/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>20363469
I really didn't mean for this to turn into a shit flinging contest, and I apologize for ever saying anything. The point I was trying to make (and that the author made) was that IQ is a much better predictor of a lack of success/competence at the low end than predicting success/competence at the high end. This can be seen just by looking at the dataset for higher incomes ranked against IQ. You don't need to do a regression to know there's nothing predictive there. So if someone has a 140 IQ you can't really predict they are +2 sigmas in income, but if someone has a 60 IQ you can predict very well that they are at least -2 sigmas in income. This is the core point of the argument, but Nassim Taleb loves trolling psychologists so he made a bunch of other points.

You can see this in car crash data too. People with IQs under 80 are much more likely than average to be in a serious wreck. Once you get to 100, adding IQ points doesn't really reduce the probability of being in a wreck.