Talk:IQ classification/Archive 1

"Detailed IQ Chart"
I've removed the detailed IQ scale that was given on this page. It had no citation and so its accuracy could not be determined. Furthermore, it used rather unscientific terms such as "moron" and "idiot," which struck me as extremely offensive ways to describe severe mental retardation. I can't say I've seen them used in a psychology textbook published after 1950, either... Anyway, if I can find a detailed IQ scale from a reputable source and add it with the appropriate citation, I'll do so. -Elizabennet | talk 15:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Percentages
Intelligence Interval      Cognitive Designation 40 - 54 Severely challenged (Less than 1% of test takers) 55 - 69 Challenged (2.3% of test takers) 70 - 84 Below average 85 - 114 Average (68% of test takers) 115 - 129 Above average 130 - 144 Gifted (2.3% of test takers) 145 - 159 Genius (Less than 1% of test takers) 160 - 175 Extraordinary genius http://iqtest.com/faq.html#chart Should someone put them in?(LadyCakeage (talk))
 * Percentages would be useful, but we need a reliable source. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I Suggest deletion
Or completely revise and resubmit. The topic is vaguely important and may warrant its own page ( the classification of the severity of mental retardation is important ). But everything currently on the page is utter rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.61.205 (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Charts
Reference for the IQ scale: http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/About_GDC/newiqtests.htm
 * Above scale is for gifted CHILDREN, which IQ may range between 0 (brain dead) and 250 (absolute genius). The scale for adults (age 16 and above) is between 0 and 200, and if I remember correctly any IQ above 140 is only an estimated IQ, as it can't be measured correctly by tests. --79.183.120.127 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles with Medical Diagnosis Implications Should Meet WP:MEDRS Guidelines
I will propose this article for deletion. None of the content is either current or accurate, and it is a spam magnet besides. Correctly sourced information on this issue, if not already present, should be added to the articles such as Intelligence Quotient. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag. It appears to me that the issues you have can likely be addressed in a way that allows the article to be kept in an improved form. (To be clear, I won't cry if it isn't kept and anything useful dumped back in Intelligence Quotient; I mostly removed the tag because it does not seem "uncontroversially a deletion candidate", and as such the WP:Articles for deletion process should be used. If I could hazard a guess, your concern as far as medicine related guidelines has to do with the implications of a mental retardation diagnosis (whatever the terminology). While I consider this a valid concern, no one is going to die from this poorly sourced medical information if it stays in Wikipedia for a few more days while under discussion. I am, unfortunately, not well qualified to talk about the implications of IQ. However, would you (or whoever) consider it the article sufficiently improved if it was clarified that 1) these classifications are mostly of historical interest at this point and 2) that IQ alone is not considered sufficient to base a diagnonsis of mental retardation today (contrary to what the article now seems to suggest). It seems like both of these things would be good changes. (I hesitate to make them myself as I'm a non-expert and I'm guessing there may be experts around.) Or am I misreading your reasons for deletion? --CAVincent (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply here and the notice on my user talk page that you are discussing the issues with the article here. My concern with the article is actually more along the lines of its false statements about high IQ ranges. I am particularly familiar with the cited sources, having read one cover-to-cover and having referred to most of the others for my own professional research off-wiki about education of gifted children. Some families see the "information" in low-quality sources and draw misleading conclusions from that, and that kind of content shouldn't be copied into Wikipedia. I see from the above discussion on this article talk page that other readers have thought that this whole article should be deleted, and that way back on 30 June 2010 the link to the Intelligence Citations list was posted here to encourage other editors to check the facts. If an editor would like to source charts of names of IQ score ranges to a current, reliable source, my friendly suggestion would be to turn to for correct information, and some discussion of the imprecision of IQ estimates in chapter 5. If no one else reading this article talk page finds that interesting, it might be a lot more helpful to Wikipedia readers in general just to have an updated section on this issue in the Intelligence Quotient article that is redirected to from here, with this article changed to a redirect to that section. I'll make a bold edit in a while, if someone else doesn't first, to show what can be done with better sourcing. Thanks for your participation in the discussion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought about the issues related to gifted children, but I see the point of how this article could be quite misleading for those families. Between this and the concerns I mentioned above regarding low-range scores, and re-reading this article and finding little that is really helpful (and much that is dubiously sourced), I withdraw my objection to article deletion/redirect. --CAVincent (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC) To be clear, if you are willing to improve and save the article, that would also be cool. As I said, I'm just a dilettante on the subject, and hesitate to introduce material. --CAVincent (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My watchlist showed me your kind reply just as I was starting my bold edit. I decided to keep the article because it is considered the main article for one section of Intelligence quotient. You'll see the changes after they post. Thanks for checking in. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's getting high time to start the bold edit here. At first what readers will see is content being omitted, if it is poorly sourced, and then I will roll in better sourced content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting problems and sourcing problems in article
