looks to me like a word is a representation of an image, which is a representation of a an object or situation. It's something like that. So and you need those because you have to deal with the complex world. So here's here's one way of thinking about it. So look at the top left corner of that diagram, so I called that the thing in itself and what it is is an array of dots roughly speaking and I think there's 360 dots there and you might say well and then if it was a real world object you could imagine that would be in three dimensions not to because that's too and it would be transforming because it would be also extended across time. So and it would have Micro structures that were far smaller than that and macro structures that were far bigger. But so even that is an abstraction, but it's And I'm using a fairly complex abstraction to represent the thing in itself. That's the thing. You cannot perceive right? What something actually is you just get an image and then they're the next five things our ways you could look at that so you could say well it's a rectangle you could say it's four rectangles and forget about the dots. You could say that it's I think that's 16 lines or what is it 32 lines 24 lines. So if you were going to if that thing in itself was an orchard and you were going to walk North like south to North through it, that would be a good representation. You know, those would be corridors roughly speaking and then object for is a combination of object one and object to and then object 5 is well all that's blurred out are the little groups of six dogs. And so you might say well what is that thing and then the answer is well, it's any of those five things and so that's an interesting way. Thinking about it too because one of the things that shows you is that you can disagree about what something is right at the level of perception and then you might say well which of those is the best representation and the first answer might be well the most complex one the top of the one in the left hand corner, but that's not necessarily the case. It might depend on what you want the representation for like imagine. It's weird. It's weird because imagine you have a map. Okay, and so you think well, I'm going to make the best map in the world and so You make a map. That's exactly the same size as the territory that it represents and has all the detail. Well, that's not any use at all that thing because you could just use the territory, right? So, you know the just because as a map gets increasingly detailed to some degree, it's increasingly useless as a map. And so what you need is this weird combination between accuracy and simplicity and so you want your map to be no more complicated than Is necessary to take you from point A to point B, that's it. So because otherwise it wouldn't be simple to use and the additional complexity would eliminate the utility of the of the math. So so you might say that what we're trying to do with our intelligence is to get what we need with the least amount of effort possible and and you know, there's a sort of a p as Yeti and idea that's lurking behind that which is well, you don't want you have limited resources. You don't want to expend any more energy than is necessary and you want to build representations of the world that suffice to keep you going now and then next week and next month and then you know alone and then in groups and so you build a representation of the world that has some concordance with the thing in itself, but has this functional simplicity so that you can actually use it in the real world. Alright, so back to this diagram, so I've got Object in five representations, and then there are ways of representing it linguistically at the bottom. So what that is the words are basically a simplification of something that's already simplified. So, okay. So intelligence seems to have something to do with the process of functional simplification. Now back to the library of questions, so you have this database of questions. And so then what you do is pull out a hundred questions randomly. All right, and you want to pick out a hundred because if you just pick out one like if I asked you what the capital of Georgia was and I asked you what the capital of Georgia was and you got it wrong and you got it right. I couldn't really say with any degree of certainty that that means that you have more intelligence because the probability that I get an accurate. Measure with one question is quite low. But if I use three questions while then you know, I would I would start to become my measurement would start to become less error written and if I use 10, it would even be better if I use 24 a personality questionnaire the rule of thumb and this is just a rule of thumb is that if you don't have 20 questions in the questionnaire, then you don't have enough questions to really generate a reliable measure. So you'll still see you'll still see single item measures used in Psychology, but You can add additional accuracy by by increasing the number of items. I designed an IQ test a while back and we got a pretty good. We got pretty good reliability and pretty good validity reliability is you know, you test the same set of people twice and the rank order of their performance stays the same. So if you got 90 on the previous test you get 90 and if you go up 95 because you're more intelligent in this example, if you got 95 in the last one you get 95 on this one, so that's That's reliability. You can get a pretty we could get a pretty reliable IQ test with nine items but it was substantially improved with 17 and with increments. You know, you get a what would you call it diminishing returns? So a hundreds plenty? Okay. So you pull out a hundred questions and then you take a hundred people and you give them those questions and then you score them right and wrong. That's all there is and then you sum the scores. Okay. So basically that that The some behaves like the average. Let's say you average the scores just to make the argument