The criticisms he makes against IQ are pretty easy to argue against.
1. So it looks like any correlation against IQ is strongest at IQ's < 100. This is a fine conclusion and shows an important result- as your IQ increases, your life outcomes are more dependent on other personality factors and choices. He knocks this as a "no correlation existing" for high IQ's, even when you can see the damn correlation on his scatterplots (even after he blacks out large portions of them).
2. For income vs. IQ, there will be high variance. This is obvious.
3. He intentionally omits R-values for many of his plots to hide their predictive power. Even smaller R-values, given a large sample size and good p-test, show the power of a correlation.
2. For income vs. IQ, there will be high variance. This is obvious.
3. He intentionally omits R-values for many of his plots to hide their predictive power. Even smaller R-values, given a large sample size and good p-test, show the power of a correlation.