I see a recent set of edits has restored some content to this old article that was long very poorly sourced, and has reformatted the article (in how the charts fit with the text) in a way that is very user-unfriendly in my preferred Web browser. I'll check how the page looks in several other browsers as part of a process of doing a very extensive update of this page, which has long needed more editorial attention. In that process, I will delete some of the most recent edits, alas, but I welcome new editors and old to look up sources to improve this article and to discuss here what formatting will be most user-friendly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to fix the sourcing problems. Right now this article is very badly sourced, which means it is also quite inaccurate. I've just fixed one section, but I invite other Wikipedians to check recent, reliable sources and update this page some more. Perhaps all of the current sources will eventually have to be deleted, along with statements supported only by those sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see this article has become worse since I last looked at it closely. Again, I encourage fellow Wikipedians to use the reliable sources in the user bibliography mentioned in this talk page section to fix the article. It's getting about time to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of this page in my sandbox, for a WP:BEBOLD update of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Update on updating this article
Back in March 2013, I noticed that the article IQ reference chart has been tagged by another editor since October 2012 to draw expert attention to it (with very little editor activity since then). This article is at once a high-priority article for the Wikiproject Psychology, and a start class (low quality) article at the moment. I have been drafting an update of the article, with references to reliable sources, in the user sandbox attached to my user page, and I invite all of you to take a look at that. I will be doing more revisions soon. I think the best approach for this article (but I invite your possibly differing opinions) is to do a bold edit that completely replaces the current article text with a thorough revision once the revision is well drafted and thoroughly referenced. Please let me know what you think. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've begun cleaning up some of the statements in the current version of the article that have the least verifiability (that is, no verifiability) in reliable sources on this subject. I invite discussion of  reliable sources on human intelligence here on the article talk page, to prepare for a top-to-bottom revision and update of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll note that the great majority of reliable sources on the topic of this article refer to "IQ classification" as a distinct topic, so I think that is the way to think of the topic of this article. That might be a more suitable name for this article too, as the current name hardly fits an encyclopedia entry. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow the sources :-) It does sound quite more encyclopedic.--Garrondo (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I was beginning to wonder if anyone ever visits this talk page. I have in mind a few more article touch-up steps (referring to more sources), and some editor communication steps (visiting the talk pages of editors who have revised this article before), and then I should be ready to boldly commit the article updates in my user sandbox to the public-facing article. As before, all other involved editors are encouraged to suggest sources and to cite-check the sources that appear in the article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that you have also seen my many comments in your draft talkpage. The best thing you can do is to improve the article directly. Best way to attract activity (even if probably not much in an article as this one) is to edit live. Stop bothering about talking with so many people first and go for it. Edits bring editors better than anything else. --Garrondo (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this article needs to exist. It should just be merged with Intelligence quotient. BlackHades (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is well sourced and has some content that goes into a lot of detail that would not fit into the latter. Nevertheless it is true that would be great if a summary of thisarticle was included as a subsection with a Main article template in it in the intelligent quotient article. --Garrondo (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Intelligence quotient article has long used this article as a subarticle, with a wikilink there. I will go update the wikilink now. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedic topic for an article with this article's content is IQ classification, so I am proposing a move.
I've just invited every Wikipedian with a talk page who has edited this article over the last four years to visit this article talk page to discuss page updates. One other issue worth discussing is the name of the article. Most of the better sources refer to "IQ classification" as a general topic (often as a section name in a chapter about IQ testing), so I think that is the most fitting name for this encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. I'll be bold and see about getting that change done as soon as possible.

