IQ does follow normal distribution, gaussian type distribution. In that sense there are real experts in IQ.

But that is simply in assessing IQ. What is less clear is how IQ scores will affect a given individual or even a given society. We can pour over our cross sectional data and note all kinds of interesting correlations, but I don’t put too much stock in these until they can be used predictavly (e.g. you can score a given individual’s IQ, make predictions about his future life history, and then be vindicated as the years go on, or do more or less the same thing with entire nations or regions). Those tests have not been conducted yet.

This is unproven. Indeed, given that HBD, intelligence, and eugenics fall into both of the categories (human psychology and complex systems) that define a ‘zero validity’ environment, I am inclined to think these fields would do even worse when field tested then most of the normal ones.

But I suppose we could do a simple field test without any of the fancy social science methodology attached to test this out. I would love to see the HBD crew make a series of predictions about the world and its state over the next one, five, and fifteen years and see if they do any better than those relying on different frames of analysis.

I am not holding my breath.

I think that there’s still considerable respect for commercial innovators (c.f. Steve Jobs), but increasingly the public sector seems to be part of the problem, not the solution.

There are odds where a two-linked event occurs more often than one. For example: people have eyesight problem vs people with eyesight problem who use glasses or contact lenses. I bet there are more of the second, even if there is need of two events versus one.

Another, people with a driver’s licence vs people with a driver’s license who own a car. I bet there are more of the second than the first.

Zero validity environments tend to fall into two categories:Environments whose size or complexity make it impossible for experts to recognize the patterns or relationships they need to understand in order to make valid judgements about the system (such as faced by economists, ecologists, and financial analysts).Environments where experts must evaluate behaviors, attitudes, past history, and other personal idiosyncrasies to try and explain why individuals act as they do or how they will act in the future (such as faced by psychiatrists, college admissions officers, and court judges).

There is a third category: environments where there are patterns and relationships to be recognized and learned, but ones that are unacceptable because they run counter to established beliefs about the world. Very narrow experts, those who can avoid the limelight and keep to the shadows of academic obscurity, may accumulate expertise in such fields, but it does not propagate outwards and cannot be made use of in the wider community. Examples: HBD, intelligence, eugenics.