This raises some interesting questions.

If the end result is fraud and bad medicine, whether you regulate more or less, is that a reason to regulate less so money isn't wasted on mandatory fraudulent studies?

Regulation raises the the barrier of entry to selling medicine. Does this reduce the amount of fraud because it's harder to to sell completely untested medicine and there's at least some quality control by the regulator? Or does it increase the amount of fraud because once a drug costs huge amounts of money to develop and approve, companies are less willing to take a loss if they discover the drug doesn't really work, and so lie more?

First of all, IQ tests aren't designed for high IQ, so there's a lot of noise there and this would mainly be noise, if he correctly reported the results, which he doesn't.

Second, there are some careful studies of high IQ (SMPY etc) by taking the well designed SAT test, which doesn't have a very high ceiling for adults and giving it to children below the age of 13. By giving the test to representative samples, they can well characterize the threshold for the top 3%. Using self-selected samples, they think that they can characterize up to 1/10,000. In any event, within the 3% they find increasing SAT score predicts increasing probability of accomplishments of all kinds, in direct contradiction of these claims.

Anyone have information on cross cultural studies on attitudes toward honesty?

"Cheaper and better" existed before, so you are focusing on "smarter". So what is that which is smarter than humans? Point it out to me.

When other things get smarter, cheaper, better, and you don't, eventually you lose.

That's the basic luddite proposition and the problem is that the entire history of mankind says that this is not the way it works. And if you are going to pronounce But This Time It Will Be Different, you need stronger arguments.

Still, my question remains - is there real data out there to support the contention that P(elite career|IQ) has a local max and then decreases for higher IQ?

No. As I point out in my comment there, the evidence is strongly the other way: TIP/SMPY. To the extent that measures like wealth hit diminishing returns or even fall (eg Zagorsky), it has as much to do with personal choices & values as ability: the physicist who could make money on Wall Street but chooses to continue studying particles, the person who chooses to become an influential but poor writer, etc. (There are many coins of the realm, and greenbacks are but one.)

Yikes. If your lunatic sensor didn't go off reading this, you should get it adjusted.

From a theoretical standpoint, democratic meritocracies should evolve five IQ defined 'castes', The Leaders, The Advisors, The Followers, The Clueless and The Excluded.

If that doesn't bother you, notice that this guy is putting a lot of weight on really simplistic statistics about the edge cases (the half-percent or less of the population which is very smart and/or is "successful in" one of his preferred "intellectually elite professions"). Oh, I see Gwern actually commented about this in a comment.

Basically, this is a lovely irony of a presumed-high-IQ author jumping to a pretty ridiculous conclusion because he's not willing/able to try to dissolve his questions and do the hard work to be rigorous in his research.

Thank you. I'm not sure that Trump's techniques are all that advanced, but maybe the difference is that he's more thorough in applying them.

Trumps scores very highly on what I would call "holding the frame". He uses very simple language in an enviroment where most people wouldn't.

Arguably, some people are already not economically viable as employees. But I don't know why most of people wouldn't be able to adapt, just like their no-longer-economically-viable peasant ancestors did.

No, I think Adams assigns a higher probability to Trump winning than most people do. I think Adams accepted this theory on Trump would cost him money.