This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligence quotient article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-Class, High-importance) PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Psychology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance) SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Sociology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents 1 Race 2 Range and Intelligence 3 It appears that Audriusa has made substantial changes to the article without prior discussion 4 Francis Galton 5 No Tag for Article. Not enough of a critical analysis of Mental Chronometry 6 Economic and social correlates of IQ in the USA Table 7 The average IQ 8 Verbal Versus Mathematical IQ 9 Visual IQ 10 Negative IQ 11 To those more qualified on this subject 12 The non - correlating part of the population 13 Maybee I just have a low IQ, but ... 14 Rising IQ? 15 What is "Immediate Intelligence" ? 16 Health and IQ 17 Have you noticed? 18 OPINION 19 Gaussian distribution 20 Stephen Jay Gould quote 21 Asking for cites within a quoted passage? 22 Image for use in "Group differences" section 23 Highest IQ 24 Idiot Distribution 25 Vandalism -> semi-protection 26 IQ a score you are born with? 27 Environmental factors 28 Any info on Lorge-Thorndike 29 Biased older studies? 30 Brain speed and brain efficiency correlation with IQ 31 Why so variable? 32 rising of IQ by 3 points per decade 33 Ramdrake - your revisions re Flynn Effect considering cites in article 34 Be bold - is this science? 35 Should this article be merged with Phrenology ? 36 Is there a "Lynn-Flynn effect"? 37 As I know, "Intelligenz-Quotient" is a German word, not a Russian one. 38 NLP IQ Test 39 Language of test 40 what 41 Types of IQs/ disparity 42 FIQ, VIQ, PIQ 43 Other Intelligence Tests? 44 A reminder to all. 45 G factor? 46 Copyright Infringement By Third Party 47 Correlation definition 48 Sex differences 49 Authoritative source 50 Normally Distributed? 51 Top range has been reached 52 IQs of famous people 53 Online IQ Test Validity 54 Vegetarians 55 Binet? 56 Citations need improvement 57 Word Choice 58 SSSMART 59 question 60 Childhood IQ and smoking 61 'Some tests may have different standard deviations.' 62 Mutability 63 Nature opinion article on human genetic diversity

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 onlyhave what it takes to get into the life of booties. And if you don't believe this encyclopedia then get off this website sucka!!!!!!!!!!!!!! big buts 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)

[edit] 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

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

The discussion states the article is :

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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: [1]. 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] What is "Immediate Intelligence" ?

Someone added an unsourced statement in the first paragraph of the article that "Many think" IQ discloses "immediate intelligence." First, who are the "many" and what is "immediate intelligence?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.23 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I see it's been added back by the same person. Please. I have no problem with the statement's inclusion as long as it's sourced and the concept "immediate intelligence" is explained. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.22 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a guess, but I think that this crack-pot believes that rote-learned nonsense of achademia constitutes for the rest of "non-immediately available" intelligence, when he's actually confusing knowledge with this clearly pre-concieved idea. Not to be insulting but the concept has the intellectual credentials of a 14 year old chronic masturbation addict behind it. Summed up, "immediate intelligence" is what the closest thing any of us normal, well-adjusted people see as "working memory". He's using pseudointellectual throw-up terms to describe rather simple and well-established concepts that may well have little to do with the overall picture of intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.40.74 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just thinking... this guy (immediate intelligence) is a pseudo-intellectual who uses big terms to define relatively easy concepts, then why couldn't you say that in a plain way? You criticize the former for using academic language when you, yourself, are using overly complicated language. Just thought that I ought to point that out...

"Immediate Intelligence", intuitively defines IQ + any mental energy involved in attending to and attacking real world problems. Of the most blatant assumptions IQ proponents make, is that every single one of us, through every possible frame of time, are attending towards the same intellectual problems. As if all of us, simultaneously, allocate some standard length of attentional resources, and give birth to the same analogical substrates. Interestingly, there is a lot of recent data coming from the field of cognitive psychology, that clearly rejects the prehistoric-based pseudo-equivalence between IQ and Intelligence. Specifically, it is becoming more often suggested within the cognitive and neuroscience community, that the performance on problem types which involve higher levels of fluid intelligence, depend largely on specific areas of the Prefrontal cortex, and not as much on IQ (see Blair, How similar are fluid cognition and General Intelligence?). The long-held view that human intellect is a product of, bland Piagetan functions, is being seriously challenged. So maybe one day, smart people won't have to suffer the woes of watching imbeciles boasting about SAT scores, and may no longer have to tackle the paradox of the 'intelligent' fool.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.212.119.245 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Health and IQ

I noticed in the 'Health and IQ' section, it states, "Persons with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, severe depression, and schizophrenia are less prevalent in higher IQ bands." Curious, I looked at citations 48 and 49 for 'severe depression', and personally, I don't think they demonstrate that persons with higer IQ have lower prevalence of depression at all.

Maybe someone can take a look at these citations, but the only thing I think they demonstrate is that severely depressed persons score lower on IQ tests... and when their depression is alleviated, they score higher. In other words, depression can temporarily lower your IQ. Neither article makes any assertion that higher-IQ persons are somehow more resistant to depression! (I'm sure as hell not!)

[48] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1572949&dopt=Citation

[49] http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2006.01564.x

(Note, however, that the PTSD citation appears valid - that post specifically states that higher-IQ persons are less likely to develop symptoms of PTSD in response to trauma, or that their symptoms are milder.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.52.225 (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

––I, too, raised an eyebrow when I read this sentence. The studies cited do not support this claim, and I am going to flag this sentence. While it is documented that mental disorders, such as (clinical) Depression create a "deficit" in cognitive functioning (see above sources), this is not relevant to population differences between higher-IQ individuals and lower-IQ individuals. Can someone offer any support to the original claim? If not, it should be removed, or at least flagged. 68.43.216.50 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

--I was going to mention something about this also. I'm glad others caught it. I wouldn't mind if the sentence was reworded to reflect the content of the articles referenced. Ie.

