Talk:Intelligence quotient/Archive 3

"oudated methodology" paragraph

I removed a lot of things from that paragraph; there was a lot of off-topic and POV stuff (the previous title was: "IQ & oudated methodology: runing society?". It looks like the author was too focused on passing the "2006 paper"'s view. I honnestly think that even this paper will benefit from my edit, since it makes it look far more scientific. Aleph42 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am Surprised

I am surprised that an article dealing with IQ and Psychometrics does not give any mention of Lee Cronbach or Louise Guttman who are two of the top Psychometricians in history. Both have shown that IQ and intelligence tests are of little value at best, and worthless at worst. Indeed, both Guttman and Cronbach are mentioned in every Psychology Text book dealing with Psychometrics. Louise Guttman is regarded as the world's number Psychometrican in History.

Peter Schonemann, considered to be the world's foremost expert on factor analysis, has also demonstrated the worthlessness of IQ tests. Oscar Kempthorn, an expert in statistical genetics has also shown several problems with these kind of tests.

Head Size and IQ

One of the reasons for a correlation between the two in the article is that "children frequently draw pictures of people with larger heads than is realistic, possibly because the human mind is what makes us ourselves". Is it just me, or does this sentence make no sense? Also there is a recent article about how the genes associated with a larger head were not found to have any correlation with IQ, and therefore head size/brain size did not relate to IQ. Maybe someon could find it and add it to the section. Surely if head size was related to intelligence, then all the geniuses would have massive heads? Most of them appear to have average sized, or even quite small heads. And don't foget that many mentally challenged people have very large heads, although it is often related to a medical condition.

---

Just to mention: Intelligence depends on the amount of creases on your brain. Actually a dolphin's brains are more creased than a humans, but something about the human mind makes us more capable of using it. No idea what. --91.154.63.211 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on a few more things than that. The advantage humans seem to hold over dolphins in intelligence is generally attributed to the existence of "granular layers" in the human cerebral cortex, which pack more neurons and also more neuron connections (synapses), whereas dolphin cerebral cortex contains much fewer of these "granular" areas.--Ramdrake 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference Charts

There is a discrepency between the two charts in the reference charts section. The article only differentiates them by stating that the second is more detailed than the first (eg: the first classifies anyone 140+ to be a genius whereas the second classifies geniuses as between 171 and 176). Does anyone have two charts of differing depth with the same opinions about genius, or should the article be amended to say that the two charts differ in more than their specificity. As it stands now, I find it a bit confusing.

The IQ refrence charts section is currenty under going expansions. Please check out that section later as more detail should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.10.133 (talk) 04:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Religiosity and IQ Correlation

I am going to edit this section because it is vague and it does not state anything. There is negative correlation between religiosity and religion. All that section talks about is that there is some unproven relationship and that correlation is not causation. The relationship is negative as proven by most studies done all over the web.

Questionable Statement

"Although gender-related differences in average IQ are insignificant, male scores display a higher variance: there are more men than women with both very high and very low IQs. The average IQ being 100 could see man have a s.d. of 16 and women a s.d. of 15. **Differences in variance would mean that more men are less intelligent than women also.**"

What...?

The statement could have also noted that there are more men that are MORE intelligent than woman also. Pointless statement that is clearly NOT NPOV.

I would say get rid of that last part of the statement. It doesn't ned to be said, because the rest of the statement explains it already. and the way that last part is written is a little funny. 144.139.121.27 10:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

People lying about their IQs

If 100 is the average IQ how come so many people are lying online and saying they have IQs of 140-170?

1)Just because there is an average doesn't mean there aren't people above the average.

2)It isn't that difficult to think of reasons for people lying. Raoul 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

An IQ of about 150 IQ (15 sd) is about 1/1000. In the world that means there are 6 million people with an IQ >= 150.

But more likely (as pointed out) is that almost no one will willingly associate themselves with the label below average in regards to intelligence. I remember reading a studying saying that approximately 95% of Americans claim to have above average IQ.

AmitDeshwar 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an IQ of about 150 is about 3.15-3.30 SD (depending if you use 15 or 16 points as a SD) from the norm, although it does translate to about between 1/1125 and 1/2330 (for SD15 and SD16 respectively). As far as the rest, you are of course absolutely right.--Ramdrake 22:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To quote from the Mensa International article:

Because different tests are scaled differently, it is not meaningful to compare raw scores between tests, only percentiles. For example, the minimum accepted score on the Stanford-Binet is 132, while for the Cattell it is 148.

On the Cattell scale, an IQ of 150 translates to around 1/50 (2%), or 120 million people worldwide (6 million in the US) ... that's why the high IQ societies all use a percentile for membership, rather than a number. OTOH, given the chance, most people would rather say their's is 151 (Cattell) rather than 135 (S-B) because it sounds more impressive. --141.156.232.179 22:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no world-wide standardisation of IQ data, one cannot say that there are '120 million people worldwide' with IQs in the 98th percentile of Americans, Australians, Britons or wherever. The top two percent of one nation may score much lower than the top two of another and, when grouped together into the same pool of data, may no longer constitute anywhere near the top two percent of the world-wide aggregate.

BCAB 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also at least one scam free iq test online that reports ultra high iq's for everyone and then emails them offers to buy 'intelligence profile' packages. The one I came across reported my IQ as 156 (which it called "genius" level) while other tests from non-commercial interests have scored me around 106 (tiny bit above average). I have a few friends who have taken the scam test as well and none have scored below 150. The test also seemed shorter and easier than the others I've taken since. So some people may be duped by the scam test, we all want to believe we're geniuses I guess ;)

InterLNK 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in a society where we are judged not based on personality, but based on inteligence and looks, obviously everyone wants to lie about their IQ, since good looks are in the eye of the beholder we can't lie about them (unless plastic surgery is considered "lieing" about your appearence). Take me for example; I'm not the type of a person who lies to anyone. The more you lie, the less people will believe you when your telling the truth. Thats just common knowledge. Since the truth has a way of coming out anyhow, I like to let people know the truth when I first talk to them. However, I have taken two online IQ tests. One of them marked me at a 140 IQ, the second at a 125 IQ. Neither tried to scam me, but I commonly tell people I have a 140 IQ "according to some IQ tests" if it comes up in conversation. For the most part, I am a pretty smart guy, but I doubt I have a 140 IQ. Maybe I do, maybe I don't, but either way its just human nature to make yourself appear better than you are. Not only that, but our society places a huge deal on your IQ. Its interesting really, when you want to know how strong someone is you ask them for how much they can bench press, you judge good looks by what society deems is attractive (which I'm fine with just for the record), and you judge someones intelligence by their IQ. Instead of realizing that inteligence can be divided into your ability to naturaly solve things (such as puzzles), your ability to learn, the knowledge you've gained from learning, and your natural ability to absorb different studies (such as reading and writing or math), we just narrow all that down into IQ. Since society determines how smart you are soley based on your IQ, everyone will either lie saying they have an above average IQ when they've never even taken a test but just think they are smart, lie about their IQ score, lie by "rounding" our IQ score (IE, a 101 IQ score would be rounded to 110), or very few people will be honest about it. We want everyone to see us in the best light imaginable. DurotarLord 18:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are blowing their importance way out of proportion. Intelligence is important as in you need enough of it to get by, but it isn't the critical bench mark you seem to think it is. Most people I know do not bring up "What is your IQ score?" in normal conversation... seems you have a few issues....

Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Please keep discussion as relevant as is possible, and i question the relevance of this entire section, to be truthful. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, rather than the topic itself, unless the topic comes up in an attempt to improve. WP:NOT Thanks----JamesSugrono^U|C 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The need for online IQ tests

It would be a good idea to have example IQ tests online or linked to this page so that people can actually see what IQ tests actually *are*. --NukeMason 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I was reading throught this discussion again (yes, I have way TOO much time to deal with). One of the issues that I have about the use of IQ tests and the like is that the article is likely to be very unscientific without having some kind of discussion that shows case studies of how it is that IQ is assigned to specific people based upon a specific test conditions and results. Anyhow, the point I made above (that no-one has responded to, perhaps unsurprisingly, is that there should be a specific test taken so that everyone can take the test, and actually work out their own IQ to see what is being done mathematically, to get a feel for how non-linear statistical effects might make a big difference to IQ results).

I hope that some of the above makes some sense.

