Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations/Archive 1

Raising IQs
Maybe instead of using the race card we should be more worried about what it takes to bring the IQ score up in 3rd world countries. I for one don’t look down on people because they can’t do something. I instead try to understand why they can’t. Don’t mislead people by making them think they have been discriminated against and that’s why they can’t do something instead teach them what they need to do it. I am sure that in many cases countries with lower I.Q. scores will not see them much higher for generations to come. It might be a good idea to also look at the food they eat and how much food is available to them as they grow up. Breed love compassion and understanding not hate! We should never blame others for our short comings instead we should ask for help in overcoming them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickintx (talk • contribs)


 * I agree totally with you that we need to do what we can to raise IQ scores in those countries. But if IQ is partially genetically determined (as most mainstream scientists believe it is) then the only thing that will raise them is eugenics, and eugenics is currently out of fashion right now due to its association with Nazis.  Yaddayadda 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is not about activism, but about a book and a phenomenon. Just because you find others are inferior or superior in IQ doesn't mean you hate them.  It just means they may be somewhat more or less capable than you in certain areas, and that's something we have to accept and describe objectively.

Please Remove this Article
I am a red-cross volunteer who is stationed in Zimbabwe, and I can say that these statistics are complete garbage. Though I do believe that if children from poverty-stricken Africa were tested on their reading comprehension/mathematical skills/etc, that they would score extremely low. ( likely at or near the range provided here) The notion that the average Black African is far less intelligent than the average down syndrome child is just silly. It is absurd to give these kids, many of whom have never been to school in their lives, a standardized test on basic skills and compare them with wealthy western kids.... This article promotes hatred and racism, and the book itself implies that Blacks are sub-human and inferior, what a piece of worthless bigotry.
 * "The notion that the average Black African is far less intelligent than the average down syndrome child is just silly."

It's a logical conclusion based on facts and thus, no matter how hard it may be for you to swallow, the truth. It may clash with your politically correct view of the world, but some day you will learn that the world isn't a fair place and people just aren't equal (not saying they shouldn't be treated equally, though.) Your comment about the test methods show that you have little grasp of what an IQ test actually entails. Most IQ tests are language/culture/education-neutral by using symbols and figures. Your remark that black people are subhuman and inferior seems to be more of your own conclusion than that of the author...
 * Should the article Mein Kampf be removed too, then? --85.49.224.196 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "The notion that the average Black African is far less intelligent than the average down syndrome child."
 * Actually, Down syndrome IQ's vary since it is not directly related to cognitive skills but a chromosomal disorder. Either way, you are incorrect with your premise as the average IQ of a Downs patient is around 50 and the book estimates Africans around 70+.1kind 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Data should not be released
[Apologies in advance if my English is poor :}] I am a Nigerian rhuemotologist with a high (130+) but by no means unprecedented IQ. I must admit, I find it strange that I have recieved countless job offers in America and Europe despite being relatively young and inexperienced. I even was offered position on the Mayo Clinic's prestigious executive board, which would make me the youngest member ever to serve on the board. My point is, the general special treatment I have recieved ever since I applied for medical school is very dangerous. Many intelligent blacks have a major lack of work ethic because of this preferential treatment, and it is holding back their potential. This information should be destroyed by every government in the free world in order to eliminate degrading programs like Affirmative Action.

Some findings ridiculous
IQ is ALL a cultural thing, how anyone can claim it's a racial thing after white catholics in Britain and white Protestants have a 15 point IQ gap (equal to America's black/white IQ gap) is ridiculous. The idea that the average African black IQ is boarderline retarted, is on the whole,, absurd. I know this sounds like a stupid argument, but I have a colleague who is a physician from Equatorial Guinea, and though I hate to be judgemental, I'd guess her IQ had to be around 130-140, which would make her almost triple the average IQ in Guinea. Let me tell you, if the average person in Guinea really had an IQ far below the average retard, would it even be POSSIBLE for one Native Citizen of the country to have an IQ of 130-140. Of course, when you grow up in Black Africa you have learned none of the skills we teach our children here. And of course, when you give Black African children IQ tests (involving Math, verbal skills, and learning abilities) they will do miserable, many scoring in the retarted range. This is simply because these children have had NO opportunity to learn Math, verbal skills, and learning abilites.66.188.217.254 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your comments do not seem to have anything to do with the subject of this Wiki article. This Wiki article is an encylopedia entry on a particular book, not on the implications of that book. Guinea (L&V IQ 66) is 1,500 miles from Equatorial Guinea (L&V IQ 59). Yes, any single phenotypic trait expression is possible (IQ, for example) in any single representative of any sizable population no matter the distribution curve of the trait in question in that population. Please sign your posts by ending them with four tildes in a row (like this, but without the spaces ~ ~ ~ ~). hitssquad 03:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me, I'm new to wikipedia......

But back to our subject, is it really true that any phenotypic trait (more specifically, IQ) is possible among a group of people. Though there is, of course, a large variance in IQ among humans, I've always thought that there is a certain limit to how intelligent or unintelligent one could be. For example, the standard IQ in the US is approximately 100, would it be possible for any one person in the US to have an IQ of 250? Or also, an IQ of 30? 66.188.217.254 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your IQ tells you what percentage of people you outperform on an IQ test, relative to whomever the test was normalized on. If you have an IQ of 130, you've beat out 97% of people. You can expect roughtly one out of every 44 people to have an IQ of 130. For higher IQ values, you have to outperform more and more people to obtain that score, and at some point you pass the population of the Earth. Suppose we had a theoretical perfect IQ test -- one with so many millions of billions of questions that no two people ever got the exact same score -- and we had a way to deliver this test to every adult human on the face of the planet. The single highest-IQ person in the world would have an IQ of 194, and the lowest an IQ of 6. If you only gave it to everyone in the USA, you'd have 187 for the high-scorer and 13 for the low-scorer. You can determine these values by looking at area charts for the normal distribution curve. -- Schaefer 00:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Probability does not work that way, Schaefer. If what you said were true, you could clean out any casino you walked into. (You could specify a certain number of roulette rounds to watch and if, towards the end, certain improbabilities that you had calculated were bound to come up within your specified sample period had not come up yet you would know to bet on those.) hitssquad 05:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No. This isn't a matter of sampling probability, it's a matter of how IQ scores are calculated. The IQ scores are assigned after the fact once the test is given based on the percentile rankings of the people who took the test. Suppose the population of the Earth were much much larger, such that one person, and one person only, has an IQ of 200. I deliver my theoretical perfect IQ test to everyone but one person. Before I give him the test, nobody will have a score of 200 (the person with the highest score has some score infinitesimally lower than 200). I *can* indeed say before I give him the test that, once I do give him the test, somebody will have a score of 200. I don't know it will be him, but I know someone will: because if he turns out to just be some average schmuck, the other person, the smartest one in the world, gets bumped up to 200 by having outperformed enough people to earn that number. When the data is forced into a normal distribution after the fact, as it is with IQ scores, you can form certainties that you can't with things like roulette wheels. -- Schaefer 06:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You could, of course, just have linked to "Grading_curve" on wikipedia.

10-20 extra IQ-points for every new generation??
Does anyone have a link to these old "IQ-test" findings, at least in the scandinavian nations?? I believe they were quoted in the appendix of the Bell Curve, and this week in the main, local newspaper of Finland?? (comparing 1950 and 1960, increase of 20 points, so now we probably have an average of 140 points)

Plus a link on how, where and why IQ-tests are re-scaled every 10 years, to be sure to keep the 100 point average.


 * See Flynn effect. V V 00:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The Flynn Effect appears to have stopped, having petered out during the 1990's. Some studies are even showing a slight reversal of the trend; see for instance this article: http://members.fortunecity.com/templarser/iq.html Harkenbane 22:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Book reviews
Note: some links to some academic reviews of this book: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=14572

The Rushton one is complimentary, but, sorry, I'm finding it almost impossible to believe that the citizens of Guinea have a mean IQ of 59. --Robert Merkel 10:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The calculated IQ for Guinea was 66. Guinea is not Equatorial Guinea. Guinea is a northwest African coastal nation bordering Senegal, Mali, Sierra Leone, etc. Equatorial Guinea is a western equatorial African coastal nation bordering Cameroon and Gabon. It is about 1,500 miles from Guinea. --hitssquad 00:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Then show me statistics that state otherwise. AndyCapp 17:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, firstly, the average IQ of this sample is 90.29, and it includes about 83% of the world's population and the overwhelming majority of the developed world, (which by the book's hypothesis should contain most of the world's high-IQ people). To get a global average of 100, the average IQ of the remaining 17% of the world's population has to be about 147.5!  These statistics are bunk.  --Robert Merkel 00:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right that the world IQ averages out to 90. The average IQ of the UK is used as the basis of comparison and is set at 100. AndyCapp 00:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * "To get a global average of 100," it might be necessary to have countries with staggeringly high IQs. But Lynn's estimates find an average IQ for the world near 90, not 100. Furthermore, while 59 is about ten points low compared to the African average, Ginea is only one nation. Similar phenomena appear when comparing US states with the combined US average. For instance, according to Sailer's data, the average IQ in the United states is roughly 100, but the average IQ of Arkansas is 91: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041114_iq_table.htm . Harkenbane 22:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This review savages their statistical methods, though not the ones directly related to this article: http://socio.ch/internat/volken.htm


 * First of all, that article only challenged the proposition that average IQs were linked to GDP, not the IQ data itself. Second of all, I've explained in the article that the data is subject to any methodological flaws or lack thereof in the research.  Any consistent pattern of flaws is unlikely though, since the data comes from numerous sources.AndyCapp 17:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This data simply does not make sense, from a statistical perspective. I do not know exactly how they have screwed up, because I don't have the book.  I do know, without doubt, that they have screwed up somewhere. --Robert Merkel 01:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that they may indeed have made a mistake, but your refusal to doubt an impression you espoused with virtually zero information is hilarious. Try picking up the book before pretending to be an authority on it. Harkenbane 22:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did some work on this article, mainly explaining why this data should be taken with a huge farking grain of salt.

This is really dangerous information, when one considers the effects it could have on other nations' foreign policy, investment, public opinion regarding racial issues, etc. If the data is accurate, I don't think it should be censored, but I do think we need to explain all the possible reasons why this data is probably flawed or untrustworthy on some level.

I think the really big key is that the supposedly "smart" nations are those which use frequent IQ-test-like examinations in their educational systems, and it seems to me that the more testing a nation has, the higher its average IQ score on this list. Since it's possible to dramatically increase IQ scores by practicing IQ and IQ-like exams (and, in some parts of the world, esp. Asia, kids study like mad for those things, because they mean everything) I think these results have very little validity in terms of measuring peoples' actual intelligence.

(On the other hand, if testing increases IQ, maybe GWF's educational policies are a good thing...)

Most of these people who come out with findings on supposed race-intelligence correlations are those with some racist axe to grind. Normally, they're sock puppets for right-wing think tanks. Mike Church 02:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Has it ever occurred to you that somewhere out there, there might be a book containing the truth, but social stigma has rendered it practically impossible for one to talk about it without being labeled by others as a racist and having countless people try to "debunk" you at any cost? True racists deserve whatever they get, but don't bash a book just because it could be motivated by racism until it's proven that the data itself is fallacious.


 * Well, I agree with you that it is in fact dangerous information. I don't think it's untrustworthy or inaccurate, though.


 * The danger is that some less intelligent people could misinterpret it and use it as an excuse to mistreat Africans or African Americans. That's why this kind of thing is not loudly broadcast in the mainstream media.  Hopefully, though, our policymakers and encyclopedia readers are intelligent enough to realize that even if the information is true, that kind of thing is neither moral nor acceptable.


 * On the other hand, it can also be beneficial information by offering an explanation as to why African nations are suffering so badly. Without this information, people would chalk up the failure of African nations to simply "laziness", and in fact, this information could potentially help mitigate racism by eliminating that as a possible explanation.


 * Regardless of any potential effects this information might have on society (either positive or negative), I don't think it's fair to withhold the information from people who want to find out about it, because ultimately, access to the truth will only benefit society.