The IQ test scores of patients diagnosed with depression is on average lower than those without a diagnosis. In at least two situations, when the those with depression were provided with treatment, an increase in average test scores was reported. This may suggest that mood influences cognitive performance, but does not address the influence of cognitive performance on mood. Aklazar (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mood swings aside, has anyone noticed that, on average (nope - no source whatsoever, just observation!), seriously depressive persons are rather prone to have *high* IQs? In conjunction with the largely undisputed fact that the vast majority of renowned artists, writers, composers, musicians, and poets were given to chronic depression... wouldn't this indicate that a certain minimum IQ is necessary for serious depression, with a progressive risk of the illness at higher scores? It would make sense, considering how true apathy or disappointment require certain observational and analytical abilities. Aadieu (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No such medical correlation has been found. There seems no such link with intelligence. You might be thinking of something like angst or existential depression. Dmcq (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Have you noticed?

Have you noticed everyone and their mother has an IQ of 165? 63.227.5.54 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

it's a very good test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.137.55 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the world and their dog have a capacity to lie? You are gullability at it's worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.40.74 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA..165? You have got to be kidding, I agree with Mr./Mrs Anonymous above me! Thats just what I was talking about on the first post, anything over 140 is highly unlikely unless your a rocket scientist...Well, over 130 and your really smart for that matter..but who cares, some of the smartest people on earth are also the stupidest. People are what matter, not what number you got on some silly test. Lets put those 165s to work solving world hunger, or ending the energy crisis..Then maybe I will believe them, lol Flgrl8585 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Firefly Shine

World hunger be buggered, we are much too busy meditating about the nature of God/god/gods, geopolitics, and the oppressing impact of ideals, or depressing over the spiritual, identity, loves lost or never gained, etc., to care much for rockets, hunger, or energy. In fact, we're much too absorbed by ourselves (and, sometimes, our beers, sedatives, or opiates) to even carry out the garbage. In my not-so-humble opinion, the only thing that keeps us somewhat in touch with our worldly routines is the evolutionary drive to procreate; for reasons unknown to us, coitus rarely occurs over three days after our last shave and shower, even should you happen to be tall, reasonably fit, and highly articulate. Peculiar, huh? Aadieu (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OPINION

The race related section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidblue8388 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Sensitive are we? Do not fret, my race is among the dumbest (Native American)..And we are all far behind the Asians..No hard feelings, different circumstances produce different results..Raise a black kid (or Cherokee for that matter) in a home of geniuses, chances are he will become one too. Smarts are not discriminative, unless one has a mental incapacity. Some races are predisposed to mental disorders that make learning and retaining knowledge, or performing tasks such as abstract/visual reasoning, quantative reasoning, etc. difficult. There is no average, there is no median or mean to judge a race. Each individual in that race has a certain ability to change the "statistics," and who are they to tell us otherwise. Dont get upset...get even.. lol Flgrl8585 (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Firefly Shine

It is not so much a matter of race, as one of culture, and thus - more nurture than nature. Respect-your-elders/superiors ultra-conformist cultures, such as most advanced Asian societies, achieve a higher average IQ, mostly due to inculcation of learning and suppression of individual ambition, but therefore have a narrower IQ distribution (for example, Japan has an average of about 110, above that of Western or Eastern Europe, but far fewer 140-160s than Western or Eastern Europe). This type of upbringing coerces individuals to fall in line, be it by curbing ambition for the highly intelligent, or through sheer will and effort to conform by the below-average. Free-for-all non-conformist individual-oriented societies like the USA achieve rather dismal average IQs (for the industrialized world), but have a much wider dispersal, leading to fewer 110s (qualified labourers) and 120s (engineers), but more geniuses and visionaries per capita. This type of culture neither shames its weak into catching up, nor pressures its strong to keep within the norms of the flock. Socialist, somewhat-conformist societies, such as modern Sweden or France, or the recently-defunct Soviet Union, lie in between, with slightly higher-than-USA average IQ, more 120-130s than the USA, but fewer of the widely applicable 110-120s than Japan *or* the visionary and creative 140-160s than the USA... In other words, IQ spread range can be cultivated - evenly somewhat-high in highly educated but highly conformist societies, average to mid-high in moderately educated but somewhat conformist societies, or dismally low to extremely high in very individualistic societies with good access to education. As to the low averages for less-developed areas of the world, these are skewed by low literacy and availability of education, which confuse the results of developed-world tests, designed to discount education as they may be, still made by educated persons expecting a minimum thereof from test takers nonetheless. Aadieu (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you any evidence either positive or negative for you assertions? As to the original poster saying the section on race an intelligence should be removed, no reason was given. It is obviously a notable topic and this is an encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely should not be removed. Industrial-organizational psychology has spent the better part of the last 50 years trying to figure out what the heck to do about this problem! We want to test intelligence but we recognize that there's a racial gap. Period. That DOES NOT mean that there's a genetic gap. It underscores the fact that IQ tests are SCREAMING at us that there is a problem with the educational system. African-Americans' IQs have been closing the gap since the early 70s. Do you think that could have something to do with an expanding access to public education? My guess is that the gap won't close much more until we confront some of the inequalities in the educational system. But one should not under any circumstance try to rip the race issue out of IQ. It's central. Read Steele and Aronson... Irwin Katz.... Mayer and Hanges... Ployhart et al... Nguyen et al... McFarland et al. The way that Blacks react to tests is an extremely serious issue. We're trying hard to figure out how much of the problems with scores have to do with test format... content... test type... anxiety... motivation... face validity... etc. If you try to gloss over race, you run the risk of saying that there isn't racism. THAT is the ironic part. People think IQ tests are racist, when, in fact, they simply POINT OUT racism. 98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)SJC

[edit] Gaussian distribution

I think that the "Gaussian distribution" picture and explanation are misleading and leave a lot to be desired from a theoretical standpoint. I think a true histogram from a respectable study would do a much better service. Unfortunately I cannot offer one. 83.67.217.254 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Jay Gould quote

This quote:

"…the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status. (pp. 24–25)"

is an incomplete sentence. It makes no sense just to have it preceded by "He wrote:".

