Based on previous reads, I'm inclined to agree– I think this is a well-founded concept. This piece, however, does not read as rational critique in my opinion. The sporadic, questionable sourcing and angsty call-outs make for an article that, in my eyes, is not at all convincing.

“IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent (with a lot of noise), a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects — how good someone is at taking some type of exams designed by unsophisticated nerds

I keep meaning to write a very detailed reply to this Taleb piece. I agree in part and dissent in part. As someone that has previously taught IQ assessment at the graduate level, but also has a decent data science background, I probably have quite a bit to say here. Short version: his point about total IQ (one summary number) being primarily important at the low end is correct. It is more of an S-curve, but we will leave aside for now. After 130 there is not much difference in terms of real-world outcomes (other factors begin to matter much more). What he (as a non-expert) misses is the utility of cognitive assessment beyond just 1 number. No good psychologist does this in practice; we provide a comprehensive picture of absolute and relative strengths and weaknesses. This leads to actionable accommodations and useful descriptions and predictions. His points about ‘country IQs’ are almost without caveat on-point.

Stop. Posting. Now.