3 ms·

I don't have to assume anything, and to be charitable I'm not going to assume anything. I would afford the author the same charitability. Taleb's point is under

I don't have to assume anything, and to be charitable I'm not going to assume anything. I would afford the author the same charitability. Taleb's point is underspecified and needs further clarification before we can meaningfully engage with it by citing statistics. You risk beating up a strawman by tossing a quick calculation of R^2 at it and saying it's wrong. Using R^2 this way is like saying someone's wrong in an online debate by citing a logical fallacy. I guess, sure, you successfully rebutted them in a shallow sense. But nothing of value has been achieved (yet). We haven't arrived at a better understanding of the truth.

tgv 6y ago
Sure, because the effect cannot be linear, but then Taleb's article loses any merit, and it's 1-0 for JSMP anyway. Not that I'm defending IQ. I find it a weird measure, and certainly not one in which to base all trust, but it does seem to correlate reasonably with many outcomes. That other factors also have an influence on these outcomes, and that IQ is not purely measuring intelligence, does not discredit it as a (limited) predictor. Taleb's article would be much stronger if he could point at better predictors.