P.S. Here is the bibliography for a new version of the article, still in draft stage, to verify that terminology.



-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, does anyone have any other sources to suggest? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments
First of all: it surely is a huge improvement, so be bold and instead of working in your sandbox do it direcly in the article. This is specially good idea for non-controversial articles such as this one. I am sure that nobody will oppose your changes and you will receive quite more feedback.

Some minor points:


 * I will move a big part of the lead to an initial introductory section in the article, and summarize it in the lead per WP:lead


 * I do not feel the first table (individuals changing their IQ), is very encyclopedic or useful. I would eliminate it.


 * Tests with their own WP article should be internally linked


 * It is a bit weird to only have a quotation as the content of the low-IQ section


 * Second table in the body of the article is very redundant with the first one (Weschler and Weschler according to others). They should be combined.


 * You say: The Kaufman test scores "are clasified in a symmetrical, nonevaluative fashion.": I am sure that makes sense in the original source but unless it is further explained I have no idea about its meaning...

Proposals of ideas for further improvements
 * The article is quite list-type. I would try to include more relevant text. I do not know if each test gives some info in the manual regarding the functional implications of each classification. Similarly I feel the article lacks some comment on the predictive validity and daily living importance of such classifications. You might also found some critiques to such kind of classifications
 * Some comment on the statistical origin of each test classification (or in general of IQ punctuations: that they are normalized tests with mean 100 SD 15 if I remember correctly) might be interesting
 * Similarly to above: some data on percentiles of the population under each classification for the different tests might also be useful.

I could probably give further feedback, but now you have some to carry on. I would not give further comments until the article is moved to mainspace. Good job. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

--Garrondo (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the several detailed comments. I appreciate hearing a reader's perspective. The IQ classification article serves as a subarticle for Intelligence quotient and for a few of the articles about specific tests or about mental retardation and intellectual giftedness, so I'll try to perform updates in a way that fits into a web of facts useful for all the linked articles. I think I have at least two more major rounds of updating to do, as I am trying to be meticulous about sourcing each statement, and then I should be ready to commit a bold public-facing edit, for which your further comments will be very welcome. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have copied this comment (and the next one, below) from the talk page of the sandbox draft to this talk page for the actual article, to record suggestions that were made by other editors as the article update process continues. I think, as of today, I am a few days away from a top-to-bottom update of this article, taking into account the comments above and below from other editors about the sandbox draft as they saw it a few days ago at the end of May 2013. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

