The problem with Taleb's argument is that, as the linked article shows, IQ tests are as good measure of intelligence as of unintelligence. There is no inflection point after which IQ stops correlating with wealth. The slope is constant across all scales.
Taleb's argumentation relies on fictional scenarios whose conclusion do not match what he would have gotten looking at raw data instead.
Caloric intake in children correlates to height very well below the median(+), and then it stops. You can't grow arbitarily tall by eating more food, but if you underfeed a child enough, it will end up shorter than its more-fed siblings.
" In contrast, in developing countries, nutrition deficits lead to a lower heritability. The fact that the mean height of the U.S. population has almost plateaued in the past decade suggests that the nutrient environment has almost maximized the genetic potential of height, at least in this country. Improved nutrition elsewhere may have similar benefits in terms of stature."
(+) I use median here to mean some unspeicified percentile, as you did.
No, it wouldn't. I can hit you on the head with a hammer, and you'll function poorly in every conceivable performance test (low dimensionality), but success is high-dimensional.
If you want to measure wealth it would be easier to ask their income.
But you brought up the same point as the parent. 0 IQ correlates perfectly with death. Really low IQs correlate perfectly with mental disabilities. High IQs correlate (almost) perfectly with socio-economic status.
Taleb's argumentation relies on fictional scenarios whose conclusion do not match what he would have gotten looking at raw data instead.