--NukeMason 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but a problem I've noticed is that most online IQ tests are either poor indicators of IQ or have costs attached. Finding a decent IQ test is pretty unlikely. If you want to add examples of online IQ tests (purported), and list them as such, that would probably be fine. There's one flash based one at "www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/"; I personally think it's pretty poor because it uses knowledge (achievement, I guess) based questions and memory questions in addition to pattern recognition; it also uses a time limit for each question. There are a few extra ones at tickle.com and related websites that are probably even less valid. "High-IQ" tests are less common; I don't know how valid the tests at "http://paulcooijmans.lunarpages.com/p/gliaweb/tests/" are; they have costs but it seems like the author is sensible. Maybe it's pseudoscience, maybe not; I can't pass judgment. If anybody wants to add those, they can go ahead. Hope that helps a little... Robinson0120 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Love them or hate them, they're here to stay. I'd move to make a separate page for them on Wikipedia but obviously I'm a bit biased (not in a statistical sense):). They do warrant some mention in the general article if only to debunk the common myth that they're as valid and reliable as individually administered intelligence tests. IvyIQTest100 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos. Wikipedia scoops James Flynn by two months or more

I travelled over here about a month ago and read for the first time that there were published studies that seemed to indicate that the "Flynn Effect" was slowing or stopped in certain countries. Yesterday, James Flynn himself breaks the news. First, let me say Congratulations!! on scooping Professor Flynn by at least a full two months!!

the man who first observed this effect, the psychologist James Flynn, has made another observation: intelligence test scores have stopped rising. Far from indicating that now we really are getting dumber, this may suggest that certain of our cognitive functions have reached — or nearly reached — the upper limits of what they will ever achieve, Professor Flynn believes. In other words, we can’t get much better at the mental tasks we are good at, no matter how hard we try. If we are to make any further progress, we will have to start exercising different parts of our brain, particularly the parts controlling language acquisition and empathy, according to Professor Flynn, an emeritus professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand....

But that's not the only 'scoop' I've witnessed in just this past week. Scientific American in it's on-line version has just gotten around to reporting the link between IQ and post-traumatic stress disorder that apparently has been in wikipedia's IQ article for some time now.

A big double KUDOS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.8 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I suppose the above commenter is being facetious. Proclaiming facts before they can be cited is called imagination. Tstrobaugh 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. OTOH, stating citable facts while failing to cite them is not imagination, and does seem to happen on WP from time to time.  :-) cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I just think people with high IQs have more interest in knowing their IQs as such they take more of such test on their proof-of-intelligence pursuit and somehow outsmart future tests..that i believe accounts for the Flynn Effect. Maybe Emeritus Prof. Flynn should look at the test scores from a point where examiners/ test designers are failing to come up with any new tests. Stagnation sets in if you are confronted with the same tests and that leads to indifference and affects scores. I disagree somewhat with Prof. Flynn's statement that 'we can’t get much better at the mental tasks we are good at, no matter how hard we try' on the basis that intelligence is about adaptability within the shortest time and say that "if one is able to finish a task faster than he/ she did earlier on, they are bettering themselves": maybe that should be the focal point of future IQ test, The Time factor. ;-)

Ratio IQs versus deviation IQs

The difference between ration and deviation IQs is explained here.[1] --Jagz 08:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?

"For people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, IQ is highly heritable, and by adulthood the influence of family environment on IQ is undetectable...In the United States, marked variation in IQ occurs within families, with siblings differing on average by almost one standard deviation"

If IQ is "highly heritable," shouldn't we expect each sibling of a given set of parents to have IQs that are much smaller than one standard deviation? The sentence implies "almost one standard deviation" to be a large amount - one standard deviation also overlaps considerably over other sources of error and may be statistically insignificant for the determination of difference between families.

And what about external environment? This paragraph only mentions "family environment." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.250.81 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Quite frankly, "Regression

The heritability of IQ measures the extent to which the IQ of children appears to be influenced by the IQ of parents. Because the heritability of IQ is less than 100%, the IQ of children tends to "regress" towards the mean IQ of the population. That is, high IQ parents tend to have children who are less bright than their parents, whereas low IQ parents tend to have children who are brighter than their parents. The effect can be quantified by the equation \hat y = \bar x + h^2 \left ( \frac{m + f}{2} - \bar x \right) where

   * \hat{y} is the predicted average IQ of the children;
   * \bar{x} is the mean IQ of the population to which the parents belong;
   * h2 is the heritability of IQ;
   * m and f are the IQs of the mother and father, respectively.[15]

Thus, if the heritability of IQ is 50%, a couple averaging an IQ of 120 may have children that average around an IQ of 110, assuming that both parents come from a population with a median IQ of 100.

A caveat to this reasoning are those children who have chromosomal abnormalities, such as Klinefelter's syndrome and Triple X syndrome whose "normal" IQ is only one indicator; their visual IQ is another indicator. And so forth."

Sounds like an amateur Mathematician gone wild.

I totally don't know where to discuss this, but it smacks of utter crap. Even the note (15) is referring to plant heredity. Luerim 10:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

History

The assessment system devised by Binet and Simon was named for them, "the Binet-Simon Scale" (not the Binet-Simon intelligence scale), by users and translators in the USA.

Among the first intelligence tests designed for adult populations were the group-administered Army Alpha and Beta mental tests, developed by the 'Vineland committee' from 1917 to 1920.

Yerkes, R. M. (Ed.) (1921) Psychological examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 15, 1-890.

Subtests from Army Alpha and Beta later formed the basis for Wechsler's individually-administered scales, the first of which was the 'Wechsler-Bellevue Scale'. Londonmatty20 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I feel that one of the reasons this article is controversial is that in places there is confusion between the terms 'intelligence' and 'IQ'.

For example, the section on 'Influences of genetics and environment' begins with the phrase, "The role of genes and environment (nature and nurture) in determining IQ is reviewed in ...". Similarly, the section on 'Development' begins, "It is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should ..."

In both cases, and many places later, I think the term IQ - a score on a test - has been used inappropriately in place of intelligence. Discussion of a putative index (measure) of any mental phenomenon should be distinguished from discussion of the underlying construct. See the articles under Psychometrics for further explanation.

There needs to be some acknowledgment that what influences intelligence (however defined) can be considered separately from what influences scores on intelligence tests. Most of the current content of sections 4 (Influences of genetics and environment), 5 (IQ and the brain) and 7 (Group differences) probably belong elsewhere. Londonmatty20 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree that IQ studies are "controversial" - I don't agree with the assertions that the article is "controversial" because of "confusion." The article's first sentence, the one I'm certain is read by most everyone coming to the article, reads this way --

An intelligence quotient or IQ is a score derived from a set of standardized tests of intelligence.

The rest of the first paragraph of the IQ article takes a similar tone. As such, I'm not sure there's reason for the confusion that you see -- or even that there is confusion. Second, while I do agree that the area of intelligence testing is controversial, I wonder if intelligence testing isn't "controversial" for the same reasons that global warming or teaching evolution are "controversial" – that is, the science is under pressure from either the political left or right - or both.

~~Bob~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.10 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree: the opening paragraphs of this article are very clear; and that IQ studies are controversial is without doubt, for good or ill. Neverthless I feel that one of the reasons that this article is controversial is because some contributors use the term IQ in place of (when they mean) intelligence: that is, they confuse the measure with the construct. The current content of sections 4, 5 and 7 belong in the article on intelligence. This article could more profitably focus on the history, uses and critique of this particular measure of intelligence. Londonmatty20 20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Both the opening article and the first section of the article defines 'IQ.' So I simply don't agree with you on the 'confusion' - nor do I see the 'controversy' part without the motivator of politics -- but, frankly, my opinion is one. So, in those places where you feel a 'contributor' him or herself specifically uses 'intelligence'/ 'IQ' where 'IQ' / 'intelligence' would be a better term - I would think you should feel free to make those specific changes -- in terms. (Recalling all the while when a 'contributor' is using his own language or the language of a cited study) Doing this might clear the confusion you feel is there and that's what wikipedia is about. However, as far as I can tell, the studies which are cited in the sections you feel are 'confusing' use the term 'IQ' and sometimes 'intelligence' in their language - this is the language of the researchers and most are linked to the original publications. In these instances, I doubt it would be a good idea to change the terms used by the researchers who did the studies even if you feel they should not have used 'IQ' / 'intelligence' so freely. The article is about 'IQ' and the studies cited are expressly about 'IQ'. If a researcher sometimes uses 'IQ' with 'intelligence' than that's probably what they mean. On the other hand, if you not agree with the choice of language in the studies why not make an addition indicating such in one of the sections of the article? The sections near the end seem to discuss some of this.

