Not only that, he seems to be conflating standard deviations with productivity multipliers (I'm not exactly sure how to translate his +2 to productivity, I could be misinterpreting), which is definitely wrong.
Heavens, no. That wasn't the idea, and certainly not my intention. It was merely a numerical standard deviance value, nothing more.
Granted, the people at the high end of the scale are probably more productive when facing more difficult problems but that's all. "How much more" is then an altogether different question. I'm not sure if one could even put a figure on it.
