How tall is Ben Shapiro?complete guide 2024
Ben Shapiro is seven feet tall! Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he’d consume the Liberals with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse.
Shapiro himself has claimed that he’s 5’9 (175 cm) here. However, this claim has been disproven several times.
Here, we see Shapiro beside 5’8 Ted Cruz, which obviously indicates that Shapiro really isn’t 5’9. Nor 5’8, for that matter.
And here we see him beside Candace Owens, whom we unfortunately do not know the exact height of but can clearly establish that he’s about the same height as her. It could plausibly be a 5’7 (170 cm), but who knows?
Now, Shapiro’s ambiguous height is confusing many. I mean, how tall is the guy? Well, thankfully someone out there made a pretty accurate calculation. See picture below.
According to this picture, Shapiro would be around 5’4 (162 cm) when slightly hunched. Thus, a fairly accurate estimate would be that he’s about 5’5 (165 cm).
Edit: According to some, Cruz is 5’9 – not 5’8. Thus, it is entirely plausible for Shapiro to be 5’7 or 5’6, as opposed to 5’5, judging from the picture of him and Cruz.
Hopefully, that answers your question!
Now, this is debatable. Ben himself claims he is 5ft 9, but that is not true.
Next to Cenk Uygur who is 5 ft 8 m tall, Ben Shapiro didn’t look bigger than 5 ft 6
Ben Shapiro was also smaller than a 5 ft 7 Joe Rogan.
this is Ben next to Dennis Prager, who is 6 ft 4, and he looks almost a foot smaller in this photo:
I think Ben Shapiro is about 5 ft 6 at most, definitely, not 5ft 9 as he claims, final answer = is 5 ft 6
Is it true that Ben Shapiro’s I.Q. is 136?
Ben Shapiro undoubtedly passes the 140 mark. I have found nothing on the internet about Ben’s I.Q. being 136, and I would appreciate it if you could link me to where you’ve heard such a thing.
He has incredible memory, instant reactions, and has proven to be intelligent both educationally and logically, because not only has he skipped two grades and attended Harvard, but he has put himself up to debate publicly and casually obliterated others using logical and critical thinking that has nothing to do with being a good learner. It doesn’t matter how much you dislike the guy, but you’re a fool if you think Ben isn’t smart. I have many disagreements with him, but that doesn’t lower his I.Q. And being above 140 doesn’t make him the smartest guy in the world; even the smartest guys disagree with each other plenty, and they are fallible. If you think Ben is manipulative for money then that doesn’t lower his I.Q. as well… maybe boosts it lol.
The very concept of I.Q. was mostly bullshit and the inventor flat out said it was only meant to be applied to children under six to start with, and even then only as a diagnostic tool for potential brain disorders.
So, admittedly, I’m just going by whenever Ben tries to talk about something scientific but extremely doubtful. I wouldn’t go so far as to say he’s stupid; he clearly has some genuine business acumen, but whenever he tries to talk science, he does not come out of it well. For example, he’s on record saying that he favours intelligent design over evolution in science classrooms. He acknowledges that most biologists are evolutionists and that it’s probably for a good reason. Still, he flat-out admits he doesn’t understand why. That strongly implies that he doesn’t even understand how the scientific method works on a fundamental level.
I’d also hate to break it to you, but he’s not a very good debater either. Look up what a Gish Gambit is. His win-loss record is pretty good, but that’s only because he goes out of his way to debate people he knows are even worse, like untrained college kids and empty chairs.
Who has a higher IQ, Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro?
As a fan of both, having watched dozens of hours of their videos, read a lot of their writing, and being a cognitive psychologist, I’ll take a crack at this. Of course, there will be no formal assessment on my behalf, for I have not even personally met, let alone interviewed and tested, any of them. This is just some entertaining, albeit reasonable, speculation.