good work
Certainly better than current version. Feel free to replace any time. --Sigmundur (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughtful edit of this sandbox draft. You and Garrondo have both provided helpful reader's perspective on how the article looks in current draft form. I'll revise according to your suggestions, and continue to add source citations. I expect to iterate through two more major drafts, the first to incorporate your suggestions, and some tinkering of references along the way, and then to post as a bold replacement of the current article text. I appreciate your help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As just above, I have copied a comment that originally appeared on my sandbox draft of a rewrite of this article here, so that this article's talk page shows a more complete record of editor comments on the revision process. I expect to update this article in a few days based on these helpful editor suggestions, and also based on user comments recorded in the "rate this page" record for this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a psychologist...
I'm really curious to see the source for this chart... most of the IQ tests used by governments, and my hosptial, are capped at 148. If you answer every question correctly, your IQ is 148. This is a very standard test that is universally applied in North America. I think the chart displayed here is probably based off of some online gimmick IQ tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.205.252 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking generally specialized testing is involved at very high levels, i.e. above just answering everything correctly on a standardized test, that wouldn't really be useful for much governmental or medical uses.--CAVincent (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is there a reliably sourced statement that IQ test standard scores from any test have any demonstrated validity or reliability (in the technical senses of "validity" and "reliability" in testing theory) for scores above the highest scores reported in routine scoring for the currently normed, generally used tests such as the WISC-IV, SB5, WAIS-IV, or the current WJ or Kaufman tests? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * “The extended norms will ensure more accurate scoring for children who earn at least two scaled scores of 18 (99.6th percentile), and will especially help those who earn several 19s, with a a number of raw score points beyond the minimum needed to yield that highest scaled score. “--Gilman, B. (2008). Challenging highly gifted learners. pg. 12 Prufrock Pr. “The SBL-M remains unmatched in its breadth of procedures and is probably truer to the changing nature of cognitive-intellectual abilities over development than any test subsequently published. Its unique age-scale format and liberal discontinue rules enable testing to continue far beyond one's chronological age, thereby providing examinees with an opportunity to demonstrate considerably advanced competencies.”--Shavinina, L. V. (2009). International handbook on giftedness. pg. 965. Springer.  “Extended norms on both scales allow a better picture of the degree of asynchrony in highly, exceptionally, and profoundly gifted children”--Kerr, B. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent (Vol. 2). pg. 69. Sage Publications.
 * WISC-IV extended norms can test up to IQ 210 (SD 15). BlackHades (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been looking for independent reliable sources for medicine on the issue of those new scoring tables proposed by the publishers. I am aware of some of the advocacy group efforts (particularly through a subset of members of the National Association for Gifted Children) that resulted in the Wechsler and the Stanford-Binet recent versions publishing optional high-IQ classifications after publication of the main test manuals. I'm still digesting what the sources say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, did you realize that those three quoted statements have just two authors (both of whom are each other's colleagues at the same testing center), and both were directly involved in promoting concept of "extended norms" before any validation studies had been done on those? I am familiar with the prior literature on this subject. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which two is the same author? Also I'm not sure if I'm quite clear on exactly what you're asking for. Is it the question whether IQ tests are accurately detecting those that are above 4 standard deviations in IQ? Or the question what such high IQ is suppose to represent? In a Gaussian function, with over 7 billion people on Earth, mathematically there will be people that are 5 or 6 standard deviations above the median. Which a test that only measures up to 4 standard deviations wouldn't be able to accurately represent. In order to qualify for WISC-IV extended norms, one would have to at least get a raw score of 18 on WISC-IV. Although it seems those that score 18 on WISC-IV usually see little to no benefit from WISC-IV extended norms. The ones that truly benefit from WISC-IV extended norms would be people that repeatedly score 19 on WISC-IV. BlackHades (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't figured out that the only authors here are Gilman and Silverman, and everyone else named is an editor who didn't write the particular article? Gilman and Silverman have a lot of publications (mostly non-peer-reviewed conference papers) that repeatedly advocate the same position: that IQ tests that yield the highest possible numerical scores should be given to the clients of their center. Since this discussion resumed here on this article talk page, I have meanwhile been reading current reliable sources by more academic authors, who have some comments on the validity and comparability of IQ scores above 160 that I think will have a place in the article. At least one of those sources responds directly to at least one of the sources mentioned in this talk page discussion. Checking the authorship of chapters or articles in multi-author works is a first basic step in seeing just what the mainstream view is about a topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The SBL-M quote was a secondary source. The quote itself is from Wasserman and not Silverman. Silverman didn't write that passage. BlackHades (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternate IQ Charts
http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/Definition_of_IQ1.html

http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/Definition_of_IQ%27.html

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

174.22.13.242 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * These links are all very badly sourced, and have been for years. They are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Similiar criticisms have been made against the more official charts. That the lack of agreement on IQ standards undermines its reliability. The "Variance in individual IQ classification" admits that the official chart standards can easily change. Therefore, the official charts are just as unreliable as the 3 above links.