Bob207.69.139.7 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an article on intelligence in addition to this article. --W. D. Hamilton 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: breastfeeding and higher IQ

It was noted in the body of the article that a reputable source was needed to support the claim that sustained breastfeeding results in a higher IQ for the infant. Science Daily contains a summary of a well-known and oft-cited 1999 University of Kentucky study which shows these results, specifically that breastfed children have higher IQs and that sustained breastfeeding continues to provide cognitive benefits. See the article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990928075022.htm Another study (1993)shows greater cognitive development in infants who were breastfed - this article was included in the collection Undernutrition and Behavioral Development in Children, which was a publication of the International Dietary Energy Consultative Group: http://www.unu.edu/Unupress/food2/UID04E/uid04e0j.htm 66.82.9.11 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Pamela Jennings

There is a 2006 study done with British children and their mothers (described and cited in this article) that takes mothers IQ into consideration -- something that, according to that study at least, was not done by previous studies. Once mothers IQ was considered, brestfeeding did not appear to be a factor in childrens IQ. I'll go get the link to that study (from this article) and post it here --

The longstanding belief that breast feeding correlates with an increase in the IQ of offspring has been challenged in a 2006 paper published in the British Medical Journal. The study used data from 5,475 children, the offspring of 3,161 mothers, in a longitudinal survey. The results indicated that mother's IQ, not breast feeding, explained the differences in the IQ scores of offspring...

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38978.699583.55v1

~~Bob~~

Someone continues to spam this article with links to his/her "IQ test"

Just a note to be on the look out. He has bragged before that he'll just continue to post the spam since it's worth it to him due to the increase in hits at his site. Normally he posts his spam links at the end of the article and sometimes he posts more than one link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.12 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

IQ = Trivial

IQ tests (as with all tests) are inaccurate i.e. somedays you will score higher/lower. Plus if you have disabilities that doesn't mean you're dumb.

• This is an encyclopedia. Link to sources, state what you want to change or add to the article but don't bother with pointless rants. --Svetovid 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

One link mentioned that depressed and schizophrenic people had a lower score. How do you test a large group of schizophrenics to know what their IQs are - depressed would be as hard to test. Mental hospitals and prisons in the past had many extremely high IQ patients - but testing the extreme cases of illness would have been problematic ( their score could be 0 most days ). The severly depressed wouldn't care what the score was - as I suppose would they very poor, etc ( is a good score really going to improve your life anyway?). Much of this - politics and social science stuff belongs in pseudoscience. There are articles on Jewish intelligence in wiki - any articles on Asian intelligence. We might as well learn about the highest , not the second place group.

• Making these points in that way is independent/original argument, which is not allowed under the Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to contribute this line of argument, you should do it in the "Criticism" section of the article, and cite "reliable source[s]". There are many respectable sources who argue that IQ testing is a pseudoscience the function of which is to reify inequality. If you are looking for sources, I suggest "The IQ Mythology: Class, Race, Gender." by Elaine and Harry Mensch. You might also cite Walter Lippmann's 1922 debate with Lewis M Terman, the S-B test's creator (in "The IQ Controversy: Critical Readings (NY: Pantheon, 1976)). The race connection is fairly thoroughly explored by contributors to "Race and IQ" (NY: Oxford UP, 1975), edited by Ashley Montagu. Hope that helps Isaacabulafia 06:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Percent Correlation of IQ Tests" table

The "Percent Correlation of IQ Tests" seems odd to me. What does 87% correlation of tests which the same person takes twice mean? Seems odd. I belive that this is supposed to be the correlation factor, r, which is in this case indicated with 0.87, not 87%. I've never seen r used like percents - r is just an number, indicating strength between groups of numbers.

Could someone clarify?

---G. 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw that table in a book called Genome: An Autobiographyby Matt Ridley. Don't own it -- saw it while checking out some bookstore science books.

I also made a quick internet search and found this -- a link to a NewsHour interview with Ridley / Ray Suarez about Ridley's book. (I also noticed the table in teaching materials on the Net) Didn't look beyond the interview, but the linked PBS site might provide something - since it is about the book and provides other links.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june00/genome_2-29.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.9 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

most of the data you could want should be in this paper: Bouchard, T. J. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities. Human Biology, 70, 257–279.

if it's not, the textbooks by Plomin are a good source. --W.R.N. 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make a proper citation in the article.Ultramarine 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations?

Is it just me, or is the article missing a lot of citations and references? The first few sections have lots of claims, but few sources. The rest of the article has a lot of sources, but the first part definitely needs to be cited or removed because it's not really well written anyway and is pov sometimes. I dunno anything about this stuff but it needs to be fixed.Dan Guan 20:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's IQ, NOT I.Q.

There are no periods. PLEASE don't use them. Bulldog123 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why?--LocrialTheSequel 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be because I.Q. makes too much sense. See the recent change of S.A.T. from an abbreviation of Scholastic Aptitude Test to just plain SAT which now officially stands for nothing. Aaron Bowen 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not for the UK. It's 'standard asessment test'.

"Regression" section pointless

An article which gives the basics about IQ should not talk about esoterica like regression to the mean.

I suggest that we delete that section. Bulldog123 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

explain your reasoning that statistical terms used to describe a statistic is esoterica.Tstrobaugh 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

post 1996 IQ correlations papers

the new stuff should be integrated. --W.R.N. 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

educational achievement

• Ian J. Deary, Steve Strand, Pauline Smith and Cres Fernandes, Intelligence and educational achievement, Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 13-21. [2]
  • The correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearman's gfrom CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSE scores) was 0.81. General intelligence contributed to success on all 25 subjects. Variance accounted for ranged from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design.
• Marley W. Watkins, Pui-Wa Lei and Gary L. Canivez, Psychometric intelligence and achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis, Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 59-68. [3]
  • Within the limits imposed by the design and sample, it appears that psychometric IQ is a causal influence on future achievement measures whereas achievement measures do not substantially influence future IQ scores.
• Treena Eileen Rohde and Lee Anne Thompson, Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability, Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 83-92. [4]
  • When controlling for working memory, processing speed, and spatial ability, in a sample of 71 young adults (29 males), measures of general cognitive ability continued to add to the prediction of academic achievement, but none of the specific cognitive abilities accounted for additional variance in academic achievement after controlling for general cognitive ability. However, processing speed and spatial ability continued to account for a significant amount of additional variance when predicting scores for the mathematical portion of the SAT while holding general cognitive ability constant.

income

• Charles Murray "IQ and economic success." Public Interest, 128, 21–35. (1997)
• Charles Murray Income Inequality and IQ, AEI Press (1998) PDF copy
• Murnane, R., Willett, J. B., Braatz, M. J., and Duhaldeborde, Y. (2001). Do different dimensions of male high school students’ skills predict labour market success a decade later? Evidence from the NLSY. Education Economic Review, 20, 311–320.* Zax & Rees, 2002

social pathologies

• The Underclass Revisited, AEI Press (1999) PDF copy

I fail to see something interesting for a non-researcher. Possibly the GSCE, but this is probably similar to high correlations with SAT, which could of course be mentioned.Ultramarine 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IQ and income

I've removed this part of the article: "IQ correlates... very weakly or not at all with accumulated wealth, especially inherited." I've seen studies where the IQ-income correlation is as high as .4. In most studies I've seen (and in the NLSY cited in tThe Bell Curve), the correlation is in the mid .3s. In the social sciences, that's hardly negligible.

• "income" and "accumulated wealth" are very, very different.

restriction of range effects in heritability has been studied since 1996

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10519-007-9142-7

The Environments of Adopted and Non-adopted Youth: Evidence on Range Restriction From the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS).

Previous reviews of the literature have suggested that shared environmental effects may be underestimated in adoption studies because adopted individuals are exposed to a restricted range of family environments. A sample of 409 adoptive and 208 non-adoptive families from the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS) was used to identify the environmental dimensions on which adoptive families show greatest restriction and to determine the effect of this restriction on estimates of the adoptive sibling correlation. Relative to non-adoptive families, adoptive families experienced a 41% reduction of variance in parent disinhibitory psychopathology and an 18% reduction of variance in socioeconomic status (SES). There was limited evidence for range restriction in exposure to bad peer models, parent depression, or family climate. However, restriction in range in parent disinhibitory psychopathology and family SES had no effect on adoptive-sibling correlations for delinquency, drug use, and IQ. These data support the use of adoption studies to obtain direct estimates of the importance of shared environmental effects on psychological development.