Prof. Jordan Peterson himself stated that his I.Q. was slightly above 150. Ben Shapiro also mentioned, in passing, having a similar level (something like “as someone with an I.Q. of 150+”), though a third party informed me of such a statement. This agrees with my impression of their intelligence, given their levels of education, background, performance in debates, and opus.
Therefore, the answer is a tie at slightly above 150. This is not to say that they are identical in thinking.
Important common elements include extremely high levels of verbal reasoning and training in people-oriented fields (Peterson in Psychology, Shapiro in Political Science and Law). They spent time at Harvard (Shapiro as a Law student, Peterson as a professor). Both are also keen to “do their homework” before addressing or debating any issue, always coming into the discussion well-prepared, with full knowledge of the main facts and concepts, indicating conscientiousness and the ability to read fast with a high level of understanding and retention. Their logical-mathematical abilities are above average, as one can tell from how they construct their arguments and arrive at conclusions. Still, this capacity is not as exuberant as their verbal thinking.
But some differences can also easily be observed. Shapiro is amazingly fast in his verbal thinking and rarely hesitates in speech, nearly always producing sentences with grammar that is borderline perfect. Peterson is more deliberate, takes his time to choose words carefully, and does not seem to mind adjusting or even restarting his phrases as he speaks them if it occurs to him that they should be corrected or improved. Also, Shapiro’s style seems more of sorting things out in his mind with incredible speed before presenting the outcome in speech. In contrast, Peterson forms the fundamental ideas beforehand but does much thinking as he speaks, so one can actually “see” more of his mind at work. Using boxing as a metaphor, I’d say that, in a debate, Shapiro is a “jabber”, hitting fast and often while dodging the opponent’s attacks. At the same time, Peterson is a “puncher”, blocking or defending his opponent’s attacks while waiting for the opportunity for powerful knockout blows.
As mentioned, these are just a few fun musings on the intellects of two amazing and influential thinkers and should be taken with a grain of salt.
The dynamic duo.
An IQ of 136 is merely above-average intelligence.
Ben Shapiro skipped two grades and received his law degree from Harvard.
He is a highly skilled debater, which has its foundation in intelligence. He talks so fast: “I have so much going on in my head and so much I have to get out.”
He’s a “virtuoso” violinist.
He’s a self-made millionaire in journalism and media at age 33.
I’d bet his IQ is much higher.
What is Ben Shapiro’s IQ?
I imagine it’s quite high. Probably genius/near genius.
But in the context of him being an “intellectual,” it’s largely inconsequential/irrelevant. Mainly for two reasons:
• Intelligent people can — and often do — hold, support or champion flimsy or stupid ideas. Ben is good at talking cleverly and quickly. Still, if you take the time to dissect his arguments or measure his claims against factual scholarship, most of it is, figuratively speaking, intellectual cotton candy.
• His ideology and brand box him in. Like many pundits, Shapiro depends on his branding as a “conservative.” He might make slight adjustments here and there (such as parting ways with Breitbart), but he could never openly admit being dead wrong on a topic branded “liberal,” or he’d be out of a job. He’s not so much a genuine intellectual but rather an “infotainer” for the choir he preaches to. And yes, the liberal side of the aisle has those, too.
And this leads to a larger point about thought in our society that goes way beyond Ben. So, bear with me…
He isn’t free to make fundamental position switches, as I have. Take, for example, white privilege. I once thought pretty much how Ben talks on the topic. But then I delved into it, and the soundness of argument, scholarship, and brutally honest look at history I encountered added up to such a sheer preponderance of evidence that I was forced to change my conclusion. The commentary from Ben and other supposedly brilliant intellectual powerhouses, such as Jordan Peterson, sounds like inane, defensive babble.
Or take, for another example, banning, or at least severely restricting, “assault weapons.” Even as a gun owner and basic supporter of the Second Amendment, I thought it would probably be a good idea at one time. Until, again, I delved into it and was forced to the conclusion it would not be.
And here’s where it comes back to Ben Shapiro and his liberal counterparts in the infotainment sphere.