a little bit more straightforward you average the scores and so each of you gets the average of you know, calculated across the times that you were right and wrong. So it's an approximation of the frequency of your of how right you were and then we rank order you one to a hundred. That's IQ. That's all there is to it. So now people say IQ doesn't exist. Well, that's annoying because all they're doing is gerrymandering the definition of the word exists, you know, because you can do that if you ask if a is equivalent to B, the answer is it depends on what you mean by a and what you mean by b it's almost always a foolish question because you can take b and a and bend them and twist them in such a way that You can make one thing. Another thing without too much problem people usually get around that by only using a word in a context right in a sentence or a phrase or paragraph that defines the word so that you can't weasel around like that. But but more specifically in Psychology we have methods to tell if something is real, you know and site and if IQ doesn't pass the test of reality for a psychological measure then no other a psychological measures passed the test because they're validated exactly the same way IQ is and they don't work as well. So you can say well no that's not real. But then you have to throw out you probably have to throw out the social sciences completely insofar as they're actually Sciences because the same statistics are used to generate their findings. So you can't just say well this really powerful thing doesn't exist. Well a bunch of these weak things exist, and they're measured the same way. You don't get to play that game so Okay, so does it exist? Well, you can measure it you can measure it reliably so that's definitely something you know, because you might say well does your Shadow exist? Well generally speaking under normal conditions. You can measure your Shadow relatively reliable. You know, what does it exist? Well, it passes one test of existence, you know, you can't detect it with a number of Senses. You can't touch it for example, but you know whether or not something exists is actually a rather tricky question. but you can measure it and it's useful and that's not a bad definition of exist. So what's it good for? Well, it predicts major life outcomes and importantly. So and we can talk about the power of intelligence momentarily. If you are actually going to calculate an IQ score per se you would take the rank order that I just described and you would correct it for age because you know, you can't really expect a seven-year-old to know as much as a 15 year old or a 20 year old so generally speaking if you take a technical IQ test it will rank order you but it'll only rank order you with people up. The same age as you so that's just another, you know, it's an additional correction whether or not that actually gives you a more accurate estimate of IQ is depends on what you mean by accurate. A very bright 7 year old. Generally doesn't know enough to do much useful in the way of work, but they can learn extremely quickly. And so if you compared seven-year-olds to people of other ages purely in terms of their score on an IQ test, there's a high probability that you would underestimate their speed of learning by the same token though by the time you're 40, you have a lot of accumulated knowledge. And so if if you only measure learning speed then you would underestimate you would over estimate that seven-year-olds advantage over the 40 year old. IQ is basically a unitary phenomenon But you can fractionated into it's very very complicated. For reasons that I'll tell you about in a minute, if you had to divide IQ into to the way you would divide it would be into crystallized and fluid intelligence and fluid intelligence would be roughly the ability to learn and crystallized intelligence would be roughly a measure of how much you've learned. Now. Those are separate to some degree and here is why they're separate as you age your capacity to learn decreases. It's Ugly. So by the time you're about 24, you're starting to get stupider from the perspective of being able to learn and that's just pretty much a linear trip downhill until you depart the world. So it's nasty to see because it's quite a steep degeneration. You can Stave that off by the way with cardiovascular and cardiovascular exercise and weight lifting. So that's the best way to keep your learning capacity and Tak it's not to do cognitive exercises and students. Physical exercise and then as you age then the amount, you know goes up. And what happens is those two things actually tend to average out. So now you might say well if I'm claiming that IQ is this unitary thing, how can I make the claim that you can divide it into two elements and those elements are in some sense separate and I think the reason is for this so your your prefrontal cortex roughly speaking. So that's the part of your brain here forward. You can think about in part. It's the part that does the programming of motor activity voluntary motor activity, but it also seems to be so let's say you're doing something new and you're pretty clunky and awkward at it and then you do it more and more and you get smoother and smoother and smoother out it and you know you automatize it what happens is you're using your prefrontal cortex and to some degree your whole right hemisphere when you're first doing it and then as you get better and better at it the ability shifts to the left and then goes back. Backwards. So what's happening to some degree is your prefrontal cortex is programming the rest of your brain and you can think of fluid intelligence as a measure of the ability of your of your brain to program itself and crystallized ability as a measure of how much programming is there. And then so they're separated mounted because they perform separate functions, but then you can also understand that the better your programmer is the better. The programming is going to be so that inflates the correlation