-- 174.22.13.242 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead section too academic? (and some other issues)
In my opinion, the lead section is not suitable for average, non-expert readers. There are very long sentences with many genitives ("of ... of ... of") and confusing wordings like "All IQ tests show variance in scores even for the same test-taker retested on the same test, and also variance in scores for the same test-taker among IQ tests from different publishers." It could be shortened down to something like "IQ tests tend to be non-reproducible, and lack a general consensus of what excercises they should contain". And, by the way, in order not to be biased this article should also mention the overall critisism of IQ testing.--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind suggestion. I'll do some rewriting with those issues in mind. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At the DYK discussion, you wrote that you would "rewrite the lede and eventually the whole article to make the readability more friendly for people from around the world who read English as a second language." When pointing out that this article seems quite "technical", I did not refer to problems for people with a lack of language skills. The point is that the article should be understandable for those who are not experts in psychology and the methodology of scientific studies. For example, in the Variance in individual IQ classification section one can currently read something like "A historical example is a group of young people (initial n=1,444 with n=643 in main study group)." I'm a physicist, so I at once understand what n=1,444 means. Others may not (especially not concerning the term "main study group"). It would be better to write something like "1,444 people participated in a study". Also, statements like "IQ scores are ordinal scores and are not expressed in an interval measurement unit" are not easy to get. I think this should be better explained.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the specific examples. I'm actually at a conference this week in which I have to give presentations on those issues to audiences of persons who don't usually read the psychological literature, so with your help and some help from the people here, I should be able to improve the readability of this article quite a bit. Indeed, my problem is that I'm so steeped in the psychology professional literature that I've lost my sense of what's clear to someone newer to the subject, but I'm in a perfect place this week for practicing my communication. I really appreciate your kind suggestions. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm back from the conference I was attending (speaking at), and now that I'm in my office again I will have time to do the simplifying rewrite. Hence I have removed the tag on the article. A conference participant, not a psychologist by occupation (and not, for that matter, a native speaker of English) provided many helpful suggestions for simplifying the language of the article, which will be my next project here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal
Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Table trouble
"Wechsler-Bellevue 1939 IQ classification" cited in the article contains a line range labeled "80-89" followed by a line range labeled "66-89." That's a typo, and apparently the right label is "66-79." Jessemckay (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Fixed. I'll check the source (which I have at hand) to see if that typo started here on Wikipedia or was in the original source. In any event, it's clear what correction to make, so I've made that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography for new version of article
Quite a few psychologists and consumers of IQ tests have advised me about drafts of a new version of this article that I've had in a user sandbox for a while, and it's getting to be time to post the new version. The bibliography here includes the sources I've cited in the article so far. I have more sources at hand for further verification and expansion of the article. I invite all of you to dig into the best reliable sources you can find, in the interest of making sure this is a reliable, helpful article.



-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a more complete bibliography for various articles on Wikipedia in user space at Intelligence Citations. This should be helpful for verifying this and other articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternate IQ Charts
The "Variance in individual IQ classification" admits that the official chart standards can easily change. Therefore, the official charts are just as unreliable as the 3 below links.