Ben could never admit he’s wrong about white privilege because he would be branded a heretic, as white privilege has been branded a “liberal” idea.
Likewise, liberal infotainers could never make a similar admission regarding assault weapons because that’s been branded a “conservative” idea.
Which leads to the fundamentally frustrating part. Neither of those things— and countless others — is ideological. They’re simply factual.
Recognizing the reality of white privilege in no way undermines any core values we might consider truly conservative (in fact, I would suggest it reinforces those values). Likewise, recognizing an assault weapons ban wouldn’t work doesn’t undermine any truly core liberal values. (And again, I think it bolsters them).
But, like Ben Shapiro, our thought process is on ideological lockdown. People think they can’t dare entertain an idea perceived as coming from the “other team” without betraying the brands, so to speak, which they’ve made the very core of their identity.
Despite being brilliant, Ben Shapiro’s inability to exercise intellectual honesty because of ideological shackles is symptomatic of how deeply oppressed thought truly is in our society.
Why do supporters believe that Ben Shapiro is so smart and logical?
Some objective measures of Ben Shapiro’s intelligence:
- He graduated high school two years early.
- He graduated summa cum laude from UCLA.
- He graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School.
- He published seven books by the age of 33.
Now, most of his supporters don’t use those bullet points as their main reason for why they find him intelligent. Instead, it’s his arguments and debating skills that they find so compelling.
First, he’s knowledgeable. He knows all the facts and studies his opponents will reference. He’s never caught off guard or unprepared to respond to criticism. And he usually has additional information his opponents are not as well-versed on.
Second, he’s logical. It’s tough to maintain logical consistency across a wide range of topics. But Shapiro seems to have done this more than most commentators: It’s very tough for his opponents to use his own words or reasoning against him.
Though Shapiro uses persuasive language, he avoids egregious logical fallacies. He rarely uses ad hominems—or if he does, he uses them to complement his point, not as the basis for it.
Third, he’s well-spoken. His points are made with clarity, focus, and precision. His ideas don’t meander. He rarely misspeaks. He offers concrete examples. He doesn’t dance around politically incorrect topics but instead attacks them head-on.
Fourth, he’s composed. He’s often interrupted by the people he is debating against. He’s often disparaged and insulted. But he never loses his cool. He’s intuitive and acutely aware of how everything is perceived, and he never falls into the trap of looking like the one using emotions, not facts.
As for the specific example you provided, one of the reasons people say Shapiro “destroyed” Piers Morgan (aside from trying to get clicks) is that Shapiro effectively disarmed Morgan by opening with strong criticism of the practice of using children as a prop in the gun control debate. He attacked the ethics of this approach and called it phoney for its attempt to manipulate emotions. This left Morgan somewhat flustered, as the emotional angle heavily influenced his argument.
Shapiro preaches the concept of debating liberals on moral grounds by flipping the script and putting them in a position to defend their morals. Typically, it’s the opposite—liberals accuse conservatives of being soul-less, racist, or sexist. Shapiro often successfully turns this around, and when you have to defend your morals, you’re much less likely to come out with a perceived victory.
Are you a fan of Ben Shapiro?
I usually don’t write takedowns on political bases. But then Ben Shapiro wrote an absolute bomb of an article about ABC terminating Roseanne, which tipped me past the edge.
Read it here first: In Defense of ABC and the NFL | National Review
This article fails on three levels, which are representative of Ben Shapiro’s usual confusions: confusing the issue, confusing the facts, and confusing the argument, all because he doesn’t think about how he could be wrong. Shapiro doesn’t realize that the problem is inconsistency of offence, not inconsistency of response; in sympathizing with offence towards kneeling players, he completely ignores the facts of why they were kneeling, and he legitimizes the liberal “inconsistency” in his own words one-third of the way into the article.
All because he fails to consider what he would sound like to a rational observer ideologically opposed to him.