and so you can have two separate things functional functionally that are even dissociable in terms of age. But because they work so tightly together. It's like how fast can you dig a hole? And how big is the pile of dirt? Well, obviously those two things are different in some important sense, but they're going to be highly correlated because the faster you can dig a hole the bigger the pile of dirt. And so so anyways crystallized intelligence is often also, So often measured as verbal intelligence, but the better measured fundamentally is crystallized intelligence. Now, you know how we looked at the their personality hierarchy, right? That was this. And what you see is three strata roughly speaking aspect trait super factor, and it looks like the super factors. I would say. The validity of those super factors is not yet clear. You can get a lot of useful prediction by looking at the traits and there's more and more evidence. There's about 400 studies Now using the aspects, there's more and more evidence that you can also derive additional useful predictive validity from differentiating the personality down to the you know to the to the aspect level. That's the highest resolution personality model we have There are people who claim that there's something at the Apex which you might call good personality, but I don't think so. I think it's I don't think so. You'd have to read the literature to understand the the dispute. It's a statistical dispute roughly speaking, but we found in our research that stability and plasticity only correlated at Point 2. They're pretty separate. So I'm going to stick with that for now even though it might be wrong. Okay, so explain this problem. if you read The cognitive literature and the neuro psychological literature. You will find that neuropsychologists tend to assume that there are forms of cognitive ability that you cannot describe as IQ and they make that claim because they'll take a test and they'll use the test to measure something and then they'll correlate that with IQ and the correlation will only be about point to or point three. And so they'll say well that's not a high enough. Shouldn't to justify saying that those things are identical because the correlation should be more like .84 them to be identical. But the problem is let's say I had a measure of your IQ and your IQ and your IQ and your IQ and then I ask you two questions and you and you and you and I summed your answers whether they were correct or incorrect. Now, what would happen is there would be some correlation between your total score on those two questions and your overall like you maybe it would be point three, but that wouldn't justify me in claiming that the two question IQ test is different than the full scale IQ test. It's just worse. And then you're going to run into this problem when you read psychological literature and if you ever do it do any research because it's very difficult to determine whether you get what's called discriminant validity, which is this thing measures this thing and this thing measures this thing and they're actually different or whether you just have a lousy measure of this and allows you measure this it so the correlation is low now, here's a neuropsychological test. and you could make the case that this is Measuring something different than IQ. So Imagine you see an array of 12 pictures. They're just drawings drawings of a telephone and a boot and a chair just common objects. Okay, so you see 12 of them and then you have to click one and then when you do that, they move and then the next time you have to click one you haven't already clipped and then they move again and you click and they move again and you click and you see by the time you get to about eight of them you're starting to run into trouble because it's difficult. To remember more than eight abstractions simultaneously seven actually in some people claim. It's as low as 4 that's the capacity of working memory, which is why we kind of like phone numbers to be seven digits long a lot of the things we want to just remember our 7 units long and if we want to remember more than that, we chunk although, you know, if I show you some dots Okay, say well how many dogs 3 you don't have to count them you can see three dogs. You can see four dots it's not obvious that you can see five dots at that point you start to go 3 and 2 and then if there are six dots well, that's how they would be arranged on a dice on a dice right? The reason they be arranged on a dice that way is because you can see two sets of three it in for six, you know, if they're sort of randomly dispersed like that they say well how many dots is that while you have count them? And what that shows you is that your working memory, which is really a function of fluid intelligence is a very very narrow thing and it's like your vision, you know, we remember we saw the Gorilla video right and you can only pick up the thing that you're attending to well working memory is like that it's this narrow narrow form of attention and it's sort of specifies unitary phenomenon. I mean that's not quite unitary, but it's close enough and I think the reason that it does that it's like why is your attention so narrow is because Often what you're trying to do as you work in the world is to make binary choices, you know, you don't want to choose between 20 things. You want to read you want to choose between two things because then when you choose between two things you can actually act if it's still two things can't act if it's one thing you can actually imagine you go into Chinese restaurant is a good example because Chinese restaurants virtually always have like 400 items on the menu and you might ask yourself. Well, how the hell do you figure out what you want and what you don't do? Go through every single menu item and contemplate it because you'd be there for a week. So what you seem to do is eradicate chunks. So you might say well, I'm not in the mood for anything about fish. Okay bang 3/4 of the menu