Wool & Words

i briefly read these articles, and i find them difficult to deconstruct because he is interweaving unpleasant truths with faulty assumptions. it is true that half of all people will be below average intelligence, but it is false that this is acurately measured or predicted by IQ scores. it is also false that "intelligence" is a static, defined constant. intellectual ability shifts throughout our lifetime just as shifts between subjects we pursue. children who perform well in grade school frequently do not do as well in high school, especially girls. but once they hit college, girls frequently outshine boys. but it reverses again in the job market, when men tend to attain the highest levels of achievement. so which level is correct?

he grossly misuses IQ scores in ways no one familiar with psychometric testing can abide. the people who apply and interpret the tests that he relies upon for the crux of his ideas would never agree with him because they are familiar with the weaknesses of these tests, and that IQ, alone, is a meaningless number.

finally, as he (by definition of his writings) assigns himself to top 10%, he fails to heed his 3rd piece of advice: "Those with superior intelligence need to learn to be wise." firstly, wisdom is not equivalent to intelligence, just as intelligence is fluid and not equivalent to a number. but, secondly, more importantly, wisdom itself tells us that no society advances by being reminded of what it CAN'T do.

as i read his ideas, i came to see him in one of his own examples:
"If you are average in verbal skills, you often misinterpret complex text and make errors in logic."

that's how i read it.