/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11775775
I read the whole thing here
>https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>There is no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth. Most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests.

That's kinda a weak angle because the West lives in a techno industrial society where those "paper pusher" jobs are at the middle-top and the vast vast majority of people are salary earners.
Most of modern civilization runs on those people and not some oddball Ivy League statistician playing the market and selling books about doomsday events.

He acknowledge it later with
>Functionary Quotient: If you renamed IQ , from “Intelligent Quotient” to FQ “Functionary Quotient” or SQ “Salaryperson Quotient”, then some of the stuff will be true. It measures best the ability to be a good slave confined to linear tasks. “IQ” is good for @davidgraeber’s “BS jobs”.

His main grip seems to come from the fact it's called "intelligence" quotient.

The "variance of the IQ measure increases with IQ" however is a good point, high numbers are almost meaningless compared to low numbers on this scale because it was designed as a retard detector. A difference between a 120 or 135 IQ isn't really meaningful it seems.

Now I wonder if a mathematician could come with a more strongly correlated test.

Globists BTFO