Live data from Hacker News

Nassim Taleb on IQ

threadreaderapp.com

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#21

Taleb. Love him, hate him. Always a lot of controversy. I like him quite a lot somehow, and there's clearly a good amount of genius in him, although sometimes there are certain positions and affirmations that feel less so (to me at least). For example, his critique of the growing inequality in the world [0] [1] amounts to pointing at dynamic inequality, not static one. This one never convinced me so far. To be clear:…

Piketty argues for a wealth tax. Taking skin in the game seriously we see that for Taleb, a %1 er and his circle, such a tax would threaten a great deal of skin indeed. Such essays by Taleb are just an auto defense mechanism driven by self interest.

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#22
Part of the challenge with measuring stuff is we usually stop when we have a single measurement. IQ is a repeatable thing but the problem - to my naive self - is that its called intelligence quotient and the idea of giving it a single measurement is ridiculous as there are more factors than one.

Intelligence is probably going to be a maximum within the system youre measuring against. Maybe high IQ is great for researchers and professors, but not for investors, or business folks.

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#23
post #10

I like Taleb's work. It's always good food for thought and frequently insightful. That said, his posture towards academia of late seems a bit juvenile and not a little annoying. Which isn't to say that he doesn't have a point, but it gets pretty frustrating when I pay good money for a book (Antifragile) and every other page is taking potshots at "fragilistas" and talking about how those dumb intellectuals don't actua…

Also known as "attack ideas, not people".

At work, I find it much easier to get support for my ideas if I frame my arguments in a way that leaves those arguing against me a face-saving way to agree with me. If you come out and call them stupid, they have no choice but to argue against you tooth and nail, because to agree with you is to agree that they're stupid. Sometimes it's really tempting to leave a trap in an argument, leading them down a path where they're forced to start making contradictory or ridiculous claims. It feels good, but is counter-productive.

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#24

Is there a coherent train of thought in these tweets, other than Taleb's disdain for IQ[1]? I'm struggling to understand why a measurement that appears to have no value "measures best the ability to be a good slave," or why any of this entails the belief that "the only robust measure of "rationality" & "intelligence" is survival." [1]: A position that, as far as I know, is neither controversial nor contentious in aca…

IQ is the most replicated finding in psychology, and almost certainly the most used. It is very far from being of no value. http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatte... Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life LINDA S. GOTTFREDSON University of Delaware Personnel selection research provides much evidence that intelligence (g) is an important predictor of performance in training and on the job…

The point was that Talib argues it has no value (above ~85), and then says it’s a good predictor of one’s value as a “slave” (very high IQ makes a good slave).

In any case, he comes off as childish and bitter. It’s all filtered through the idea that success means being a multimillionaire, and everyone else is a failure. His perspective seems limited to finance and academics in that sphere.

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#25
post #8

Is there a coherent train of thought in these tweets, other than Taleb's disdain for IQ[1]? I'm struggling to understand why a measurement that appears to have no value "measures best the ability to be a good slave," or why any of this entails the belief that "the only robust measure of "rationality" & "intelligence" is survival." [1]: A position that, as far as I know, is neither controversial nor contentious in aca…

I just see more personal liberty at the high end and therefore more variance in possible outcomes.

That's a plausible mechanism, within modern liberal society anyway, supporting Taleb's claim:

> ... when they say "IQ works well between 70 and 130" it means: "IQ works well between 0 and ~85, maybe"

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#26
post #8

Is there a coherent train of thought in these tweets, other than Taleb's disdain for IQ[1]? I'm struggling to understand why a measurement that appears to have no value "measures best the ability to be a good slave," or why any of this entails the belief that "the only robust measure of "rationality" & "intelligence" is survival." [1]: A position that, as far as I know, is neither controversial nor contentious in aca…

I just see more personal liberty at the high end and therefore more variance in possible outcomes.

And why does higher variance imply a shifted mean?