As far as it is possible to tell from that bit he might have written something like: "It is to the credit of the brave pioneers of IQ testing that they were willing to argue the case for the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain...etc" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.75.237 (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for cites within a quoted passage?

There was a quote within this article that was itself cited back to the source --- however, someone added requests for cites to sources within the quote itself. I deleted those since it didn't make sense. The quoted materal, as a quote, stands alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.34 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image for use in "Group differences" section

Here is an image that can be used in the "Group differences" section. --Jagz (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here, for a number of reasons: its origins are very controversial (basically taken from The Bell Curve), the current section on group differences (or the one on race and intelligence) are very short and do not warrant a large graph added, and the subject is already covered at length in the Race and Intelligence article.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

When did "controversial" become the test of acceptability? It isn't as far as I know. <<DAN>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.41 (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The image was not taken from The Bell Curve, the graph can be large or small depending on how you edit it, and you deleted the graph from the "Race and intelligence" article. --Jagz (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the graph was the exact same as that in The Bell Curve; I just said it was "basically the same". Also, I said the subject was covered in Race and Intelligence, not that the graph was in the article (although there is in that article a very similar graph, which is why this one was removed, for reasons of avoiding redundancy). My point is that such a small section doesn't warrant a graph at all, as per WP:UNDUE; it is just given undue prominence to a subject which is rather minor and peripheral to the subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not very similar, it is only somewhat similar. Minor and peripheral??? Can I borrow your crack pipe please? --Jagz (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, WP:NPA. This was one.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Highest IQ

Is the IQ on a finite scale? What is the highest score one can have? Llamabr (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop and think for a second and you'll realize that the anser is 'No.' IQ tests have to be standardized. How could questions be standardized on an infinite scale? Honestly, this is like the negative IQ question above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.21 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I did stop and think -- yet I don't see why a limitless scale would preclude standardization (assuming a typo in your answer (did you mean that I would realize the answer is 'Yes'?). Anyway, I don't see any evidence that there's an upper limit. I would appreciate any references you could provide, though. Llamabr (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll play along. Since you "don't see why a limitless scale would preclude standardization" - please explain how that's done. I'm actually looking forward to your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This sort of question would be more approprate for WikiAnswers or Yahoo Answers; this is for work on the article. ffm 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is your claim, then, that this information is irrelevant to the article? Llamabr (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.89.37 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So, is anyone going to answer the question? I was wondering the same thing; what if someone that took an IQ test got every question right, thus getting a perfect score, what would their IQ be? Naturally, if they got a perfect score the IQ they got would be the highest possible IQ, at least on that particular type of test, and until the tests were changed.66.41.44.102 (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

People! You fools! Everybody constantly forgets that the measurement methods DO NOT ovveride the measurement concept. I constantly see this, in physics or probability. On any given IQ TEST there is a limit of top IQ that the test would give. However, under the basic concept of how IQ is counted (mental age divided by physical age times one hundred) there is no max cap. If your mental age was infinitely high, and your physical age was constant, then your IQ would be infinite, and a asymptote on any graph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waladil (talk • contribs) 08:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you being a bit more polite when pointing out my inadequacies please. Also the bit about age isn't done anymore, see the article introduction. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it impossible to have a infinite IQ? After all, it would require that you have an infinite level of intelligence and a test with no top IQ limit. Of course, there is a limit to how intelligent one can be and how a test can be scored, so I'm thinking yes, it is impossible.66.41.44.102 (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two distinct questions here, and I think there are two answers that can help us all see eye to eye. First, "Is there a highest IQ?" Since there is an upper limit to the size of the human brain and an upper limit to possible brain activity, we can infer there is some highest IQ that no human is likely to achieve. Second, "Is IQ an infinite or finite scale?" As mentioned by Waladil, IQ tests do use limits but the formula itself could mathematically result in infinity if the limit was not tacked on as a second operation at the end. Therefore the second answer is both. It's an infinite scale used by us with a cap imposed to make it a finite one. I'm not fully sure I'm saying this clearly, but there's a way that's obvious to me to look at this question which can help us understand it and debate it without seeing either answer as foolish or worthy of disrespect. (Ejoty (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Dude, the only being with an infinite IQ is GOD. 195.217.128.34 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Idiot Distribution

It's well known that IQ, in the United States anyway, does NOT have a Gaussian distribution and actually has a Chi-squared distribution. By application of the central limit theorem its samples tend to the gaussian limit, however portraying the parameter as normal is grossly misleading. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get this 'well-known' information from please? I'd have thought the distribution could be made anything one wanted by arranging the mapping from scores to IQ. After all that's what happens with combining maths and verbal skills to make the average IQ 100 for both sexes. If anything I'd have expected something more like a Poisson distribution but the Chi-squared distribution would actually fit better with what I was thinking about the wide variance of IQ in a section I set up below Why so variable?, perhaps the factors are more of a sum of squares type than linear? Dmcq (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism -> semi-protection

Seems to be a lot of IP vandalism in the past few days. I'm going to semi-protect for a few days. — ERcheck (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IQ a score you are born with?