--W.R.N. 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

excellent

the bulleted list under heritability is excellent. --W.R.N. 08:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Economic and social correlates of IQ in the USA table

This table makes no sense. The text below it talks about -1.0 to 1.0 correlations and yet the caption on the table alleges the numbers to be the "percentage of each IQ sub-population". The first row I follow: 5+20+50+20+5=100 and fits standard distribution. But now look at the second row: 72% of people married before 30 have IQ below 75! 81% between 75 and 90, 81% between 90 and 110!? These can't be percentages of the sub-population, the title of the table says they are correlates, but obviously not in the -1.0 to 1.0 range. Does anyone have the cited source book for this table? I think someone mis-transcribed the information and created the incorrect caption. --Danny Rathjens 08:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think its saying that 72% of people with IQ below 75 are married before 30, not vice versa. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If that were the case then wouldn't the proper numbers for the first row be all 100s? ah. Someone has modified the table to make that row separate and to look as if it is part of the header. That makes a lot more sense to me now; I just misinterpreted which axis defined the sub-populations. Although I still think it is a bit confusing to show a table of percentages called "correlates" next to a table of "correlation coefficients" with a range of 0.0 to 1.0 (apparently meant to elucidate the concept of correlation) followed by text talking about validity correlations ranging from -1.0 to 1.0. (and surprisingly I have a high IQ! ;) --Danny Rathjens 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article could use a question or two along with an explanation of why certain answers are right or wrong. Particularly the ones with pattern recognition, a lot of people don't understand why answers in a pattern set are correct or incorrect. Aaron Bowen 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, copyright would almost certainly be an issue with any test currently being administered. Equally unfortunate: If we could get our hands on some older tests whose copyright had expired, certain people would probably dismiss them as being "out of date" and therefore unrepresentative, while any never-copyrighted tests would likely be dismissed as unaccredited or some such thing. Still, if anybody wants to add a couple of IQ test questions and explanations that won't get us into trouble with the copyright people, I'd certainly support that move and take your side against the naysayers. Buck Mulligan 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

High-IQ society thing

Somebody flagged a bunch of stuff in the new section on societies for people who think they're geniuses. While I didn't add the section, I did edit it extensively, and I don't think that pointing out the obvious (i.e., that people with common interests--in this case their smart-guy complex--use the Internet to form societies. Furthermore, it seems rather obvious to me, looking at the prose, that the claims of the society mentioned are dubious to say the least. As such, there's no need for a "notability" flag. It might all be nonsense, but it's entirely relevant to the topic of IQ in the modern age. Buck Mulligan 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have watched over many years the development of the high IQ societies. Unfortunately it is hard to disprove them and they are self regulating. They exist because those that qualify for them accept that they should exist. It his hard to critique them when one can not qualify. The science behind them is sound and generally understandable. High IQ societies is a social product of IQ testing. The very gifted have found a way to set tests for themselves and rank each other. An interesting concept that still has room to grow.

My personal favorite is the existence of groups who claim to be in the 99.9997%, and do so by administering their own, emailed, unsupervised "mega-test," which can be scored for a nifty fifty dollar bill. Some of these groups are really quite self-aggrandizing - of course, I was always of the opinion that Geniuses were supposed to be smart. You'd think folks in these societies could manage a means to find a way to pat their own backs without paying somebody else to do it for them. 82.83.71.153 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have simpathy for these rare groups, and I do call them rare for good reason, as the skill level is a treasure for the world.RoddyYoung 13:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do the descriptions for the IQ bands in this section come from? It is not referenced and I've never come across these descriptions despite familiarity with most of the major IQ tests. Many of the descriptions seem quit prejorative - Vaughan 08:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vaughan, terms such as "idiot" and "moron" were used in scientific papers to describe specific ranges of IQ scores in the early 20th century, but they are never used in that context now for obvious reasons. I have removed the chart entirely, because the one source provided has nothing to say about the labels. Without the labels, the chart just shows areas beneath a normal distribution curve, with no specific relevance to IQ testing to warrant its inclusion, especially since IQ scores have little correspondence with the normal distribution as you get into very high or very low scores. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DonSiano has restored the IQ chart, providing only "chart is ok" for justification. Before I remove it again, I want to raise other objections here. First, the labels under "Intelligence Level" are unsourced. By whose authority is an IQ of 36 "Profoundly Retarded" whereas an IQ of 37 is merely "Highly Retarded"? The chart does not say. Second, the rarity values are confusing. The second column, which is labeled "Rarity (1/x)", is neither the percentage of the population below the IQ level specified nor the percentage above: It switches from the former to the latter halfway through. If it is to be read as the percentage of the population with an IQ described by the third column, then we reach the absurd statement that approximately 1/2 of the population has an IQ of approximately 100. Also, the midway switch makes the second half the chart redundant with the first: If you know ~1/10 people have IQs below 89, you only need basic arithmetic to deduce the same fraction have IQs above 119. Finally, I just don't see the need for a reference table cluttering up the article. Note that there are no normal distribution area tables at articles for other normally distributed variables such as Human height, or at the article on the normal distribution itself. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Hello, I am the author of the IQ chart here mentioned. I have constructed this due to the poorly scaled levels used today by psychometics.(I can make a chart using only modern terminology and also provide sources to back it up.) The problems stated by the User Donsiano are due to the ambigious nature of IQ testing itself. I have only provided a refrence table, not an absolute one just as normal IQ charts are today. Also, I can change the rarity (1/x) to a more eazy to understand percential of people that scored under X IQ/ level of intelligence. I shell post my charts here instead of the public IQ page until they are deemed ok or not.

IQ Refrence Chart

Intelligence Level	% Of Pop. Under Level	Point Value (15SD)	Point Value (16SD)
Idiot	~0.0000001%	<10	<4
Profound Moron	~0.000001%	<16	<10
Exceptional Moron	~0.00001%	<22	<17
Moron	~0.0001%	<29	<24
Extremely Retarded	~0.001%	<36	<32
Highly Retarded	~0.01%	<44	<40
Retarded	~0.1%	<54	<50
Significantly Below Average	~1%	<65	<63
Below Average	~10%	<81	<79
Average	~50%	~100	~100
Above Average	~90%	>119	>121
Significantly Above Average	~99%	>135	>137
Gifted	~99.9%	>146	>150
Highly Gifted	~99.99%	>156	>160
Extremely Gifted	~99.999%	>164	>168
Genius	~99.9999%	>171	>176
Exceptional Genius	~99.99999%	>178	>183
Profound Genius	~99.999999%	>184	>190
Savant	~99.9999999%	>190	>196

I will post a comperison chart of the current "levels of intelligence" according to psychologists very soon.

I would like to voice a few of my concerns about this debate. First off, I find the grouping of individuals with actual high IQs along with individuals who only claim to have these IQs to be quite ridiculous, as well as I find the (at least implied on behalf of a couple editors) idea that people with such IQs must have faked their IQs or have some kind of "smart-guy" complex to be equally offensive. More to the point, however, I think that the table definitely belongs in this article, though it needs factual verification and citations- at current I think the smaller table at Gifted is more reliable.Ninja! 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Levels

Help me out here, I thought that a 130 IQ was a gifted person, 150 was a genius and under 75 was a mental retard. Anyone know more fine lines?Therequiembellishere 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, a numerical IQ guide to guage mental capability has been proposed, but it has never been accepted due to the inherent fallibility and variability of the tests, and also the Flowers-for-Algernon-esque difficulty that the mentally retarded can often excel at IQ tests. I vaguely recall that Heinlein had some say in trying to form such a scale, and even inserted it into some of his science fiction works. Normally I'd scoff at the concept of a SciFi author altering our understanding of social dynamics, but we do live in the age of those kooky Scientologists. The best you can really do with the results currently is to say that a person over 150 rates as a likely genius and a person under 75 is a likely moron. e.g.: I was tested for my age-relative IQ when I was 10 and rated at 170, I was an NMSQT triple-nine scholar (99.9%), and my adult IQ by the Stanford-Binet standard is 149. What does this tell you about me? Not much, beyond the fact that I have visited a licensed psychologist for some kind of testing in the last five years - to be entirely honest, I'm a fairly dull individual when it comes to my wits, and I'm simply quite capable when it comes to the particular skill sets of problem solving and test-taking. I certainly am no "genius," but the numbers as proposed claim that I am. For now, at least, to sum up, we have no accurate numerical rating system for mental state or capability - the IQ test is only an indicator, and even it is not standardized. 82.83.71.153 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The point about genius when it presents itself is not found in IQ 75 with any great regularity. However the test takers who get the tests repeated correct in very short times or just correct in high ceiling tests have the confidence of humanity who inspite of how hard they try humanities individuals around the average just cannot get the right answer. What seems simple for a genius is unfathomable for the average person in the street. So if a person with IQ 170 or IQ 149 has a passion that they are good at and requires a few brains they can advance human knowledge. In fact your comments in wikipedia, a place where the gifted thoughts over time are collected, may just be another sign of superior honesty and trustworthiness lead others to comment positively and thus starting a movement that does good for the world. Just a thought.RoddyYoung 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Comments on Current Article

There are some key points to raise concerning the above analysis : 1) Is it the case that raw score distributions on tests are normally distributed (I can't imagine this being true historically!).

2) The point concerning the distribution or proportion of the population with IQ scores that are below "the first x number of standard deviations above the mean" could be more clearly made and illustrated - perhaps the phi(x) number corresponding to a rational cut-off point for the 300 million mark for Americans could be more clearly made?

