Your article provides a compelling critique and highlights many important correlations. However, I find it somewhat incomplete when it comes to defining “succes

Your article provides a compelling critique and highlights many important correlations. However, I find it somewhat incomplete when it comes to defining “success” This is a key point in Taleb’s arguments. Factors like inheritance and geographic location often play a much larger role in determining success in business or financial terms. Clearly not in scientific research. The reference in the study on Danish people is intriguing, but it may skew the concept of normality since Denmark is a statistical outlier, being at the positive extreme in many metrics. This raises questions about the generalizability of the findings. I think testing on Danish people is great to debunk the wrong idea about that measurement of intelligence is pseudocientific but doesn't help with the "success" concept in other societies. Both articles offer a good foundation for further discussion on IQ, but I believe they fall short by not addressing key concepts like crystallized and fluid intelligence, as well as memory. These are crucial components of intelligence that go beyond traditional IQ measurement techniques and deserve more attention. Those concepts clearly shows that the concept of IQ is no a pseudocientific thing.