Nassim Taleb criticises most IQ research.
““IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent (with a lot of noise), a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects.
Designed for learning disabilities, and given that it is not too needed there [ ] it ends up selecting for exam-takers, paper shufflers … The concept is poorly thought out mathematically by the field (commits a severe flaw in correlation under fat tails; fails to properly deal with dimensionality; treats the mind as an instrument not a complex system), and seems to be promoted by
psychometrics peddlers looking for suckers …
It is at the bottom an immoral measure that, while not working, can put people (and, worse, groups) in boxes for the rest of their lives.
There is no significant correlation (or any robust statistical association) between IQ and hard measures such as wealth. Most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests.
Some argue that IQ measures intellectual capacity — real world results come from, in addition, “wisdom” or patience, or “conscientiousness”, or decision-making or something of the sort. No. It does not even measure intellectual capacity/mental powers.
The whole discourse is worth reading if you are interested in the area.
In summary: IQ is useful to pick up learning disabilities - although there are many other ways to do that. It is not helpful for addressing many real world problems and challenges. On top of that, it is abused by racists making it problematic.
On climate change risks: https://www.thendobetter.com/investing/2017/9/18/nassim-taleb-climate-change-risk