3) The process of calibration via which raw scores ARE MADE to be normally distributed should be commented upon - is this particular calibration method known for any faults/forms of bias that it can introduce?

4) "Each IQ test, however, is designed and valid only for a certain IQ range." I think it's important to discuss the accuracy of the IQ statistic - does it vary with day/time/season during which it is taken? I'm sure that the accuracy of the statistic with age has been commented upon, but surely someone has investigated how environmental effects alter IQ? How does IQ alter with corticosteroid induced neural damage? Do people register lower IQs after short/prolonged sleep deprivation? I can imagine that IQ would be lower for those who have poor sleep hygiene than for those who don't. Are there tests that enable one to distinguish between 'IQ by genotype' and 'IQ by phenotype'? I suppose that this last case is the most difficult to phathom - somebody who has been brain damaged due to environmental damage could still exhibit characteristics that would reveal/indicate underlying neural 'genotypic inclinations' - a CAT test might reveal something like the speed of neural structures and circuits within the brain that would most likely be correlated with someone of high IQ, for example. These questions are motivated by a point that is related to teh point quoted above - "Each IQ test, however, is designed and valid only for a certain IQ range." But is it not also the case that the tests are designed and valid only for certain populations? (This relates to 'culture fair' tests, but, I believe far more than merely this - the issue of the mother tongue and language of those taking IQ tests seems here to be the most important issue. I cannot imagine being the only one to have made this latter observation).

5) I have possibly repeated some of the information in the article here - but some points here I think are new.

MrASingh 22:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Shortfalls of this article

Most of the article is based on US studies and data, therefore may not be universally true/applicable. I agree that other regions of the world may lack psychological investigation, but this article may as well be titled: "IQ-as perceived in USA on USA population sample".

The observation that men's and women's IQ is the same is biased, and based on "political correctness". If men and women differ on size of bones, hormones, lifespan, emotions, it is highly improbable that they have the same IQ. The best one can say is that there is no significant difference observed on average in the long history of testing. Unfortunately, I suspect some tests may be "tweaked" to show this desireable outcome, especially in USA.

149.99.56.194 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. +A.0u 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Intelligence test

I noticed that intelligence test redirects here. An intelligence test is not the same as an IQ or intelligence test score. "Intelligence test" would definitely merit its own article IMO. We already have articles and categories for achievement test (created today) and personality test (created today). Would anyone have a major problem if I removed that redirect and created an article in its place? Chupper 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

The IQ theory is represented here in a highly positive and doubtless way, and this is when it is even not oficially recognized as science ("established a task force" - this is not an official recognition. Despite of that, the link to that "established force" is included, rather than giving at least short summary, why it is not recognised. The article must be balanced, the current version is not. Audriusa 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the links to the authoritative sources you rely on for the conclusions that IQ doesn't have the validity mentioned in the article. Dan

That way it is possible to prove "on a scientific basis" that women must sit a home because they are just more stupid, that Negro finally must understand they place that they are just more stupid, leave already alone the explanations that rich people are just more clever. All golden dreams! I will remove POV after I will be sure the article does not support such ideology. Going that way we may soon get Wikipedia servers blocked in some countries. Audriusa 18:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Download [5] and boost your IQ score by 140 %! As go bravely to the company which relies on such tests when picking they team. Audriusa 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Still stupid? No problem! Go [6], hope you are at least capable to read this nice book! Audriusa 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And in the case your IQ is comparatively high already, try Google search. Well, if the score of IQ tests can be raised by training, they do not reflect reality unless we are sure we are dealing with untrained people. In otherwise, some "floating property" like the driving skills, rather than an objective estimation. Audriusa 19:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, I wouldn't exactly call this marketing hype "authoritative". I think what was meant is a challenge coming from peer-reviewed, academic circles. I believe here we must separate the reliability of IQ scores across different tests from the interpretation that some people would like to give to them. The latter is understandably controversial in many situations; the former is hardly controversial.--Ramdrake 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You disaster... ok, I will do seriously today. We surely cannot leave as it is.Audriusa 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that IQ is not the objective, scientific thing psychometricians, and this article, claim it to be. If so, of course, you need to find respectable sources that agree with you. You should not, however, use this as a motivation to mess up the lead to the article. In particular, I am talking about the claim that "you can improve your IQ by 140 percent," and the link to the IQ-improving shareware. I think you are somehow saying that because you can find a silly claim relating to IQ on the Internet, the concept of IQ is itself silly. But this argument is nonsensical, and putting your rant in the article this way with an obviously wrong claim borders on vandalism.

The claim that genes have no greater effect on IQ than environmental factors (exposure to technology, etc.) is a bold, controversial one. It does not belong in the lead, and it needs strong support. The reference you give (http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/cherry.html) doesn't cut it, I don't think... unless I am mistaken, those people were undergraduates at Rochester Institute of Technology.

The Nature reference IS a good one, of course, so I kept it, but I put it in the "Heritability" section. However, I removed the assertion that "no evidences were found that it is heritable" after a century of research. This is simply false. See, for example, the Heritability section in this article. The Nature article you cite doesn't make any such claim; it just questions the *extent* to which genes play a role.

In this Nature article, first line [7], it is written: IQ heritability, the portion of a population's IQ variability attributable to the effects of genes, has been investigated for nearly a century, yet it remains controversial.. Sorry, but I put this back. Audriusa 13:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the extract further, you would have seen the controversy is about how much it is heritable, and the possible mechanisms for it. That some degree of heritability exists at all ages is well-documented and a non-controversial fact, so I adjusted the statement in accordance. Also, I removed the claim that some exercizes could increase your IQ score by 40%. When you can come up with a reliable source, such as a perr-reviewed research paper that says so, it can certainly go back in. Finally, I added one of the two references you were requesting and am looking for the second one.--Ramdrake 13:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in this discussion you seem to say that we shouldn't think in terms of IQ, because it can lead to racism, sexism, etc. My personal view is that this would only be true of people who are stupid enough to derive their values from science. But conversely, regardless of our values, the search for the "truth" goes on. If IQ describes how intelligence works, we can't just ignore that truth because it doesn't suit us. Kier07 09:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I have the impression that the references, while all from the scientific articles, are selectively picked to create the unbalanced view. Audriusa 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Please follow usual Wikipedia rules and give enough information to locate the source of information. The name of the first author alone is not enough. Also, scientists frequently publish more than one publication per year and in various journals. Audriusa 14:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Regression Towards the Mean.

I canned the whole thing. Main reason was psychological: I was sick of looking at it. There. Personal feelings mostly out of the way, and admittance that I finally broke down and did something about for emotional reasons. Now allow me to explain why... 1) It was contentious. Expressing that a smart woman and a dumb man would create an average progeny is overly simplifying genetic expression in mammals. 2) It had severe validity issues. The footnote pointed to (and I hope to never see again) had little to do with the passage. It only indicated where the reader could connect to a page on plant husbandry that was only marginally applicable in the best of circumstances, and had no relation to the intricate formula displayed. Anywhere. There was no obvious way that the formula displayed could have come from the material cited, which, using deductive reasoning, indicates that it was made up by the author. If there was a page reference that included the between work from a plant's leaf area expression to human IQ expression, and all those little mathematical bits in between... Yeah. That I'd be ok with. Goes back to validity. Regression towards the Mean is NOT supportable without better evidence than was given.