disappears, you know, and then you might go well, I don't want it Brandon whack and then another half is gone and now you're down to maybe eight choices and you know, you reduce that to 4 and then 2 to perhaps. Well, I'd like this or I'd like that but the waiter doesn't care. About that the waiter wants to know which one you want because until it's reduced to one you don't get to act and so the reduction the reduced narrow strip that we use to perceive the world in partly is a consequence of processing inadequacy, but it's also partly because we really are trying to reduce things all the time to zero in one right? Yes or no. So, okay. So back to the this three stratum theory of cognitive abilities now, You've got this array of 12 items and it keeps shifting. And what I would do is score you by the number of duplications you if you pick the same item more than once you lose a point. So the maximum points you can get is 12 and you know, people usually make three or four mistakes and so I could take your score on that test. Maybe I'd give it to you two or three times just to make sure I have a reasonably stable indicator and then I could correlate it with your full-scale fluid IQ, and I get a call. Nation for both point to 54.3 now if you don't know anything about psychometrics you'd say. Oh, well, that's obviously measuring something different than full scale IQ because it only correlates that point two five or point three, but what it turns out is no it's more analogous to the problem that we were just talking about where I ask you three questions and tried to derive your entire IQ from that. It's just a bad measurement. Now what happens is if you take the neuropsychological tests that people have developed a theory. Ethically assess the function of different parts of the brain. So and you factor analyze them and you extract out a single Factor the single Factor looks exactly like fluid intelligence. Now, is it exactly the same as fluid intelligence? It would be the oldest would be on the person who claims. It's not to demonstrate the difference. We did give University students of a very extensive battery of prefrontal cortical tests and measure their IQ and then we use the prefrontal cortical test average and the IQ to predict grades and what we did find was the prefrontal tests predicted over and above. The IQ but we thought maybe if you took the prefrontal average and the IQ and you added them to predict grade say that's a regression analysis, they both added in so they predict they predicted different parts of the variation. It added additional you necessary information. However, If you took all the neuropsychological tests and all the individual IQ test and you put them in one data set and then extract it out a single factor, that would be fluid intelligence. Roughly speaking that predicted grades very well. And then what was left over didn't predict at all. So what we concluded was that neuropsychological tests prefrontal cortical test test intelligence and they test a slightly different thing than fluid intelligence test do but that is Because they're testing something different. It's because fluid intelligence tests the way they're currently constituted don't sample the universe of potential questions as well as they should so it wasn't that we discovered something different. We discovered a measurement error roughly speaking that only took five years by the way, it took five years to figure that out. It was very annoying because when we started I was trying to predict grades, you know what I didn't know the IQ literature very well at that point. Because psychologists don't usually teach it very much because IQ bothers the hell out of everybody and so and the neuropsychologists who have their own field are you know, they're motivated to make the claim that they've discovered something new and I just took that on face value, but then we tried to predict like okay if I'm going to predict how well you do it your job. Well, I want to get a good cognitive measure because if it's a complex job because if it's complex job that keeps changing and you have to learn to keep up and if you can't do that. That you do very well. So that would be bad for you and it would be bad for everyone around you. And so we were trying to pick up additional information that would enable that the accuracy of that prediction to be increased and looked at the neuropsych literature. But at most it was an ambivalent success. Okay. So how does that relate to this? Well at the bottom tier where it's the most differentiated you have single tests and they're only correlated with each. ER at about point to maybe point three so you might say Well, they're all measuring different things. It's they're not they're all measuring the same thing badly and then you might Clump them. So let's say I ask you. Oh God, maybe I give you a test that ask you Tested your vocabulary with six-letter words, and then I gave you another test that tested you vocabulary with seven letter words, and another one that tested you work out to do with 8-letter words, and I said, well, those are all different tests. Well, they would correlate quite highly not perfectly but I could Clump them together and make one sort of super test out of them and then I could take super test a and super test be in Super Test b c and look at the correlations between those and those would climb to about 0.5 0.6. And then if I Clump the super tests together. Which would be happening by the time we got to stratum 2 there then the correlation between the tests would start to rise to about point seven. And then if I collapsed all the super tests into a single measure then the correlation between any of those stratum 2 tests and G cuz that would be the highest level thing G is general intelligence. That's roughly speaking fluid intelligence the correlation between any of the super tests and G would be about point eight. So the point of all this there's no way of discussing this sort of thing without doing it statistically and