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#27

Part of the challenge with measuring stuff is we usually stop when we have a single measurement. IQ is a repeatable thing but the problem - to my naive self - is that its called intelligence quotient and the idea of giving it a single measurement is ridiculous as there are more factors than one. Intelligence is probably going to be a maximum within the system youre measuring against. Maybe high IQ is great for resear…

This is a classic discussion in the intelligence literature. For example, the cattell-horn-carroll theory[1]. Usually meauring general intelligence involves measures along a bunch of different problem domains.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell–Horn–Carroll_theory

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#28
post #10

I like Taleb's work. It's always good food for thought and frequently insightful. That said, his posture towards academia of late seems a bit juvenile and not a little annoying. Which isn't to say that he doesn't have a point, but it gets pretty frustrating when I pay good money for a book (Antifragile) and every other page is taking potshots at "fragilistas" and talking about how those dumb intellectuals don't actua…

The most salient anecdote Taleb tells about himself is the one where he's going onstage to debate an opponent. He asks his publisher if punching the other guy in the face would be against his contract, and his publisher notes that it would be very good for book sales.

All Taleb does is punch people in the face nowadays. It's probably very good for book sales. He notes elsewhere, rightly I think, that the goal of anybody seeking PR should be to get the attention of somebody more famous then them: since it's much easier to pick fights than make friendships, and either will do, he picks fights with anybody he thinks has prominence. I believe it's a persona, and he's a very good method actor.

It's also really annoying if you think some of his ideas are very good, as I do.

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#29
post #28
post #10

I like Taleb's work. It's always good food for thought and frequently insightful. That said, his posture towards academia of late seems a bit juvenile and not a little annoying. Which isn't to say that he doesn't have a point, but it gets pretty frustrating when I pay good money for a book (Antifragile) and every other page is taking potshots at "fragilistas" and talking about how those dumb intellectuals don't actua…

The most salient anecdote Taleb tells about himself is the one where he's going onstage to debate an opponent. He asks his publisher if punching the other guy in the face would be against his contract, and his publisher notes that it would be very good for book sales. All Taleb does is punch people in the face nowadays. It's probably very good for book sales. He notes elsewhere, rightly I think, that the goal of anyb…

These days if you get in to NYT or Amazon top list, you are talking about windfall in range of $10M. For books like Fifty Shades of Grey this was at $100M for the author. So writing books these days is not poor author trying to getting by but a very very serious business. It's as serious as Series C startup with actual office, roadmap, business plan, marketing plan and even full time employees who would do research, citation collection, word smithing, editing etc for you. People like Tim Ferris and Malcolm Gladwell have made this to an art form and are some of the most successful founders for this type of business. The way they work is by taking couple of known data points in academia and expand it on to 400 page book dishing it out as fundamental insights that everyone is missing out on. Such books are rife with repetitions, personal stories, cherry picked anecdotes, raising underdogs and putting down others that evoke emotions but at the same time tuck away the other side of the story that would have made them more balanced and boring.

I wouldn't be surprised if Taleb has made more money from his books then his hedge fund career and accordingly he might be more aggressive to protect his image as dispenser of great counter-intuitive insights. His assertions in these sets of tweets are obviously overblown. IQ testing is known to be very faulty measure for intelligence but at the same time lot of rebellious personalities including Einstein, Bill Gates, Lady Gaga etc have had high (> 150) IQ. No one would call them people yearning to be obedient salaried drones.

Re: Nassim Taleb on IQ

#30

Taleb. Love him, hate him. Always a lot of controversy. I like him quite a lot somehow, and there's clearly a good amount of genius in him, although sometimes there are certain positions and affirmations that feel less so (to me at least). For example, his critique of the growing inequality in the world [0] [1] amounts to pointing at dynamic inequality, not static one. This one never convinced me so far. To be clear:…

how do you fully understand his point?

i find taleb to be frustratingly incomplete. he likes to play with words but doesn’t string enough material ones together to complete an idea.

yes, i can buy that dynamic and static inequality can be different (e.g., dynamic and static stability in mechanics is different) but he doesn’t really say what he means by that.

or maybe he’s so enamoured with words snd erudition that i get bored long before he finishes the explanation?

Post reply on HN