Is this your argument?
Astrophysicists make twice garbage collectors, but since it's under 100,000 it doesn't really matter. Therefore, IQ is useless?
Your metric was to generally equate $ with success. By that measure, then, given neither the garbage collector or the astrophysicist can comfortably crack 100,000 in income per year, IQ meant precisely dick. Or are you saying success is achievable below earning 100,000 in any mainstream Western country?
Shinebox said:Garbage collectors could be replaced with robots... Next week. Double salary is double. Cut your salary in half tomorrow. No big difference in the inflation wracked west?
Show me a Western country where they've managed to do so in a major metropolitan area at more than a test scale and you might have an argument. As it is, fully self-driving cars or trucks used en masse in the real world are about as close as fusion reactors and always will be. Too much opacity, I'm afraid.
Shinebox said:IQ will only become more and more important as robots and automation progresses. Taleb's argument held water when everyone was a farmer and even then a little smarts probably did not hurt.
Quite the contrary: if robots, automation and AI supposedly become more prevalent and progress, IQ will become less relevant as time goes on, because human beings will wind up being locked further and further out of the process; machines will do the thinking for themselves. If AI reaches the levels of intelligence a lot of futurists wank themselves to sleep to, human IQ would be utterly irrelevant in the process, because Skynet would be able to brute-force outcalculate any human, no matter how high his IQ.
You can see a highly stylised version of this in the fact computers can now regularly defeat Grand Masters in chess. If the Grand Master's IQ is irrelevant in whether or not he can beat Deep ThoughtBlueSixFuckStack, then so is the local retard's as well. Whether it's because the computer is basically brute-force cracking the result or apeing some elements of human reasoning, IQ again is shortly going to mean precisely nothing in this context.
Of course, the real IQ is in the creativity necessary to manipulate, use, and harness "educated", "intellectual" men for your own purposes. As men like Henry Ford knew full well.
redpillage said:My question to him would be this: If 99% of your followers are unable to solve your math puzzles, then what does that say about intelligence? And if nothing else, HOW ELSE are you going to quantify mental performance?
(1) My reply would be that it says pretty much nothing about intelligence, because there isn't a full correlation between being able to do differential calculus and a high IQ. You haven't overcome the opacity problem; the proposition is on par with the average social science paper.
(2) My answer to the second question is: if the best measure you can come up with for the danger an avalanche presents to a nearby town is a result on par with "Rocks are currently moving", then it's time to perhaps rethink why you're even testing at all. Perhaps it's time to think about doing the Thalesian thing and moving the fucking town.