IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle

Turns out IQ beats random selection in the best of applications by less than 6%, typically

Attached: 1 Txc8Deu_EEM7pH7ZL0k4cg.png (1120x1566 489.98 KB, 726.48K)

Other urls found in this thread:

It is at the bottom an immoral measure that, while not working, can put people (and, worse, groups) in boxes for the rest of their lives.
There is no significant correlation (or any robust statistical association) between IQ and hard measures such as wealth. Most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests. Wealth may not mean success but it is the only “hard” number, not some discrete score of achievements. You can buy food with a $30, not with other “successes” s.a. rank, social prominence, or having had a selfie with the Queen.

An extension of the first flaw that shows how correlations are overestimated. Probability is hard.

Some argue that IQ measures intellectual capacity — real world results come from, in addition, “wisdom” or patience, or “conscientiousness”, or decision-making or something of the sort. No. It does not even measure intellectual capacity/mental powers.

If you want to detect how someone fares at a task, say loan sharking, tennis playing, or random matrix theory, make him/her do that task; we don’t need theoretical exams for a real world function by probability-challenged psychologists. Traders get it right away: hypothetical P/L from “simulated” paper strategies doesn’t count. Performance=actual. What goes in people’s head as a reaction to an image on a screen doesn’t exist (except via negativa).
IQ and wealth at low scale (outside the tail). Mostly Noise and 0 correlation above $40K. Psychologists responding to this piece do not realize that statistics is about not interpreting noise. From Zagorsky (2007)
There is no correlation IQ/Income above 45K (Assume 2007 $s). Even in situations showing presence of a correlation, you see MONSTROUS noise. Even at low IQ, and low income! Shows IQ is designed for subservient low-salary earners. From Zagorsky (2007). This truncates the big upside, so we not even seeing the effect of fat tails

Fat Tails If IQ is Gaussian by construction (well, almost) and if real world performance were, net, fat tailed (it is), then either the covariance between IQ and performance doesn’t exist or it is uninformational. It will show a finite number in sample but doesn’t exist statistically — and the metrics will overestimare the predictability. Another problem: when they say “black people are x standard deviations away”, they don’t know what they are talking about. Different populations have different variances, even different skewness and these comparisons require richer models. These are severe, severe mathematical flaws (a billion papers in psychometrics wouldn’t count if you have such a flaw). See the formal treatment in my next book.
Mensa members: typically high “IQ” losers in Birkenstocks.

But the “intelligence” in IQ is determined by academic psychologists (no geniuses) like the “paper trading” we mentioned above, via statistical constructs s.a. correlation that I show here (see Fig. 1) that they patently don’t understand. It does correlate to very negative performance (as it was initially designed to detect learning special needs) but then any measure would work there. A measure that works in the left tail not the right tail (IQ decorrelates as it goes higher) is problematic. We have gotten similar results since the famous Terman longitudinal study, even with massaged data for later studies. To get the point, consider that if someone has mental needs, there will be 100% correlation between performance and IQ tests. But the performance doesn’t correlate as well at higher levels, though, unaware of the effect of the nonlinearity, the psychologists will think it does.(The statistical spin, as a marketing argument, is that a person with an IQ of 70 cannot prove theorems, which is obvious for a measure of unintelligence — but they fail to reveal how many IQs of 150 are doing menial jobs).

It is a false comparison to claim that IQ “measures the hardware” rather than the software. It can measures some arbitrarily selected mental abilities (in a testing environment) believed to be useful. However, if you take a Popperian-Hayekian view on intelligence, you would realize that to measure future needs it you would need to know the mental skills needed in a future ecology, which requires predictability of said future ecology. It also requires the skills to make it to the future (hence the need for mental biases for survival).
The Best Map Fallacy (Technical Incerto)

