Personally, via Peterson, I read a lot of the IQ literature and Peterson's arguments around it. I became reasonably convinced of his major claims (namely that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence, that heritability is a valid measure of genetic determination, and that IQ is largely heritable). (Incidentally, all these claims are profoudnly false).
Subsequently, I watched a long-form breakdown of IQ and my doubts increased. I then "clicked" IQ into place: for most of my adult life ive been complaining about fMRI, pharam, (AI), etc. -- ie., medical misuse of stats --- and somehow Peterson had lulled me into a false sense of security.
Taleb's article was the nail in the coffin, and I read around the references associated with it. I now place psychometrics firmly in that category of pseudoscience which is "absue of statistics by idiots in lab coats with GUIs".
I expect the culture to be following along with me, if at a long long distance. I think in 2022 "the informed elite" are roughly absorbing the obvious issues with AI, Psychology, etc. and that tradition of statisitcal BS which was clear at least a decade ago.
My "pro-IQ" scepticism was initially agaist people worried about racism, etc. It's very lullying for a sceptic to be confronted by people who dont care about reality that muhc. But this is a trap. IQ is actually BS, and its a shame that the people often most against it are also often very poorly informed.
To address IQ research head-on is a little like like addressing old-testament theological scholarship. The level of understanding of both the field, statistics and the philosophy of science required is very high.
It's a field which florishes, as often with theology, from extremely complex arguments with absolutely insane hidden premesies.
However, it's a politically popular position in some circles in recent years.
Compare Wikipedia in 2015 [1] with Wikipedia today [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligence_quot...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligence_quot...