Even as someone who agreed in large part with the conclusion before coming to this article, I find this virtually unreadable. It's just so full of vindictiveness and pettiness that it loses sight of its argument, and the images and graphs it uses aren't particularly coherent in their framing.
> you're saying that people with an IQ of 60 are equally wealthy as those with an IQ of 110?
Actually, if I understand his point correctly, he's arguing that the test "correctly" identifies the low tail of intelligence (because they would fail at any task), but is pure noise for people of average or above-average intelligence.
> you're saying that people with an IQ of 60 are equally wealthy as those with an IQ of 110?
Actually, if I understand his point correctly, he's arguing that the test "correctly" identifies the low tail of intelligence (because they would fail at any task), but is pure noise for people of average or above-average intelligence.