"An Intelligence Quotient or IQ is a score which you are born with." I don't consider myself an expert on intelligence, but I think its pretty common sense that an individual's IQ is not something that stays continuous from birth. Its not like the doctor slaps a sicker on your butt at birth and says "Well it looks like this one's a 105, congratulations folks, your kid's above average!". On the other hand I guess the statement could be considered in the sense that you start out with some sort of IQ...I just don't think the statement is appropriate or very specific. Any comments? Rmkreeg (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have a comment. Where is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.11 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Its been deleted, I guess... Rmkreeg (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is the possibility that doing certain things can raise your IQ. Of course some people have higher IQs because they were breast feed but at this point that is irrelevant. Learning a new language or learning how to play a musical instrument can allegedly raise your IQ.Tacoesforlife (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not an accepted position. Gc and gf are two different things. You're born with gf; gc is something one can develop. So while one may be born with a baby's IQ... you'll notice that your IQ score increases radically once you can take the tests in crayon... and then later in pencil! However... don't take too much comfort here. One's IQ doesn't rise after a certain age. 98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)SJC

[edit] Environmental factors

Check this site for lots of environmental factors with evidence links: http://iqandenvironment.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.150.215 (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of bio-enviornmental factors that IQ tests ignore. Perhaps, the most important is the activity in the frontal lobes, which clearly appear to regulate something called "working-memory capacity". Basically, Working memory is the comprised of the STM LENGTH (Short-term memory capacity) + ATTENTION SHIFTING. WMC governs how much information per unit time can be juggled in short term memory. An example of a WM problem would be to remember a set when called out (ex: A 5 B 9 C D 1), and then recite the 'numbers' in forward order (or 'reverse' order). Individuals with lesions in the frontal lobes have been found to perform very poorly on such tests, while often having normal IQ's. But even in general, WM correlates poorly with IQ. Unfortunetly, there has always been the move (by pro-IQers) to 'redefine' WMC to ignore the 'Attention shifting' component of WMC, basically reducing WMC to STM (more or less, IQ).

My concern with IQ is that it is a poor indicator of creativity, which I (and few others) have always felt to be the hallmark of high 'intelligence'. IQ tests are just good indicators of what age you can attain a peak at, but not how intelligent you actually are. For example (and I'll exaggerate, to make my point), if one child has a 110 IQ and the other a 100 IQ, and the first locks himself in a white room for the first 20 years of there life, and the latter spends every day in the library, it is clear (even though IQ advocates counter), that the latter child would be more intelligent as they enter adulthood. Later the kid with the higher IQ, will most certainly be able to solve the same problems the Lower-IQ kid did, but it would be at a time which makes those problems insignificant to his intelligence (ie; by the time the HIGH-IQ kid can solve them, EVERYONE else can too). I'm not implying with this, that the ability to regurgitate a known solution makes the 'bookish' child more intelligent (this would be the IQ'ers claim), but with knowledge obviously comes 'experience', and this 'experience' can, in turn, be applied to (uniquely) solve real world problems (problems without known solutions).

[edit] Any info on Lorge-Thorndike

My old high school transcripts show a "Lorge Thorndike" test. Based on google, this appears to be another IQ test. Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article on this one, parallel to Stanford-Binet, etc. Could anyone write a brief article?

Thorndike understood that intelligence had several dimensions, which have all mysteriously disappeared from modern IQ theory. There was a power score (the complexity of the problem), a speed score (how fast could a person do them (within what time frame?), a breadth score (how many problems?). He was one of the more notable theorists, because he essentially understood that intelligence can be described in a few, equally valid, ways. Although, such a point, as rational and relevant as it is, has conveniently been tossed aside since.

Ponder this hypothetical scenarios for a second: Imagine that with the entire capacity of PERSON 1, 1000 problems are solvable, that 60% of the population can solve. Imagine that with the entire capacity of PERSON 2, 999 problems are solvable, that 5% of the population can solve.

Is person 1, more intelligent that person 2? Not if you ask me....... But most IQ proponents aim to say just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.31.252 (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Biased older studies?

Surely the logic here is wrong? IQ and socio-economic status are not independent variables, they're correlated quite strongly. If the genetic contribution were close to zero then someone like George Washington Carver would be impossible.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brain speed and brain efficiency correlation with IQ

I noticed that two other interesting correlations with IQ are not mentioned in the article. The fact that folks who have the fastest response times when picking the correct image flashed on a screen also score highest on intelligence tests isn't mentioned. Also, PET scans show that those who score highest on intelligence tests also use less (not more) glucose in the area of the brain involved in problem solving when given problem-solving tasks. That is, those folks appeared to solve the problem more efficiently. Neither are mentioned. There are a number of studies that show both. If there is someone inclined to add this information to the article let me know and I'll provide supporting studies if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.146 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why so variable?

The thing that has struck me about IQs is how wide the range is. The ratio of the standard deviation of height to height is nowhere so large. And I'm pretty certain it isn't because of the recent evolution of our intelligence or because the zero is at the wrong place. The Intelligence of Dogs seem to be just as variable though no-one seems to have devised a test giving numbers. Dog size is a bit more variable but people have bred them especially for that. Anyone got any ideas on this? Does the same difference in ratios of variability of intelligence and height hold for identical twins? Is intelligence more like skin area or weight and we should be looking at what correlates with the square root of IQ? Dmcq (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rising of IQ by 3 points per decade

Hi,

it may be useful to illustrate what this rise actually means:

A group’s mean intelligence is important in explaining outcomes such as mean educational attainment or mean income. The key indicator for predicting exceptional accomplishment (like winning a Nobel Prize) is the incidence of exceptional intelligence. Consider an IQ score of 140 or higher, denoting the level of intelligence that can permit people to excel in fields like theoretical physics and pure mathematics. If the mean Jewish IQ is 110 and the standard deviation is 15, then the proportion of Jews with IQ’s of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else.

The imbalance continues to increase for still higher IQ’s....

[2]

216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramdrake - your revisions re Flynn Effect considering cites in article

Ramdrake, if you would please explain the assertion that scores are rising "worldwide" when just a few lines down in the same section the following appears, thanks -

Teasdale & Owen (2005) "report intelligence test results from over 500,000 young Danish men, tested between 1959 and 2004, showing that performance peaked in the late 1990s, and has since declined moderately to pre-1991 levels." They speculate that "a contributing factor in this recent fall could be a simultaneous decline in proportions of students entering 3-year advanced-level school programs for 16–18 year olds."^[1]

In 2004, Jon Martin Sundet of the University of Oslo and colleagues published an article documenting scores on intelligence tests given to Norwegian conscripts between the 1950s and 2002, showing that the increase in scores of general intelligence stopped after the mid-1990s and in numerical reasoning subtests, declined.^[2]

For some reason, you have singled out two of only a hanful of studies which claim that the Flynn effect has stopped. As for the Flynn effect itself, here is a quote from the introduction of our article on the subject (emphasis mine):

The Flynn effect is the rise of average Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test scores over the generations, an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates. It is named after James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications. This increase has been continuous and roughly linear from the earliest days of testing to the present. "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial," psychologist Ulric Neisser wrote in an article in 1997 in The American Scientist.[1] The Flynn effect may have ended in some developed nations starting in the mid 1990s although other studies, such as Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples (Dickens, Flynn; 2006), still show gain between 1972 and 2002.

