I removed a lot of things from that paragraph; there was a lot of off-topic and POV stuff (the previous title was: "IQ & oudated methodology: runing society?". It looks like the author was too focused on passing the "2006 paper"'s view. I honnestly think that even this paper will benefit from my edit, since it makes it look far more scientific. Aleph42 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that an article dealing with IQ and Psychometrics does not give any mention of Lee Cronbach or Louise Guttman who are two of the top Psychometricians in history. Both have shown that IQ and intelligence tests are of little value at best, and worthless at worst. Indeed, both Guttman and Cronbach are mentioned in every Psychology Text book dealing with Psychometrics. Louise Guttman is regarded as the world's number Psychometrican in History.
Peter Schonemann, considered to be the world's foremost expert on factor analysis, has also demonstrated the worthlessness of IQ tests. Oscar Kempthorn, an expert in statistical genetics has also shown several problems with these kind of tests.
One of the reasons for a correlation between the two in the article is that "children frequently draw pictures of people with larger heads than is realistic, possibly because the human mind is what makes us ourselves". Is it just me, or does this sentence make no sense? Also there is a recent article about how the genes associated with a larger head were not found to have any correlation with IQ, and therefore head size/brain size did not relate to IQ. Maybe someon could find it and add it to the section. Surely if head size was related to intelligence, then all the geniuses would have massive heads? Most of them appear to have average sized, or even quite small heads. And don't foget that many mentally challenged people have very large heads, although it is often related to a medical condition.
Just to mention: Intelligence depends on the amount of creases on your brain. Actually a dolphin's brains are more creased than a humans, but something about the human mind makes us more capable of using it. No idea what. -- 91.154.63.211 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a discrepency between the two charts in the reference charts section. The article only differentiates them by stating that the second is more detailed than the first (eg: the first classifies anyone 140+ to be a genius whereas the second classifies geniuses as between 171 and 176). Does anyone have two charts of differing depth with the same opinions about genius, or should the article be amended to say that the two charts differ in more than their specificity. As it stands now, I find it a bit confusing.
The IQ refrence charts section is currenty under going expansions. Please check out that section later as more detail should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.10.133 ( talk) 04:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
I am going to edit this section because it is vague and it does not state anything. There is negative correlation between religiosity and religion. All that section talks about is that there is some unproven relationship and that correlation is not causation. The relationship is negative as proven by most studies done all over the web.
"Although gender-related differences in average IQ are insignificant, male scores display a higher variance: there are more men than women with both very high and very low IQs. The average IQ being 100 could see man have a s.d. of 16 and women a s.d. of 15. **Differences in variance would mean that more men are less intelligent than women also.**"
What...?
The statement could have also noted that there are more men that are MORE intelligent than woman also. Pointless statement that is clearly NOT NPOV.
I would say get rid of that last part of the statement. It doesn't ned to be said, because the rest of the statement explains it already. and the way that last part is written is a little funny. 144.139.121.27 10:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If 100 is the average IQ how come so many people are lying online and saying they have IQs of 140-170?
Actually, an IQ of about 150 is about 3.15-3.30 SD (depending if you use 15 or 16 points as a SD) from the norm, although it does translate to about between 1/1125 and 1/2330 (for SD15 and SD16 respectively). As far as the rest, you are of course absolutely right.-- Ramdrake 22:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
To quote from the Mensa International article:
Because different tests are scaled differently, it is not meaningful to compare raw scores between tests, only percentiles. For example, the minimum accepted score on the Stanford-Binet is 132, while for the Cattell it is 148.
On the Cattell scale, an IQ of 150 translates to around 1/50 (2%), or 120 million people worldwide (6 million in the US) ... that's why the high IQ societies all use a percentile for membership, rather than a number. OTOH, given the chance, most people would rather say their's is 151 (Cattell) rather than 135 (S-B) because it sounds more impressive. -- 141.156.232.179 22:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Since there has been no world-wide standardisation of IQ data, one cannot say that there are '120 million people worldwide' with IQs in the 98th percentile of Americans, Australians, Britons or wherever. The top two percent of one nation may score much lower than the top two of another and, when grouped together into the same pool of data, may no longer constitute anywhere near the top two percent of the world-wide aggregate.