Real Life: In academia there is no difference between academia and the real world; in the real world there is. 1) When someone asks you a question in the real world, you focus first on “why is he/she asking me that?”, which shifts you to the environment (see Fat Tony vs Dr John in The Black Swan) and detracts you from the problem at hand. Philosophers have known about that problem forever. Only suckers don’t have that instinct. Further, take the sequence {1,2,3,4,x}. What should x be? Only someone who is clueless about induction would answer 5 as if it were the only answer (see Goodman’s problem in a philosophy textbook or ask your closest Fat Tony) [Note: We can also apply here Wittgenstein’s rule-following problem, which states that any of an infinite number of functions is compatible with any finite sequence. Source: Paul Bogossian]. Not only clueless, but obedient enough to want to think in a certain way. 2) Real life never never offers crisp questions with crisp answers (most questions don’t have answers; perhaps the worst problem with IQ is that it seem to selects for people who don’t like to say “there is no answer, don’t waste time, find something else”.) 3) It takes a certain type of person to waste intelligent concentration on classroom/academic problems. These are lifeless bureaucrats who can muster sterile motivation. Some people can only focus on problems that are real, not fictional textbook ones (see the note below where I explain that I can only concentrate with real not fictional problems). 4) IQ doesn’t detect convexity of mistakes (by an argument similar to bias-variance you need to make a lot of small inconsequential mistake in order to avoid a large consequential one. See Antifragile and how any measure of “intelligence” w/o convexity is sterile…). To do well you must survive; survival requires some mental biases directing to some errors. 5) Fooled by Randomness: seeing shallow patterns in not a virtue — it leads to naive interventionism. Some psychologist wrote back to me: “IQ selects for pattern recognition, essential for functioning in modern society”. No. Not seeing patterns except when they are significant is a virtue in real life. 6) To do well in life you need depth and ability to select your own problems and to think independently.
This is no longer a regression. It is scientific fraud. A few random points from the same distribution can invert the slope of the regression. (From Jones and Schneider, 2010 attempting to make sense of the race-motivated notion of Average National IQ).
Upper bound: discount the massaging and correlation effects. Note that 50% correlation corresponds to 13% improvement over random picks. Figure from the highly unrigorous Intelligence: All That Matters by S. Ritchie.

National IQ is a Fraud. From engaging participants (who throw buzzwords at you), I realized that the concept has huge variance, enough to be uninformative. See graph. And note that the variance within populations is not used to draw conclusions (you average over functions, don’t use the funciton over averages) — a problem acute for tail contributions.
Notice the noise: the top 25% of janitors have higher IQ than the bottom 25% of college professors, even counting the circularity. The circularity bias shows most strikingly with MDs as medical schools require a higher SAT score.

Recall from Antifragile that if wealth were fat tailed, you’d need to focus on the tail minority (for which IQ has unpredictable payoff), never the average. Further it is leading to racist imbeciles who think that if a country has an IQ of 82 (assuming it is true not the result of lack of such training), it means politically that all the people there have an IQ of 82, hence let’s ban them from immigrating. As I said they don’t even get elementary statistical notions such as variance. Some people use National IQ as a basis for genetic differences: it doesn’t explain the sharp changes in Ireland and Croatia upon European integration, or, in the other direction, the difference between Israeli and U.S. Ashkenazis.

Additional Variance: Unlike measurements of height or wealth, which carry a tiny relative error, many people get yuugely different results for the same IQ test (I mean the same person!), up to 2 standard deviations as measured across people, higher than sampling error in the population itself! This additional source of sampling error weakens the effect by propagation of uncertainty way beyond its predictability when applied to the evaluation of a single individual. It also tells you that you as an individual are vastly more diverse than the crowd, at least with respect to that measure!

Zig Forums?

Biases in Research: If, as psychologists show (see figure) MDs and academics tend to have a higher “IQ” that is slightly informative (higher, but on a noisy average), it is largely because to get into schools you need to score on a test similar to “IQ”. The mere presence of such a filter increases the visible mean and lower the visible variance. Probability and statistics confuse fools.

Biases in Research: If, as psychologists show (see figure) MDs and academics tend to have a higher “IQ” that is slightly informative (higher, but on a noisy average), it is largely because to get into schools you need to score on a test similar to “IQ”. The mere presence of such a filter increases the visible mean and lower the visible variance. Probability and statistics confuse fools.

Functionary Quotient: If you renamed IQ , from “Intelligent Quotient” to FQ “Functionary Quotient” or SQ “Salaryperson Quotient”, then some of the stuff will be true. It measures best the ability to be a good slave confined to linear tasks. “IQ” is good for @davidgraeber’s “BS jobs”.