Hopethis should settle the issue.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake - in addition to the information already quoted in the section read these late 2006 quotes from Dr. Flynn. The entire article is linked.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article756647.ece

"...Now 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."

That's silly. It means that the educational system isn't improving. Look at the big leaps that have occurred over the period that Flynn studied. They correspond to the expansion of public education. The degree to which positive social change, particularly in terms of education, has occurred all over the world is the degree to which certain parts of the world have seen higher increases than others. I believe that African-American IQ is still converging on Caucasian-American IQ, by the way. Flynn wrote a paper on that one, too. 98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)SJC

"...Professor Flynn believes there is no reason to believe IQ gains will go on for ever. He points out that although gains are still robust in America, they have stopped in Scandinavia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.140 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Flynn effect may subside for a time, but we will constantly have to adjust for the curve, if we continue to become a more educated species. Which is questionable. 98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)SJC

Sorry, but that's only what a journalist reports on the subject, even if he/she seems to be quoting Flynn himself; he's only quoting what he understood. Here is a recent (2007) paper from Flynn which explains exactly what is meant by "most parts of the world" and exactly why the end of the Flynn effect is still in dispute (it seems to have stopped in a couple of countries, but also seems to be strong in others), so talking about the Flynn Effect in the past tense is at least premature.

Thus, this re-establishes the two points:

• That the Flynn effect is observed in most parts of the world, as opposed to "some" parts of the world (it is definitely stronger in some than in others, though)
• That there is no consensus that the Flynn effect has stopped, although there are indications it may have stopped in some countries. Indications from other countries show it is still strong there.

Hope it helps.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, just as long as the original and incorrect use of the term "worldwide" is deleted I have no problem with the present version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.16 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Be bold - is this science?

Yes, it's science. General Mental Ability has been studied by countless psychometricians around the world. There have been tons of meta-analyses to understand the relationship between "g" and performance. It's the biggest area of study in individual differences psychology. Individual IQ TESTS may be questionable, but that there is such a thing as "g" is without question. I'm not sure that we should use the word "IQ," however. IQ goes back to a time when testing was design to figure out which were the mental defectives. We could just say... GMA score. Or "g score," more simply. The study of intelligence and intelligence testing, though, is no hocus pocus, but one of the single most important scientific studies in any discipline.98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)SJC

Parts of this article suggest that IQ in considered:

• hard science
• pseudo science
• mediocre science
• not necessarily science, but notable

If this is hard science, then that should be established (e.g. what is it measuring? `intelligence` is an inadequate answer, as it is a common term with a wide scope of usage)

If this is pseudo-science, then that should be clearly stated as with phrenology and etcetera.

And there's the issue of mediocre science: briefly, adding equations doesn't make it science, nor does cherry picking data, nor engineering the procedures and interpretations. What material is just mediocre science?

Quick example: shoe size and math test scores - on a single, given test - are positively correlated for students aged 6 to 18; likewise women tend to have smaller feet then men - from which we can conclude incorrectly that big feet and big hands are a positive indication of math proficiency, and women trail men in math proficiency due to small feet.

even worse: we can clean this up on the surface (e.g. to make it less obviously dubious), without ever addressing the core, flawed methodology and assumptions.

There's a lot of this kind of 19c material surrounding IQ generally, and in this article. Blablablob (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO your post is really vague. It might be better if you provide some specific article quotes along with some specific suggested changes - best with supporting cites. I think those additions will give everyone the opportunity to address your specfic objections. I'll check back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.16 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"what is it measuring" isn't vague, let's start with that. The introduction starts off with the history, and barely touches on the substance - which is odd for a scientific article, and my impression is that most of the authors consider IQ to be science. Then it list some statistical material, correlations, that lacks traction. Followed by the Flynn effect, which casts doubt on the scientific merits of IQ tests.

compare that to the introductions for Kinetic Energy and GDP - very clear, to the point, no beating around the bush, they say what each is, and can largely stand on their own feet. The closest this article comes to that is a sentence that puts all its weight on intelligence, an `umbrella term`, and standardized test, yet an other nonspecific term. Blablablob (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, how does the "statistical material" and "correlations" that you generally refer to "lack traction"? Provide some specific examples that can be discussed here and maybe some changes that will make the article better. If the introduction "barely touches on the substance" where do you think it fails and what do you suggest be added? If the Flynn Effect "casts doubt" - as you suggest - than add here what you think will make the section better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

at this point, the responses I'm getting are borderline prevarication: if it is science, much better answers should be forth coming. This isn't a wine and cheese tasting; content should correspondingly be more direct, and less subjective. Blablablob (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point it appears, that for whatever reason, you either are unable or simply don't want to provide specifics. Saying this "isn't wine and cheese tasting" isn't a specific objection. At this point, it appears you want "better answers" without the burden of providing specific objections. Until you do, there really is no point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.142 (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments can be applied quite straight-forwardly to something like the temperature. As far as giving the temperature in the weather forecast is concerned what time and over what period should it apply to?, should a wet or dry bulb thermometer be used? There is no temperature for the day but scientists are quite happy with using a temperature plus knowing how it was collected. The same applies to intelligence. There is no single intelligence but there are a number of different tests which give figures which are useful and can quite properly be classed as intelligence tests even if they differ a bit in their results. Same with GDP, it is a useful measure of something or other but what is anyone's guess, and even kinetic energy is fuzzy if you cut the time span down - and it differs according to what other object you're measuring the speed against. Dmcq (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

you've accidentally made my point: scientists are happy with temperature and how it was collected. This article does not go that far, it stops far short of it. To use your metaphor, it says nothing of the method - wet, dry or even if a thermometer was used. Is an IQ test a series of sudoku and crossword puzzles, like on the back of a TV guide? or drawing pictures of a house with people? does it involve reading text and demonstrating comprehension? is there overlap with the turing test? you would never know from this article.