BCAB 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There is also at least one scam free iq test online that reports ultra high iq's for everyone and then emails them offers to buy 'intelligence profile' packages. The one I came across reported my IQ as 156 (which it called "genius" level) while other tests from non-commercial interests have scored me around 106 (tiny bit above average). I have a few friends who have taken the scam test as well and none have scored below 150. The test also seemed shorter and easier than the others I've taken since. So some people may be duped by the scam test, we all want to believe we're geniuses I guess ;)
InterLNK 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, in a society where we are judged not based on personality, but based on inteligence and looks, obviously everyone wants to lie about their IQ, since good looks are in the eye of the beholder we can't lie about them (unless plastic surgery is considered "lieing" about your appearence). Take me for example; I'm not the type of a person who lies to anyone. The more you lie, the less people will believe you when your telling the truth. Thats just common knowledge. Since the truth has a way of coming out anyhow, I like to let people know the truth when I first talk to them. However, I have taken two online IQ tests. One of them marked me at a 140 IQ, the second at a 125 IQ. Neither tried to scam me, but I commonly tell people I have a 140 IQ "according to some IQ tests" if it comes up in conversation. For the most part, I am a pretty smart guy, but I doubt I have a 140 IQ. Maybe I do, maybe I don't, but either way its just human nature to make yourself appear better than you are. Not only that, but our society places a huge deal on your IQ. Its interesting really, when you want to know how strong someone is you ask them for how much they can bench press, you judge good looks by what society deems is attractive (which I'm fine with just for the record), and you judge someones intelligence by their IQ. Instead of realizing that inteligence can be divided into your ability to naturaly solve things (such as puzzles), your ability to learn, the knowledge you've gained from learning, and your natural ability to absorb different studies (such as reading and writing or math), we just narrow all that down into IQ. Since society determines how smart you are soley based on your IQ, everyone will either lie saying they have an above average IQ when they've never even taken a test but just think they are smart, lie about their IQ score, lie by "rounding" our IQ score (IE, a 101 IQ score would be rounded to 110), or very few people will be honest about it. We want everyone to see us in the best light imaginable. DurotarLord 18:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you are blowing their importance way out of proportion. Intelligence is important as in you need enough of it to get by, but it isn't the critical bench mark you seem to think it is. Most people I know do not bring up "What is your IQ score?" in normal conversation... seems you have a few issues....
Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Please keep discussion as relevant as is possible, and i question the relevance of this entire section, to be truthful. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, rather than the topic itself, unless the topic comes up in an attempt to improve. WP:NOT Thanks----JamesSugrono U| C 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to have example IQ tests online or linked to this page so that people can actually see what IQ tests actually *are*. -- NukeMason 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I was reading throught this discussion again (yes, I have way TOO much time to deal with). One of the issues that I have about the use of IQ tests and the like is that the article is likely to be very unscientific without having some kind of discussion that shows case studies of how it is that IQ is assigned to specific people based upon a specific test conditions and results. Anyhow, the point I made above (that no-one has responded to, perhaps unsurprisingly, is that there should be a specific test taken so that everyone can take the test, and actually work out their own IQ to see what is being done mathematically, to get a feel for how non-linear statistical effects might make a big difference to IQ results).
I hope that some of the above makes some sense.
-- NukeMason 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but a problem I've noticed is that most online IQ tests are either poor indicators of IQ or have costs attached. Finding a decent IQ test is pretty unlikely. If you want to add examples of online IQ tests (purported), and list them as such, that would probably be fine. There's one flash based one at "www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/"; I personally think it's pretty poor because it uses knowledge (achievement, I guess) based questions and memory questions in addition to pattern recognition; it also uses a time limit for each question. There are a few extra ones at tickle.com and related websites that are probably even less valid. "High-IQ" tests are less common; I don't know how valid the tests at " http://paulcooijmans.lunarpages.com/p/gliaweb/tests/" are; they have costs but it seems like the author is sensible. Maybe it's pseudoscience, maybe not; I can't pass judgment. If anybody wants to add those, they can go ahead. Hope that helps a little... Robinson0120 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Love them or hate them, they're here to stay. I'd move to make a separate page for them on Wikipedia but obviously I'm a bit biased (not in a statistical sense):). They do warrant some mention in the general article if only to debunk the common myth that they're as valid and reliable as individually administered intelligence tests.
