While I’ve been critical of how IQ tests are applied in education, @nntaleb is incorrect that IQ tests are “meant to select exam-takers, paper shufflers, obedient ITIs (intellectual yet idiots), ill adapted for ‘real life’”. See thread below.
1. If you look at which tests are most strongly correlated with total IQ scores, you see that IQ is least strongly correlated with clerical skills (e.g., code learning, reading speed) and most strongly correlated with analogical, abstract reasoning ("fluid intelligence"). 
2. There is a positive correlation between fluid intelligence and virtually every domain of human knowledge. However, it is also true that there is a lot of unexplained variance in knowledge acquisition (the “Dark Matter” of adult intelligence): pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0372/9152b5966…
3. If you look at different “trait complexes” of ability, interests, and personality, you see that IQ is much more relevant for Science/Math and Ideational Fluency trait complexes than Perceptual Speed/Conventional and Enterprising/Social trait complexes: researchgate.net/profile/Eric_H…
4. IQ and creative cognition are small to moderately positively correlated, with the strength of the correlation depending on the domain. IQ is more strongly related to scientific creative achievement than artistic creative achievement. scottbarrykaufman.com/wp-content/upl…
5. While @nntaleb is correct that even the strongest correlates of IQ only explain 50% of the variance in the outcome, that level of prediction is extremely high considering all of the many factors in life that also enter into the equation, including luck: blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-mind…
6. I recommend that @nntaleb read my mentor’s seminal text on the topic: amazon.com/IQ-Human-Intel… or my own book on the topic, in which I tried to integrate hundreds of studies to come to a more complete understanding of human intelligence: amazon.com/Ungifted-Intel…
7. This shit is nuanced.