technically because their statistical and Technical processes. So what happens is that now let's say now you have a measure of fluid intelligence. Okay, you've got this measure and you take one of the stratum 2 sets of tests and use both to predict the academic achievement. What happens is that the super Factor G kills the rest of them your Not going to be able to find any of the tests in the bottom strata that are going to add to the prediction of what the general Factor can give you now with with personality. That's just not the case. You can't pull out a single factor that predicts how personality is going to influence jobs, you know performance across your life. If you add neuroticism if you take the single factor and you add neuroticism eroticism is going to kick the single factor out. Business is going to kick the single factor out and so forth because there isn't a single factor. It's not the tests aren't highly correlated enough to say that they're all measuring the same thing to some degree. The personality traits really are different, you know, you can Clump them into plasticity and stability. But even there your loot you you're maintaining a lot of validity. So if I took stability And then and use conscientiousness to predict job performance conscientiousness would wipe out stability it be a better measure but you never get that you virtually never get that with the lower tests in the IQ stratum. Okay now Yeah, well, we I just talked to you about that. So that's that's a that's a good representation of how these things are associated. So at the bottom you have the single tests and then they say chunkin' to say sequential reasoning quantitative reasoning and induction on the fluid intelligence sighs side and general knowledge and language development on the crystallized intelligence side. That's the red and then they're all subsumed underneath fluid intelligence, which is the measure that you really want to have. Okay, so what good is that? Well, it basically correlates .5 with major life outcomes and that's 25 percent of the variance and maybe you can get it a bit higher than that, but we'll just stick with 0.5 as a as a representation. And so let's say Let's say you take a bunch of students hundred of them and you want to sort them into those who will pass a class with a 50 percent failure rate. Okay, so you just pick the randomly you're going to pass you're going to fail you're going to pass you're going to fail. So that's no knowledge. I've no predictive Donuts whatsoever. So my validity the validity of my classification is basically going to be equivalent to chat 0 right. I'm only going to have a 50% chance of picking who passes and who fails if I Used IQ if I had all your IQ scores and I did the prediction I get right 75 percent of the time. So it's a huge difference. It cuts the failure rate in half by using IQ and IQ is a very good predictor of Health. It's a predictor of longevity. It's a predictor of resistance to post-traumatic stress disorder. It's a predictor of obviously occupational status. It's a predictor of educational success. It's a predictor of income. It's very powerful predictive and here's another way of conceptualizing its effect. So imagine that you could choose how you were going to be when you were born. This is in North America because it's going to vary by Society at least to some degree you get to be born into a family. That's at the 95th percentile for wealth or you get to be born at the 95th percentile for intelligence who's better off at the age of 40. And the answer is the person who picks being born with an IQ in the 95th percentile at Birth. It's more powerful predictor of long-term life outcome than familial wealth. So And it shows up everywhere. Like one of the things we did recently was look at disgust sensitivity. We're going to talk a little bit about that when we talk about conscientiousness because orderly people seem to be more sensitive to discuss than disorderly people that seems to be why they're orderly but the higher you are in IQ, the less discussed sensitive you are now we don't know exactly why that is maybe it's because you know, maybe you could make the inference that IQ is is in Have been some way to the physiological Integrity of the cortex, you know, rather than the limbic system which you know is the source of say emotions and motivations and the the more powerful. It is the more inhibitory capacity. It has over the more fundamental motivations and emotions. You could make that case the problem is is that intelligent people don't necessarily seem to be any less impulsive. So and you can have a pretty vicious personality disorder that is characterized by extremely disorganized behavior and a complete inability to put long-term plans into operation and still have a high IQ. So what are the things we really can't figure out it's just a hell of a thing to try to figure out is like the relationship between IQ and industriousness is zero. And that just makes no sense to me because most of the brain models are predicated on the idea that your ability to engage in long-term planning is a factor that's associated with intelligence, but then industrious people seem to not only engage in long-term planning they seem to do it right so that if they're more industrious they put their plans into operation then the plans actually work, but it's not correlated with IQ. So then I can't figure out well, obviously the industrious person in Some way is able to regulate their own behavior, you know, well, they're not procrastinating for example, and you'd think that that the ability to not procrastinate would be a cognitive feature, but it doesn't seem to be and we have no idea what makes people industrious and we can't figure it out. So it's this incredibly potent predictor. It's just about as powerful as IQ and we have no idea what it is. So so if you know if you think if you have a smart idea about that and you want to pursue it, like feel free because there's a big mystery there that no one's