The following post is a response to a request that I address Taleb’s assertions.
In his criticism of research related to IQ, Nassim Taleb addresses some of the misconceptions about IQ and makes some valid observations about the interpretation of IQ at its high end. However, some of his assertions fly in the face of almost a century of accumulated evidence on intelligence and its measure. In this post, I will respond briefly to some of his assertions though a more complete discussion of some of these issues are found in my book, Intelligence, IQ & Perception: Unpopular Truths about Popular Myths, to be published this spring.
Taleb asserts: (See IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle )
Taleb • “It [IQ] is at the bottom an immoral measure that, while not working, can put people (and, worse, groups) in boxes for the rest of their lives.
My response: Taleb is correct in asserting that many young people who have low scores on IQ tests feel defeated and are adversely affected by knowledge of their IQ score. You and I hear from many of them on this Quora space. However, this is not a reason to dispense with a measure of intelligence; we can’t remove instruments that measure height because some people may feel vertically challenged. In the early days, IQ scores were administered in schools and were often closely-guarded secrets. Today, we need to educate people on what IQ does and does not measure while helping young people to understand that tenacity, passion and commitment to tasks are vitally important to success and that a high IQ is an advantage in certain fields. For example, it is not impossible for a person of IQ 100 to become a leading theoretical physicist or pure mathematician, but it’s highly unlikely. IQ does matter. As the Greek poet Homer observed around 700 BCE: So it is that the gods do not give all men gifts of grace–neither good looks nor intelligence nor eloquence.
Taleb • “There is no significant statistical association between IQ and hard measures such as wealth. Most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff such as bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests. Wealth may not mean success but it is the only “hard” number, not some discrete score of achievements.”
My response: My research on the correlation between income and IQ and between wealth and IQ, reveals that the correlation between income and IQ is weak, i.e., less than 0.3. There is almost 0 correlation between wealth and IQ. Taleb is correct in his assertion, but he seems to make the false assumption that this means IQ is therefore not a measure of intelligence. With the help of Ravi Vakil, Professor of Mathematics at Stanford, I obtained information on the careers and subsequent incomes of those who won Mathematics Olympiads in their youth. Most of these top IQ people had chosen careers in academe or other endeavors that don’t pay large incomes. Many high IQ people are not interested in accumulating wealth. As Larry Summers, former President of Harvard explained, “At Harvard, the A students tend to become professors and the C students become wealthy donors.” This partly accounts for the low correlation between income and IQ.
However, having a high IQ is almost a necessary condition for becoming a self-made billionaire in the high tech field. In the list of the world’s wealthiest people published by Forbes Media on March 26, 2021, the 10 wealthiest were all high IQ people, including Bezos (Amazon), Musk (SpaceX) Gates (Microsoft), Zuckerberg (Facebook), Ellison (Oracle), Page and Brin (Google). As the Information Age comes into full flower, there is an ever-increasing importance on having the kinds of cognitive skills that are measured by IQ tests. It’s no accident that virtually all the captains of the high tech fields scored high on IQ and SAT tests.
Taleb • “The informational interpretation of correlation, in terms of ‘how much information do I get about A knowing B.’ Add to that the variance in results of IQ tests for the very same person.” An extension of the first flaw that shows how correlations are overestimated. Probability is hard. Psychologists do not realize that the effect of IQ (if any, ignoring circularity) is smaller than the difference between IQ tests for the same individual (correlation is 80% between test and retest, meaning you being you explains less than 64% of your test results. ).
My Response: It is true that the results of a single IQ test taken on a single occasion is not highly reliable result, because a person could have a bad day or not have an interest in doing well or finishing the test (especially children). The reliability of the result can be increased by providing the test-taker with practice IQ tests to understand what is being asked in items such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Once a person has experience with the IQ test format and is motivated to perform well, the IQ score has meaning.
There is also the question of time. Some people are quick thinkers who can process moderately difficult items quickly but are unable to solve deep problems. Others are methodical in their thinking, and slower at the moderately difficult items but can solve very difficult problems if given enough time. This difference was reported by the Psychologist Krutetskii who studied gifted mathematicians in the former Soviet Union.
One misconception that emerges often on this Quora space is that the top of the intelligence scale is the “genius” category. That is, many people think “genius” is an IQ measure, when actually it’s an achievement measure, obtained in a particular field by a person with exceptional talent, commitment, and creativity. The genius of Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, and Einstein are assessments of their achievements rather than their IQ’s–high IQ was a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for their success. Most Nobel laureates in the natural sciences have IQ’s above 130, but IQ points above 130 don’t seem to increase the probability of winning a Nobel Prize.
As explained in some detail in Intelligence: Where we Were, Where we Are & Where we’re Going, the field of psychology during the 20th century was corrupted by ideology. The egalitarian perspective denied the existence of any hereditary component of intelligence until the studies of identical twins separated from birth began to reveal genetic factors. Since high intelligence is one of the most-valued of human attributes, research in this domain will always be threatened by ideology. However, anyone such as a teacher, who has spent time in classrooms, knows that children are very different in cognitive ability and IQ tests, albeit fraught with imperfections, provide a reasonably good measure of many of the kinds of abstract skills that will be needed in this Information Age.
