This is really well put together and I think you hit the crux of the problem. Regarding Taleb's post, I've heard a hard time reading it because it is so over t

This is really well put together and I think you hit the crux of the problem. Regarding Taleb's post, I've heard a hard time reading it because it is so over the place and seems to contain many parts which aren't related to the topic at hand but simply appeal to emotion. As an example, I fail how this has anything to do with the IQ being a useful measure: > To do well in life you need depth and ability to select your own problems and to think independently. He constructs an argument that IQ doesn't predict anything related to the "real" life and "real" problems. Furthermore, he claims IQ scores are only correlated with the lower end of intelligence. He says > It measures best the ability to be a good slave. But then he supplies a figure where training success is but one of the things showing a correlation with IQ, with others including job performance, creativity and leader effectiveness, with decreasing degree of correlation. In fact, the figure shows the higher the complexity of the job, the more success at it is correlated with IQ (a moderate but certainly significant correlation of about 0.5). I think he means to manipulate the reader's emotion here by equating high IQ = being a good sheep. But how does this figure show anything but the exact opposite of his argument?