IvyIQTest100 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I travelled over here about a month ago and read for the first time that there were published studies that seemed to indicate that the "Flynn Effect" was slowing or stopped in certain countries. Yesterday, James Flynn himself breaks the news. First, let me say Congratulations!! on scooping Professor Flynn by at least a full two months!!
But that's not the only 'scoop' I've witnessed in just this past week. Scientific American in it's on-line version has just gotten around to reporting the link between IQ and post-traumatic stress disorder that apparently has been in wikipedia's IQ article for some time now.
A big double KUDOS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.8 ( talk) 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
The difference between ration and deviation IQs is explained here. [1] -- Jagz 08:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"For people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, IQ is highly heritable, and by adulthood the influence of family environment on IQ is undetectable...In the United States, marked variation in IQ occurs within families, with siblings differing on average by almost one standard deviation"
If IQ is "highly heritable," shouldn't we expect each sibling of a given set of parents to have IQs that are much smaller than one standard deviation? The sentence implies "almost one standard deviation" to be a large amount - one standard deviation also overlaps considerably over other sources of error and may be statistically insignificant for the determination of difference between families.
And what about external environment? This paragraph only mentions "family environment." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.250.81 ( talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
Quite frankly, "Regression
The heritability of IQ measures the extent to which the IQ of children appears to be influenced by the IQ of parents. Because the heritability of IQ is less than 100%, the IQ of children tends to "regress" towards the mean IQ of the population. That is, high IQ parents tend to have children who are less bright than their parents, whereas low IQ parents tend to have children who are brighter than their parents. The effect can be quantified by the equation \hat y = \bar x + h^2 \left ( \frac{m + f}{2} - \bar x \right) where
* \hat{y} is the predicted average IQ of the children; * \bar{x} is the mean IQ of the population to which the parents belong; * h2 is the heritability of IQ; * m and f are the IQs of the mother and father, respectively.[15]
Thus, if the heritability of IQ is 50%, a couple averaging an IQ of 120 may have children that average around an IQ of 110, assuming that both parents come from a population with a median IQ of 100.
A caveat to this reasoning are those children who have chromosomal abnormalities, such as Klinefelter's syndrome and Triple X syndrome whose "normal" IQ is only one indicator; their visual IQ is another indicator. And so forth."
Sounds like an amateur Mathematician gone wild.
I totally don't know where to discuss this, but it smacks of utter crap. Even the note (15) is referring to plant heredity. Luerim 10:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The assessment system devised by Binet and Simon was named for them, "the Binet-Simon Scale" (not the Binet-Simon intelligence scale), by users and translators in the USA.
Among the first intelligence tests designed for adult populations were the group-administered Army Alpha and Beta mental tests, developed by the 'Vineland committee' from 1917 to 1920.
Yerkes, R. M. (Ed.) (1921) Psychological examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 15, 1-890.
Subtests from Army Alpha and Beta later formed the basis for Wechsler's individually-administered scales, the first of which was the 'Wechsler-Bellevue Scale'. Londonmatty20 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel that one of the reasons this article is controversial is that in places there is confusion between the terms 'intelligence' and 'IQ'.
For example, the section on 'Influences of genetics and environment' begins with the phrase, "The role of genes and environment (nature and nurture) in determining IQ is reviewed in ...". Similarly, the section on 'Development' begins, "It is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should ..."
In both cases, and many places later, I think the term IQ - a score on a test - has been used inappropriately in place of intelligence. Discussion of a putative index (measure) of any mental phenomenon should be distinguished from discussion of the underlying construct. See the articles under Psychometrics for further explanation.