Race

Can someone please illustrate the flawed nature of the IQ test in relation to race? I am SICK TO DEATH of racist people using the IQ test results as a means to proove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that black people are inferiour to white people. It's quite obvious that the difference in IQ test results are based on social constraints and not biological constraints, seeing as only 10 genes determine skin colour, and those 10 have no relationship to intelligence, attitude or emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You make a extreme claim. How about you prove that the factors causing the IQ gap are economic? --Pgecaj (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It can't be PROVEN... however, what we can prove is that IQ is not fixed/immutable. Read the Flynn/Dickens literature. Anyone who thinks that IQ measures have eternal value must read more. By the way, if you read closely, you'll discover that the scores of Blacks and Whites are converging (something like 4 to 7 points since the early 70s.) Look at what IQ scores were like back in Binet and Simon's time. Are people just getting smarter? I think that people are getting more EDUCATED. You'll notice that the changes in IQ scores correspond neatly (with a few years lag) to changes in the educational system... like various expansions in public education, integration of schools, etc. We can't prove anything, but social scientists like to look at correlations and do hypothesis tests to see if things are just "coincidental." They're not, in this case, but, as you've noted, we can't speak in terms of causality [Note: see Mill's three requirements for causality; we only fulfill two here, and not the third which rules out confounds.] For an incredibly racist eugenics view on IQ, I encourage you to read Richard Lynn. Lynn not only believes that "black" people are dumber... genetically... but that the more African blood you have, the dumber you are. Thus, the light-skinned Black would be smarter, on average, than the chocolate-brown Black. In fact, Lynn postulates that southern Italians are dumber than northerners because they have north African blood. Also, Lynn has correlated psychopathy and degree of African genetics, as well. The problem is that Lynn NEVER ONCE bothers to address obvious potential confounds, like the fact that... black people face social obstacles... some born out of history, some a factor of the present... and, among them, the poorer quality of education that they receive. It is possible to speculate that, the darker the skin, the higher the degree of prejudice. That's a confound. Lynn does nothing with that. We know that tests of GMA are extremely valuable, because they remove about half the variance in predicting performance when selecting candidates. By contrast, the unstructured interview (by far the most prevalent selection tool) comes in somewhere in the .08-.15 range. To be clear... the "IQ" test comes in at .5! That's a staggering difference. We want to test for intelligence, but we want to build equity at the same time. That seems nearly impossible. This is why Sackett and others have tried to underscore over and over that there most certainly IS a difference in "intelligence" (so to speak) between Black and White people and that we have NO REASON WHATEVER to assume that it is genetic. In the assumption that it is a factor of "nurture," we need to improve the educational system (among other institutions.) OF COURSE Whites score higher! There is a common ignorance in this country among Caucasians that Black people simply do not WANT to achieve. They ignore the facts of education. Look around online and compare the quality of education that African-American and Caucasian-American children get. It's pretty shocking. To sum: The IQ test does have not only a great deal of validity in predicting performance, but it also has a great does of consistency. Psychometricians have looked at tests of "g" forever... back to the days of Cattell, Carroll, etc., etc. Ad infinitum. They do what they're supposed to. In fact, it is US... as a society... who do not do what WE are supposed to! 98.212.129.80 (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC) SJC 10/16/09 12:33 AM Central time

Range and Intelligence

This section should include a link to the article "Race and Intelligence" for more information. Also, I do not think posting an editorial by Michael Nesbitt constitutes factual research. I could just as easily post statements to the contrary by James Watson whose credentials far outweigh Michael Nesbitt's.

Lets try to find the truth here and not make political statements, or give in to some other possibly insecure need to ascribe physiological equality to all humanity. I'm sorry but editorials have no place being a reference for an encyclopedia. I could get a monkey to write editorials all day long. It just looks idiotic and smacks of a huge bias on the part of this articles authors.Your IQ is low and that means your dumb but if its high that means ur own your way to the wide road babyy! LMFAO

Mrgreenluv (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has just such a link, so I don't understand the complaint. That said, limiting this section to only one researcher is an admitedly absurdly deviation from WP:NPOV and particularly WP:UNDUE. The referenced Nesbitt article also needs to be cited (surely this wouldn't be hard). And the section following this is even worse. "Children on average are more intelligent than their parents"? I don't think Flynn or many others would agree that increasing IQs equates to increasing intelligence. I'm pretty sure 21st century humans are not vastly more intelligent than 1st century humans. CAVincent (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added that link into this section actually.. :) I probably just should have changed it without mentioning it here. It kind of blew my mind that many other main articles were linked to but not that one. Again, I think its a political bias on the part of certain users.Mrgreenluv (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Audriusa has made substantial changes to the article without prior discussion

On June 30, 2007, Audriusa unilaterially and without discussion made a large number of changes to the article. This was done despite the notation at the top of this page that the subject matter is "controversial" and that all substantial changes should be suggested on the talk board first. IMO quite a few of Audriusa's deletions and substitutions provide information that misleads. Dan

The Wikipedia spirit encourages to be bold and just not to forget the references. Maybe one should be more careful if the article is highly mature, but this one surely is not. When I first looked at it, it was just praising IQ as something fundamental and doubtless. All literature references were tuned to support that intelligence is depictable as a single number, capable of rank ordering people in a linear order, is primarily genetically based and essentially immutable. This is then it only takes minutes to find the opposing works in NCBI. From the other side, in an oversized article from the English Wikipedia, nobody found reason to note that IQ tests in employment are normally banned by American law - leave alone to explain who and why did not like this. It seems that a good piece of the IQ history is missing there. The distribution curve was forged with drawing tools and put in the way as it is some kind of a scientific result. In a first chapter, as something frequent and abundant, it was written that a special schools for the people with high IQ exists somewhere (when as placed {{fact}}, my mark was just silently removed). IMHO this article really needs radical alterations to make it Wikipedia compliant Audriusa 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I support Audriusa on this one, he has, single handedly improved the quality of this article, although there are many pieces of the pussle still missing. I will see what can be done to improve this farther, and share it with you on this talk page. AuaWise -Talk- 11:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Francis Galton

Author Stephen Murdoch attributes the genesis of the test to Francis Galton who is not mentioned in this article. Is this an oversight or intentional? -- Beland 01:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not really Galton's test. Galton was the father of individual difference, on some level (or at least the spiritual godfather.) He was also the father of eugenics. He didn't develop this kind of test, like Binet and Simon's, but certainly he did believe in using tools to measure differences in traits.98.212.129.80 (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC) SJC

No Tag for Article. Not enough of a critical analysis of Mental Chronometry

The discussion states the article is :

But this does not seem to appear on the main article page. If the discussion states this - surely the main article should?

Also, there is a wikipedia article on Mental Chronometry - though there is no mention of some of the strengths and weakness of Mental Chronometry and how this correlates with IQ (or whether this is useful in life/academia, etc....). A link to Mental Chronometry should be included.

KlamkinQuickie 12:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Economic and social correlates of IQ in the USA Table

Does anyone else find this table to be incredibly confusing? I thought it was percentages at first and after studying it for almost an hour, I still can't figure out what the numbers of the table are measuring. It's percentages, but then shouldn't each row sum up to 100%? I already understand the population distribution row. It's just the other rows I'm unclear with. I hate sounding stupid, maybe something just isn't clicking in my head, but I just can't understand what the numbers in the rows of this table mean.

Plug in the variables in the following sentence: "Among people whose IQs fall in the range X, the percentage with attribute Y is Z," where X is the IQ range at the top of the chart ("<75" or "90-110" etc.), Y is the descriptor ("divorced in 5 years") and Z is the number value in the cell in question. So for the first cell, you have: "Among people with IQs less than 75, the percentage who are married by the age of 30 is 72%." The chart is rather confusing, because the first row parses completely differently from the rest. The first row tells you how large the groups are in relation to each other, and the rest of them describe the percentage within each group with the attribute described on the left. Hope this helps. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly what was confusing me, I could read the first row but the rest didn't follow the same logic. Thank you, this helps a lot.

So exactly what is the difference in the meaning of "predict" in the social sciences and the other sciences? If there is a problem with a lay undersanding of statistical prediction (i.e., that is is not caual) than the word "predict" should not be used in the arcticle. (It probably shouldn't be used by statisticians along with sayig that one variable "explains" the variance in another).) As written, the layman is likely to think there is some difference in the sciences instead of semantic problems. I suggest the section be written without using the word "precdict". Ill do it if Wikipedia is still open to editing by readers. -- RJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The requirements for determining causality are still Mill's, in essence: 1. X is related to Y; 2. X precedes Y; 3. Other explanations are ruled out for the relationship X>Y. The third one is very tough... but it's a bit like "beyond REASONABLE doubt." The requirements for predictive validity are a bit looser. It's correlational. You're not trying to say that an individual difference CAUSES performance, after all. What you're trying to do is remove variance. Let's say a coin flip is r=0.0 as a predictor. Tests of cognitive ability correlate at .51. That means you're removing about half of the variance by utilizing an "IQ test." You can SAY that the variance isn't being predicted, but if you want to be a crank, you can easily make that tired argument that Russell makes that there is no causality... which actually is correct on the universal level. When we observe a correlation... X is related to Y... and X comes before Y... we don't have to do an intervention to "prove" anything. We need to rule out confounds. One thing you can do, of course, is to run massive meta-analysis and do regressions. Anyway... read some Schmidt & Hunter and Hunter & Hunter if you'd like more info on precisely WHY we consider IQ tests to "predict" performance.98.212.129.80 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC) SJC

The average IQ

Well as i see it there should be one test and we all would not wondering which test is which and as someone who been told my IQ is 116 i really do not think it would matter if my IQ was 150 i would still have the same job and enjoy it 90% of the time(98.214.242.205 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)) It is supposed to be 100? So how come everybody I've met who's willing to share their "alleged" IQ scores claims to have one of 170+.

