That's an interesting one, because you can say that IQ is a flawed metric or misguided concept, but also agree that (random example) childhood lead exposure lowers IQ therefore let's reduce it. If the metric has any validity at all you can get good outcomes with this even if some details are wrong or imprecise.
Yes, just as you could draw conclusions about chemical exposure that increases or decreases jump-rope ability. If you use the metric in the right context it's fine.
We've gotten complaints about this username, and I think I agree with them. Trollish usernames aren't allowed on HN, because they effectively troll every thread they post to. If you email us with a better name, we'll be happy to switch it over for you and unban the account, but I've banned it at least for now.
It seems to me this is actually of an example of it used in aggregate, removing pollutants across whole populations, rather than on the individual. I might also sooner say the lesson is if you can unambiguously use the metric to lift people up, that's good. You still have to be very careful about what that means.