Firstly, the article must capture the fundamental issue it claims to address. Shapiro thinks the problem is that we cannot agree on how to respond to offence. The problem is that we cannot agree on what is offensive. Ben Shapiro is alarmed at the mental inconsistency of liberals, who are outraged that the NFL bans offensive behaviour and delighted that ABC bans offensive behaviour! A minute’s thought tells you the obvious answer: liberals are being internally consistent because they don’t consider the behaviour banned by the NFL offensive.
Because Shapiro can’t capture the fundamental issue and thinks people agree on what is offensive (otherwise, he cannot claim that liberals are being inconsistent), he thinks people will agree on “free speech that affects the product being offered”. He goes on to utterly mangle the examples he is applying himself to. I would hypothesize that the National Football League is watched by many Americans primarily for football, not for “patriotic imagery”. And there are enough Twitter-less Roseanne watchers (like myself, if I were a Roseanne watcher) that enough of an audience could sit down and watch Roseanne Barr, never knowing what she’d ever said about Valerie Plame.
(You may pay so little attention to the racist Twitter-rants here that you didn’t notice Roseanne insulted Valerie Jarrett.)
Are you a fan of Ben Shapiro?
Notice that you can attribute all this to a simple, specific cognitive absence: he doesn’t worry about whether he might be wrong. If he did, he would worry that people might not be offended by what offends him. He would worry that people might not agree with him on what a product is. He would worry that people would find a way to make a product about a political view — conservatives might suspect that a liberal plumber is a lazy plumber or liberals that a conservative Christian chicken company is also an unethical mass-farming chicken company. If universities claim that diversity is a fundamental feature of their education, don’t they have perfect cause to ban the alt-right from ever setting foot on their campuses?
I can go one step further. Suppose we use Shapiro’s rules for corporate free speech. Now, suppose McDonald’s decides that it, too, is an all-American company, that its American products should revolve around patriotic imagery, and therefore … that its French fries are heretofore freedom fries. But wait! Since McDonald’s sees monetary value in marketing its products around patriotic imagery, puncturing that imagery harms its brand value. Therefore, any publication that miscountries its freedom fries is liable to monetary damages — the FDA, Ben Shapiro, or The Guardian in London.
“That’s pretty absurd!” I expect Ben Shapiro to say.
“But that’s exactly what you think the NFL can do — stop players from performing actions which damage its patriotic imagery. You said so yourself!” I would respond.
“But in the case of the French,” Shapiro responds —
— “LANGUAGE!” Grimace interjects —
— “freedom fries, nobody else is offended! Only McDonald’s!”
“Ah,” I remark.
Of course, many watchers of the NFL are indeed offended by players kneeling for the anthem. They were so offended that they put together a $200,000 GoFundMe via the IRS to send Mike Pence to counter-protest.
But bias lies not just in what is said but what is unsaid. Left implicit in Shapiro’s offence at the kneel is that he is in every way justified to do so. It has become so politically correct to assume, both among liberals and conservatives, that people have a right to be offended by the players’ actions. I will sound like a conservative-hating bigot when I tell them to grow up and do some Googling.
Are you a fan of Ben Shapiro?
But you people like political correctness these days, don’t you?
The fact is that Colin Kaepernick was sitting out the anthem for a while. That wasn’t very kind, as captured in this rare footage:
Sorry, wrong, offensive anthem antics! Anyway. An actual US veteran, Nate Boyer, reached out to Colin Kaepernick, telling him that he felt saddened, and they came to a compromise that Kaepernick would … you guessed it … kneel.
“We sorta came to a middle ground where he would take a knee alongside his teammates,” Boyer says. “Soldiers take a knee in front of a fallen brother’s grave, you know, to show respect. When we’re on a patrol, you know, and we go into a security halt, we take a knee, and we pull security.” (emphasis added)
So, you know what the irony is? Conservatives who find anthem kneeling disrespectful to the country are disrespecting the actual living US veteran who created the gesture and many other veterans who support his protest.
