Taleb's critique is pretty deep. This will take me a while to parse through. One thing he tackles that I think is worth digging into is his approach to the cl

Taleb's critique is pretty deep. This will take me a while to parse through. One thing he tackles that I think is worth digging into is his approach to the claim IQ is psychology's "best measure". First, I think he does the only logical thing you can do after you dismiss IQ, he dismissed the rest of psychology. However bad (or good) you think IQ, the rest of psychology is worse. Second, he makes the point that "no measure is worse than a bad measure". I'm not entirely convinced. I mean yes, if you have a measure that only predicts (for example) 30% of the variance in some phenomenon and you treat it as if it explains 100%, then you're going to have a bad time[1]. However, if you recognize the limitations and you combine that with other measures, then you may have a chance at making reasonable predictions. IQ may be the best psychology has to offer, but that doesn't mean it has to be used alone. And it's true that much of psychology is suffering from a reproducibility crisis, but that does not mean all parts of psychology are suffering equally. [1] I think there's an interesting connection between this idea and the idea of legibility as touched on in the book Seeing like a State.