8685e - 1y
Do you actually have a (link to a) serious argument as to how his IQ statistical reasoning is wrong? To the extend I read it back in the day, along with his book Statistical Consequences of Fat Tail, it seemed plausible. I've learned enough statistics back in uni to be extremely skeptical of any social science statistics, and I'm about 90% confident Charles Murray (where most of this stuff comes from) is a grifter.
(don't want to force anyone to work through Taleb books though, we can just disagree on this topic)
Peter Todd @Peter Todd - 1y
It's Taleb. I've got better things to do than debunk him given how he's obviously become a crank. As for IQ in general, anyone with a bit of sense can see how obviously some people are just smarter than others, and how children tend to be similarly intelligent as their parents. Intelligence in general is _obviously_ a genetic trait: humans have it in ways animals _clearly_ do not, and different animals _clearly_ have it in different degrees. As I said, you have to actively fool yourself to convince yourself otherwise; the burden of proof is not on my views here. The only reason there is an IQ denial movement is because IQ (especially the inherited component of it) is so utterly toxic to DEI beliefs.
Sometimes the truth hurts and it's useful to have offensive people saying it out loud. Sometimes saying the truth is not useful. In that case I would call it impolite, but not wrong. And sometimes offense things are just wrong or at least founded on junk science. Fortunately we don't have an algorithm here to boost that latter category disproportionately, but people have made entire careers out of a they-don't-let-me-say-this Schpiel. Social media algorithms love that, hopefully Nostr doesn't amplify it. Right to speak goes without saying.
