Jordan Peterson and I agree that in the real world, nearly everything is multivariate. In other words, for any event, its causes are more than one. Take, for example, a trait I call Intellectual Sophistication. I claim that its four components, intelligence, erudition, objectivity and discipline, in aggregate explain the qualitative differences in intellectual production. Each component, individually, is necessary but not sufficient. However, if I have properly described the components of quality intellectual production, then in aggregate, they are sufficient.

Very few people live comfortably in a multivariate world. They generally think in terms of A-->B and X-->Y. When everything is thought of in terms of A,B,C-->D, the world view that results from systems of multicausal interactions rapidly becomes too complex for even high IQ people. The discomfort that induces leads nearly all people to reject a multicausal world view.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, people frequently charge me with overemphasizing IQ. This is simply their need to force me into a univariate world view when quite clearly I emphasize four factors.

I repeatedly say that no amount of IQ compensates for a lack of erudition. I regularly complain about DKE (Dunning Kruger Effect) and point out that high IQ does not appreciably decrease confirmation bias. However, of the four IQ is the emotionally charged hot button. So, i find myself embroiled in many contentious discussions about it.

When I point out that the characteristic IQ of a science Nobelist is 145, somehow readers infer that I believe it to be sufficient when everything I write implies that I think that a very high IQ is necessary, but hardly sufficient, to win a Nobel Prize in Physics. Chemistry, Medicine or Economics.

What is blatant in quality intellectual production is also present in nearly all important issues. AGW is another example. People want to argue that human emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are the sole significant contributor to climate change. The calculation of the critical Climate Sensitivity factor is based upon this almost certainly erroneous assumption. This should be obvious from the undeniable fact that Earth's climate history is littered with rapid and profound changes long before humans began changing CO(2) levels.

Again, this penchant for championing univariate relationships between cause and effect appears everywhere. It is driven by insufficient intelligence to contend with the explosion of complexity that a multivariate world view creates, the lack of erudition which allows them to avoid cognitive dissonance and the DKE that allows them to overestimate the reliability of their univariate world view.

In order to be a competent Polymath one must overtly strive for multivariate explanatory models. One must constantly ask oneself, "Am I overly simplifying this"? And when a Polymath discusses how A contributes to B, one should assume the necessary but not sufficient precondition of the discussion.