2 ms·
Taleb’s most incisive claim is that IQ becomes less predictive as you go up the scale, and that it is therefore more useful as a diagnostic of deficiency (<100)
by api 6y ago
Taleb’s most incisive claim is that IQ becomes less predictive as you go up the scale, and that it is therefore more useful as a diagnostic of deficiency (<100) than a predictor of genius. It’s sort of like how very low or high levels of certain things on blood tests can predict illness, but not wellness.
I don’t see that claim addressed very well here.
- himinlomax 6y agoIt's been a while since I read (some of) Taleb's arguments, but it's pretty clear to everyone supporting IQ's value in that respect that it displays more of a potential for genius than actual genius. People with high conscientiousness and high IQ are extremely likely to be successful. But there are other factors. To wit, consider how most famous serial killers have high or very high IQ (120 and above). The reason is simple: you don't get to kill that many people if you're dumb ... because you get caught quickly.
- api 6y agoThat’s sort of what he is arguing. As you go up from 100, “other factors” become more and more significant and IQ becomes less significant as a predictor of health or success. Go below 100 though and very low IQs seem to be predictive alone of various poor outcomes. So it’s more useful as a diagnostic for deficiency than a predictor of exceptionality.
- tupputuppu 6y agoDid you not read the article or did I misunderstood what was written there? It exactly shows via several statistics that IQ is a good predictor even above the average.