GDP measures value added in domestic production - using the universal element in these transactions, money.

While it does tell us everything about everything, it is clear about what it tells us, and how it does this. The same level of clarity as to what is being discussed, and what is being measured is not in the intro for this article.

in your example of the uncertainty principle, there are known pairs, like dt:dE, dx:dp, and a order of magnitude ballpark on the value. The same level of clarity as to what is being discussed, and what is being measured is not in the intro for this article.

Blablablob (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro of the article clearly states what IQ is 'An Intelligence Quotient or IQ is a score derived from one of several different standardized tests;' and it states what the aim is 'attempting to measure intelligence'. I am not certain if your problem is with the first part or the second or both. The GDP heading goes 'The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is one of the measures', this is what it is, followed by 'of national income and output for a given country's economy', which gives its purpose. GDP does change with changes to accounting and government rules but it is a good and useful measure, the same is true of IQ. There is currently no absolute linear scale of national income and output or of intelligence for GDP or IQ to measure and there may never be. Even in physical science the idea that 'All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe... Observer participancy gives rise to information; and information gives rise to physics', has been very useful and is the basis for Extreme physical information, a way of deriving physical laws. By the way could you sign your posts with four tildas (~~~~) so the signbot doesn't keep adding extra silly entries to histories please. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

you are being far too philosophical - as opposed to focused, and grounded in this matter - and not recognizing the clear short comings of this article. Phrenology is an attempt at measuring intelligence, among other things. What it actually measures is bumps on a head. An article about phrenology should come right out and say, "Phrenology measures the bumps on a person's head . . .". Be bold! Is this science - if it is, you can do better; if it isn't, say so; if you don't know, why are you responding to this post?

The article `clearly` sidesteps a bold description appropriate for any kind of scientific article - physical, biological, etcetera. It reads like a politician avoiding an unpolitic subject - the famous non-answer. Blablablob (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article be merged with Phrenology ?

Should this article be merged with Phrenology ? Blablablob (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The readings from Phrenology aren't good or useful measures of anything except bumps. The results of IQ tests correlate fairly well with peoples ideas of intelligence. If you or I and Marilyn vos Savant are given some random problem there is a very good chance we will take much longer than her or even fail where she succeeds. Phrenology is unlikely to give a result correlating with this observation. Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My public school administered test, similar to the one which Ms. Savant scored 167+ on, was 173+. I have found that people who habitually solve various kinds of puzzles usually solve them faster than me, and that when I am considering some weighty matter that does not engage my interest there are often people who make better determinations than I do. Ms. Savant, by her membership in those silly societies, betrays a vast will to self-promote if not self-deceive. I would happily see IQ go the way of Phrenology.

The talk page is for discussion about improving the article. It is not a forum for personal feelings about the subject. Please see WP:TALK. Dmcq (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a "Lynn-Flynn effect"?

The synopsis on Flynn effect says it is aka the "Lynn-Flynn effect", and mentions Lynn in addition to Flynn. Is this valid? My impression is that far fewer people speak of "Lynn-Flynn" than just a Flynn effect, and said WP article doesn't even mention Lynn. The idea of giving him equal weight on the subject seems doubtful, at least in a brief synopsis. I would remove reference to Lynn from this section, but given the contentiousness here and my relative lack of familiarity with the subject, I wanted to mention it here first. CAVincent (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As I know, "Intelligenz-Quotient" is a German word, not a Russian one.

Maybe, I should edit the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DidiDigomi (talk • contribs) 10:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NLP IQ Test

Why the hell was it listed on the "Free IQ tests" section? it's just about the worst test i've ever seen, even when ignoring the litany of spelling mistakes. half the questions are ambiguous.boombaard (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language of test

So non-native speakers of English may score lower? In my experience, and this is just MY OPINION after having lived in a country where the native language is English for over 13 years, while I am NOT a native speaker, NATIVE speakers of English may score worse. People who learn English in school as their NON-native language probably do better on average. Especially in the US. Sad. 97.103.81.29 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what

The average IQ scores for many populations have been rising at an average rate of three points per decade since the early 20th century with most of the increase in the lower half of the IQ range: a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. It is disputed whether these changes in scores reflect real changes in intellectual abilities, or merely methodological problems with past or present testing. Um, the average IQ score of a population is fixed by definition.. 71.176.188.216 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

True but you can compare years by having some people try out an old test and a current test and compare the IQs the two tests produce. Dmcq (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types of IQs/ disparity

Sometimes there are major disparities in IQ scores. My verbal IQ is 150, but my visual is 93. Jonathan321 (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The IQ described here is a measure of general intelligence. Have a look a the intelligence article for different types of intelligence. Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FIQ, VIQ, PIQ

The Japanese version mentions Full scale IQ, FIQ; verbal IQ, VIQ; performance IQ, PIQ; please mention them too, with their with acronyms. No acronyms means no Google hit. Also #REDIRECT for each. OK, doing for Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Jidanni (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about general intelligence, please see the Intelligence article for other measures. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Intelligence Tests?

Besides IQ, what other forms of measuring cognitive abilities are there?

[edit] A reminder to all.

Please read WP:Copyright Do not copy and paste from what you find on the web. Write stuff in your own words, otherwise this is plagiarism.

