Sure it does. Everything Taleb says is simply false. Someone with an IQ of 130 can probably make it through an undergraduate physics curriculum: someone with an IQ of 120 probably won't. That's one threshold: there are thresholds for everything.
-
-
If you're trying to break Enigma, you want smart hombres. 110 won't do it, 120, won't do it..
1 reply 4 retweets 14 likes -
Kids in the top hundredth of a percent can do things you cannot, like get a 96% score on an AP biology test after a 3-week course. After zero previous biology.
2 replies 5 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @clairlemon
Kids who do well in one low-dimensional test do well in another low-dimensional test. Fab, still has no bearing on high-d life or, say, actual discoveries in biology or solving Enigma.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SebSteele0 @clairlemon
But it _does_ have a bearing on actual discoveries, and on breaking Enigma. As for having no predictive power - simply false. Has plenty. Not 100% , but what do you want, egg in your beer?
1 reply 2 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @clairlemon
But does it? Beyond dead man bias? i.e. IQ 0 yeah you probably won't but above 70 all bets are off. Discovery is much more bricolage than intelligence.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @gcochran99 @clairlemon
Which bit do you not like? IQ tests select for those who think the answer to "What comes after 1,2,3,4-?" is 5. Which is FALSE. It's very believable that someone who thinks that way is less likely to discover something, and I the data I have seen does not refute that hypothesis.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SebSteele0 @clairlemon
Since I know something about most of the more prominent inventors and discoverers of the last two or three hundred years, it turns out that your picture is entirely wrong.
3 replies 4 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @gcochran99 @clairlemon
It's entirely consistent with those I know _of_ and those who I personally know. They're all smart, for sure - but not IQ test smart.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Great - you have a way to estimate intelligence and you're an engineer. Now design a test that's a superior measure of intelligence that measures whatever it is that you're claiming you observe when you know someone is "smart for sure" but "not IQ test smart" (hint: you can't)
-
-
I don't think you can test for it. To be fair, I don't place that much value on my judgement of who is smart although it is at least multi-dimensional.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"I can't test for it" "I can recognize it" Those are contradictory
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.