[trod1234]

IQ is a very poor measure of intelligence (which is just speed), above 83.

Those that are above 83 will perform better than anyone under that number regardless of training. The military has quite a lot of research on this.

That's about all its useful for.

[linschn]

Could you please expand on that ? I haven't found any sources, the only thing that pops up is a bullshit claim by Jordan peterson, that has been debunked as, at best, an oversimplification.

[trod1234]

There is nothing more for me to expand on. If you want to do the research some of the starting sources are below.

Peterson has spoken alot on IQ and made several claims about IQ, you'll need to be specific about which claim you mean. Discarding everything the man says is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a fallacy/flawed logic.

Here are the sources:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210426091730/https://www.theba... - Covers the required AFQT scores, Army being 31.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801...

https://web.archive.org/web/20200425230037/https://www.rand....

[tptacek]

I don't know about "83" (the number I always see is 100), but: IQ tests are less discriminating at the high end, and test-retest reliability drops at the high end (the "high end" of an IQ test might just be testing grit or fatigue). I think it's widely understood that IQ is unreliably ordinal as scores increase.

You definitely don't need to dip into the Peterson Cinematic Universe to look this up!

[whoodle]

Not OP but Nassim Taleb was written a lot about basically this