 * Instead of adding disclaimers about its trustworthiness and trying to get people to doubt its accuracy, I would add disclaimers something to the effect of "Don't use this as an excuse to mistreat Blacks", or something along that line. AndyCapp 03:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

To give another example, taken from an English Literature exam, asking abvout the relationship between Lady McBeth and Duncan. The question was "Why should Lady McBeth mind Duncan coming to visit?"
 * A few years ago some Maori Academics produced an IQ Test based on their own culture.  The questions all seemed quite reasonable, there was nothing particularly abstruse or specialized.  The test itself was modelled closely on Otis which was then widely used in NZ schools.    However the results demonstrated very clearly the sheer impossibility of removing or even neutralising cultural bias in IQ Tests.

But what does the question mean? In most areas of Britain it would mean

"Why should Lady McBeth WORRY ABOUT Duncan coming to visit?"

However in areas of Scotland the question would be read as

"Why should Lady McBeth REMEMBER Duncan coming to visit?"

Mind as in Remind, being a word connected to memory.

Two fairly insignificant examples, both of which suggest that trying to compare IQ results between one culture or country and another is unlikely to produce valid results. ping 07:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. No one would ever use such a question on an IQ test.


 * Also, as stated somewhere in the article, IQ tests without a verbal component (Ravens Matrices) have been used and have found results similar to previous ones. And as a historical note, I remember reading somewhere when Mr. Lynn wanted to test the Japanese, after hearing of their supposed prowess, he collaborated with some Japanese academics and devised a test.

Reply to Verily
On VfD, Verily asked why this might be regarded as dangerous information. My comment would be that the ranking could be used as justification for the poverty of a nation. ie they are poor because they are less intelligent. The opposing view would point at things like the World Bank, the IMF, international trade, corruption, exploitation, etc etc. So this ranking can be used as a whitewash argument to gloss over other injustices. --bodnotbod 12:46, May 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe L&V's thesis is precisely that this is an explanation for poverty. I think they even explicitly consider and reject the "exploitation" argument as unsound.  This is a POV, just like yours, and should not be censored because you fear it might cause people to not hold your opinion; in an encyclopedia with an NPOV policy, both sides get to have their say.  -- VV 14:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Corruption itself may be partially due to IQ. Although I figure that even if it is, it's a weaker correllation. Or that if corruption is somehow genetic, it often occurs with, but not always proportionately, higher intelligence. Rankings of countries by corruption continually rank the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Finland) as least corrupt when the higher IQ Pacific Rim countries (China, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea) rank as more corrupt, with wild variance among them. The top of the corruption ranking is roughly Nordic, Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, with Singapore and Hong Kong (less so) also among the top.


 * Eh? So are you saying the Nordic countries are highly corrupt or not corrupt? 84.70.132.186 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Article
This article strikes me as a tad misleading. The scientific conclusion is more or less "there is a correlation between IQ and GDP." The article fails to point out that correlation is not equal to causation. Especially in this case, I pulled a few quotes from the Copenhagen Consensus on micronutrients:
 * "For a variety of reasons, childhood malnutrition often leads to an individual receiving less schooling, which translates directly into lower lifetime earnings for the people affected."


 * "a study has shown, for example, that iodine-deficient individuals score an average of 13.5 points lower in IQ tests."

I'd like to add a section along these lines. Feco 16:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right. Most of us were focussed on the dubiousness of the IQ test calculations; the rebuttals we found implicitly rejected the causatory factor by controlling for other factors, so this point did not get made explicitly.  Please add it, perhaps to further explain the point of the rebuttals in the last section.  --Robert Merkel 01:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I came across this article while doing leisure research on Africa and was amazed that the correlation is such as surprise. Malnutrition was one of my responses to the authors. Malnutrition can impair brain development and health as stated above (70IQ or below is mild retardation). It can't help a governor of a nation from an intellectual capital factor to have a noticeable portion of their population that lack proper nutrients which lead to impaired neural connectivity. Maybe one day, there will be no more hunger in the world.Prospero74 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Lynn is a prominent advocate among intelligence researchers of the nutrition hypothesis.--Nectar 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Name
OK, I think there's something approaching consensus that this article should be moved to IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Any more objections? --Robert Merkel 01:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know what else to do with it, but it should be kept in mind that (a) this is just a table (in this book) of data collected from other sources, (b) this is (right now) a list of countries by IQ and not an article on this book, which would involve describing the thesis, the arguments, the criticisms, and so on, and (c) contrary to what some indicate, this is legitimate scientific research not wholly unlike (e.g.) List of countries by GDP, though more "hot-button". I should ask, is there a problem keeping it here and noting as we do now the controversies surrounding IQ? -- VV 01:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a very big differerence. While there is a lot of debate about GDP figures and their utility, a heck of a lot of effort goes in to systematically collecting this data, and in most cases it is relatively uncontroversial.  This is two academics' attempt to interpret data collected haphazardly using a variety of different tests over the last several decades, and, as discussed, their work hasn't been generally accepted (some reviewers have liked it, some have very heavily criticised it) and in fact their statistical methods have been heavily criticised in review.  Therefore, presenting their data under an article of the title, as if it were a scientific consensus view of mean IQ's across nations, is giving the work a status that it simply doesn't have. --Robert Merkel 03:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Robert Merkel's comments about the table. In the discussion on the VfD page, VV stated, "L&V's table is not their own research but data culled from various published studies in the field."  These two authors sought out the studies (and may have missed some), decided which to include and which to exclude, decided issues about weighting (weight all studies equally? weight according to sample size? what to do if a study related to part of the sample, e.g., IQ's of adolescent boys in India?), etc.  The table therefore represents their take on the subject, not any kind of consensus among scholars in the field, even though they made use of other researchers' work.  (I don't think that means that reprinting their numbers is a copyvio, but I'm not sure.)


 * As for the title, my alternative suggestion didn't draw much support, so I can go along with IQ and the Wealth of Nations as a title, turning the article into one about the book. I agree with VV, however, that if the article is to be changed into one about the book, under that title, then it should be modified accordingly.  As he suggested on VfD: "The first sentence will be, IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial book by L and V which puts forward the thesis that, etc., etc."  Most of the present article would go under a headline like "Supporting data on national IQ's."  Right now that would be the only part that's really fleshed out.


 * Here's my draft for the beginning of the new article: "IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Tampere, Helsinki, Finland, arguing that differences in national income are largely explained by differences in national intelligence.  The book includes the authors' calculation of an average IQ score for each country, based on their analysis of published reports; their argument that national gross domestic product per capita is correlated with IQ; and their conclusion that the IQ differences caused the income differences."  Then, under the heading "Supporting data on national IQ's," the discussion would begin with the rest of what's now in the first paragraph of the present article: "Lynn and Vanhanen did not perform independent IQ testing.  Instead, they based their IQ figures on results published by others, taking averages when multiple studies give varying results for a country.  Thus, some of these figures are based on much more data and larger studies than others."  Then the next three grafs as in the current article, then a graf to introduce the table: "Here are the national IQ figures as computed by Lynn and Vanhanen.  In cases of coinciding IQ averages, nations are listed alphabetically."


 * There would still be much work to be done, such as including more about criticism of the book (e.g. that high income causes high test scores rather than vice versa), plus the authors' arguments, for example their explanation of why PRC doesn't fit their model. There's much more to say about the book than just the ranking of countries by IQ.  Nevertheless, setting up the article this way would give a good start, and a framework for additions. JamesMLane 05:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You both make good points, and I'm much more in agreement now with the decision to move the article. I suppose one question would be whether a wholly different research group probing the field would get the same data, or whether there is something "individual" about these two's approach. -- VV 11:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh well, I moved it and added JamesMLane's introduction, and agree that the extra information should be added. The links I've given should be helpful for the rebuttal, but I don't actually have access to a copy to be able to summarise its key arguments. --Robert Merkel 10:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Needs cleanup
Why is Guinea listed twice? Which one is right? Also, the list isn't alphabetized within equivalent groups. It's a bit of a mess, and I don't have the book on hand to clean it up. Grendelkhan 01:08, 2004 May 12 (UTC)


 * Guinea was not listed twice. Guinea (IQ 66) and Equatorial Guinea (IQ 59) are two different nations. See my explanation above.--hitssquad 00:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The first instance where it said Guinea was supposed to be Gabon. But I left it out since the data for Gabon was an estimate.  AndyCapp 04:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Guinea is not Gabon. See above.--hitssquad 00:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Is Guinea Guatemala? 84.70.132.186 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote for delete discussion.
'This page (under a former name) was up for deletion. Result of debate was - no consensus - continue at talk page. Here is the deletion debate'


