But Taleb is specifically arguing against simple linear correlation measures like R^2. (See figure 1 in Taleb's article.) Feels like you haven't grasped the specifics of his argument without taking that into consideration.
It's increasingly acknowledged, even in the "soft" sciences, that r-squared is not an appropriate analysis tool.
Anyway, wasn't the IQ test originally created to determine whether or not someone was mentally disabled? It seems like with more modern statistical methods it still could be useful measurement for that purpose, even if it doesn't accurately "scale" beyond 80 points. Ultimately, if you just want to answer the question "Does this person have significant cognitive deficits?" it still has its place even if it's not a good measure for broader intelligence.
Taleb: "There are problems with A because of B reasons"
Response: "B reasons prove A"
I really don't understand why this is so common. I don't fully agree w/ Taleb that the academic demographic he tends to pick on is so lost to navel-gazing that it is completely unable to understand the context of his arguments, but it's really odd how common this is.
To clarify, I'd love to see someone who actually understands Taleb's arguments to push back at him from the same premise. He says some really controversial (and potentially hugely important) stuff that needs to be challenged and peer-reviewed just to get a basic second opinion on it. This has yet to happen really because of what I described.