been able to crack and we've been at it for a long time and it had almost no success. You know, we had people do things like would give them sentences of ends M's and use sort of randomly distributed and then we'd have them count to use, you know, like a whole page of sentences. They're not census are just strings of letter count the use how useless. You know, you'd think that someone industrious would do that better. It's like they don't that's an IQ test the people who count can count. The use faster have higher argues almost everything that you would do that would wear it has to do with manipulation of abstractions of any sort even something that basic seems to be fundamentally associated with IQ people with higher IQs have slightly bigger heads if you control Body size they have slightly bigger brains, if you control for body size the axons on their neurons are a bit thicker. So the electrical messages seem to travel a little bit more efficiency, efficiently. They are slightly faster in simple reflex test. So it goes right down to the level of because our simple reflex light goes on push a button. There's not many neurons mediating that response, you know, chains of neurons. There's only a few neurons communicating so that you can do that, but even at that relatively Well processing level IQ is associated with speed. So there's a physiological component you're less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease if you have a high IQ, and maybe that's because your brain is just more robust, you know, so you could sustain damage say of up to fifty percent of your brain and you wouldn't even show it. If you're if you have a sufficiently high IQ, whereas if you're you know, if you're on the bottom end of the IQ distribution, you're much more you seem to be much more susceptible to physiological damage. I'm nutrition is a big predictor of IQ variation. So and a lot of that has been hammered out of modern societies, you know, so hundred and fifty years ago people's IQ was pretty tightly associated with their nutritional status. But now, you know, they're very few people in North America who don't have enough to eat even though there's some variation in quality of diet and that's flattened out a lot of the cultural variability in intelligence Okay. So this is a this guy named Hemphill did this paper or American psychologist a while back and one of the things he was interested in doing remember we talked about effect sizes, right? How big is an effect in Psychology or the social sciences in general and people have used rules of thumb that point five was a moderate effect in point 3 was a you know, a minimal effect and point to was a you know, a starting to diminish to the point of non-utility. But what Hemphill did instead of guessing because that was just a guess was actually go and look at papers that were published in Psychology to see what effect sizes are were being reported. So it's an empirical analysis of how big the effects that psychologists and other social scientists report. And so what he found was that the highest third of papers so that the third papers that had the biggest effects reported effects from point 3 5 to point 7 8 the middle third from .21 2.33 and the lower third from point O to 2.21. So, is there another yeah. If you look on the left side here, you see that and are less than 0.15. Characterizes the first quarter of published studies and are of 0.15 2.35 the next quartile. So 50% of psychological studies report and are of less than 0.35. 90% report and are of less than 0.5 and only seven to eight percent reported are of Point 5 or above. So what that means is that the relationship between IQ and say academic performance or long-term life income is higher than that reported in all but about 5% of psychology studies. Okay, so here's an interesting you might say again. in order to determine whether something exists you have to be able to measure it and then it has to be good for something so it has to be Rippable and has to be usable as a tool will safer for the sake of argument. What sort of IQ do you need for? What kind of job? This is derived from a company called Wunderlich and Wunderlich does employment testing psychologist usually don't use the Wonderlic Test. It's a relatively short IQ test and it's a good test. I think psychologists don't use it because it was developed commercially, but we tested the Wunderlich Outlaw and it has excellent psychometric properties. It's a very good IQ. Testing probably airs a little bit in testing crystallized IQ rather than fluid IQ, but we won't argue about that for the time being All right. So if you have an IQ from a hundred and thirty from a hundred and sixteen to a hundred and thirty that puts you in the 86th the 95th percentile, right? So that means your minimally if there are eight people in a room on average you'd be the smartest person. Okay. I should tell you just so you know that. If you're a state college student we use the us as an example because there's more differentiation between the American universities in terms of quality than there is the Canadian universities. If you're in an if you're in an average American post-secondary institution, your IQ is a hundred and fifteen and so, you know, you think that's not all that bright, but that's brighter than seven out of eight people in the general population. And so there are as many people if you look at the North American distribution So you have the 50th percentile in the middle of the normal distribution, you have the 85th percentile here and you have the 50th percentile here. It's about 70% of people fall between the 15th and the 85th percentile. All right at the 50th percentile. You're not really very literate. And so what that means is that in the United States, there's just as many people who aren't literate as there are people who are in college and what I would mean by literate is not so much like Here's a bare-bones definition of literate. You can follow written instructions. And so what that means