 * These statistics are ludicrous. I haven't had time to do a calculation as to what the average IQ of the sample is based on these numbers, but I'm betting it's considerably below 100.  Secondly, the idea that the mean IQ of the citizens of Guinea (59, according to the table) is more than two standard deviations below the global mean beggars belief.  According to the IQ article, people with an IQ below 80 are regarded as being candidates for special ed.  As this article is basically a collection of statistics, and as they are so beyond the pale, I can't see any alternative but to delete the article.  --Robert Merkel 10:04, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Robert's comments above. problems with the definition of IQ aside, any samples involving more than 10 representatives of each country should fall within a two and a bit points of 100 (TB 07:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC) adds: if the data is normalised, the tests truly comparable and underlying national IQs are equal). It's patent nonsense.  Very pretty tables and flags on the page though.  TB 10:14, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * "any samples involving more than 10 representatives of each country should fall within a two and a bit points of 100".
 * That would only be the case if the average for each country was set at 100. The averages here are relative to a global U.K. average of 100.  AndyCapp 17:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've done some more looking into this, and these statistics are actually from a scholarly publication by two retired professors, and the book has been reviewed positively in an Elsevier journal (look on the article talk page for a link). I think this says plenty about the quality of some of the research done in the social sciences, quite frankly.   --Robert Merkel 12:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Research has had 3 mentions in Britain's Newspaper of Record - The Times (as a left of centre, politically, person I take a certain glee in how uncritical this conservative paper has been of the research): Times One and Times Two. If the article is to be deleted, I think we need to be clear about why. --bodnotbod 17:02, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Discussion on Times Letters Page --bodnotbod 17:19, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any scholars make any credible claims as to the invalidity of the IQ data. AndyCapp 17:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Have you looked? IQ is frequently criticized as not adequately measuring intelligence, as being western-centric, as failing to take into account various types of intellectual skill, etc. Do you have a citation for these studies? Snowspinner 01:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. BJAODN. Variation on the old "50% of Irishmen (Scots, women, etc) are of below average intelligence" line. Well done, though. Andrewa 11:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Statistically insignificant. Alcarillo 14:11, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you prove it? The data would not be published if it hadn't passed statistical significance tests.  AndyCapp 17:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Because newspapers never publish sensationalistic studies... Snowspinner 01:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I almost feel bad saying that to something that's clearly had a lot of work put into it's layout, but this seems like it's statistical bullplop. So... Lord Bob 14:46, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. Distasteful, yes.  Since it's reprinted data is it copyvio?  Or even wikisource?  The reason I'm not saying delete is that there's a list of The 100 Best Stand-up Comics as listed by an American publication somewhere, and - other than if a distinction is made on grounds of taste - I guess all other rankings tables would have to be deleted too? Article cannot stand without full discussion of the research method which would hopefully bring the article into such disrepute we can laugh about it ;o)  --bodnotbod 16:53, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * My problem isn't with a list of average IQs in certain nations, my problem is with the methodology that, as Robert said right at the top of this thread, produces statistics that border on the absurd. A relative layman's look at this page makes me think that these figures say the average human being is below the defined average for IQ, and that doesn't make much sense. Lord Bob 17:07, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well then, I challenge you to multiply the average IQ of each coutry by its proportion of the world's population, and see if it adds up to 100. AndyCapp 17:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It's verifiable information and comes from numerous sources. In regards to Bodnotbod's concerns above about copyvio - the data itself cannnot be copyrighted. I don't see why it should be deleted unless you have a reasonable suspicion to believe the data is false. AndyCapp 17:08, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Results of a study can be copyrighted, actually. Snowspinner 01:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that you can't copyright the average IQ of a nation. Take a look at the Idea-expression divide article.  AndyCapp 03:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The copyright would be for the particular data from that study. The facts cannot be copyrighted, of course, however were the study to be repeated, sampling error would yield different numbers. This particular set of numbers, then, is copyrighted. Snowspinner 04:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Just for my education, this set of numbers is copyrighted... can that be right? Anybody know the real legal position on this?  Surely any research of populations relies on sampling and then, by extension, all such research findings would be copyrighted.  That can't be right, surely? --bodnotbod 12:34, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in US Code that says we are not allowed to restate the results of a scientific study. I also do not see anything that explicitly says we are not allowed to. However, it does say that information cannot be copyrighted.  See 17 U.S.C. § 102. In addition, Lynn and Vanhanen's collection of numbers is less a "study" than a compilations of studies, so in the unlikely event that 17 U.S.C. § 102 fails, then 17 U.S.C. § 103 (b) still applies, because Lynn and Vanhanen did nothing but compile the results of studies, and therefore have no copyright in the data itself. AndyCapp 14:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Rewrite - needs far more discussion of the dubiousness of the techniques used. It's flawed methodology but if the Times takes it seriously then it's notable. The Land 17:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add to the article. AndyCapp 17:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The article lists where the data is sourced from and states that the data is dependent on the validity or invalidity of the research methods used, so I can't see anything factually wrong with the article. If the data was about something less controversial and with fewer sociological ramifications, such as a list of the best standup comics as rated by Comedy Central, or List of countries by GDP, would you still want to delete the article over concerns the data could be statistically flawed? If anyone wants to add any arguments or any links arguing against the validity of the data or research methods, please go ahead. AndyCapp 18:15, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comments: If all that you say is true, a better preamble might save the article. I suggest you have a go at this yourself. Comparisons with other articles are not convincing IMO. AFAIK data can be copyrighted, but IMO this would be regarded as information not raw data. Information can't be copyrighted. My vote stands at delete, BTW. Andrewa 18:29, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Then how about we change the title to "List of countries by IQ as ranked by Lynn and Vanhanen" (Even though they themselves are sourcing the information from numerous worldwide studies). Would that be acceptable?  This is true and useful information with heavy sociological implications, so I can't understand why there are people who want to erase it from existence or hide it from Wikipedia readers who are interested in having access to it.  AndyCapp 18:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not the title that's the problem IMO. See below for a better renaming suggestion. This would involve rewriting the introduction, which is what I think is most needed. Andrewa 19:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I half-agree with Andrewa -- it's the title and the intro that are the problem. A comparatively new hypothesis is presented as if it were fact, or at least widely accepted within the field.  Even a possible title like "List of countries by IQ as ranked by Lynn and Vanhanen" skews the emphasis.  What makes this highly questionable claim worth including is that somebody with some sort of credential said it.  Change title to "Lynn-Vanhanen hypothesis of national IQ and wealth" or some such, to emphasize that aspect, then report what they say and what their critics say.  It should begin along the lines of: "The Lynn-Vanhanen hypothesis of national IQ and wealth holds that about 58 per cent of the differences in national wealth can be explained by differences in intelligence, with each average IQ point above 70 being worth about £500 in GDP per head of population.  (Rewrite the foregoing because it's probably copyvio - I took it almost verbatim from the Times One article.)  (Start new paragraph)  In (insert year), Dr. Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Tampere, Helsinki, Finland, in their book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, presented IQ data by country, taking averages when multiple studies give varying results for a country. Thus, some of these figures are based on much more data and larger studies than others."  Then continue with their data, more detail on their methodology, their conclusions and comments, and opposing points of view, including general critique of IQ scores and any specific responses to Lynn-Vanhanen, any rebuttals they make to their critics, etc.   JamesMLane 05:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this is another indication that an IQ test is a method used to determine how good a person is at taking IQ tests. MK 18:24, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but it doesn't mean that the list itself is invalid. If you're right, then we still have a list of countries sorted by average IQ, even though IQ might be nothing more than an indication of how a person is at taking IQ tests.  If you want to add that IQ doesn't measure much except how good someone is at taking an IQ test, feel free to do so, although such discussion really belongs on the IQ page. AndyCapp 18:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote move to IQ and the Wealth of Nations and write up the controversy. We already have an article on The Bell Curve. Rmhermen 18:45, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a decent idea to me, although the actual IQ data isn't the main thrust of the book; the book mostly argues that IQ correlates with GDP AndyCapp 20:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely baseless. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It's backed up by numerous studies, so how is it baseless? AndyCapp 20:43, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact that the data makes you uncomfortable is not a reason to erase it. It is a well-sourced and important piece of the IQ debate. The arguments that it is "source material" are perhaps more persuasive, but until I'm fully persuaded, my vote is keep. (It is however due for a rewrite which acknowledges the controversial nature of the material.) -- VV 20:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to IQ and the Wealth of Nations exactly as Rmherman suggests. (I didn't vote previously, merely commented). --bodnotbod 21:03, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to IQ and the Wealth of Nations. IQ tests are highly arbitrary within borders, let alone across them. I think these data, rather than being "true and useful" are a noisy form of data on education spending, so I don't see any "heavy sociological implications", apart perhaps from highlighting inequality of opportunity across this world. -- EuroTom 21:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very sensitive topic, but it seems to be backed up by credible research. Maybe add a paragraph about the flaws of measuring IQ, or western country bias of IQ tests, etc... -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC) Title change is also an option. -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I have very serious reservations about including this. Delete or move and radically rework it to put it in the proper context. Everyking 23:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * As I've just pointed out on Talk:List of countries by IQ, the average IQ of the sample population is about 90, and the sample includes 83% of the world's population. If I've done my sums right, that means the average IQ of the rest of the world must be about 147 to get a global mean of 100!  At best, move to IQ and the wealth of nations, along with an extensive debunking of this schoolboy howler-ridden work. --Robert Merkel 00:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It's because the UK average was set at 100 and used as a basis for comparison. But if the statistics were to be adjusted so that the worldwide average was 100, you would still see the same range of IQs, with Hong Kong at 117, the UK at 110, and Guinea at 69.AndyCapp 00:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you've just demonstrated why this data should be moved away from its current home, then, because it doesn't represent what it claims to... -Robert Merkel 01:25, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I haven't met anyone from Guinea, but I have known a dozen or two from Ethiopia (2nd from bottom on the list), and suffice it to say that average people in Ethiopia are not in need of special ed. I've also met a lot of Indians and, again, they are anything but mentally deficient. The list is utter, complete bullshit. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, very cautiously. If these studies were done, and have held up under fire, I think there's no reason that we should censor the information. However, I think this article desperately needs a title change: "List of countries by IQ" is misleading; let's try something more like: "World IQ data as measured by Lynn and Vanhanen".
 * I've done some work on the article, to make it somewhat less misleading. If the research is credible, yes, we should keep it. However, this is very dangerous information. For example, it may deter future investment in low-ranked countries, or be used to justify racism or nationalism at some point in the future. We need to make this article as fair and not-misleading as possible. I think I've made a good start by, for example, noting the fact that the countries where measured IQ is highest are also those that use frequent IQ-test-like-exams in their educational systems, and that by practicing IQ tests people can improve their scores dramatically (I know a guy who worked his supposed "IQ" up from 150-ish into the 200s, by practicing these tests.)
 * Even with all that said, I'm still highly doubtful that this research means anything, and I expect to hear, at some point, that it was flawed, faulty, or corrupt. When that happens we should remark even further that the study was discredited. Some of these results are bizarre. Guinea at 59? That's a mental age of 9.44 (IQ theory is that IQ = 100*(mental age)/(chronological age), but intellectual aging stops at an arbitrarily selected 16.0 so for adults you use 16 as the denominator)-- seems quite ludicrous to me.
 * So, yeah... I'd say keep, because I'm opposed to censorship, but be very careful to make sure this article is not misleading. I've done some work on the article toward that effect, and I encourage others to do so as well. Mike Church 02:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * How is this "dangerous" information? Is Holocaust dangerous information, as it might be used to justify hatred of Germans?  Is Emmett Till dangerous, because it might provoke racism against whites?  Are you worried that Science and technology in China will engender Chinese nationalism?  I see a double standard. -- VV 04:28, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can think how it could be regarded as dangerous but I'll put it on the article talk page. Not here. --bodnotbod 12:40, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * IQ is bullshit, and bullshit masquerading as factual information is dangerous. That is why this article is dangerous. Note to VV: there's no need to drag irrelevant topics into the discussion. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to IQ and the Wealth of Nations . --Jiang 02:14, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't believe there is a total order among people. Correlation between any of {race, geography, language, food} and IQ is not established yet, let alone nationality. Also, the appropriateness of IQ as a measure of intelligence itself is debatable. More importantly, the method employed for arriving at such a result is not convincing. Many of those who voted to keep this article have cited various other articles which violate this principle. If that be true, they should also be deleted. In general, I'm against ordering of any sort except based on scientifically measurable quantities with strong backing of facts.:-- Sundar 12:50, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Or modify heavily)I fully agree with with the objections of the above user. --Bjorn H Bergtun 20:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this article: List of countries by GDP. It's almost identical, but the only difference is that IQ has been replaced with GDP.  Yet this article has been existence since February without much controversy.  GDP is as difficult, if not more difficult, to measure than IQ.  How exactly does one go about measuring the total value of all goods produced in a society?  What about grey market or illegal sales?  What about corporate accounting fraud distorting sales figures?  Or cash transactions that go unaccounted for?  What about inflationary effects on prices and sales revenues?  Any argument that could work against the IQ article could also work against the GDP article, so I can't see any reason why the GDP article should be kept while the IQ article should be deleted. AndyCapp 01:59, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No statistic is completely free from doubt, but there are gradations. Figures on GDP are routinely compiled by governments, central banks or international agencies, applying some comparatively objective standards.  The kinds of issues you raise are considered and discussed by different economists.  Here, we have a computation of national IQ that's found in one book.  It doesn't seem that other researchers have even picked up on this idea.  Still less have these figure been through the kind of scrutiny applied to GDP numbers.  Although I don't favor deletion, it would be misleading for us to present the numbers from this particular book in a table like that for GDP, as if the two sets of data had equal reliability. JamesMLane 07:02, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Objections to proposed new title "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"
 * Several people have suggested this move, but I strongly disagree. To have an article with that title, and only this content, would imply that this one book is authoritative on the subject.  Furthermore, I doubt we could augment such an article much, because I don't think there are many other researchers trying to find such a correlation.  That's why I suggested instead "Lynn-Vanhanen hypothesis of national IQ and wealth" as a title.  I agree with the POV that this hypothesis is bullshit, but, obviously, that is just a POV.  We should report on this claim.  After all, we report on Holocaust denial.  Only, let's not give the false impression that this is anything more than the opinion of one particular pair of authors, who use questionable data to reach convenient conclusions.  (I love the part where the exceptions are explained away as reflecting the superiority of capitalism.  It sure sounds like they started with a set of right-wing doctrines and tried to manipulate the data to provide a veneer of scientific support.) JamesMLane 14:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal. The Land 15:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't. It's standard procedure to file articles on books under their titles, even if the title is POV.  The first sentence will be, IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial book by L and V which puts forward the thesis that, etc., etc.  If we don't allow it to be under this title, can we move Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them to Al Franken's hypothesis of inaccuracy in FOX News reporting?  -- VV 21:22, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * DELETE THIS NAZI/RACIALIST BULLSHIT. 172 22:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There's a distinction between the general hypothesis (the Holocaust never occurred, FOX News is biased) and a specific book (Did Six Million Really Die?, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them). With the Holocaust, we have the article on the hypothesis (Holocaust denial) which mentions that book, but the book doesn't get its own article.  The Franken book merits its own article because of its significance (best-seller, subject of lawsuit, celebrity author), whatever you think of the merits of its claims.  The analogy isn't perfect -- there is no separate article on the claim that FOX is biased, because that discussion finds a ready home under FOX News.  In the present case, the Lynn-Vanhanen claim deserves to be reported (though it is indeed Nazi/racialist bullshit), but the article should be about the issue, not just the book.  Then other publications that support the hypothesis (if any) can readily be accommodated. JamesMLane 01:00, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existance of the study itself has been verified. The version of the article I looked at was reasonably NPOV in presenting the findings of the study. Comments about the validity of using IQ tests as a measure of intelligence or critiques of the methodology are irrelevant to the deletion debate. (They are, of course, fair critiques that may be appropriate in the article.) Rossami 02:22, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, I disagree with most of the emotional rhetoric above. IQ tests are optimized for the cultural context in which they have been developed (pretty much exclusively UK and US). Why would it possibly surprise anyone that people from outside that cultural context score lower on tests than those for whom the test was designed? That was the only implication I drew from the article even before all this discussion about changing the introduction back and forth. Rossami
 * Keep. The study exists and has gained attention, therefore merits inclusion. Andris 04:59, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Although I'm still a relative newbie I can see why this is a very difficult one for wikipedia to decide how to handle.
 * Is there a consensus that:


 * published, notable, scientific research is a proper subject fo a WP entry even if the research methodology is highly controversial and the conclusions potentially offensive
 * any entry on such research has to be qualified to make sure that the fact of controversy surrounding the research is made clear.
 * If so then we have no option but to rewrite it and insert under a different heading. The Land 13:49, 8 May 2004 (UTC)


 * If this information comes from a particular study, then aren't the statistical results of that study copyrighted? Can we just steal their statistics?  It's not the same thing as census info or sports scores, which can't be copyrighted.  RickK 22:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at the very least move it to IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Obviously this isn't a definitive study on the subject, so it doesn't belong at "List of countries by IQ". --Minesweeper 00:52, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the article, L&V's table is not their own research but data culled from various published studies in the field. That's another reason why naming it the "Lynn-Vanhanen" hypothesis or whatever is wrong; it's not their research, but the collected results of dozens of researchers.  It doesn't seem like this should be a copyright issue. -- VV 00:16, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Move discussion to a talk page and continue discussion. -Fennec 14:58, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

hoax data
The following week's edition retracted the data: "Alas, we were the victim of a hoax: no such data exists."

