how do you think this relates? that IQ is a thing doesn't determine competence except in the sense that having no legs means you'll never be the best at soccer
competence is primarily determined by work and in any case the product is evaluated by definition on its own merits, not based on the attributes of the person who created it. if you think denying IQ is the answer you've misidentified the problem and your solution is willfull blindness to boot. peterson never says we should turn IQ into a class rank, because we don't have to, it will naturally sort itself out. this is the difference between him and eugenics. charity and humanitarian work is necessary
because of this fact, not pretense to deny this fact. in fact if IQ is not a thing then the conclusion is to deny extension of charity to people since they simply failed at what they were perfectly capable of (i.e.: competent to accomplish), or to simply reward lack of effort for being lack of effort. to fail to cognize inequity in distribution of ability and to make a system where merit is leveled at the point of outcome with incompetence is to destroy the productive and creative capacity of civilization. it creates utopia by stopping all progress and declaring the goal met artificially. its precisely what he's talking about with how communism and other schemes of that nature are illusory attempts to create heaven on earth and only result in hell. its like sure one way to reach "the endstate" is to induce apocalypse, but its declaring the patient cured by killing them (i.e.: destroying its future)
in general the problem seems to be you call competent people you like, without realizing for much of the world it is reversed, people like people who are actually competent. in other words, competence is not a manufactured standard its the ability to do whatever the particular aim is well by objective standards. competence is not some gerrymandered thing where its like the bureaucracy declares people as competent as if it were an honorific (reminds me of kim jong un being the best at golf
and so forth) , its a label that flows from actual work output judged impartially. of course this presupposes the ability to evaluate work, without which a bureaucratic substitute is perhaps necessary, but also completely meaningless except as a reflection of group reverence--this is of course why you assume I worship peterson, because you would if you were saying the things I am... but I'm not you