There needs to be some acknowledgment that what influences intelligence (however defined) can be considered separately from what influences scores on intelligence tests. Most of the current content of sections 4 (Influences of genetics and environment), 5 (IQ and the brain) and 7 (Group differences) probably belong elsewhere. Londonmatty20 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree: the opening paragraphs of this article are very clear; and that IQ studies are controversial is without doubt, for good or ill. Neverthless I feel that one of the reasons that this article is controversial is because some contributors use the term IQ in place of (when they mean) intelligence: that is, they confuse the measure with the construct. The current content of sections 4, 5 and 7 belong in the article on intelligence. This article could more profitably focus on the history, uses and critique of this particular measure of intelligence. Londonmatty20 20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It was noted in the body of the article that a reputable source was needed to support the claim that sustained breastfeeding results in a higher IQ for the infant. Science Daily contains a summary of a well-known and oft-cited 1999 University of Kentucky study which shows these results, specifically that breastfed children have higher IQs and that sustained breastfeeding continues to provide cognitive benefits. See the article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990928075022.htm Another study (1993)shows greater cognitive development in infants who were breastfed - this article was included in the collection Undernutrition and Behavioral Development in Children, which was a publication of the International Dietary Energy Consultative Group: http://www.unu.edu/Unupress/food2/UID04E/uid04e0j.htm 66.82.9.11 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Pamela Jennings
~~Bob~~
Just a note to be on the look out. He has bragged before that he'll just continue to post the spam since it's worth it to him due to the increase in hits at his site. Normally he posts his spam links at the end of the article and sometimes he posts more than one link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.12 ( talk) 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
IQ tests (as with all tests) are inaccurate i.e. somedays you will score higher/lower. Plus if you have disabilities that doesn't mean you're dumb.
One link mentioned that depressed and schizophrenic people had a lower score. How do you test a large group of schizophrenics to know what their IQs are - depressed would be as hard to test. Mental hospitals and prisons in the past had many extremely high IQ patients - but testing the extreme cases of illness would have been problematic ( their score could be 0 most days ). The severly depressed wouldn't care what the score was - as I suppose would they very poor, etc ( is a good score really going to improve your life anyway?). Much of this - politics and social science stuff belongs in pseudoscience. There are articles on Jewish intelligence in wiki - any articles on Asian intelligence. We might as well learn about the highest , not the second place group.
The "Percent Correlation of IQ Tests" seems odd to me. What does 87% correlation of tests which the same person takes twice mean? Seems odd. I belive that this is supposed to be the correlation factor, r, which is in this case indicated with 0.87, not 87%. I've never seen r used like percents - r is just an number, indicating strength between groups of numbers.
Could someone clarify?
-- -G. 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
most of the data you could want should be in this paper: Bouchard, T. J. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities. Human Biology, 70, 257–279.
if it's not, the textbooks by Plomin are a good source. -- W.R.N. 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is the article missing a lot of citations and references? The first few sections have lots of claims, but few sources. The rest of the article has a lot of sources, but the first part definitely needs to be cited or removed because it's not really well written anyway and is pov sometimes. I dunno anything about this stuff but it needs to be fixed. Dan Guan 20:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There are no periods. PLEASE don't use them. Bulldog123 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Care to explain why?-- LocrialTheSequel 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not for the UK. It's 'standard asessment test'.
An article which gives the basics about IQ should not talk about esoterica like regression to the mean.
I suggest that we delete that section. Bulldog123 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
the new stuff should be integrated. -- W.R.N. 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this part of the article: "IQ correlates... very weakly or not at all with accumulated wealth, especially inherited." I've seen studies where the IQ-income correlation is as high as .4. In most studies I've seen (and in the NLSY cited in tThe Bell Curve), the correlation is in the mid .3s. In the social sciences, that's hardly negligible.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10519-007-9142-7
The Environments of Adopted and Non-adopted Youth: Evidence on Range Restriction From the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS).