I am fair confident that the above recent addition is itself a hoax because I have the following week's edition (i.e. this week's) and there is no retraction that I can see. Further this data is in the book. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No, the retraction is real, and precisely as stated. Thanks to a search, I found it on the next week's issue of the online Economist (although it is well-hidden).  The article is here (though I think you need an Economist.com subscription to access it).  I have reinstated the line in the article. --Shibboleth 02:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Although I don't have the book handy, I have heard this story. It is a hoax, and according to all sources I checked an IQ by state table does not exist in L&V.  See  . VV 01:45, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I got rid of the section. Sorry about that! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I just got the book from the library, and there is absolutely nothing in it about the average IQs of US states. So I guess it really is a hoax. AndyCapp 18:45, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This hoax seems to have enough currency that our article on the book could usefully note and dispel it. I've added a section based on what I've read online.  Apparently the online Economist lags behind the print version, because in searching the magazine's website I couldn't find either the retraction or the original article.  I don't think we should go too far in denouncing the list itself as phony, though.  It looks pretty much like what I'd expect to see in a genuine list of U.S. states ordered by average IQ test score. JamesMLane 08:44, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * FYI, I read a bit about the source of the hoax, and apparently someone cobbled it together based on average incomes for the states, so it might correlate with something. Of course, no doubt the list would validate certain people's prejudices as well. VV 21:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I think the values are too far spread to possibly be true but it would be good to know what that something is. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

This article referenced in a newspaper
This article is given as background info in the article Finlands statsminister i rasistskandal in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, 10 August 2004. See, look under Externa länkar.

Vinko Buj's data
The article says: "There are also errors in the raw data presented by authors. The results from Vinko Buj's 1981 study used different scaling from Lynn and Vanhanen's. Also, Buj's original IQ figures in Ireland, Norway and Greece differ from the figures given by Lynn and Vanhanen." Until details can be provided about this, I think the Buj item should be deleted from the article. --hitssquad 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine wrote, "Explains why they never tried to publish the result as a peer-reviewed study." That was not contested. Where did the information come from that there are errors in the data, and what are those errors?--hitssquad 21:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Read the links. Ultramarine 21:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ultramarine. That was helpful. hitssquad 21:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

80.170.38.235 from Amsterdam, The Netherlands
80.170.38.235, what changes would you like to see in the article, and why? I reverted your first edit because you wiped the article. You posted your second edit while I was reverting your first one and so my reversion calcelled both of those edits. --hitssquad 10:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know how to make a new title, so I just added on to this one. Lets be honest, if they found out that say the IQ of Spain or Austria was around a 50, nobody would say a thing. But because the lowest IQs found are those of Blacks the politically correct crowd needs to argue that something must be wrong. I think this is absurd that political correctness needs to get in the way of everything, we all know that if it was a White nation at the lower end of that list, the topic wouldn't even be brought up. 68.47.234.204 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) zeitgeist

This article is clearly mindless bigotry
Anyone who believes that the average IQ in Equatorial Guinea is 59 has detached from reality and is completely out of his/her mind. This page is bigoted trash and should be deleted.


 * This page isn't bigoted (mindless or otherwise), even if one accepts that the book itself is. The page contains a good deal of criticism about the book. Pcb21| Pete 14:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How on earth is the statement racist? Because the people who live in the country with the 59 IQ are Black? If they found out that the IQ of Bulgaria was 59, would you cry racist? 68.47.234.204 23:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Zeitgeist


 * Yes, I'd assume that there was a fair level of racism involved if such an idiotic claim was made. An IQ of below 60 marks you out as "developmentally challenged" to the point where you struggle to function independently.  But clearly that's not true; Equatorial Guineans grow enough food to feed themselves most of the time (and before you get too smug about "most of the time", remember the Irish potato famine of only a century and a half ago).  I don't doubt that that if you tested IQ in different nations you'd get variation.  But to claim such an enormous variation is clearly ridiculous and points to some very severe problems with their methodology.


 * That said, while I think our article gives Lynn and Vartanen a little too much credit (for one, we don't point out explicitly how crazy that 59 figure is), the fact that they have written such a book *is* worthy of an encyclopedia article, given the attention it has drawn. This article mostly reports it, and the reaction to it, straight down the line.  If there's mindless bigotry here, it's that of the original authors of the book, not Wikipedia's. --Robert Merkel 01:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 'An IQ of below 60 marks you out as "developmentally challenged" to the point where you struggle to function independently.' Not always. This is generally true if you're making inferences about White middle-class American school children, because most of them that score that low on IQ tests have some obvious mentally retarding medical condition that caused them to score so far below average. But IQ, as powerful of a predictor of social phenomenon as it is, is not the final word in how able a person is to take care of him-/herself. That people with low IQs are the ones who can't ties their shoes and so on is often taken too strongly as evidence that IQ is an important thing for being able to live independently and avoid appearing mentally retarded in conversations and such, when the correlation is likely at least partially the result of a common cause. That is, White children with very low IQs tend to be the ones that can't take care themselves because whatever form of mental retardation they have that causes them to score poorly on IQ tests also causes them to be unable to take care of themselves. This correlation doesn't hold (at least not at the same IQ ranges) for Blacks. A sub-Saharan African that scores a 60 on a standard IQ test might still be within a standard deviation of the average score for the other people in his country, so we don't need to assume that there's any exceptional medical situation causing the low IQ. What causes inability to function independently is not just low IQ, it's Down's syndrome and autism and other things that tend to lead to poor performance on IQ tests as well. If you look at the subsections of various ethnic groups that achieve certain scores on IQ tests, you get vastly different demographics depending on the group. An IQ of 60 would probably imply socially-debilitating mental retardation if it was scored by a child of, say, two parents who both have IQs of 130, but not if it was found in a child of two parents who both have an IQ of 65. Anyway, this is all very offtopic for the article's talk page, so if you wish to continue this further you can e-mail me or use my talk page. -- Schaefer 11:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If a nation earns an average IQ of 59, then we have learned more about the unscientific nature of IQ testing than we have about the people we've tested. It's not like we're taking a scientific measuring stick like a thermometer and saying that it's hotter by the Equator. IQ tests have at least a one standard deviation margin of error. Imagine if your already mistake prone weatherman estimated a daily temperature within 30 degrees farenheit of accuracy. The unnecessary fuss over a country's IQ is exacerbated by an IQ test's inherent uselessness when applied to individuals who haven't a clue about abstract verbal thinking; give them a measure of geometric reasoning and then tell me you're still convinced about Luddite notions of intelligence as a construct. Westerners haven't a clue when it comes to global outside-the-box thinking applied to intelligence theory. That's just my point of view. :) BrainDoc 02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

vandalism of data table
can we put that table in a template and then have the template protected? --Rikurzhen 08:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * moved to a template. hopefully this will deter vandalism. if not, i'll request that it be protected. --Rikurzhen 03:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I put in the request Requests_for_page_protection --Rikurzhen 05:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

pov section
i added a pov tag to the critique section b/c many of the claims are unsourced/unattributed. they may or may not be accurate: i don't know. --Rikurzhen 09:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a template about sources and attributes would be better than the one about (N)POV? in this case. That template is best suited to specific claims of bias. Pcb21 Pete 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm changing it for . -- Schaefer 18:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Colombia is nowhere near El Salvador... -- 66.201.178.252

I'm removing this paragraph because it seems to contradict itself:


 * The figures were obtained by taking unweighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. In most of the nations there were no studies and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations. The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred.  The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available.

There are only 81 countries listed. If 34 had one study each, and 30 had two studies each, there can only be 17 countries left to have had any other number of studies. It's logically impossible for most countries to have zero studies, which the text claims, given these restrictions. -- Schaefer 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed many to most. Note that book give IQ scores for all nations, not only these 81 that are listed here and that have studies. Ultramarine 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The book does not give IQ scores for all recognized nations. --hitssquad 09:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Another criticism is regarding the use of a blog. However, the book has not passed any form of peer-review or academic scrutiny before publishing. As such, I consider the views of an IQ researcher as valuable as the view of the book.Ultramarine 18:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed you recently reinserted a lot of deleted text in the critique section. If you know where these claims come from, consider adding verifiable attributions to notable people that have written about each of these complaints against the book. I understand that there's a relative paucity of published critiques against this book given what problems seem to exist with its methodology, but policy is policy. Thanks. -- Schaefer 18:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Move to delete offtopic posts from Talk
I move to delete all of the offtopic posts from this Talk page. This would shorten it quite a bit and improve its readability and functionality. --hitssquad 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are the offtopic posts? I do not see any? Ultramarine 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire This article is clearly mindless bigotry section is offtopic. --hitssquad 12:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, interesting discussion.Ultramarine 15:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The possibility of persons finding the offtopic posts interesting was not contested. --hitssquad 02:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for removing all the comments that contest the article because they disagree with its content. Whether someone 'likes' the information or not is irrelevant to an encyclopedia entry. Of course, I'm just an Anonymous...

I think leaving them in may save editors the trouble of responding to similar comments again in the future.--Nectar 20:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The same offtopic comments have already been posted over and over again. Therefore, your theory has been subjected to experiment and found to be lacking. --hitssquad 03:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether offtopic or not (and I do think they are), many of the threads are entirely redundant. I say we merge the following sections 'Please Remove this Article', 'This article is clearly mindless bigotry' and possibly 'Some findings ridiculous' are merely arguments as to whether the hypothesis is valid. They are not discussions on the article itself, and how to make sure it's NPOV. I'm tempted to go ahead with some reorganization of the page, without deleting. Aaron McDaid 19:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about putting something like this (via Template:Notice) before the offtopic messages?:


 * and also perhaps moving the comments elsewhere in the talk page, or even to an archive? Although if you do that much, we may as well delete them. Is there a standard Wikipedia policy for how to deal with such users? I'd like if there a short simple stock (templated?) reply which we could use to reply to these people. Although this talk page doesn't seem to suffer too badly so maybe nothing more needs to be done. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 16:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'mindless bigotry' comments are now duplicated on this talk page. A few days ago, I had moved the allegedly offtopic messages into a single, new section at the top of this page. In hindsight, this probably wasn't necessary. What should we do to end the duplication of that thread? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 18:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First, be very careful about deleting other user comments on talk page. They may later become necessary for arbitration and deletion of others comments is in itself a violation of Wikipedia policy. Second, this article is about the book. So discussions regarding the accuracy of the book should not be removed. Third, I removed the duplication since I did not see that it had been moved. However, I would strongly suggest restoring the talk to its original state.Ultramarine 18:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I suppose that it can be disconcerting to have ones comments moved about, even if they are not deleted. And my new section heading wasn't good manners either. I'll put them back into their original positions, and simply reply to any further such threads in the normal fashion. Unless anybody would find it annoying to have them moved again!? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 18:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

climate
ul, this climate theory is discussed in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. it's just a bonus that they use the same IQ data. they're asking Lynn's question with Lynn's data. that's pretty much right on the mark. i'm too lazy to detail sternberg's concerns about it, but anyone else is welcome to. the article is too short on peer reviewed studies for a deletionist tacitc. balance the pov with more info, not with deletion. --Rikurzhen 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The title includes "the wealth of nations". This study does not mention anything regarding this. The appropriate place for this theory, with context, is in one of the subarticles to Race and intelligence.Ultramarine 16:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is another study regarding this. Should it also be included? .Ultramarine 16:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually they do look at both GDP and population size for comparison. Read the abstract. --Rikurzhen 17:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Amazing. They did a simple correlation and are allowed to state "These findings could also be viewed as congruent with, although not providing unequivocal evidence for, the contention that higher intelligence evolves in colder climates."
 * Here is another correlation showing the opposite .Ultramarine 17:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't care about their results. But they cite L&V(2002) like four separate times in their paper. This is clearly a derivative work that's been peer reviewed. Make any many notes as you feel appropriate. --Rikurzhen 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Should not the article about IQ also list every study done with IQ tests?Ultramarine 17:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're being over-the-top because you don't like this study. IQ is clearly at an entirely different level of detail than this article (i.e. macro/micro wikipedia). There's an entire section of this article devoted to peer reviewed derivative studies, of which there are 4 (5?) if you include this one. There's plenty of room right now for the info; plus it's of interest to the reader of this article what others have done in response to L&V's book. But to address your question, one could do so. If one wanted, one could write an IQ (Peer reviewed studies) subarticle to describe all peer reviewed studies about IQ, which would itself have to be sub-articled, etc. If at some point in the future, there is so much to say about IQ and the Wealth of Nations that this detail gets in the way, then something similar can be done here. There's no Wikipedia paper shortage, so anything of relavance should/could go somewhere in WP. --Rikurzhen 18:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Verv well. I will cerainly make additions. :) Ultramarine 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

if you're interested in this, start with reviewer commentaries published with the main article. try to keep your focus on IQatWoN. you can always fill in details at R&I. --Rikurzhen 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Critique
Perhaps some mention of the complete lack of consistancy with national data should be mentioned in this section. To think these tests are accurate measures of intelligence at all is absurd, when just looking at basic things such as a 6 point difference between two tests taken by French children in the same year! Some of these scores might as well have been drawn from a hat - for example Ireland 93, averaged from two tests in the same decade that had an 11 point difference (87/98). Portugal's 95 was averaged from two scores of 88 and 101! Maybe the validity of these test results should be called into question when considering the huge variances on scores. Not to mention the use of scores from many decades ago. Peoplesunionpro 04:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The data is inconsistent at times. But that more likely than not, dulls the correlations and possible causations a bit, by introducing more noise. The inconsistency would be an issue if it strengthens the theory when it should be weakening it, an improbable possibility.

China

 * The authors argued that the People's Republic of China's per capita GDP of roughly USD $4,500 could be explained by its use of a communist economic system for much of its recent history. The authors also predicted that communist nations who they believe have comparatively higher IQs, including the PRC, Vietnam, and North Korea, can be expected to gain GDP by moving from centrally-planned to market economic systems, while predicting continued poverty for African nations. Recent trends in the economy of the People's Republic of China seem to confirm this prediction, as China's GDP has quadrupled since market reforms in 1978.

I feel the section on China is somewhat misleading. The book was published in 2002. Therefore, the authors were already well aware of these trends in China. The way it is written now seems to make it sound as if this was a phenomena predicted by the book which panned out (not that it took a genius to figure out China's per capita GDP would increase as it did when they moved to a market economic system) Nil Einne 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What is this?
Is this a marketing gimmick on Wikipedia? Please scrap this article from wikipedia. It is propagating wrong and baseless ideas. If this book is as good as it is claimed, the authors will be able to answer my puzzle instantaneously, here it is:

"I live on a farm, there are 10 trees, I have 6 goats and 10 cars. How many windows does my house have?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * That...my dear Watson...depends on how many goats live in the house! Jaker5 (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

These authors have appointments at major universities...this book's print run is likely in the thousands, I doubt marketing is a big incentive here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.163.8 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you live on the farm, sell a couple of cars and buy a house!

Spains reported IQ in this book is 97 and not 99
Please check here www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm

IQ is not intellgence
When did the 'wikipedians' became fool enough to start an article like this? A stupid mere statistical data is not a law. Please start articles like 'IQ and Potato', 'IQ and Chewing Gum', 'IQ and Coca cola'...It 'll be more interesting!!

IQ does not measure intellgence. Intellegence is a vauge and unscientific term. "She's smart" is something children say. No test can measure intellgence. That's like saying, "I want a test that will measure bravery". Instead,

An IQ test measures how adapted a person is to the culture of whoever made the test

Most IQ tests are made by Westerners. Westerners are rich, and being well adapted to the Western enviroment means you will be rich as well (maybe). Therefore, a high IQ means you will be rich, possibly. Of course, there are many ways of becoming rich without having to adapt to Western ideals. The Japanese have shown this. They are rich. They are Eastern. Triumphantly so. In summary, to all you "race concious" bigots with physician friends from Papua New Guinea out there:

IQ does not measure intellegence!


 * I suggest you check out the average IQ scores of east asians then. By the way, you're right, IQ is not intelligence but it correlates closely with it (g), depending on the individual IQ test. --Nnp 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it is rather interesting that the Japanese manage to not only become rich without adopting Western ideals, but also to outperform Westerners on their supposedly biased IQ tests. One might wonder why there is systematic racial variation in the ability to beat the white man at his own game.  Tomyumgoong 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The IQ test is valuable because it makes accurate predictions. The APA issued a statement saying that IQ differences exist, the test is not biased, and it makes reasonably accurate predictions. It remained "agnostic" on the issue of its origin, be it genetic or cultural. I think the APA's statement is covered in Wikipedia's article on the bell curve by Murray & Herrnstein.

@OP - Personally, I think this book is quite right on the mark. Wikipedia will start a "IQ with Potatoes" section when a well respected researcher had come to the conclusion that there IS in fact a connection between the two.

In the mean time, the general consensus is that IQ and intelligence does go hand in hand (and so does Wealth and IQ). Many research had been done on this topic. So this will be what we write about. And about East Asia (and Japanese). I don't really see what you are saying here. East Asians have a different culture than Westerners that is true, but if you read the article, both group have relatively high IQ (and high wealth). User Tomyumgoog says that Japan manage to become rich without adopting Western ideals, true; but they did increase their IQs. Which is what this book is about. So while culture is not a factor in getting rich, IQ still is; as imperial evidence shows.

Generally I found this book to be hard to argue against for the simple reason that it is quite truthful. Both imperially and logically. As controversial as it is; if you look at it objectively, it sum up the situation quite well. Yongke 16:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Posted by LJQ - IQ tests the individual's ability and skill to tackle those problems that were posed. It is designed to evaulate the individual's ability to solve problems, recognise patterns, visual manupilation ability, logic, mathematics, etc... Further, there are a lof of free IQ tests on the internet that should not be taken seriously IMO.

"What? Japanese manage to become rich without adopting Western ideals? Japan is still copying the West up till this day, see the cars, culture, music everything they copy" They just don't like to admit it and claim it's their supposed originality. Japan is very smart on developing and rebuilding on an old technology though. And I do think this IQ test is somewhat valid, yes there is a reason for IQ difference among nation. I don't believe one nation is smarter than another given the same circumstances. If this stats prove anything, it only shows what nation has a lot of work to catch their students up with those of other nations. And to the person below that wrote US IQ is much lower, don't underestimate U.S. so much, because they have some of the most brilliant people here as well. Lot of technologies were invented and developed in US btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit923 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what IQ tests measure, it is still interesting that IQ correlates with national wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.163.8 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph
I modified the first paragraph a bit. You do not argue a correlation exists; it either does or does not. One argues the causation of the correlation. My change reflects this, that they demonstrate a correlation and arguably attribute it to differences in IQ. The word arguably, strictly speaking, is not needed, as it is the authors' opinion, and is almost by definition arguable and not universally agreed upon unless stated otherwise. But I didn't delete it. If others agree, they should delete it.

As a Psychology Phd student I think it is important to note that "intelligence" is just a concept that has been defined differently over time in many different cultures (see the works of Gardner on multiple intelligence for another definition of intelligence). By definition, an IQ or intelligence quotient test is a number, designed to represent (with a standard margin of error), "intelligence" usually conceptualised as verbal and numerical ability - in line with western methods of education. Hence the strong correlation with educational results. Most IQ test such as the Stanford-Binet and the Weschler are not "culture-free" and therefore extremely biased to western-style educational environments. As a consequence, they do not actually measure what is commonly understood to be intelligence at all in most non-western societies. It would be like, travelling to ancient Egypt, being given an exam in heirogliphics on Ancient Egyptian mathematical and linguitic items (with very little instruction) and then being told how "smart" you are as a result!
 * Yes, it's fair to think of "intelligence" defined by psychometricians as the ability to "succeed" in the modern world. This is an intentional "bias".--Nectar 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No. The measurement of intelligence is an attempt to measure g.  It is in no way an attempt to quantify the things that make you succeed in the modern world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Those tests don't prove anything
That's nonsense! Those IQ-Tests are all         cause they don't prove anything. Remove this topic. Those IQ tests are lost in the time. Look, today we can't say that someone is intelligent or not. We must ask in wich area this person is intelligent. Of course the people who live in poor countries would not get good results at those ridiculous tests. But I'm sure they can do lots of things that we can't. Things that weren't included on those "tests". Many people think that these things are not important and or irrelevant...


 * FWIW, I happen to think the conclusions of Lynn and Vartanen are nonsense. However, the book has attracted a good deal of attention, and it is thus appropriate to have an article on it, also noting the many and loud criticisms made of the book and the wider claims surrounding race and IQ.  I happen to think, say, astrology is completely bogus.  Should we delete that too? --Robert Merkel 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability, and it is a verifiable fact the the book exists and that says what it says. If you find published criticisms of the contents of the book, I invite you to add those criticisms (sourced and written in a NPOV manner).Randroide 09:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Unacknowledged Rushton Citation
The phrase "concludes the average human IQ is presently 90, equivalent to the mental age of a white 14 year old. (Standardized IQ tests are normed to 100, the mental age of the average white 16-year-old.)" seems to be an unacknowledged citation of Rushton's review of Lynn's work. It is also slighty odd, while intelligence tests for children IQ was originally (circa 1910) worked out with reference to mental age this certainly isn't standard practise today, and never was standard practise with adult samples. It also carries the implication, intended or not, that adults with an IQ of 90 in countries other than where the norm was established (the UK) are child like in their intelligence. Surely better to say: "concludes the average human IQ is presently 90 when compared to the norm of 100, or two thirds of a standard deviation below the norm." JonathanE 11:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mostly agree. "norm" is problematic; what's meant is "White average". --Rikurzhen 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the researchers used a norm from a population other than the ones they are making comparisons with, would UK norm suffice? JonathanE 19:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Article vs. Book Comments
I think quite a few contributors here are confusing a discussion about a particular book with the discussion of an article about that book. Several comments have pointed out that the book itself is offensive, without suggesting any changes to the article.

Likewise, we should keep the "righteous indignation" response to a minimum and stick to facts, reason and proper citations.

