I've had a hypothesis for a while I call "The IQ Bubble." Basically, unless you work in an exceptionally public facing role, adults will never encounter anybody with an IQ >15 points higher or lower than themselves. Separately, I've observed that people either act as they believe, or they believe as they act, with the far greater majority being in the latter category. In this latter category, I believe Chater's thesis is correct. For the former... The very short of what I'm saying is that this book appears to be the fruit of someone mistaking their lack of observation of a seriously intelligent person with intellectual or philosophical rigor for the lack their existence. It is the psychological equivalent to the standard historical revision practice—academia encourages people to come up with "revolutionary" ideas that discredit, challenge, and allegedly "disprove" things that everybody already knows to be true.