I have always been curious why a group like Mensa International is relevant in today's society. Does an IQ test like the one Mensa requires has any relevance or correlation with performance in real life career or society?
Those are two very distinct questions, though.
I'd say that
1. Mensa is not very relevant (except maybe as a self-help group and dating club, which is by no means a bad thing.)
2. "relevance or correlation with performance" - that's a highly contested question. My take is that IQ and Big 5 factor "conscientiousness" (which includes grit, capacity to delay gratification, etc.) are among the best predictors for performance in real life that we have, which is not to say that they're particularly good predictors. They can only explain a fairly small part of the variability in outcomes.
"In his recent book Hive Mind economist Garett Jones argues that the direct effect of IQ on personal income is modest, and that most of the benefits of higher IQ flow from various spillover effects that make societies more productive, boosting everyone’s income. This, he says, explains the “IQ paradox” whereby IQ differences appear to explain a lot more of the economic differences between nations than within them." (...) “Fans of g would do well to look at the labor lit: 1 IQ point predicts just 0.5% to 1.2% higher wages.” He has also said that, in terms of standardized effect sizes, IQ accounts for only about 10% of variance in personal income (a correlation of ~0.32).
At some very crude levels (at the extremes) it fares better (e.g. someone below 90 would not do very well) but in general is nowhere near representative.
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
As a counterpoint, there are a few meta-surveys which suggest that individuals with higher IQs generally have better[1] long term outcomes. I emphasize individual here because your source appears to be analyzing it at the level of economic productivity and industrial output at the national level (but correct me if I'm wrong).
Here are a few sources I've read, which have been aggregated (with light commentary) by gwern:
1. https://www.gwern.net/Hunter
3. https://www.gwern.net/Iodine
_________________
1. This is weaselly, but "better" is difficult to define in a message board comment.
Well, someone put it this way: https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
There are cogent arguments that critique the use of IQ as an intelligence measure. This is not one of them.
I would see non-overlapping magisteria to be more controversial, however.
More than this comment that doesn't offer any?
Taleb makes some quite specific arguments, and the graphs are quite illuminating as well.
Check the "IQ and wealth" graph for example -- it looks like a total scattershot outside of the bottom left corner that everyone could predict (intellectually challenged people -> low income). That alone would be enough to justify the entire post.
>He's also extremely condescending (bordering on dismissive) to a variety of disciplines.
That's good in my book. We need more colorful characters and less hive mind and institutionalism. Then again I prefer Feyerabend to Kuhn, and Tom Waits to Michael Bolton.
If you're working for someone else, yes. But those making the most money are not working for others.