'Cause they're lying? A score of 170 you'd meet in about 1 out of 100,000-1,000,000 people. Statistically, you're not very likely to know one personnally, or professionnally, for that matter.--Ramdrake 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he's using the 170+ to make a point. Although he may not know anyone who has or claims a 170 IQ, it seems most people say they have an above average IQ somewhere in the 140 - 155 range. I've experienced this phenomenon as well. It's the Lake Wobegon Effect, where everyone is "above average." Well not everyone can be above average because by definition it's impossible. Personally I tell people I'm probably around 100-110, however I've never taken a formal IQ test. But that is the average so I suppose I'm probably average. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.86.50 (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. In case you've missed the memo, that -pedia part stands for 'encyclopaedia', aka, something an IQ 100 is unlikely to ever access, much less edit. The Lake Wobegon Effect has nothing to do with your personal experience with IQ scores; in fact, your bias stems from the fact that you have obviously interacted with persons of mid-high to extremely-high-IQ, as clearly evidenced by your visibly above-average grammar and vocabulary (as well as simply your presence here). The use of the word 'phenomenon' itself is a dead give-away. You are simply quite clearly the product of an environment of which naturally selects for, and therefore is made up of, nearly exclusively high-IQ individuals, which is why you skew your perception of 'average' far into the direction of what is actually nearing extraordinary. Aadieu (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

i cant remember which is which but one IQ test is scored such as that the average is always 100. the other test is marked on marking guidelines and the population averages around 110.

usually relatively intelligent people who understand the world are above 130 and below 150 or so. much above that and they will end up as your boss, rich and successful. 100 is the average of the whole population so if you met someone on the street that you considered a fool, theres no guarantee that they have an IQ below 120.

theres also the issue that between IQ 130 and 160 or so people can be susceptible to depression just by becoming objective about the world. if you understand the problems in the world, even without having serious issues of your own, its easy to consider killing yourself. this may "weed out" the population of reasonable people in their adolescence. Rampaging 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

maybe you're thinking about Weltschmerz ? Lloeki (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue of why everyone is 170+ is because mainly they are lying, simple! and there is the other issue of scales. different IQ tests will have the normal distribution around different scores ,sometimes 100, 110, or even 115 or 90. but to reach the point of 170+, i highly doubt that. lastly , it may be different from country to country, [see IQ and the wealth of nations and IQ and Global Inequality].AuaWise -Talk- 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you wouldn't believe my mother or one of my sons then. I can tell you that when he did the BBC's Test the Nation he completely wiped the floor with the rest of us by only getting a couple of answers wrong in the whole thing. I can't say I have a wonderful opinion of most of the reasoning that goes on in the world, so what he makes of us all I can't imagine. 82.22.147.25 (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What if we do believe you? Still not impressed. An online IQ test? Come on. I looked at some of the questions on there - "What kind of penguins were featured in the movie March Of The Penguins?" I haven't seen the movie. Does that measure my general knowledge? What if there was a question that asked what kind of gun Kevin Kline's character has in the movie Silverado? If you haven't seen the movie you can't be expected to know.

"Different IQ tests will have the normal distribution around different scores ,sometimes 100, 110, or even 115 or 90." Can you offer some citations to this? From what I understand, all of the IQ tests have a mean score of 100. That is, the distribution of IQ scores is normal, centered around 100. The difference between the tests lies in magnitude of the standard deviation: [8]. And I must say a few things about some of the insidious comments above. "Usually relatively intelligent people who understand the world are above 130 and below 150 or so." This is utter nonsense. Literally, it makes no sense. You seem to have thoughtlessly strung together words like "usually" and "relatively" and "intelligent" in an attempt to relate IQ to an 'understanding of the world.' This is not what IQ is. Let's consider the next sentence: "much above that and they will end up your boss, rich and successful." Again, these words are dribble. If anything, exceptionally gifted people are likely less inclined to value money or societal "success." The next sentence, well, I don't even understand what you mean. Finally, this whole matter of highly intelligent people becoming "objective" about the world is ridiculous. For your own good, and society at large, please become more informed about a subject before making such claims.--68.43.216.50 (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wealth and IQ above 150 do not strongly correlate. Comparing people IQ of 150 with lower IQ populations, does however more strongly correlate to wealth.

'Objective' understanding of reality may not actually correlate to depression. Rather very smart people can perhaps (at a higher rate) fall into the trap of 'living in their heads' at the expense of learning to deal well with their emotions, thus causing depression. This would not be all smart people, but would be a higher rate of smart people than people of average intelligence.

Sean7phil (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Average IQ" is supposed to be 100. That is what the notion of IQ was based about. That the AVERAGE person scored 100 on "some test". And that that test be based on that "average" person. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. The most important reason that it does not work that way is that you cannot test all 6,000,000,000 or so people living right now. So statisticians came up with ways to make tests seem "statistically significant". My personal opinion is that people basing their "conclusions" on Statistics, when they sample only a very small amount of the population, and above that, sample only a very small amount of a SPECIFIC population (i.e. "students between 19 and 21 who live in the state of "<fill in the blank"> and who are mostly male/female. That's ridiculous. And, from a point of people posting and submitting papers, I could even SUCCESSFULLY argue that ONLY U.S. scientists came to those conclusions. Why? Because the U.S. has been posting papers for the past 50 years and posting things on the internet (which they had the most access to) the past 50 years. Unfortunately, most people now believe that everything that a U.S. politician or scientists or even "poster" on an English speaking forum says, is now the ultimate truth.

The "people in power" just change things to whatever they want them to be. The U.S. people keep saying that the Soviet Union changed history and so on. But the US people are much more guilty of this. And, MAYBE, not the AVERAGE U.S. citizen, but, I will even challenge that. I wonder how many U.S. citizens even think President Bush would score over 100? But there is no way I want I person who scored just "average 100" to be my president.

Now think about those statements for a while before you reply... 67.8.55.66 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just jumping in here, but I am what someone would call AVERAGE (meaning middle class, minority, broken family, troubled youth, etc.) nothing special...never formally passed the ninth grade (well at least in high school)...I think the word "average" is a bunch of nonsense..Everyone has their own factors and their own experiences, I suppose I believe there is no way to "bundle" us all together..If that were true I would be living in a trailer on a reservation with 20 dirt foot kids running around smokin a peace pipe..hahaha..

Although, now I am a Sophomore (3 more years to go, ughh!) at the University of Phoenix Central Florida..I heard that minorities have lower I.Q.s? Also, "average" (there it is again!)americans tend to have lower I.Q.s? I am a 23 year old young woman; Cherokee, mother of two..I took the WAIS-III two years ago and scored a 127, is that good (everyone seemed astonished..lol)? I never heard of a 170..or even 150, I think whoever told you that is full of it..but my dilemma is, I do not feel smart? I breeze through tests, and have a 4.0, but intelligent?? I'm a goofball..Any thoughts? Oh and by the way, I am new at this but I found a mistake, I think, in the original post where it says Binet first coined the term Intelligence Quotient..it was Terman in 1916 my text book Psychology: an introduction twelfth edition (2005) states:

"During the decade following the debut of the Binet-Simon Scale, numerous Binet adaptations were issued. The best known of these was the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, prepared at Stanford University by L. M. Terman and published in 1916. Terman introduced the now-famous term intelligence quotient, or IQ, to establish a numerical value of intelligence, setting the score of 100 for a person of average intelligence," (pp. 300)

Reference

Charles G. Morris, Albert A. Maisto. (2005). Psychology: an introduction twelfth edition. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from University of Phoenix Online Library, Behavioral Science 225.

So, what is the verdict? Is I.Q. a total of intelligence, or is, as Goleman believes, Emotional Intelligence more important for real life? Does the number really mean anything? If we do not figure things out, not only will we be the most obese country on earth, but also the stupidest. Have you all seen the movie Wall-E?? Flgrl8585 (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Firefly Shine (yes, my real Cherokee name..lol)

Verbal Versus Mathematical IQ

IQ is a combined math/verbal score and can mask even greater precociousness in either math or verbal capabilities-- (For example, due to averaging, someone with a combined math/verbal score of 150 might actually have a math IQ well below 150 while at the same time having a verbal IQ well above 150).

Therefore sub-scores indicating independent 'math IQ' and 'verbal IQ' should also be provided in any testing results, but rarely are.

Sean7phil (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a major confound when it comes to "verbal IQ." Tests that are highly verbally-loaded have massive adverse impact on racial subgroups. This is the reason that the Raven APM was developed back in the mid 1930s. Someone had the presence of mind to notice that some people don't speak English as well as others but are equally intelligent to them. Ideally, we should find non-verbal tests if we want to measure intelligence, but, realistically, it is valuable to screen people on verbal "ability" (not intelligence) if we're selecting for people who speak well. Also... we don't identify a distinct difference between verbal and mathematical intelligence when SCREENING for general mental ability. It's simply not possible. They're both part of General Mental Ability and can't be isolated. 98.212.129.80 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC) SJC

Visual IQ

Another point for consideration is perhaps that one could have lower mathematical and verbal IQs and yet be a visual artist (perhaps a painter) with much higher, and yet very hard to measure, capability in that area.

