I mean, the normal distribution point is fairly compelling.

If you actually read the piece, it's pretty clear that modeling medicine/health with a normal distribution is generally not great. It's not complaining about normal distributions, it's complaining about their application in health sciences.

And in that context... it's a compelling and reasonable argument, and a lot of negative health outcomes result from applying "average" results to a specific person.

I mean, the US Air Force figured this out 80 years ago...

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/when-u-s-air-force-disc...

---

No comment on the "JEDI" thing. I haven't read the article so no idea if it's as unreasonable as it sounds.

I would suggest that this piece as written by Reason is ultimately garbage, though. Which should surprise very few folks.