Previous reviews of the literature have suggested that shared environmental effects may be underestimated in adoption studies because adopted individuals are exposed to a restricted range of family environments. A sample of 409 adoptive and 208 non-adoptive families from the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS) was used to identify the environmental dimensions on which adoptive families show greatest restriction and to determine the effect of this restriction on estimates of the adoptive sibling correlation. Relative to non-adoptive families, adoptive families experienced a 41% reduction of variance in parent disinhibitory psychopathology and an 18% reduction of variance in socioeconomic status (SES). There was limited evidence for range restriction in exposure to bad peer models, parent depression, or family climate. However, restriction in range in parent disinhibitory psychopathology and family SES had no effect on adoptive-sibling correlations for delinquency, drug use, and IQ. These data support the use of adoption studies to obtain direct estimates of the importance of shared environmental effects on psychological development.
-- W.R.N. 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
the bulleted list under heritability is excellent. -- W.R.N. 08:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This table makes no sense. The text below it talks about -1.0 to 1.0 correlations and yet the caption on the table alleges the numbers to be the "percentage of each IQ sub-population". The first row I follow: 5+20+50+20+5=100 and fits standard distribution. But now look at the second row: 72% of people married before 30 have IQ below 75! 81% between 75 and 90, 81% between 90 and 110!? These can't be percentages of the sub-population, the title of the table says they are correlates, but obviously not in the -1.0 to 1.0 range. Does anyone have the cited source book for this table? I think someone mis-transcribed the information and created the incorrect caption. -- Danny Rathjens 08:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This article could use a question or two along with an explanation of why certain answers are right or wrong. Particularly the ones with pattern recognition, a lot of people don't understand why answers in a pattern set are correct or incorrect. Aaron Bowen 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Somebody flagged a bunch of stuff in the new section on societies for people who think they're geniuses. While I didn't add the section, I did edit it extensively, and I don't think that pointing out the obvious (i.e., that people with common interests--in this case their smart-guy complex--use the Internet to form societies. Furthermore, it seems rather obvious to me, looking at the prose, that the claims of the society mentioned are dubious to say the least. As such, there's no need for a "notability" flag. It might all be nonsense, but it's entirely relevant to the topic of IQ in the modern age. Buck Mulligan 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Vaughan, terms such as "idiot" and "moron" were used in scientific papers to describe specific ranges of IQ scores in the early 20th century, but they are never used in that context now for obvious reasons. I have removed the chart entirely, because the one source provided has nothing to say about the labels. Without the labels, the chart just shows areas beneath a normal distribution curve, with no specific relevance to IQ testing to warrant its inclusion, especially since IQ scores have little correspondence with the normal distribution as you get into very high or very low scores. -- Schaefer ( talk) 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
User:DonSiano has restored the IQ chart, providing only "chart is ok" for justification. Before I remove it again, I want to raise other objections here. First, the labels under "Intelligence Level" are unsourced. By whose authority is an IQ of 36 "Profoundly Retarded" whereas an IQ of 37 is merely "Highly Retarded"? The chart does not say. Second, the rarity values are confusing. The second column, which is labeled "Rarity (1/x)", is neither the percentage of the population below the IQ level specified nor the percentage above: It switches from the former to the latter halfway through. If it is to be read as the percentage of the population with an IQ described by the third column, then we reach the absurd statement that approximately 1/2 of the population has an IQ of approximately 100. Also, the midway switch makes the second half the chart redundant with the first: If you know ~1/10 people have IQs below 89, you only need basic arithmetic to deduce the same fraction have IQs above 119. Finally, I just don't see the need for a reference table cluttering up the article. Note that there are no normal distribution area tables at articles for other normally distributed variables such as Human height, or at the article on the normal distribution itself. -- Schaefer ( talk) 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Hello, I am the author of the IQ chart here mentioned. I have constructed this due to the poorly scaled levels used today by psychometics.(I can make a chart using only modern terminology and also provide sources to back it up.) The problems stated by the User Donsiano are due to the ambigious nature of IQ testing itself. I have only provided a refrence table, not an absolute one just as normal IQ charts are today. Also, I can change the rarity (1/x) to a more eazy to understand percential of people that scored under X IQ/ level of intelligence. I shell post my charts here instead of the public IQ page until they are deemed ok or not.