is it's kind of a two-fold issue right? You can you can make out the words and the phrases and the senses, but then you can translate them into actual action. You can use them as information and at 85 you're going to have not a very good time doing that and so When you're wondering things about the way Society is structured and white people, you know are not don't necessarily make the most intellectually sophisticated choices. One thing that's very much worth remembering is that there's just as many people who are functionally illiterate in North America as there are people who are in, you know, Tier 1 colleges, it's quite shocking. Anyways, okay, so you want to be an attorney a research analyst and editor and advertising manager a chemist and engineer and executive. Systems analyst and auditor. So you're up in the profession levels there. You need an IQ of at least a hundred and sixteen and so hundred and thirty would be better. My suspicions are that the average IQ people in this room is about 120 to 125. It might be a little higher than that. It's hard to measure IQ in the UT population because a lot of people have English as a second language. And so that that makes it harder to you know, it's harder to measure crystallized intelligence obviously using an English. Which test but that's we found when we've done our studies at the U of T that the average exceeds 120. So, you know, so you guys have the cognitive power to basically pursue professional level careers from 110 to 115. Manager supervisor programmer teacher general manager person purchasing agent registered nurse sales account executive. These are actually empirically derived by the way. So the Wunderlich company has tested a very large number of people and so these are the actual averages of the professions that they are describing. It's not hypothetical. Hundred and eight 203 to a hundred and eight so that's the 62 the 70th percentile clerk customer service rep computer operator medical debt collector secretary accounting clerk general sales telephone sales assistant manager credit clerk drafter designer bookkeeper. There's a lot of White Collar like blow level entry level White Collar jobs in that particular category. So that would be the brighter people among the high school students who didn't go to college and university. IQ this is dead average 50th to the 55th percentile police officer receptionist cashier General clerical staff inside sales clerk meter reader printer teller data entry electrical helper dispatcher in general office. So that's right at a hundred. 95 to 98. So that's the 42nd to the 45th percentile quality control Checker claims clerk security guard or unskilled labor. So look the unskilled laborers are up at 95th 298, right? So that's your still a ton. The unskilled labor level. You're still have an IQ that's higher than 40% of the population arc welder dies Setter mechanic medical dental assistant. IQ 87 to 93 messenger factory production worker assembler food service worker nurse's aide warehouseman custodian janitor material handler and Packer. Okay. So now what you see happening the difference looks to me like you can do job. You can't conceptualize jobs most simply with a 2 by 2 Matrix. Okay. So there's managerial administrative jobs and creative jobs. That's the first one and then there's local. Actually High complexity and so what you're starting to fall into at the 21st to the 37 percentile. So that's still one person in three are low complexity managerial jobs. And so what I mean by that is that if you're in a low complexity job imagine you're responsible for 30 things, but roughly speaking. It's the same 30 things all the time and roughly speaking. They have to be taken care of the same way each time. So you have a finite domain of responsibility and you You can Master it and IQ will predict how fast you master it. But once you master it will predict how well you do what happens then in all likelihood is that conscientiousness starts to predict or maybe emotional stability starts to predict or some of the other personality factors start to become more important. So but at 87 to 93, you're down at the level of custodian and janitor. and then that's that and that's not so good because you have the bottom 15 to 20 percent of the population who aren't quite who haven't who don't have a cognitive ability at that level. And so one of the things that you're going to hear a lot about as you get older is reasons for unemployment and one of the Prime reasons for unemployment in the future is increasingly going to be that there is just nothing for someone of that level of intelligence to do and this is partly why people hate IQ because you think that is a nasty nasty thing to conclude. Let me tell you a story so I had a client One point who I suspect he had a verbal IQ of about 85 and a nonverbal IQ. That was lower. He had other psychological issues. But but we'll just concentrate on that one for the time being and you know, he had a hard time finding a job. He was socially anxious and that didn't help but you know, even if he could overcome that it was very difficult for him to master the basic skills that were involved in. What you would consider even relatively straightforward task. So I spent a lot of time trying to find him a job, which is was insanely difficult. He went to the government first to get help and they told him to you know, type up his resume on a computer and distribute. It's like well that wasn't very helpful because he didn't know how to use a computer and he was going to type up his damn resume and you know, it was if you want to get a job go out do the things that it would take to get a job while yeah, if you can do that then you don't have a And so the government agencies were completely useless, you know, and they were staffed by people who would assume that if you didn't do what you were advised to that. You just didn't want to have a job instead of ever thinking that maybe you couldn't do it. It's not that easy to use a computer. No, so