There was a lot of copypasta on this article. I removed it, but it took a while. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G factor?

g is mentioned a few times in the article but never introduced or explained nor a link to an explanation provided. Someone, who is not me, fix this, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.212.231 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Linked them to General intelligence factor Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Infringement By Third Party

I googled around for the wikipedia policy on reporting copyright infringement by third parties, but I wasn't able to find the correct way to report it, so I figured I'd post here. The text-message scam-type site http://www.theiqquiz.com/US1/results.php prompts a user to answer 10 questions, then sign up for a paid service to get their IQ result. They use the introduction to the wikipedia IQ article, verbatim, at the bottom of that page. It is used without any reference to wikipedia. I was under the assumption that the wikipedia license permits attributed re-use, but not uncredited stealing.

Anyway just thought I'd bring it to someone's attention. Great article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.52.106 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correlation definition

I added link to definition at first occurrence of correlation where the term is used in purely mathematical/statistical sense. There are still remain occurrences used in that way. I don't know if its a good practice to give links to the same term when they are separated from each other by several sub-sections. Can someone comment on that? Moreover, in some cases correlation stands for relationship. From my point of view it's a little bit confusing, when several meanings of the word are exploited in the article, especially when synonyms can easily be used. At least I would suggest giving a link to definition at one those occurrences where correlation stands for relationship. --Wallach2008 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sex differences

The article on Sex and intelligence discusses average differences between the sexes an that's reasonable. However I thought that IQ as in this article Intelligence quotient was normally defined with a mix of questions hat balanced out sex differences so both sexes averaged at 100. So how can men outperform women on average by 4 points as said in Intelligence quotient#Sex, surely that section should only be saying about there being difference in some abilities and that i is possible to choose a balance of questions or weigh the results? Dmcq (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The result about greater intelligence of men in an unbiased test is almost certainly because the test was done on university students and as the rest of the paragraph says men have greater variance. So not a great deal there. I'll say the statement is not well founded. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Making a test unbiased in this way is very hard---and could well result in a test which is more biased than a test written with no such considerations. Note in particular that there is no particular reason to assume, a priori, that men and women have the same average IQ. (Note e.g. that there is a near consensus that they have different standard deviations.)88.77.143.153 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's fairly easy and it is what is done for the major tests. Whether or not men and women have the same intelligence on average whatever that means most IQ tests will give the same average and that's by design, they change the test to remove average differences if the trials show up anything significant.. For instance you just need to put in more word tests to bias for women or weigh spatial tests higher to bias for men. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

While the mechanims of change is easy, it is hard (impossible?) to find a perfect balance. Consider that a set of corrections that give 100-100 in one setting can give 101-99 (or 99-101) when the test group changes, or that a test may yield 100-100 when used on the overall population, but 115-113 when used on college students. It is a bit like trying to keep a set of scales balanced when a breeze is blowing on it. A further complication is that merely adding verbal questions do not automatically give women an advantage, but the type of questions, formulations used, etc., may also need consideration. Consider e.g. that men tend to marginally outscore women on the SAT-verbal, or that the Swedish SATs ("högskoleprovet") have been critized (and, I believe, repeatedly altered) because the word tests used were too male centric. (An example would be using more questions referencing gaskets, and similar items, than crocheting and other "female" words.) To make matters worse, a test that uses too many verbal questions becomes vulnerable to attacks against cultural discrimination, unfairness against immigrants, etc.94.220.255.11 (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Of course the results after the tests are put into the field will be slightly different and if you try them on selected samples like university students you'll get something quite different again. They also have a panel looking at things like culture fairness when they set them up. Intelligence tests are a bit ad hoc for the simple reason that intelligence isn't yet a well defined quantity a scientist can take out a meter and measure. Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Authoritative source

This review deals with hereditary and has a section on the hereditability of IQ. Should be a very authoritative and up-to-date general summary. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Visscher PM, Hill WG, Wray NR (April 2008). "Heritability in the genomics era--concepts and misconceptions". Nat. Rev. Genet. 9 (4): 255–66. doi:10.1038/nrg2322. PMID 18319743. 

[edit] Normally Distributed?

This page pleads differently, and I have been told by several people- all of whom I trust, but none of whom are verifiable- that Iq is not normally distributed, but actually follows log-normal distribution. Can anyone else provide evidence for this? Mxb design (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of the article, according to it the IQ distribution is arranged to be normal. Note that IQ hasn't got an innate scale, at least not one that has been discovered so far, so it can be given any distribution one wishes. The intro describes the distribution chosen as standard. If there was some version of an IQ test which used another distribution that would probably be notable and someone would probably already have said something along those lines, but its worth seeing if those people you mention can recall where they got their ideas from. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Top range has been reached

This article sucks. It propagates and encourages human to human attitude that is far too mild to call fascism. I am deeply sorry I ever contributed anything to the Wikipedia, as my contributions to other articles indirectly promote this web site - so indirectly promote this crap. I tried to oppose, but it seems that nothing is working against the "community" that holds control on this article. Everything that they do not like is just removed and it absolutely does not matter if I provide references to the peer reviewed journals or not.

I have believed in the spirit of Wikipedia for the long time but I have reasonable doubts now as my own contributions into other articles indirectly promote publications that I consider crime against humanity.

This is my pre-last contribution to Wikipedia community. My last contribution will be marking this article for removal. I know this will not hold for long and will be considered as vandalism but sometimes you need to fight also when you do not expect to win and opportunities to go into any discussion are now fully exhausted.

