I suspect that high IQ / high g is particularily important in understanding the natural world - which is rather more consistent than people. The STEM fields seem to have field specific minimum intelligence levels to master a given field - but 'success' in general tends to be more defined by mastering interactions with people, particularily in social groups. And people are irrational and inconsistent enough that facility with natural patterns is of limited utility (useful, but not dominant).
IQ is a better predictor of “success” than social skills, although I’m sure being impaired in social skills or IQ to a certain extent past the other makes either metric useless. We are all irrational, but our perceived rationality is influenced by reduced uncertainty of irrational reasoning, which having a higher IQ will allow you to do more of.
A challenge I proposed for Taleb was for him to come up with a better measure than IQ which has 1) at least as much predictive validity for various important life outcomes as IQ, and 2) fulfills all of his absurd statistical standards that no one else has.
I suspect that high IQ / high g is particularily important in understanding the natural world - which is rather more consistent than people. The STEM fields seem to have field specific minimum intelligence levels to master a given field - but 'success' in general tends to be more defined by mastering interactions with people, particularily in social groups. And people are irrational and inconsistent enough that facility with natural patterns is of limited utility (useful, but not dominant).
IQ is a better predictor of “success” than social skills, although I’m sure being impaired in social skills or IQ to a certain extent past the other makes either metric useless. We are all irrational, but our perceived rationality is influenced by reduced uncertainty of irrational reasoning, which having a higher IQ will allow you to do more of.
A challenge I proposed for Taleb was for him to come up with a better measure than IQ which has 1) at least as much predictive validity for various important life outcomes as IQ, and 2) fulfills all of his absurd statistical standards that no one else has.
I hope the grand theory includes the lexical hypothesis