![]() |
Nassim Nicholas TalebUpdate |
Earlier this week, I posted a comment on Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Twitter comments on IQ, "Is IQ Best at Measuring the Ability to Be a 'Good Slave'?"
I thought Taleb made some good points but I was not in complete agreement with him. Now, Jordan Peterson has responded to Taleb's tweets.
This has resulted in the below Twitter exchange between the two.
No. Conscientiousness is more likely to select "paper shufflers." And sometimes papers need to be properly shuffled. You're not really denying the existence of psychometric intelligence, are you? What do you propose as a replacement? https://t.co/93GcSX9wmV— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) December 24, 2018
Methinks Peterson is using a different definition of "paper shufflers" than Taleb is using in his original tweet. Taleb is using paper shufflers in the sense of non-creative individuals in the real world. Peterson is using it more in the sense of someone willing to do boring work.Peterson I said psycho”metrics is about a nonlinear pseudometric that shows mostly how dumb someone is.— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) December 24, 2018
Try another question & make it “intelligent”.
Plus, Taleb's explanation in his tweet above.
UPDATE
Now this:
It is also the case (and perhaps this supports your contention, which I don't dispute) that the scatter between IQ subtests dramatically increases as IQ increases. In other words: there is one way of being slow, but diverse ways and more variable ways of being fast. https://t.co/PvVQKN2QDU— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) December 26, 2018
Also, even at the upper end of the estimates, IQ is only predicting 25% of the variance in success (and that is "success" as defined in ways that are also arguably too cognitively-loaded. It is not obvious, for example, that IQ predicts female reproductive success). https://t.co/PvVQKN2QDU— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) December 26, 2018
-RW
"...that shows mostly how dumb someone is."
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying that weight mostly shows how light someone is, not how heavy they are. But the rest of what he is saying makes sense, and he is right that the metric is only sort of a decent metric that doesn't really measure how functional someone is in life or how creatively they can solve problems.
I've been to a lot of funerals for high IQ people who died young. Drugs mostly.
ReplyDeleteHigh IQ is not always a survival boost. It can just as easily serve to alienate someone from the tribe. From an evolutionary standpoint the big brain is an experiment.
Very astute and spot on. Successful societal interaction requires a means of relate-able averages. When high intelligence is in the mix the pressure becomes a great deviation and exerts enormous pressure on the one with the intelligence.
DeleteTaleb never answered Peterson's excellent question. In fact, IQ is the best predictor known of scholastic success, professional success, wealth generation, even health and longevity. Here is Richard Haier, author of The Neuroscience of Intelligence, making the case with Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY4sShDt9to. Dr. Haier's statements are based on psychometric research, not on the anecdotal impressions relied on by Taleb.
ReplyDeleteHey, I like Taleb. But on an issue like I.Q., I'm going with the clinical psychologist.
ReplyDelete