Doug Hubbard

Steve Sailer
The VDARE links are exceptionally biased and not necessarily to be trusted. Sailer is not a reliable source. Steve_Sailer is surrounded by controversy and fails to publish anything peer-reviewed that doesn't end up in a partisan magazine. --129.97.84.62 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * With regards to the "Special Case of India", I have shortened and combined it with the main section. I removed speculative phrases such as "there are more geniuses in India" and instead left the more important point of the great IQ variance across India's highly-diverse ethnicities. As for the reference VDARE, I agree that some parts of it are unfounded. Heilme 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

deleting material
don't delete material. the reasons given odd given the content of the book. the data tables and figures reflect those seen in the book, distinctions and comparisons made by the authors. --W. D. Hamilton 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Selective representations of data tables are clearly violating WP:NOR. Present what was presented, instead of trying to synthesize a new presentation with your own filtering. --JereKrischel 02:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you should know that the book specifically breaks down the 81 countries for which there is actual data and the 185 for which there is a mix of real data and estimations. The 81 calculated numbers are the main focus of most reviews/uses of the book, and so are the important values. --W. D. Hamilton 06:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Using only the 81 calculated values, instead of including all 185 with appropriate labeling, is avoiding something that is important. The entire table, with its calculated and estimated values, should be included, if the table is to be included at all. --JereKrischel 08:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Put down and write down which part you have seen that it was omitted and also give comment "specifically" so that our readers can compare and judge. Don't simply remove it just because there is some parts was omitted.  Give us a concrete example.  For example. if the table list all 185 countries, what is the basic difference between the entire table and the current table that we are reading on this topic.  Is this difference important?  if so, how?  and why that difference makes deviation?  if you have time, please go to give supplement instead and add everything that you think it is necessary to reflect the true face on that table (if you said: The entire table, with its calculated and estimated values, should be included, if the table is to be included at all).  Now it is a good time for you to make contribution. 72.138.191.63 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the table has been specifically truncated to overstate the accuracy of the numbers available world-wide. By including all of the data, it becomes more clear the state of accuracy is not terribly high.  If you feel like recreating the entire table, with its original title and notes, please feel free. --JereKrischel 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the reponsbility is falling on your part, not mine. Again, your reason is not suffice.  Why don't you simply add the "missing" information on that table in order to look more comprehensive?  You didn't explain it (i.e. which part of data missed to make the state of accuracy is not terribly high) but you simply remove it at your whimp and fancy. 72.138.191.63 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are more than welcome to add the missing information. It would be a very helpful use of your time. --JereKrischel 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the one should go there and add the information because "you are the one" who discovered the missing information. How can I know which part is missing?  the missing part is what you claimed.  Just like you went to a police station but you didn't tell them what happened.  Rather you just told them try to guess and investigate something.  Does it make sense?  how can I know what something is?  72.138.191.63 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to avoid responsibility for improving the article, please by all means, stop editing. If you'd like to fix the table, on the other hand, to include the omitted estimated IQs, please, feel free.  If you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying, please let me know and I'll try to communicate more clearly. --JereKrischel 05:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * excuse me, may I quote what you said? that is the exact thing that I wanted to tell you.  You are the one who is avoiding the responsbility.  If so, please stop editing and go somewhere else to do something in a more constructive way.  I don't practise telepathy as you do.  I couldn't guess what you thought.  You didn't tell us all readers what kind of information specifically were actually missed, even right now.  Missing information means many things.  What are you talking about?  you made no sense.  You were just coming here to vandalise the page, that's it.  That is what I saw.  72.138.191.63 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If what I said is what you wanted to say, then it seems that you should take your own advice. --JereKrischel 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * what you wanted to say seems to me is illogical and rambling. If you couldn't even figure out which part of information were missed on that table, please leave wiki right away.  One thing is illogical that make us didn't understand AT ALL is why you didn't expand the table, but you simply removed it at your whimp and fancy?  Refer to "History" and look at what you did.  I even couldn't figure out what you were doing there.  Excuse me?  what were you doing there?  72.138.191.63 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you wanted to say something to me that you consider illogical and rambling? I think you're having problems understanding some fairly basic things here, so I'll try to be more clear - the table as presented is a violation of WP:NOR by selectively removing data from the table.  I question its utility in the first place, and consider removing it a perfectly reasonable alternative to expanding it.  That being said, my objection is primarily based upon its limited nature.  If you would like to expand it, and address my concerns, please feel free.  --JereKrischel 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * SO WHAT? I don't care what the violation of WP:NOR is.  You didn't provide any concrete evidence AT ALL.  Which parts were missed on that table leading to WP:NOR, huh?  you still didn't answer our question.  Missed WHAT??  Just like you tried to say that person is a murder, but you didn't find out who the victim is.  Your logics is contradicted to what you said.  If you said: consider removing it a perfectly reasonable alternative to expanding it  but why did you say: If you would like to expand it, and address my concerns, please feel free.  What are you talking about?  think carefully before you would like to talk to me.  Don't assume others are idiots.  I suggest you had better get out of here.  To talk to you is basically wasting my time.  I am not going to reply your useless message anymore.  If you vandalise the page again, I will simply revert what you did.  That's it  72.138.191.63 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

the underlying data tables are reproduced all over the internet. appendix 1 is the source in the book to check. tab-delimited data table --W. D. Hamilton 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the direct source reference. --JereKrischel 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I found this data table using Google. Any of you could have done the same. There appear to be multiple copies mirrored on the web. --W. D. Hamilton 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any citation for the original source? That is to say, is there a original place where this was published, so that we can check the accuracy of any mirroring? --JereKrischel 06:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean the book? Richard Lynn's own web site has all the numbers as well. --W. D. Hamilton 06:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

table and graph
Please either remove IQ 2006 values from the table or deliver reference 32 !!!! !!! Without the reference this is just bullshit! So where is the data from that claims that the IQ of china has accelerated from 100 to 105 within 4 years? 08:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

what is the reasoning behind the removal of bulk of the data table? it might make sense as a simplification if not for the removal of the GDP*IQ graph from the main article? --W. D. Hamilton 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

specifically, the choice to show "top 5" and "bottom 5" has a certain sense, but the choice to show "average" countries makes an assumption about what's average. why not show the countries with median IQ scores instead? why include estimated scores if you're only showing a portion of the data set. most importantly, why not show the whole table which takes up no more room? --W. D. Hamilton 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * well done! 72.138.191.63 02:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 72.138.191.63 this isn't a shouting contest. we need to treat one another with respect despite our disagreements. --W. D. Hamilton 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * W.D., please correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't IQ tests calibrated in such a way that by definition, an IQ of 100 is supposed to be the mean of all humanity? I think including estimated scores are important because it illustrates that there are cases where data is lacking, and I think the whole table doesn't provide much more than simply placing a link directly to the whole table and data. --JereKrischel 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "the mean of all humanity" - no it's much more mundane than that. they are calibrated on a representative sample of the population in the U.S., the U.K. or whatever country the test is developed in. the normalization sample ensures that the U.S. or U.K. average on restesting should be within a few points of 100, but for example, a demographically different population could have any average IQ.
 * I think the estimates are well noted in the text, so it seems odd to include them if only a few countries are to be shown.
 * i'm perfectly ambivalent about the whole table question, but it eliminates any issue of making our own judgments. --W. D. Hamilton 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting...perhaps that makes it even more inappropriate to compare IQ scores across nations, if they are using IQ tests calibrated differently. Also, given that more than half of the scores claimed are estimates, it seems important to include them. --JereKrischel 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But I don't think anything has actually been resolved. --W. D. Hamilton 03:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I see it, we've got one fundamental that we've got to abide by - eliminating estimated IQ from the table is inappropriate. The open questions are, do we include the IQ=100 countries and how do we label them, and do we do top 5/bottom 5 or the whole table.  I'm open to labeling the IQ=100 countries more specifically (make a note of IQ supposedly calibrated to 100 as "average"), or removing them.  I'm also open to seeing the whole table.  Is there a satisfactory resolution in there somewhere for you? --JereKrischel 03:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * eliminating estimated IQ from the table is inappropriate - there are two separate chapters in IQatWoNs, the first on the calculated IQs and the second on the estimated IQs. the math in the book is done both ways so that all angles are covered. the calculated values are treated as the base and the added estimated values as a 2ndary step for completeness.
 * I'm also open to seeing the whole table. i see no reason not the include the whole table, other than size, but 3 little tables takes up a lot of room too --W. D. Hamilton 06:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems that since the book covers it from all angles, the most appropriate solution is to also reflect that coverage here (including both estimates and calculated). --JereKrischel 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Israel's IQ has been raised from 94 to 95.
Here are external links which quote the book's 94 IQ rating for Israel:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2HJU3WLVCXWAK http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/zhekaya/post39896846 http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm http://www.isteve.com/IQ_table.htm http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm http://www.freewebs.com/skymik/challenger.htm http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-7080.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.121.129 (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Identical to Table 7.7
i don't have a copy of the book at hand, but that's Table 7.7 to the best of my knowledge/memory. the table with all 185 countries is Table 8.9. --W. D. Hamilton 12:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently it is not identically labeled to Table 7.7 on page 100 of the book. Please update the scatterplot to include all 81 countries from Table 7.7, and label the Y-axis to an actual column of the table.  Thanks! --JereKrischel 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "residuals" and "fitted" values have to do with linear regression. the values are the real GDP values, from which the linear regression is calculated (along with IQ). all 81 countries should be there. --W.R.N. 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I guess all we need to do is label the Y-axis appropriately (identical to the table column). Can you make that update?  It might also be nice to make the dots a bit smaller so that all 81 points are clear.   It would also help to make a specific reference in the image to Table 7.7 on page 100 of the book, maybe include the table's title.  --JereKrischel 07:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thesis as Described in Introductory Paragraph Backwards
The introductory paragraph described the book as saying that economic differences cause the differences in average IQ among nations, which is the reverse of what the authors propose.

move to (book)
according to Naming_conventions_(books): --W.R.N. 03:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

it is usually not commendable to use "(book)" or a similar qualifier in Wikipedia article names, outside what is strictly needed for disambiguation from other *existing* Wikipedia pages. Examples:
 * Stupid White Men, not Stupid White Men (book)
 * Darwin's Dangerous Idea, not Darwin's Dangerous Idea (book)
 * One gets used to anything, except a guy, not Alles went behalve een vent (book)
 * The Divine Comedy, not The Divine Comedy (poem)


 * Okay. That makes sense. I thought some of these titles were confusing. futurebird 04:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * They are, but you'd never find the book if you redirected the titles to their literal referent. I think that's the reason for the naming convention. --W.R.N. 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review and follow-up studies
I noticed that there already is a clean-up tag for this section. I believe this section also need some balancing. For example, the first paragraph talked about a few critics who had a negative outlook on this book. Since there already is a critic's section, I think it's only fair to have the more positive critics be in this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongke (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

The right kind of critique
I can't imagine that everyone in the academic community embraced this book as the new gospel, in fact, I imagine some nasty things were probably said about it. The critique section currently tries to refute the books premiss... while I think this is a nobel aim, we ought to focus instead on people who critiqued this book and what they said. So, can we start revising this section in that direction. I think what's there now is too close to being original research. Sure this book is racist and ought to be refused, but we need to make this section more about the book and less about the ideas in the book. Is that fair? futurebird 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I obviously think the section is OR or close to it. There's plenty of verifiable criticism in the section preceding it. It may be helpful to add some organization to that section to make the criticism, praise, and follow up distinct sections. The section in dispute can probably go -- it can be saved on the talk page for future utility. --W.R.N. 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A recent book is relevant to the criticism, as it deals with the material in this book as well as "IQ fundamentalists" like the authors in general. James Flynn, a social scientist at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, has written a book What Is Intelligence? (Cambridge University Press 2007), in which he explores the reasons IQ is a dubious measure of anything immutable and innate about individuals; rather, it shows us how well we are educated to respond in ways that IQ tests would reward - being able to frame knowledge in a modern, scientific way. For example, IQ has been steadily rising by about .3 points per year since the tests have been around. These tests are re-normed every so often, to make them "harder," to make up for this phenomenon. Further, in the early 1900's, southern Italian immigrants to the U.S. scored as low as African Americans and Hispanics, prompting talk about their inferior stock; today, however, Southern Italians are no longer part of the discussion about IQ and race. Did their genes start to mutate around the 1930's, or did they assimilate culturally? Flynn has written about this phenomenon several times; this book addresses in particular the persistence of "IQ fundamentalism" even when "the Flynn effect" should undermine the credibility of IQ as a measure of innate or genetic capacity. Flynn recalibrates Lynn and Vanhanen's findings, controlling for income, age, and year of IQ test (recently re-normed or not), and shows that the results don't support the sort of international IQ pyramid imagined by the authors. He also brings up evidence of studies of mixed-race and adopted children, which show overwhelming that it isn't so much who you are as where (with what income, education, and culture) you're raised. This seems especially prescient considering James Watson's comments last fall about his pessimism regarding Africans, because they're just genetically inferior, it's not about history and there's nothing to be done. Malcolm Gladwell reviews What Is Intelligence in the New Yorker at http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell 134.53.224.9 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WTA
WP:WTA should probably be used in the article. i tried to do so in some earlier edits. it's a little boring, but it basically says that the only words you should use in most cases are "write", "say", "state", or "argue". words like "claim", "find", and even "report" should be avoided. it's a bit silly, but it's top shelf NPOV language. --W.R.N. 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't say, but "conclude" would probably be fine too. i would also think it would be fine to say "according to X, Y" where X=person and Y=their conclusion. --W.R.N. 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I don't like "argue" it makes the source sound... well... mean. "said" and "wrote" are always safe bets. futurebird 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

where's the part of WTA that describes argue -- they write argue is good when you are stating what one side of a debate between parties has said/written: --W.R.N. 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As a rule, when a statement is unproven or subjective, or when a factual assertion is made without contradiction, use a form of the word say or state:


 * Critics of contingent fees say that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients.