Sean7phil (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Negative IQ

Maybe this needs its own stub. Does any definition of IQ prohibit or eliminate the existence of negative IQ? Making the calculation once, I saw that a population increase of only a "small" number of orders of 10 should gaurantee the existence of the person with negative IQ (and the person with 200+ IQ.) This is based on strictly defining IQ as a normal distributibution.

So, is there any source or reference at all that has any mention what so ever about the concept of negative IQ?

Another view is that the reality of IQ is dependent on the body of tests who's results actually define (rather than measure) IQ. 75.4.245.11 07:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, AFAIK, the boundaries of the curve are defined such that a negative or zero IQ is impossible, and so I believe, is an IQ over 200. Please remember that the IQ curve, although it looks like a normal distribution curve, actually differs significantly from this kind of curve, at each end.--Ramdrake 09:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We would be fine to accept your AFAYK as a source, but besides that, where can I see a definition of IQ made to "look like a normal distribution" but is defined differently? Also, the significant difference between a normal distribution and IQ curve does not seem to be pointed out in the article. Anyway. I'm still after a source that makes any statement about negative IQ.

I don't exactly see any problem with an actual normal distribution of IQ. Accuracy in extreme ranges would be difficult or impossible to achieve/measure, but this in itself doesn't seem to have any direct effect on the guarantee that a large enough population must have members < 0 and > 200. Certainly any actual IQ test ever developed would not consider those populations, along with the difficulty (near impossibility) of actually being able to accurately determine IQ in those ranges.

The article mentions that IQ may not be sufficiently scientic or robust. So, is it true that IQ has ever been defined with the constraints mentioned, or is that just an imagination? 75.4.245.11 19:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember, IQ = Mental Age divided by physical age times one hundred. All tests try to achieve that precise standard (all fail to some extent.) So therefore, a "negative" IQ can only be reached if the person being tested has the brain of a fetus. Say a 3-month old embryo's brain in a ten-year old. His/her IQ would be -.5/10 * 100 = -5. I use -.5 for physical age because a 3-month-old fetus is 6 months away from being born, also 1/2 year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waladil (talk • contribs) 08:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IQ is nowadays based on mapping the score onto a normalized bell curve, you're thinking of an old test. See the introduction of the article.Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from having a negative IQ (other than it being incredibly unlikely and probably impossible to mesure) the normal distribution goes from negative infinity to positive infinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyml (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To those more qualified on this subject

Hello!

While I'm not a close contributor to this topic, I can't help but notice a counter claim to diminishing marginal value that mis-characterize the parent argument, have biased or erroneous citations or simply do not make much sense.

Firstly, I am changing

Some researchers have echoed the popular claim that "in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much."[51][52]

by dropping "have echoed the popular." It feels biased, like some pseudo-scientists are championing the commons and, in any case, is not strictly needed.

'I'm inserting my comments here and below The idea of decreasing marginal value is absurd. It has been shown TIME AND TIME AGAIN that this is not true... that the validity of GMA as a predictor of performance goes up linearly... ALL the way up. One can include whatever quote one finds, but this view is not at all accepted by the APA. If you're interested, please read Coward, W. M., Sackett, P. R. (1990). Linearity of Ability-Performance Relationships: A Reconfirmation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 297-300.98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC) SJC

Next,

However, some studies suggest IQ continues to confer significant benefits even at very high levels.[53]

I feel "significant" is a subjective quality. However, my main objection is that the central argument for a diminishing effect does not make claims about the additional value of any one point in IQ, but rather only suggests that the benefit of any added IQ point is necessarily less than the preceding points before it. In which case, this counter-claim of "significant benefits" and the claim of diminishing marginal value do not necessarily contradict one another. As such, I am eliminating this statement.

Continuing,

Ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance [54].

This, intuitively, seems like an absurd claim because of the inherent difficulty of measuring, precisely, the magnitude of a performance increase. Thats like saying "A 10 point increase of IQ, at any level, results in exactly 14 doctor performance points." It would be interesting to see exactly how "performance" is measured in order to establish its linear relationship with IQ.

YOU SHOULD NOT REMOVE THIS. IT'S EASY TO USE WORDS LIKE "INTUITIVELY," BUT FORTUNATELY SCIENCE DOESN'T USE THEM. I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND, HOWEVER, HOW YOU MISUNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY THE LINEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GMA SCORES AND PERFORMANCE. PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE I HAVE INCLUDED ABOVE BY COWARD AND SACKETT. AND I AM WRITING THIS IN CAPS BECAUSE I AM SCREAMING IT. IT IS NOT OK TO REMOVE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS FROM A PAGE LIKE THIS UNLESS YOU'VE READ THEM AND HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY MEAN. 98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC) SJC

Alas, even with an article database, I am unable to get more than the abstract of this document. So, I will leave it alone for someone more experienced in the subject to make a judgment one way or the other.

In an analysis of hundreds of siblings, it was found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background

This final statement belongs to Charles Murray, and considering his bias in preference of the IQ (read his wiki-entry), it seems we should not link this as an impartial study any more than a study orchestrated by Cuba on Americans. It was sponsored by, after all, the AEI. As such, I will add in that this study was conducted by Charles, but leave the rest unchanged.

Overall, the new passage reads:

Some researchers claim that "in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much."[51][52]

Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance [53]. Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background [54].

I feel this is pretty fair.

If you wish to research sensitive issues honestly, you may need to take what ever resources are given to you, whoever the giver:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003suppressingintelligence.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.252.200 (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bell Curve is deeply flawed, not in the research per se but in the inferences it draws. Look at Flynn/Dickens' writing on IQ and you'll immediately see the fallacy. IQ is a measure of where people's intelligence stands TODAY. It measures crystallized intelligence as much as fluid. Crystallized intelligence is a product of nurture (especially early nurture.) The Bell Curve encourages us to think of "g" as principally genetic, when we know that not to be the case. If it were, why would African-Americans' IQ score be converging on Caucasians as they have since the early 1970s? The fact is... yes... Whites score higher on IQ tests than Blacks TODAY. It would be controversial to say that white people are more intelligent than black people... because it implies a genetic component. The biggest changes you'll note in GMA test scores follow changes in the educational system... not in "natural selection." By the way... if you believe in IQ scores as absolute and immutable... we're much more intelligent than we were back in Binet's day. Look at the numbers. You'll laugh.98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC) SJC

The non - correlating part of the population

Someone has added a section with this name. It is not good. --Xyzzyplugh 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is defended by two references, both from peer-reviewed journals. Audriusa 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was the writing, not the content. It appears to have been written by someone who is not entirely fluent in english.--Xyzzyplugh 00:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The section appears to be lacking context of some sort--as such, it makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.7.51 (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only does it make no sense, if you check the cites used as support, those cites don't provide the support that's suggested. This isn't the only part of this article that misleads or misstates, there seems to be plenty of work to do here when those inclined find the time. DukeWins!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.26 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybee I just have a low IQ, but ...

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be mean to anyone, just add some critic that can hopefully make this article a better.

This articles legibility is awful, it's typography is very confusing. There are to many headlines with just a small amount of text which basicly makes it hard to discern any information from the article. Just my 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyml (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Rising IQ?

About two years ago I saw an article on a newspaper: Rise your IQ. It told that by eating a lot of beans, peas or such, having an evening walk before going to sleep and listening 15 minutes to classical music per day could rise your IQ by 15 year. Of course there is a limit, depending on the person, and one of lower IQ could rise more than one of high... There were other things to do, maybe 10-15. I only remember those three. If anyone has ever seen anything like that could you please tell the methods here? I'm doing a bit of research about maximizing your "capability". Also it would be a very interesting method of threating problem-students. If they are willing, of course.

Thank you. --Zhenit'ba 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (Created an account)

I can't answer your question but if you're "eating a lot of beans" the advice of an "evening walk" is sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hee tee tee tee tee! --68.206.144.17 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Eating Beans" ???? So logically thats means, the more you fart the smarter you are?

Sorry for the 'pre-school' humour but Stephen Hawking must stink....

It's a good question! Can someone give a serious answer? Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all questions should be answered seriously. Cema (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Beans and walking?! No disrespect or attempted discrimination meant, whatsoever, but such a combination would SURELY make for a new Wall Street and Silicon Valley in *Rural Mexico*, within 5 years, tops, with anyone completing the plan by listening to a few classics making filthy-rich CEO by then. But the poorer regions of Mexico, last I checked, have been eating beans and walking by foot for a few centuries now. Aadieu (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)