Metrification: If someone came up w/a numerical“Well Being Quotient” WBQ or “Sleep Quotient”, SQ, trying to mimic temperature or a physical quantity, you’d find it absurd. But put enough academics w/physics envy and race hatred on it and it will become an official measure.
Notes And Technical Notes

The argument by psychologists to make IQ useful is of the sort: who would you like to do brain surgery on you/who would you hire in your company/who would you recommend, someone with a 90 IQ or one with 130 is …academic. Well, you pick people on task-specific performance, which should include some filtering. In the real world you interview people from their CV (not from some IQ number sent to you as in a thought experiment), and, once you have their CV, the 62 IQ fellow is naturally eliminated. So the only think for which IQ can select, the mentaly disabled, is already weeded out in real life: he/she can’t have a degree in engineering or medicine. Which explains why IQ is unnecessary and using it is risky because you miss out on the Einsteins and Feynmans.
“IQ” is most predictive of performance in military training, with correlation~.5, (which is circular since hiring isn’t random and training is another test).
There are contradictory stories about whether IQ ceases to work past a threshold, since Terman’s longitudinal study of “geniuses”. What these researchers don’t get is these contradictions come from the fact that the variance of the IQ measure increases with IQ. Not a good thing.
The argument that “some races are better at running” hence [some inference about the brain] is stale: mental capacity is much more dimensional and not defined in the same way running 100 m dash is.
I have here no psychological references in this piece (except via negativa, taking their “best”): simply, the field is bust. So far ~ 50% of the research does notreplicate, and papers that do have weaker effect. Not counting the poor transfer to reality (psychological papers are ludic). How P values often — rather almost always — fraudulent: my paper…
The Flynn effect should warn us not just that IQ is somewhat environment dependent, but that it is at least partly circular.
Verbalism: Psychologists have a skin-deep statistical education & can’t translate something as trivial as “correlation” or “explained variance” into meaning, esp. under nonlinearities (see paper at the end).
The “best measure” charlatans: IQ is reminiscent of risk charlatans insisting on selling “value at risk”, VaR, and RiskMetrics saying “it’s the best measure”. That “best” measure, being unreliable blew them up many many times. Note the class of suckers for whom a bad measure is better than no measure across domains.
You can’t do statistics without probability.
Much of the stuff about IQ of physicists is suspicious, from self-reporting biases/selection in tests.
If you looked at Northern Europe from Ancient Babylon/Ancient Med/Egypt, you would have written the inhabitants off as losers who are devoid of potential… Then look at what happened after 1600. Be careful when you discuss populations.
The same people hold that IQ is heritable, that it determines success, that Asians have higher IQs than Caucasians, degrade Africans, then don’t realize that China for about a Century had one order of magnitude lower GDP than the West.

'''tHE END"'

Attached: NNN.png (512x921 93.81 KB, 145.53K)

Υeach whatever fag. Show us all those great scientific and philosophical breakthroughs made by shitskins.

whites do better on iq tests because they are more intelligent. whites arent more intelligent because they do better on iq tests. do you understand nuance?

Attached: _m51m_lF8ZxDiX3n0YkJOv1v2Ye3tIr_h9w16mbiv5g.jpg (772x760, 129.43K)

Nice try, fag. IQ is one of the most highly replicable measurements psychology and science as a whole can produce. Anyone doubting IQ at this point has an agenda to protect niggers from being expelled from white nations as they should have been by now.

Attached: 1331098374103.jpg (250x250, 13.29K)

The commie cries out as he gulags the high iq gentiles.
Literally who?

Accidentally the only factual statement in this cluster fuck of mental aerobatics.

So what you are saying is kikes lie and and niggers suck because they suck in their original states and hence won’t ever achieve something see 10,000 years and no wheel.

When you figure out that IQ is a meme but genetics predisposition is very real give us a call again, especially when you figure out that the orginal argument thus still stands:Dumb niggers are dumb niggers because they are dumb niggers, jews do jewish tricks because they are jewish tricksters.

Can’t turn shit to gold no matter how much you coddle a nigger, it WILL chimpout under certain circumstances and prove the point.



Wait, I shouldn't be using iq tests as a teaching tool?
Is this why Jamal is confused?

He's not saying anything about that. He's just saying IQ is a completely arbitrary and inaccurate bullshit metric, which it is. Can you even comprehend anything you dumb nigger?

I wonder if op is of the lysenkoism school of thought or the big black nubian queen variety.

IQ tests are not teaching tools, they are human brain processing benchmarks.

No it isn't. It measures the ability to think abstractly and is highly predictive and replicable. Go suck start a shotgun, nigger lover.