When a statement is basically factual but its importance may be disputed, consider using argue or dispute instead:


 * Opponents argue that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police.

Although editors sometimes use these and similar words to intentionally influence the sympathies of the reader, in many cases they may simply be the result of well-intentioned editors looking for a way to avoid using the word said, which they may perceive as dull or overused. Beginning writers are often taught to realize that said or stated are nearly "invisible": you may think you're overusing it, but readers probably won't even notice it. They will notice, however, if you try to correct the "problem" by inflicting more colorful synonyms on them. If you absolutely must avoid "said," look for creative ways to rephrase the sentence:


 * According to Mayor Bimbsly, it's simply a matter of faith.
 * The official reason appeared in a later press release [CITE SOURCE]: "There will not be a trial [...] due to poor response from Asia."
 * "Say" in my opinion implies a personal opinion and is a poor choice anything having any form of support. I would certainly notice it if used in a peer-reviewed article. "Report", "find", "claim", "argue", can be found in peer-reviewed articles but not "say". The suggestion that "say" should be used both for something subjective and completely unsupported AND uncontradicted factual assertions is extremely strange.Ultramarine 05:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If it was written and not spoken, then "say" is of course out. I never had a problem with report myself because the term is so often used in review papers, but I was going to let WTA be the judge of that one. I do see the reasons not to use "claim" or "find". Write, argue, and conclude seem like suitable alternatives if we're going with WTA. So-called, creative rephrasing is also possible in some cases. --W.R.N. 06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Data wrong
Look at the table and the real data here:

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

As usual, in race related articles,we have a dark shadow of manipulation behind them. What a disaster for this place. I will try and fix some.

Well, surprise! It was just Spain, someone changed it to 97 and it is 99.

Anyway, from the history of the article, it seems that a lot of people are manipulating these data. Watch out for it.

70.156.140.49 01:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In the book 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' the IQ of Spain is listed as 97 which can be verified by using google books since you do not own the book I suggest you verify it yourself.

Contact Richard Lynn http://www.rlynn.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Check01 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

WOW
So, the average Equatoria Guinean is a mental retard?

82.12.236.241 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Scatter Graph Criticisms
3)The statement that the values are calculated gives an impression of meaningfulness to the diagram that is not objectively verifiable. The values were interpolated from other studies in the area.  None of the IQ values were experimentally measured by Lynn and Vanhanen 4) The data used to generate the scatter plot should be given on the article (even if the scatter plot is taken directly from the book – the data should be presented so that it can be subject to statistical analysis, to see if it is likely to genuine, for example). The fact the GDP and IQ are supposed to have an independent variable-dependent variable relationship is OBVIOUSLY an gross over-simplifcation of the reality of how GDP and IQ would related to one another in reality. Thus, the relevance of this graph within the context of displaying a relationship between GDP and IQ is questionable at best.

On the scatter graph there is NO scale whatsoever it goes from 100 to 1000 to 100000 this graph should be remade accuratly. DPM 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Penguin, that is a logarithmic scale (search that on wiki :P). It's used to emphasise dependancy between phisical features that are related by an exponential formula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octav43 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Criticisms
5) An Emphasis placed on the word BELIEVE in the sentence : “The authors believe that average IQ difference between nations are due to both genetic and environmental factors. They also believe that low GDP can cause low IQ, just as low IQ can cause low GDP.” Have they proven this? (Of course, that IQ has an effect on economic growth may be obvious – but that they are 6) The sentence:“Rather than do their own IQ studies (a potentially massive project), the authors average and adjust existing studies.” Should be emphasised in BOLD. 7) Surely this is STATISTICAL MALPRACTICE (it introduces a whole world of subjectivity!)? : “To account for the Flynn effect (an increase in IQ scores over time), the authors adjusted the results of older studies upward by a number of points.” 8)The publisher should be named. The lack of peer review should be emphasised. : “IQ and the Wealth of Nations' was not peer-reviewed before publication but was published by a publisher of academic literature. Peer reviewed articles have used the IQ scores presented in the book and some have also commented on the claims in the book.” 9)An Emphasis placed on the word BELIEVE in the sentence : “The authors believe that average IQ difference between nations are due to both genetic and environmental factors. They also believe that low GDP can cause low IQ, just as low IQ can cause low GDP.” Have they proven this? (Of course, that IQ has an effect on economic growth may be obvious – but that they are linearly related in a way meaningfully measurable via the use of correlation is surely stretching the truth?

I will offer more criticism when time permits. ConcernedScientist 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

data
Someone is deliberately changing values:

See here: Spain 99.

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

Someone is changing it to 97. 65.11.207.219 00:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems that this user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ultramarine

Is for some reason vandalizing the page and changing Spain value to 97. He should read the above link to Lynn's own page and check the value. His conduct is vandalism, ignoring the facts and introducing lies for some reason.

Well, after thinking it again, sorry for saying it is vandalism, maybe you did not see the discussion, but check data before you change them. You have a link above. It is Lynn personal page about the book and Spain is number 151. Value 99. 65.11.114.176 00:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who has done a lot of vandalism reverts, I think I can provide the answer. Google "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" + Spain and you get this page as the first match: http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm  Scroll down to Spain, and look in their "Book Score" column, and you see 97.  So I can't really consider it vandalism, I think it's an attempt at good faith editing. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You can verify the books reported score for Spain in google books.It is available online.Or you can contact Richard Lynn and ask him yourself on whether or not it was reported as 97 or 99. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Check01 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

table
let's retain the table as it is not quite easy for one to build up. 74.14.121.82 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Also their was a very large European study last year that had different values. (uk 100 Germany and Netherlands 109 both smarter than Austria and Italy and all other European countries) Maybe it's worth googling up?

Japan 84???
That does NOT seem right to me. Can somebody double-check this??? Grandpafootsoldier 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was vandalism, it's been reverted. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran's estimated IQ: 105 ?????
For at least 24 hours Iran's estimated IQ was 105 and not 84. This kind of romantic behaviour are not appropriate in Wikipedia. How can this be reported?

We need facts and accurate information on the Internet if we want to solve problems.


 * I motion for putting protection on this page. BGManofID 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I second the motion (for partial protection, anonymous IPs seem to be most of the problem). Poindexter Propellerhead 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

response
I was just curious to see how to edit a wiki page and I think it was a good page to try. I understand that is not an appropriate thing to change a page that gives “real useful information” to people. However, I am 100% percent sure that not only I can make a test that Iranians can get “105” in it but also I can make one that people from Equatorial Guinea get higher scores than any other nation in the world. So if you want my identity just let me know. Or if you prefer I can hand myself to the international police for changing a crappy racist page on Internet. Then I will have enough motivation an time to work on my new IQ test in jail. At the end let me tell you dear friend that if my act was romantic yours is definitely comic: you call this page "facts and accurate information on the Internet" Thanks for solving the problem of human being and sorry for causing so much trouble for you in reaching this goal by changing one IQ from 84 to 105. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.80.190 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Spain
What is the IQ score of Spain anyway? 97 or 99? Guia Hill 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia be Politically Correct?
Look, this book is not without its controversy. In fact, the statistical analyses of intelligence are like all fluid statistics; they are merely estimates and contain a certain variance of inaccuracy. But for some readers who post comments to the effect of "This is a racist article - remove it" - I have only one thought. The internet is not american network television. Free idea exchange is the web's greatest attribute, so for all those who want to silence the messenger and control the message, I say stay in your home and unplug your computer! You are obviously incapable of critical thinking and lack free will. Thoughts should not be controlled. And until one of you critics does a similar study and finds drastically different results, Wealth of Nations is what we have.

For those of you who look at these numbers & suspect a racially motivated skewing of the facts - I challenge you to find opposing statistics. And the "culturally biased" argument is rubbish; I cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study - but take heed, critics; you might always not like what you learn when you actually free your mind! :o (unsigned comment by Brnoamik, 09:04, 13 July 2007)


 * Nobody has said that the article is racist, the article is just an encyclopedic book report. One poster felt that the book was racist, which it may or may not be, but resolving that issue is outside the scope of our job as editors. Repeat: this is just a book report. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia et al
Saudi Arabia has average IQ 39! Iran, Germany is 109? Does writer have political, religious, or racial axe to hack?

What is gene IQ?

This supports my overall belief that open access sites on internet CANNOT by biological law have clear discussion about ethnic/racial matters. Call it the law of Open Access Racial Perversion. OARP for short.


 * The three scores you mention were all the result of vandalism. The correct figures have been restored. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Page protection
Over the last few days, vandalism has been so heavy that I have been hitting the 3RR limit on this article (as I write this, it's severely vandalized, but I won't be able to revert it for another 12 hours), and at least one other editor seems to have exceeded the limit. Of course, vandals have exceeded it too, and I have reported one of them for doing so. But this is really getting old, in my opinion. What does everyone else think about asking for protection for this article? Poindexter Propellerhead 08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * supportGuia Hill 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The page is now semi-protected. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Turkish IQ
In the table, Turkey's average IQ is reported as 101. However, in the book Vanhanen and Lynn report it as 90.Victor Chmara 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're quite right! Fixed. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Farewell, semi-protection
Two weeks without a vandalism! I'm going to miss it, but hopefully some repeat offenders have moved along. Nice work, folks! Poindexter Propellerhead 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Moon?
Why is The Moon on the list? That's rather strange. It really made me search for studies regarding the IQ of people that went to the moon and stuff, but I couldn't find anything yet. And also, what is the GDP on The Moon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octav43 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

USA
dear world, i believe, and not only believe i saw it in a magazine once (not that everthing in magazines is right but anyways) that the national iq of the united states of america is way lower. people in america are mostly dumber than in any other country ( and i travelled the world, i know) im from holland btw. and the dutch iq must be lower than scandinavia. and neither do i believe that canada is below usa. and these arent opinions, or maybe they are, but... i cant get this. i must say that iq depends on school/education a lot and that america's school system is made for people with a learning-delay. im sorry for any indulges. but dont you think that african people are indulged by all the things about iq i saw here, that there are racial differences between white and black people? i really dont think that the amount of pigment in the cells has any influence on one's iq? (pure scientifically looked at, no partial meanings or any of that kind). i do believe in iq, national iq, individual iq, i believe those tests have meaning. (coming from an atheist, i believe, lol) so dont come back with that. ( i will study neuro-genetics, after laboratory education, not that that has anything to do with anything but while im typing a big story with no actual point i can put that on here as well) i guess ive made my point, or not, doesnt really matter, i just think american people are the dumbest people in the world, without meaning any harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ireallyhavenocluewhothiscomputerisfrom (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Holland too and you probably hate Americans for no reason at all just like many other Dutch people do these days. Sure there are idiots in America, but there are idiots in every other nation in the world too. One day you'll probably lie in a hospital with your life saved by medication invented by American scientists and realize you were wrong.

And low IQ in African countries doesn't nessesarily mean black people are inferior. You can attribute it to lack of proper education and health care.77.250.171.134 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(from me: So could you do in America; there's a huge LACK of PROPER education there too!!!)

Im very sorry, but i dont hate americans for wrong reasons; facts are; Americans are "right-side of politics" even the left ones there are right in our definitions. plus the american school system sucks, after "high school" which is originally made for people with a learning-delay as ive said before, and when they go to collage they have to learn everything we dutch people learn during 2nd fase (4+5 Havo, 4+5+6 VWO) and reletivaly spoken the medicine made in america are less that any country in europe. (maybe there are more medicine produced there than herebut if you compare it to the amount of people, there are less) and my point was; the average IQ in america is lower, not all americans are idiots (im not a racist!!) because there are (also reletivaly seen) way more american idiots. smart people there are average here. most of them. so the iq of america should at least be 10 points less. thank you for not understanding.