“But who cares what those veterans think?” You may cry. “I’m a conservative, and I find it off -“
Wait. Did you deny authorial intent? No. No. You have no idea what you’ve summoned-
(pictured: the Lobster-Signal summons … Jordan Peterson!)
Postmodernism is essentially the claim that (1) since there are an innumerable number of ways in which the world can be interpreted and perceived (and those are tightly associated), then (2) no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived.
That’s the fundamental claim. An immediate secondary claim (where Marxism emerges) is “since no canonical manner of interpretation can be reliably derived, all interpretation variants are best interpreted as the struggle for different forms of power.”
So, guess what, conservatives? When a veteran comes up with a form of protest that derives from his combat experience and is heartily endorsed by fellow veterans, and you claim that that’s not the canonical manner of interpretation of that protest and that your interpretation should somehow be as privileged as theirs, then you’re a postmodern neo-Marxist deconstructor of Western truths and freedoms.
But one last problem. I was worried, for a moment, that Ben Shapiro was right. If liberals acted differently towards the NFL than ABC, weren’t we being inconsistent? Then an Internet commentator set me straight:
Are you a fan of Ben Shapiro?
Now, let’s be clear: Kneeling for the anthem, on the scale of speech-related sins, ranks well below comparing a black American to an ape.
Ah, that makes perfect sense! Since the players’ kneeling is far less serious than Roseanne’s tweets, it makes no sense that the NFL should be as harsh on players as ABC was on Roseanne.
And do you know who said that? Ben Shapiro.
Two sentences later, he asks, bemusedly,
But the real question is why some corporate speech-policing is considered decent while others are deeply troubling.
Ben, it’s because one “offence” was far milder than the other. That’s what my friend Ben said. You should talk more to Ben, Ben, because he sounds like he knows a lot of stuff you don’t.
Why does Ben Shapiro make jabs at Michael Knowles all the time?
Michael Knowles is a Conservative political commentator whose YouTube channel the Michael Knowles Show is funded by the Daily Wire, which Ben Shapiro owns. Knowles is considerably more pro-Trump than Shapiro is and, unlike Shapiro, doesn’t consider himself a libertarian. In 2016, the Daily Wire made a video titled How Ben Shapiro Pays a Bet wherein an extremely annoyed Shapiro delivers Knowles a check due to them having a bet about who would win the 2016 election. Shapiro complained that Knowles won by ignoring the polls. Since then, Shapiro has maintained a friendly rivalry with Knowles, including telling jokes about Knowles having written a book with no words, which Knowles did; it’s called Reasons to Vote for Democrats. So that’s why.
Why do people like Ben Shapiro?
People tend to like anybody who:
- Agrees with them politically.
- Provides them with meaningful validation of their beliefs.
The first one is a bit easy to achieve — you run a roughly 50/50 chance in the US of finding someone on your end of the political spectrum (not accounting for nuance and how far you are one way or the other). What’s harder is to find someone whom you consider “smart” who can not only agree with you but provide meaningful (“meaningful to YOU”) validation of those beliefs. People like Ben Shapiro and Laura Ingraham do that for conservatives. Likewise, people like Rachel Maddow and Cenk Uygur do that for liberals.
Who is shorter, Danny De Vito or Ben Shapiro?
Danny DeVito is a giant, regardless of his height. Ben Shapiro could stand on a ladder and toddlers would still look down on him.
Who is Ben Shapiro, and why is he popular?
Ben Shapiro is a conservative political commentator who has built a following by promoting views that support traditional values and limited government.
He has a large media presence, which he uses to spread his message to an ever-growing audience.
His views are highly polarizing, and his advocacy of reduced government spending and support for freedom of speech have earned him both praise and criticism.
His popularity is a product of his commitment to pushing his beliefs despite criticism.
How tall is Ben Shapiro?