Intelligence Level | % Of Pop. Under Level | Point Value (15SD) | Point Value (16SD) |
---|---|---|---|
Idiot | ~0.0000001% | <10 | <4 |
Profound Moron | ~0.000001% | <16 | <10 |
Exceptional Moron | ~0.00001% | <22 | <17 |
Moron | ~0.0001% | <29 | <24 |
Extremely Retarded | ~0.001% | <36 | <32 |
Highly Retarded | ~0.01% | <44 | <40 |
Retarded | ~0.1% | <54 | <50 |
Significantly Below Average | ~1% | <65 | <63 |
Below Average | ~10% | <81 | <79 |
Average | ~50% | ~100 | ~100 |
Above Average | ~90% | >119 | >121 |
Significantly Above Average | ~99% | >135 | >137 |
Gifted | ~99.9% | >146 | >150 |
Highly Gifted | ~99.99% | >156 | >160 |
Extremely Gifted | ~99.999% | >164 | >168 |
Genius | ~99.9999% | >171 | >176 |
Exceptional Genius | ~99.99999% | >178 | >183 |
Profound Genius | ~99.999999% | >184 | >190 |
Savant | ~99.9999999% | >190 | >196 |
I will post a comperison chart of the current "levels of intelligence" according to psychologists very soon.
I would like to voice a few of my concerns about this debate. First off, I find the grouping of individuals with actual high IQs along with individuals who only claim to have these IQs to be quite ridiculous, as well as I find the (at least implied on behalf of a couple editors) idea that people with such IQs must have faked their IQs or have some kind of "smart-guy" complex to be equally offensive. More to the point, however, I think that the table definitely belongs in this article, though it needs factual verification and citations- at current I think the smaller table at
Gifted is more reliable.
Ninja! 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Help me out here, I thought that a 130 IQ was a gifted person, 150 was a genius and under 75 was a mental retard. Anyone know more fine lines? Therequiembellishere 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
There are some key points to raise concerning the above analysis : 1) Is it the case that raw score distributions on tests are normally distributed (I can't imagine this being true historically!).
2) The point concerning the distribution or proportion of the population with IQ scores that are below "the first x number of standard deviations above the mean" could be more clearly made and illustrated - perhaps the phi(x) number corresponding to a rational cut-off point for the 300 million mark for Americans could be more clearly made?
3) The process of calibration via which raw scores ARE MADE to be normally distributed should be commented upon - is this particular calibration method known for any faults/forms of bias that it can introduce?
4) "Each IQ test, however, is designed and valid only for a certain IQ range." I think it's important to discuss the accuracy of the IQ statistic - does it vary with day/time/season during which it is taken? I'm sure that the accuracy of the statistic with age has been commented upon, but surely someone has investigated how environmental effects alter IQ? How does IQ alter with corticosteroid induced neural damage? Do people register lower IQs after short/prolonged sleep deprivation? I can imagine that IQ would be lower for those who have poor sleep hygiene than for those who don't. Are there tests that enable one to distinguish between 'IQ by genotype' and 'IQ by phenotype'? I suppose that this last case is the most difficult to phathom - somebody who has been brain damaged due to environmental damage could still exhibit characteristics that would reveal/indicate underlying neural 'genotypic inclinations' - a CAT test might reveal something like the speed of neural structures and circuits within the brain that would most likely be correlated with someone of high IQ, for example. These questions are motivated by a point that is related to teh point quoted above - "Each IQ test, however, is designed and valid only for a certain IQ range." But is it not also the case that the tests are designed and valid only for certain populations? (This relates to 'culture fair' tests, but, I believe far more than merely this - the issue of the mother tongue and language of those taking IQ tests seems here to be the most important issue. I cannot imagine being the only one to have made this latter observation).