and then I tried to get him a volunteer job or you can bloody well forget about that because it's harder to get a volunteer job than it is to get a real job. And the reason for that is that you have to step through a number of complex bureaucratic hoops. Ting having police check and you know, first of all that's intimidating as hell for people even if they haven't done anything wrong and second. It's not that straightforward, you know, it involves maneuvering through a complicated bureaucracy and that's not the only step there's all sorts of other steps. So volunteer work, that's out man. That's that's just not going to happen not generally speaking and then I found him a job helping a guy out who had a bicycle shop / bookstore. It's kind of a strange combination. It was a government subsidized temporary position and then he did a good job at it. He could he was reshelving books and that sort of thing and so he was reliable and he could do that. But you know the subsidy program ended and of course if you run a bike shop / bookstore, it's not like you have additional money to hire someone because you know, those are that's the story that's just not going to be generating maybe any income but certainly not enough to hire someone so that fell apart then I did a bunch of cause I did made a bunch of personal contacts. with Charity organizations to see if I could get him a volunteer position. I finally got him a volunteer position. So and then I went with him to train him at the volunteer position and that was so enlightening. So what he had to do was he had a stack of pieces of paper here and then a stack of envelopes here and in principle the pieces of paper which were letters were in the same order as the envelopes were and so what he had to do was fold the pieces of paper three times since Of the folded piece of paper into the envelope and then seal the envelope and then put it here but it was a bit more complicated than that because sometimes the letters were French and sometimes they were in English. So that what that meant was that he had to watch and see that the French envelopes went into this stack and the English envelopes went into that stock. So that's one degree of complexity. Right? But then it also turned out that those damn envelopes had to be run through an automatic letter sorting machine now, you might think well that doesn't matter. it does matter because those things have very tightly defined tolerances and if you Make a mistake imagine you fold the piece of paper. And the first time you fold it you made a mistake of 1/8 of an inch. And then the next time you fold it you make another eighth of an inch mistake. That means your piece of paper is now 1/4 inch out of true and then you stuff it in the envelope and fold it but you crinkle the envelope and so then the envelope gets stuck in the automatic processing machine. So I taught him probably 20 hours how to fold this piece of paper into three, you know. He was a bit shaky and he just didn't have the motor fine motor ability or the cognitive ability to do that and then I'll end with this. When he finally couldn't do it anymore. What happened was the letters came with photographs attached to them and then he had to fold the pieces of paper around the photographs in a way that didn't crumble the photographs so that they could still fit into the envelopes and each photo was, you know, stapled maybe half an inch different per piece of paper. So then he had to fold them properly with a different folding technique for every piece of paper and he had to sort them into French in English. And then also if the Lopes and the papers ever got out of sync which they did now and then he had to figure out how to sort the envelopes and the pieces of paper to make sure that they were matched with the proper. You know, what they were masked with the proper envelope. It's like no that was the end of it. And so I'll tell you the rest of his story later. So anyways, you know, there there is the moral of the story is if you're smart you're privileged and thank God make use of it. And if you're on the lower end of the IQ distribution, man, you've got one too. If life ahead of you as nothing to do with willingness to work or virtually nothing so and it's a good thing to know even though it's horrible entrepreneurial or premium. Yeah. Yeah. This podcast is brought to you and made possible by generous financial aid from Peter kanzler K. Ay n z l-- e-- r-- you can buy his Amazon books at your favorite Amazon Branch, for example, the original texts of lock Hobbs and the US Constitution of Pennsylvania put together into one book for only $15. Thanks for listening.
2016 Personality Lecture 13 Openness and Intelligence Too Much Jordan B Peterson Podcast TMJBP 🐸 MAPS OF MEANING PODCAST JORDAN B PETERSON PODCAST Jordan B Peterson is light on the horizon. He wants his message to be heard. The TOO MUCH JORDAN B PETERSON PODCAST uploads all of his (especially older) YouTube Content to make it available immediately to download or listen to without being "glued to a screen". We try to put the media back into immediate. https://www.bit.ly/JBPQUOTES Here's your chance to help the publishing endeavour sustain itself: Support the Too Much Jordan B Peterson Podcast that provides video free content for you by starting an own website with Siteground which is the Number One in Price and Speed: http://bit.ly/SITEGROUNDSALE or by getting a book by SC: http://bit.ly/SCHRIST If you really want to help out, get your free Audiobook via http://bit.ly/AUDIBLESALES (BTW: 1 Free audiobook for every country account!) Support the Too Much Jordan B Peterson Podcast that provides old good content for you by getting some #Bitcoin via Coinbase: https://www.bit.ly/COINBASESALE Or simply donate to or search for: 3AqWZuAE4VKRdS2k4v1zmAwn9pNkGY4rkd The Leviathan (1651), The Two Treatises of Government (1689), The Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776) in one Binding for 15.95$ by Peter Kanzler: https://amzn.to/2KQT8U1 