Btw in my country there's no IQ evaluation during educational courses but (STEM) academics constistently score higher than the plebs when volunteering.

The word racist is used unironically in the OP.

Thanks, for the correction, sweetie.


Here's Molymeme completely and utterly dismantling that entire article:

All leftards are ever since Darwin proved egalitarianism to be anti-naturalistic bullshit.

yOU're parroting

You would be a good bureaucrat

you score well on iq tests, but have zero imagination or creativity

It's actually pretty ebin how he managed to write all that and basically say nothing of substance. Even better is the fact that some parts of his dumb treatise actually reinforces the notion that, like you said, niggers are dumb because they are niggers, for example.

Unlike the OP's author that made an entire thesis completely out of her ass.

I guess that's why niggers are the most creative and invent new way to try and steal things (and fail)
Or just try to replicate helicopters/airplanes and still fail.

You are easily impressed, this is the average leftard's weekly mental diarrhea.

Don't successful artists score high of the IQ test? Mmmm.


Stefan Basil Molyneux ( is a Canadian podcaster and YouTuber who promotes scientific racism and white supremacist views.Molyneux, a self-published author, usually speaks on the topics of anarcho-capitalism, politics, relationships, race and intelligence, multiculturalism, libertarianism, anti-feminism,[8] and familial relationships.

A supporter of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, he has been described as alt-right by Politico and The Washington Post, and far-right and right-wing

According to Steven Hassan, a mental health counselor with experience on cults, "Partly what's going on with the people on the Internet who are indoctrinated, they spend lots of hours on the computer. Videos can have them up all night for several nights in a row. Molyneux knows how to talk like he knows what he's talking about, despite very little academic research. He cites this and cites that, and presents it as the whole truth. It dismantles people's sense of self and replaces it with his sense of confidence about how to fix the world

In short, this guy is an intelligent person with no background in the subject that he is talking about

get fucked

Attached: e82cc6dfb1607939d910f4eeedec42be21557df5f47945853c4bdceb3074211e.jpg (297x200, 20.76K)

Except it isn't, it a reproducible measure of pattern matching ability both for the individual and for a large demographic. The mean IQ of a population is the factor that correlates best with their economic productivity as a whole, except for race which includes behaviors which effect productivity beyond pattern matching.

It has been pointed out that the mean IQ of kikes is unkown and probably below that of whites due to a lack of sufficient sample sizes and biased sampling methodologies. However it should be noted that after a certain point and individuals IQ does not correlate with individual income as high IQ individuals are likely to enter professions in which they collect and interpolate new data or contribute to the creation of new processes but do not pursue the lurcrative profession of buying and selling the fruits of those processes nor are they involved in the nepotism of kikes who control those system for the most part.

Most whites who are not libshits have a predisposition towards what one could consider honest productive work and avoid work which produces no physical product, to their determent in this current society.

But IQ itself is real, measurable, and most importantly predictive within limits.

It's coming, don't worry.

>At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes… will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., New York: A.L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

Do you get paid to shill here, or are you stupid enough to think we would be convinced by your pseudoscience liberal horseshit?

Attached: alicehah.jpg (244x236, 10.02K)

Nice appeal to (((.authority))), Tyrone.

Yep, this is the power of having a high iq vs. stale lefty educational institutions

EQ is a measurement of empathy.
Only European test high on both.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb (/ˈtɑːləb/; Arabic: ‎, alternatively Nessim or Nissim; born 1960) is a Lebanese–American (of Antiochian Greek descent) essayist, scholar, statistician, and former trader and risk analyst,[1] whose work focuses on problems of randomness, probability, and uncertainty. His 2007 book The Black Swan has been described by The Sunday Times as one of the twelve most influential books since World War II.[2]

Taleb is an author and has been a professor at several universities, serving as a Distinguished Professor of Risk Engineering at the New York University Tandon School of Engineering since September 2008.[3][4][5][6][7] He has been co-editor-in-chief of the academic journal Risk and Decision Analysis since September 2014. He has also been a practitioner of mathematical finance, a hedge fund manager, and a derivatives trader, and is currently listed as a scientific adviser at Universa Investments.[8]

Let's see

The blogger or the Highly respected academist?

Whom shall I pay attention too?