Audriusa (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you certainly haven't won over anybody with your objectivity Audriusa. 207.69.137.42 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 3rd year Dukie

I searched the history page of the article and I fail to see where you get the idea a guarding group has been reverting reasonable edits. The only edits I can see by you to this article in the last few months were a block today 28th February which deleted content without commenting why in the history. Reverting the changes is the correct action in such circumstances. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IQs of famous people

I would like to see a Wikipedia article listing estimated IQs of famous people. It could be called "List of estimated IQs of famous people". I am sure that someone has compiled such a list. For example I saw a reference to a U.S. Army report compiled after the Allied victory in World War II that estimated that Hitlers IQ was 136. Albert Speer's IQ was found to be 142 (Albert Speer was actually given an IQ test while imprisoned). Keraunos (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not altogether sure how meaningful comparing real measured IQs across time or between different tests, I think such estimates would say more about the estimator. That's no bar to being notable though I suppose. You might like List of fictional characters by IQ ;-) Dmcq (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Online IQ Test Validity

'Online IQ Test Validity' redirects here but there is nothing about it in the article. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.202.195.21 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vegetarians

The line about how IQ correlates to people becoming vegetarians in adulthood should be removed or a comment should be added indicating that it does not prove causality. If the population of storks correlates to the number of babies born in Europe, it doesn't prove that storks bring babies. Same idea here. The statement, as is, can be misleading in this fashion as can the results of that study itself. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.231.88 (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Binet?

Alfred Binet's article says, in the first line, that he is the inventor of the first usable intelligence test; is there a reason that's not mentioned in this article? I don't feel very bold today, so I'll leave it to you.  Aar  ►  05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citations need improvement

Several citations are incomplete. The section on heritability of IQ, for instance, cites Plomin et al. (2001, 2003). No further citation information (such as publication source) is given and I was unable to find these articles. The most likely articles I found in PubMed had only two authors; only papers with 3 or more authors are cited as et. al.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11320676 "most environmental variance affecting the development of psychological dimensions and psychiatric disorders is not shared by children growing up in the same family."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12639274 about genetics and educational psychology

Without complete citations, it is impossible for me to verify whether the article correctly represents the research on environmental factors. For instance, I see no evidence regarding heritability and age.

Overall, the article strikes me as sloppy. Earlier sections of the article give the impression of particular facts, without reference to the criticism and views section. In particular, potential bias of earlier articles needs to be carefully evaluated. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess the 2001 one would be Behavioural Genetics Robert Plomin's works are listed at [3]. Dmcq (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Word Choice

I have a problem with the way the word 'methodology' is used in this article. From my understanding, methodology is the epistemological discourse of methods used in a school of thought. The word is popularly used as a pretentious substitute for 'method'. Does anybody want to correct me before I revise the article? Marksspite2 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The word is used in only one place in the article where it seems correct to me. The methodology was revised, the methods being updated was a consequence. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SSSMART

this is for smart people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.218.21 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] question

am a nine letter word.teachers hate me,cow like me,monkey eat mw,who am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.134.134 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note at the start of this talk page "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligence quotient article.". It is not for any other purpose. It is not a chatroom. Dmcq (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Childhood IQ and smoking

The source states that: "but was not associated directly with smoking consumption". So the reference is wrong and I removed in this edition: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligence_quotient&oldid=305773243. V3n0w (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 'Some tests may have different standard deviations.'

A part of the introduction reads:

"Although the term "IQ" is still in common use, the scoring of modern IQ tests such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale is now based on a projection of the subject's measured rank on the Gaussian bell curve with a center value (average IQ) of 100, and a standard deviation of 15, although different tests may have different standard deviations."

Why would different tests have different standard deviations? Surely if they do they must be an inadequate IQ test, for example

Person takes IQ Test 1 - gets an IQ of 120 - IQ Test 1 has a standard deviation of 20.

Person takes IQ Test 2 - gets an IQ of 115 - IQ Test 2 has a standard deviation of 15.

These two people actually have the same IQ though only the latter test is a proper IQ test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.15.238 (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This a question of priorities: Typically the goal is to have an expectation value of around 100 and to give results of as good quality as possible in a certain range. Fixing the standard deviation, OTOH, need not be a priority, and it is easy to see e.g. that a test with "target range" of 70--130 can have a different standard variation that one for 120--150, or that different methodologies and opinions in the construction stage can lead to different results in practice.88.77.143.153 (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The way the tests are scored is adjusted to give the standard deviation they want and this is quite a simple task. The raw figures of a few thousand trials are simply put in order and then mapped to a cumulative normal distribution with the required average and standard deviation to give the IQ result - and thy simply use that mapping for any further tests. The mapping used to be via quantiles rather than straight top the normal distribution whch is why some tests had a standard deviation like 13.6 rather than a clean number like 15. Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting question from the point of vie of intelligence. Since the standard deviation of IQ tests is set in a completely articicial manner, is there a natural scale for intelligence of any sort? For instance one person can be twice as tall as another or ten time the weight - is there some natural way of thinking abouyt intelligence that would say in what matter intelligence varies? There certainly isn't one at the moment and I haven't the foggiest idea how one could come to even a fairly vague idea of such a natural standard. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mutability

A sales blurb without a study isn't good enough when everything else is based on researched papers.

Dmcq, the publishers of the WFF 'N PROOF logic game say there are studies. Can you help me locate the research papers which report these studies? --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at their site and they do provide links to some papers, their main page about the research is at [4]. WP:CITE decribes about citations, the best ones for Wikipedia are ones in a referred journal and not in fact the original research but ones where someone reviews an area of study and makes comments on the results of the research. That's not always possible of course in which case on just has to take what one can but it needs to be of a comparable quality to whatever else is standard for an article. A wiki link to Wff 'n Proof can be put into the article text so there's no need to directly link to their top web page, the citation should conform to the citation guidelines and fairly directly back up what is said. It looks like there's probably enough there to put in a citation which is the principal thing one needs in an article like this where every statement comes under s fine toothcomb. Dmcq (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nature opinion article on human genetic diversity

I read a nature opinion article that argues that geographically separated groups of people can be distinguished by observing their genome. Many of the changes in the genome are probably functional. The traits that are influenced by these changes also include brain biology. If this is the upcoming trend in the field, then the opinion that all groups of people are too similar in order to be able to make a meaningful distinction between them (called "biological egalitarianism" in the article), then the opinion expressed by Dr. Nisbett will become obsolete. I added a little text in the "Race" paragraph, with a link to the article in the "Reference" section. That's my first time edit on wikipedia, so please tell me if I did something wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjrnfrdnnd (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)