> > As books such as the Bell Curve have documented

The Bell Curve author is just a guy, why take what he says at face value? Also in a world of low economic growth, EQ seems much more important, you know to have the ability and the pleasure to politic your way within existing organizations and societal structures as opposed to singlehandedly create new things from scratch which seems far fetched considering that the days of revolutionary inventions you could do singlehandedly such as the wheel or fire are well into the distant past. Nowdays it is more a race to call dibs and associate one's name on progress made by the collective effort of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, that's essentially what happens in corporate America, the ability to do that is very much correlated with being in position that command lots of power and compensation, much higher multiples than those who do the technical heavy lifting.

Case in point: The US couldn't build a particle accelerator because of lack of EQ and good PR production from those who really wanted the thing, maybe because they were already thinking about what to do with the experiments wrongly assuming that the public would blindly give a green light to a 20bn dollar project just to satisfy the peculiar priorities of a very restricted number of individuals.

I don't know if that's a low IQ or a low EQ mistake, but still it's a pretty gross mistake from those who are considered to be the best and the brightest and the smartest , whatever the fuck that means in practical terms.

Speaking of practicality it was Von Neumann who was very adamant about bombing the Soviets and reducing Moscow, SPB etc to nuclear wasteland. Had he be President or close advisor to the President during the Cuban Missile Crisis he'd have launched the attack thanks to the game theory and all his intricate reasoning.

JFK without any knowledge of any of game theory but with a healthy passion for cigars, whiskey, boats and hoes de-escalated the crisis and without firing a single firecracker.

You never know the kind of guy you want to have by your side in the trenches until you make it out of it in one piece.

There's been a lot of responses to the dog whistles of The Bell Curve (1994) since it was published three decades ago; as an opinion piece and example of cherry picking un normalised results to get support for a pre determined viewpoint it has all the relevance of the craniometry works of Samuel George Morton.

Not so much as an example of balanced reasoned scientific examination of the full ANOVA spectrum of a domain.