Molyneux is a bitch, he gets by cribbing the work of others including those of use here. However as somebody with a PhD in Geology I will say that credentialism is bullshit pushed by the incompetent to protect their job security and social status. All that matters is making predictive models which are reflective of the real phenomenon being observed as much as is possible. IQ is predictive, it is the single biggest factor that predicts what you maximum intellectual capabilities might be within a field you display a talent for. It is not the only factor but it is the one which correlates best with capacity for pattern matching which is key in both constructing new patterns(art) or examining existing patterns(science).

Also, your text i structured like a dumb nigger bot.

Can you please provide an argument?

So a wife beating sandniggers?

HAHA…hee, no wonder he appeals to people with rocks in their heads

You are a woman, or a VERY feminine "man".

Yup, it's a leftynigger.

Whomever produces a predictive model. Also Molybux doesn't make models he just parrots the data of others and e-begs. You are attacking a strawman. How about the authors of the Bell Curve whose models remain predictive despite 30 years of concerted attempts to debunk them.

Le Argumenty spaghettaanti

To appeal to absurdity is to cede the argument.


To quote the top biologist/geneticist currently at Harvard David Reich

>I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

He already admitted it. The jig is up.
>I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science.

Attached: image.jpeg (1200x1204, 368.19K)

Guess we know who the new mods are. XD

The argument is who do you listen to on say, climate change?
global warming
The 2 guys with backgrounds in fabric making

or the 98 guys with degrees in geology, climatology etc?

You chose the blogger(he may have some valid views on climate change, but IQ?…It's just his ignorant opinion)

Show me a model that predicts niggers can sustain a post-industrial civilization and I while show you a predictive model that is wrong. Also every climatological model made by liberal academics in the last 4 decades.

The key to high intelligence is to regularly gape.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (878x236, 32.76K)

He was agood biochemist in his day

This is not his field


Who indeed.

Mostly, along with IQ


Can confirm
t. retard with 140 iq

Attached: 1451508389687-1.jpeg (996x1000, 253.83K)

How is it an ignorant opinion? Are the relevant fact locked up in your Arabs vault?

Yeah, his field requires a much greater depth of knowledge and understanding of what we're talking about here than the average psychologist espouses, let alone some loser who believes in racial equality and anthropic climate shift. lel.

So then why are you focusing on IQ? Why not attack psychology as a whole?
Could it be because you have a political ideology that demands you attack IQ studies but not other things in psychology which your political ideology relies upon being true?

Just because Molyneaux cant understand Taleb, he dismisses him as a sophist? I expected better from Stefan. He's become a Bill Maher. He's been raging against SJWs for so long just as Bill Maher kept raging against religious dolts, that now he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. Unfortunately it is a small room.

This is the funniest thing too. They'll say whites score well on IQ but not on EQ and yet it turns out whites score highest on EQ, period. Meanwhile, blacks score the lowest not just on IQ but EQ, they are a race of fucking psychos go watch the videos of niggers in courts zero empathy for the victims not even their families of the criminal they even blame the victim they murdered, raped, on so on niggers have no souls.

Got his ass kicked now wants to talk about climate change while appealing to authority and false le 97% claims. What a faggot. Reported

As summarized in this useful chart from Strenze (2015), meta-analyses of hundreds of studies have demonstrated that IQ is predictive of life success across many domains.

Attached: IQsuccess.jpg (676x472 56.73 KB, 53.73K)

Bro, its a mod who made this thread.
Get with the times.

Attached: 1471298457348.jpeg (600x612, 103.68K)

What a stupid nigger you are.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (2338x1234, 272.76K)

You won't win in a game of appeals of authority considering the current state of the scientific community but here's something that just about sums it up

>It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country's most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. "It's getting too controversial," he says.

>What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren't common in sub-Saharan Africa.

>Yet Dr. Lahn, who left China after participating in prodemocracy protests, says intellectual "police" in the U.S. make such questions difficult to pursue.

It's over.

Tattlers have an emotional IQ of a 10 yr old

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (2274x346, 82.07K)

Attached: Genetics - Race.png (1058x1447, 146.35K)

Rote shill for tHAB Highland Ability Battery.

Attached: 1526660219407.jpg (620x387, 51.41K)

there is no test which seeks to find the logical conclusion of a thought chain. this is the true measure of intelligence. understanding of natural laws and ability to surmise what will happen or has happened based on what is true about the questioning statement.