It's true that politics in the USA these days are right-wing, but that doesn't nescesarily mean they are wrong. Compared to the world our politics are very left-sided so even a moderate person like Clinton could be described as right-wing here. Whether your prefer our system over theirs is again a matter of opinion. The school system in the USA is also under a lot of criticism, however in some ways it's better than in Europe, as you can see on this list: http://www.arwu.org/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm I'm not sure about where most medecine come from but I'm sure we have a lot to thank American scientists for. You don't have to worry that I mix the populations up when I compare the US with Europe, as Europe has more than twice the amount of people the US has. You think the IQ of Americans should be 10 points less, but you don't have any evidence to back this up (I think). It's all judged on your personal experience with Americans and that's not what Wikipedia is about. As for racism, apart from the indigenous people and the African-Americans, all Americans are European ;) 77.250.171.134 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

China is wrong on the map
China is listed as having an average IQ of 100, yet on the map it's coloured as if it has an iq of 105. It's true that the IQ of people in Hong Kong is much higher, but Hong Kong is a district in China with only 7 million people, as opposed to 1.3 billion, where rich and well educated people have moved to, so it isn't very representative for the whole of China which should be coloured as 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.171.134 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why was the map deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.20 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is using data from another book.Ultramarine (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we just please get rid of this article
If notoriety is a criterium for deletion then accuracy should be one too. This article has more stuff plainly wrong with it than Erich von Danikens 'Charriots of the Gods' and it really pains me so see such drivel in Wikipedia. Also, this article is used elsewhere to bolster all out racism so the fall out is possibly even worse than the article itself.

Please do yourselves a favour and get rid of this, it is a blemish on Wikipedias otherwise quite solid reputation.

I'm not even going to attempt to come up with specifics, maybe except for this one item: variance in IQ tests is +- 20% points on repeated tests (with the same individual), IQ tests are meant to be administered to individuals and you can not use the same IQ tests for different social backgrounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.119.78 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

why is this page protected?
Well anyway... Flynn also grouped Microstates into their nearest most ethnically and culturally appropriate country. E.G. He classified Malta, Vatican City, San Marino as microstates grouped with Italy. Therefore, in the table, they need to bee added with some format like this:

Italy (including microstates:
 * 🇲🇹 Malta
 * 🇸🇲 San Marino
 * 🇻🇦 Vatican City)

Also, he grouped Monaco with France.

Please add these as appropriate.

Thanks 89.241.243.42 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Laos IQ
Please mention how he estimated the Laos IQ, which is by taking the result of tests on children in one village 'not in abject poverty' and averaging it against the score of the mothers of those kids. Obviously no scientist would consider this a statistically valid way of figuring a country's IQ score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.156.177 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

chicken and egg
I remember reading that the Spanish economic miracle was accompanied by a marked fall in the percentage of "backward" children.

It would be helpful if someone more qualified than me could add a paragraph or two on this book's assumption that it is higher IQ which "causes" higher GDP rather than the reverse.

By which I mean that as a country becomes richer (for whatever other reasons) this leads to improved health for young children and expectant mothers, notably a fall in the percentage who are under-nourished. Over time this leads not only to an increase in average physical stats (height, etc) but also (arguably) to a parallel improvement in intelligence scores. Jameswilson (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

White people and Chinese are Dumb too, this article is racist and biased!
'''Intelligence varies from person to person, culture, environment, education, financial status, family backgound all play important roles. When intelligent varies so much in the family that one sibling is of higher intelligence than the rest, considering rest of the factors of relatively less importance. How can you judge the entire country or culture as of higher or lower IQ based on some tests? , developed and countries with higher literacy have more probability to have higher IQ than developing and countries with low literacy rates, grouping them is highly controversial and serve the purpose of nazi, fascist and racist people of the world.''' --Himhifi 09:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments do not help to improve the article. --Jagz (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The table needs a date
I have misunderstood the table in the article! It needs to have GDP added to it for the year in which the IQ scores were taken. Also it would be helpful if the columns were in the order: Nation, IQ, GDP. The table in the article needs a table heading which states the origin of the table the year of complication -- similar to the table heading I have provided on the one to the right. Also as with the table on the right it would be nice to have the table sortable on various columns (see Help:Table). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Reported IQ for Spain is 97 not 99
The book is available on google books.Information is on page 77.Type in Google search books "IQ and the Wealth of Nations Spain 97" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Check01 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

IQ
People with 'IQ's below 70 are generally classified as mentally retarded, I am going to correct this article. thanks. Dwilso 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to suggest that the effects of famine are not real, here, and now? This is not offensive at all, rather, it is people such as yourself who jump straight to the wrong conclusions, who are so offensive. Ignoring the devastating effects of famine on these nations and on the health - mental and physical - of the people who live in them will NOT make those problems go away, and will more likely than not make those problems worse. If you wish to help, perhaps you should focus on making the cause of lower IQs in these cases - that is most likely, childhood malnutrition - better understood! Zaphraud (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

...It is generally agreed...
There is following sentence in the article: "It is generally agreed many factors, including environment, culture, demographics, wealth, pollution, and educational opportunities, affect measured IQ."

I think it needs a citation. Generally agreed where and by whom? 82.181.231.31 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For starters, one could cite the very authoritative APA statement on intelligence: Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, right here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lacking
Hello. I believe I may have said this before (perhaps in the less productive environment of R&I) but there is rarely any mention of genetics in modern theories of economic growth. I say rarely to not set myself to prove a negative, but at least I have never seen theories that rely on racial differences to explain income differences; and this is not because economists are shy. To those more familiar with this book, is there any statistical or econometric critique of it? Or was this book so irrelevant that few bothered to invalidate its claims? If you clicked on shy, note that many economists argue counter to Summer's claims, my point was that the discipline is not "PC". Thanks for any leads. Brusegadi (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrections in table
Can someone please correct the IQ's in the table as per the original source? It looks like someone vandalized the table and the figures was never reverted. We may want to link National IQ to IQ and Global Inequality for the most recent (2006) values. Does anyone agree? Nirvana888 (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we should have the original values as they were in the book, otherwise the tabel is pointless.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Randrake, the reason why I suggested this was because the new values are actually published in a new book (2006) by the same authors and National IQ currently links to the 2002 values. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that the author published a corrected data set in a new book. However, that's a different book, and we shouldn't be linking to the other book. However, if the corrected values had been published in a new version of the book, instead of a different book, I wouldn't object. This may sound like a technicality to you, but it's actually an important distinction.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was not suggesting that we link this article to that article. That would be illogical since they are different books and thus I fully agree the distinction should remain. Instead, I was proposing that we link Ranking of National IQ which currently leads to this page to the page with the corrected values. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The IQ values have been completely corrected and reordered to the original source. Please do not vandalize or change the values or countries again. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

HOW OFFENSIVE
WHY IS IT AFRICAN COUNTRIES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE...THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, IT IS RIDICULOUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.20.46 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Its like that because the people who take the tests there score that... but, this chart has to be old, because I just looked up national IQ score for US and it sayed 110.... and last year it sayed 109, so there must be people just throwing numbers in the chart or its old..--68.94.98.167 (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sayed!??!?!?! are you sure - you must be one of the many Americans with a sub 100 IQ score - for your information it's SAID —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.189.53 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Errm, because that's how African countries scored in tests? It is not Wikipedia's policy to remove verifiable data just because it offends you. Also bear in mind that this data does NOT imply that Africans are inherently stupid. All it means is that they do badly on IQ tests, for a whole range of different reasons such as malnutrition and poor education. -- Cambrasa  confab  09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No discussion of confounds?
Surely, someone must have written about it in the scientific literature. If IQ is associated with education and nutrition, and wealth is required for good education and good nutrition, then the association between IQ and wealth may be mediated by other factors. It's not a causative relationship necessarily. 201.217.109.37 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Much Needed (and OBVIOUS) Criticism
Here is some criticism :

Introduction
1)“RE : IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1]” >Perhaps it would be wise to emphasise that neither of them seem to have obtained any qualifications in the mathematical sciences. Of course, they may have taken modules in certain mathematical sciences – however, this does not necessarily translate into a sufficiently technical understanding of statistics as to ensure that their academic opinions are valid.   2)RE : “The authors interpret this correlation as showing that IQ is one important factor contributing to differences in ‘national wealth’ and ‘rates of economic growth’,” >These terms are essentially politicised and are quite subjective or beyond the analysis of science (for example, some notions of inflation do take into account housing prices, others don’t – meaning that the notions of wealth and economic growth have a large subjective component to their analysis
 * ConcernedScientist 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of statistics
Finding correlation of A, IQ, and B ,Wealth, does not necessary imply A is the cause of B, B can be the cause of A too, and they could both be the result of an unknow fact C. Or they both be the cause and consequence of each other. In this case, the relationship of IQ and wealth are more likely to fit the last model, that is they influence each other. Poor wealth can cause poor education, therefore poor IQ level.

Plus there is one major statistical flaw, the wealth and IQ of Chinese do not fit in the correlation, people in China has very high IQ but very low average wealth level. This group of 'outlier' count for 20% of world population. How can people possible have 20% of sample to be outliers? The arbitray down ajustment of Chinese for 6 points is another flaw, the adjustment is actually not arbitrary, the author do it on purpose, he want to make sure north european nation list before China so 6 was chosen, it would reinforce his hidden argument that european desendents are more intelligent so they deserve the wealth.

This book is nothing but a propoganda material of racial discrimination. Shame on you Richard Lynn, do you forget the colonization from which some groups of people build huge amount of wealth and other groups lost it?
 * unsigned post by User:Loveworldlovepeace 03:49, 20 August 2008


 * Who written this needs to get rid of his victim mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.68.179 (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Source citing
There is a currently a disclaimer on this page saying the article cites no sources, there clearly are reference notes and also this article's primary subject is a published book which is widely available. Whoever put the disclaimer on the page was being mendacious and the disclaimer should be removed promptly. 78.152.249.134 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rankings
Based on each country's average IQ, it should be readily apparent to just about anyone that the numeric rankings are incorrect. For instance, Australia, Denmark, France, Mongolia, and the USA are all tied for 9th. The ranking system punishes countries based on alphabetization.

--67.181.165.220 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)43 year old American male, IQ 147
 * Agreed. I will change this myself when I have the time. Flamarial (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy
I recommend a Wikipedia editor to put the sign on top of the page stating the controversial nature of this page. This topic and especially the content by the authors of this book is at best a controversial personal opinion and hardly deserves a seperate page on Wikipedia. Imagine different racistic views having their own page here. This page and its notorious and presumptive table has already made its way into other websites while this is an unfair and relatively unchallenged personal opinion of two authors from an industrial country. I will get into this more later but the above suggestion should be taken seriously by the editors. Gmotamedi (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant since this article merely concerns the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Lynn and Vanhanen. The book itself is of course controversial and this has been already addressed in the article but the content of the article just cites the IQ table presented in the book and because of that, it isn't in any way controversial that such claims are presented in that work, is it? And concerning the notability of this research, I would like to say that mr. Lynn seems to be very prolific author of such works and such a controversial and debated publication should certainly have it's own article in Wikipedia. In any case, these so called racist views are just as noteworthy as any other views if they are notable enough since Wikipedia isn't censored in any way. 62.78.227.13 (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Iranian Average IQ is estimated to be <93.
According to statistics from Irib.com and farsnews the average IQ of Iranian people (note: iranian) is about 93. If there is any source or any information available that could prove that iranian peoples average IQ is 84 than please publish them here. I now some other sources that says iranian peoples average IQ is about 87 but then they count around 5 million refugees from Iraq, afghanistan and kurds. --Achemenidian (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I just read the articel about Richard Lynn. And according to that articel Richard never tested or got any information of the average IQ in Iran.

What he did was: "Based on the IQs of Neighbouring or Other Comparable Countries."

He took the IQ of Afghanistan which was 83 and then he gave Iran automatically the IQ 84 and India the IQ 81 based on the average IQ of Afghanistan. Isn't that ridiculuos?

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.243.64 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You read it backward. He gave Afghanistan 83 based on Iran's 84 and India's 81. There are numerous IQ test in India and the average is 81, according to Lynn, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.23.54 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I remove the October 2006 cleanup tag from section ==Related studies==. If someone wants to add it back I understand but please write a note so we know what need specifics need to be improved. RJFJR (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)