5) I have possibly repeated some of the information in the article here - but some points here I think are new.
MrASingh 22:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Most of the article is based on US studies and data, therefore may not be universally true/applicable. I agree that other regions of the world may lack psychological investigation, but this article may as well be titled: "IQ-as perceived in USA on USA population sample".
The observation that men's and women's IQ is the same is biased, and based on "political correctness". If men and women differ on size of bones, hormones, lifespan, emotions, it is highly improbable that they have the same IQ. The best one can say is that there is no significant difference observed on average in the long history of testing. Unfortunately, I suspect some tests may be "tweaked" to show this desireable outcome, especially in USA.
149.99.56.194 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. + A.0u 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that intelligence test redirects here. An intelligence test is not the same as an IQ or intelligence test score. "Intelligence test" would definitely merit its own article IMO. We already have articles and categories for
achievement test (created today) and
personality test (created today). Would anyone have a major problem if I removed that redirect and created an article in its place?
Chupper 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The IQ theory is represented here in a highly positive and doubtless way, and this is when it is even not oficially recognized as science ("established a task force" - this is not an official recognition. Despite of that, the link to that "established force" is included, rather than giving at least short summary, why it is not recognised. The article must be balanced, the current version is not. Audriusa 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You may be right that IQ is not the objective, scientific thing psychometricians, and this article, claim it to be. If so, of course, you need to find respectable sources that agree with you. You should not, however, use this as a motivation to mess up the lead to the article. In particular, I am talking about the claim that "you can improve your IQ by 140 percent," and the link to the IQ-improving shareware. I think you are somehow saying that because you can find a silly claim relating to IQ on the Internet, the concept of IQ is itself silly. But this argument is nonsensical, and putting your rant in the article this way with an obviously wrong claim borders on vandalism.
The claim that genes have no greater effect on IQ than environmental factors (exposure to technology, etc.) is a bold, controversial one. It does not belong in the lead, and it needs strong support. The reference you give ( http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/cherry.html) doesn't cut it, I don't think... unless I am mistaken, those people were undergraduates at Rochester Institute of Technology.
The Nature reference IS a good one, of course, so I kept it, but I put it in the "Heritability" section. However, I removed the assertion that "no evidences were found that it is heritable" after a century of research. This is simply false. See, for example, the Heritability section in this article. The Nature article you cite doesn't make any such claim; it just questions the *extent* to which genes play a role.
By the way, in this discussion you seem to say that we shouldn't think in terms of IQ, because it can lead to racism, sexism, etc. My personal view is that this would only be true of people who are stupid enough to derive their values from science. But conversely, regardless of our values, the search for the "truth" goes on. If IQ describes how intelligence works, we can't just ignore that truth because it doesn't suit us. Kier07 09:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Please follow usual Wikipedia rules and give enough information to locate the source of information. The name of the first author alone is not enough. Also, scientists frequently publish more than one publication per year and in various journals. Audriusa 14:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I canned the whole thing. Main reason was psychological: I was sick of looking at it. There. Personal feelings mostly out of the way, and admittance that I finally broke down and did something about for emotional reasons. Now allow me to explain why... 1) It was contentious. Expressing that a smart woman and a dumb man would create an average progeny is overly simplifying genetic expression in mammals. 2) It had severe validity issues. The footnote pointed to (and I hope to never see again) had little to do with the passage. It only indicated where the reader could connect to a page on plant husbandry that was only marginally applicable in the best of circumstances, and had no relation to the intricate formula displayed. Anywhere. There was no obvious way that the formula displayed could have come from the material cited, which, using deductive reasoning, indicates that it was made up by the author. If there was a page reference that included the between work from a plant's leaf area expression to human IQ expression, and all those little mathematical bits in between... Yeah. That I'd be ok with. Goes back to validity. Regression towards the Mean is NOT supportable without better evidence than was given.
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)
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)
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
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)
The discussion states the article is :
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced 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)
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.
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)
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+.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
Someone has added a section with this name. It is not good. -- Xyzzyplugh 03:22, 26 August 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)
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)
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)