A) violence
B) argument
C) bribery
D) i literally cant think of a d that anybody but a nigger would choose

the correct answer is a. you cant change someones views that are based on verifiable objective truth, you have to kill them or reduce their ability to comprehend objectivity. a modern test would include that last sentence in the A) answer section.

no tests that force the taker to follow thought chains to their logical end exist. this is because academia is subverted by relativists who push visual pattern recognition as the highest form of intelligence instead of tests that force the takers to think a question through. the way multiple choice questions are formed either provides the conclusion in the answer so your own ability to come to the conclusion isnt truly tested or it is basic memory tests that require no higher thought, only digging into your memory. nobody is taught how to think.


These differences were statistically significant and were replicated across all three databases.
> More extraordinary was the finding that all 14 alleles differed between Blacks and Whites in a way that would predict that Blacks would be less intelligent.

Therefore the probability of the first 14 alleles examined all favoring Whites would be a mere 1 in 16,284.

You're clearly not from here
You immediately resort to personal attacks
You resort to personal attacks using the material you have introduced and have yet to persuade your audience of

I'm going to guess you do *not* score well on IQ tests. I'm sure you're amazingly imaginative and creative, though!

Man you can’t say shit like this here. Half the people who post here are always talking shit about how high their iqs are.

I mean, it’s been pretty widely known for like fifty years that it matters a whole lot more when you’re school-aged than when you’re an adult. But that hasn’t stopped it from becoming the official penis length of Zig Forums.

Pretty much this.

Nor everyone can be adept at Quran theology and Arabic.

Do all leftists spend their lives in a kind of mental delinquency?

Man you can't IP hop like this here. Half the posts in this thread are the same nigger on a proxy.

I mean, its been widely known for like fifty years that Whites demonstrate a genetically-linked cognitive advantage over most non-White racial clades. That that hasn't stopped non-Whites and philosemites from desperately trying to find an excuse for the obvious state of affairs on our planet which goes against their political ideals.

And shills have the generalized IQ of an Ashkenazi Jewish 5 year old with Tay Sachs.
Now go dilate.

What does it mean to be a leftist in the modern era if not to be a mental delinquent?

Isn't that because you peak in your teen years?
Past 30 and you shouldn't be alive, that's my opinion.

Strange, see

You really have no idea where you've wandered into, huh?

Attempts to smear Molyneux in this post alone:
our most trustworthy of friends! We are sure to listen to you now, foreigner!

Truth. I did bad in school despite testing at 156 an IQ outlier by definition, which ironically makes me an example of a large part of talebs criticism.
But I have 149 level pattern recog though LOL


That's just the thing isn't it? Most things in psychology cannot be replicated by science yet IQ always is. Mainstream science now even accepts that IQ is highly inheritable.

IQ garnered attention because it has such a high correlation with success, even more than being born wealthy. Decades of research has yielded incredible results to the frustration of the Lysenkoists.

It's a Prussian model utility

Your argument is an appeal to authority?

What gets me is that this faggot is focusing ONLY on IQ.
Why not attack the rest of psychology?
Why not attack the things that the political ideology of someone motivated to attack IQ - and it almost-always is political ideological motivation, not scientific curiousity (which is racist and if you want to investigate racial differences in cognitive ability you must be a fucking NAHTZEE!) - would typically use to support their claim?

Because this thread isn't about scientific curiousity, its about attempting to BTFO DA NAHTZEES and PUNCH A NAHTZEE NARRATIVE without even the vaguest sense of awareness of how obvious the intent is in such efforts.

Its like a communist holding up a poll showing that 14,000 people - out of a population of 1 billion people - say they were better off under communism, and then refusing to acknowledge similarly-scaled polls showing Africans and other third-world non-Whites saying the same about White colonial rule.

Taleb is correct. Read his works to understand his statistical argument (especially fat tail distributions). Now, that does not excuse him being impolite to people who disagree with him, but he has never been known for his tact, that's for sure. My own experience with highly intelligent people who achieve very little (at least, intellectually, professionally, or financially, say) seems to corroborate his thesis, although granted, that's circumstantial and does not prove anything in itself. As far as trying to impute any motive to his position other than intellectual integrity, good luck with that, and one thing it's for sure, it's NOT political correctness. The man is as politically incorrect as they come.

This might be the least persuasive stuff I've ever read. I might keep it around as an example of exactly how you *don't* persuade.