 * http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/Definition_of_IQ1.html
 * http://hiqnews.megafoundation.org/Definition_of_IQ%27.html
 * http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

174.22.13.31 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The links you mention have nothing to do with this article (this talk page is about editing this article, and that's all it's about), because the article, as all Wikipedia articles should be, is based strictly on reliable sources, and indeed here strictly on  reliable sources on medicine. Random webpages on the Internet (which in these cases appear to crib from other websites, perhaps including Wikipedia) have none of the reliability of professionally edited review articles and textbooks and practitioner's handbooks. You will enjoy applying your IQ to reading up about topics like these in the collection of a good university library, which is where the reliable sources are to be found. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh?
dont undestand nuthing :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.10.184 (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

After the helpful 2014 GA review, more edits to follow to try for FA
This article now gains more than 1 million page views per year, and since the good article review provided some helpful suggestions for further refinements of the article, and I've meanwhile gained access to even more reliable sources, I'll begin tinkering again to bring this article up to featured article quality. Feel free to let me know your kind suggestions any time you visit this article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why run a section wikilink through a redirect on the way to its destination?
See IQ classification edit history. Why introduced a redirect on the way to a reader gaining the section-linked information? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken: "Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page." Fgnievinski (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the direct link to a section of the editing guideline. ☺ I'll ponder the pro-and-con rationales listed there for different cases. This helps me see where you were coming from with the last few edits. I have a lot of occasion to link to the article section for which you and I are both attempting to provide wikilinks, which is why I appreciate your efforts to do that in the best way possible and your reply here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Cattell scale.
Why is there no discussion here, or entry in the main text, relating to the Cattell scale? While its different values for deviation from the mean (by 24 instead of the 15 for Wechsler or Stanford-Binet), is it really too contentious to even get a mention? I contend that anyone who omitted it for this reason is being silly, because an article like this is exactly where many people might go to get some insight or information about this. There is nothing here, a basic string search for 'Cattell' on either page draws a total blank, so this matter is not complete unless this is resolved somehow. There is a Wikipedia page for the Cattell III 'Culture Fair' test, but no sign of linkage with this article, which is odd after so many years of opportunity to do it. 31.51.85.171 (talk) 03:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Where is there a reliable source about that scale? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 00:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

100% in IQ test equates to what?
When you take the test, there are so many questions to answer in a certain time. If you get them all correct and then age weight the score there is a finite maximum IQ that you can get. We took an IQ test at work (IT department with mostly computer science graduates) in our team and the scores went from 122 to 138. The maximum possible is around 144. So where do these IQ's of up to 300 come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.28.227 (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As the sources for this article make reasonably clear, but perhaps this needs to be emphasized in the article more, IQ's of up to 300 are baloney, and are not validated scores, certainly not scores that are comparable to scores in the range that includes the majority of the population. Thanks for bringing up this issue for future revisions of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 17:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Who would like to help improve this article to a featured article?
This article has been a good article for a while, and meanwhile I have been gathering even more sources about the article topic. Who would like to join in on an effort to improve this article to featured article status? There should be some images that could be added to the article consistent with copyright and with Wikipedia's image policies that would make the article even more interesting and informative to readers, among other aspects of the article that could be improved. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IQ classification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407100036/http://www.psych.umn.edu/faculty/waller/classes/FA2010/Readings/Spearman1904.pdf to http://www.psych.umn.edu/faculty/waller/classes/FA2010/Readings/Spearman1904.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A key question.
Where is the formula or table that converts IQ 100 to raw scores for each age group? I suppose that a standard raw score increases with age up to the age of 16, and is constant up to 60, and then starts to decline. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Every test has conversion tables either in print or software. The conversion is the other way around: raw scores to IQ (or "standard score" for some subscales). Average raw scores do increase with age but not necessarily evenly. Some tests include different subtests at different age groups, so there is no clear pattern of increase in raw scores. The statistics that convert to IQ adjust for this so that the average IQ is always 100 for each age. These technicalities are too advanced for general discussion on a Wikipedia talk page. I should also comment that talk pages are for improving articles, not general discussion of the topic, although I'm sure you ask these questions in good faith. Sundayclose (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But my questions are absolutely fundamental to understand what IQ really is. And I do want to improve the article. You wrote about "too advanced technicalities". But what is complex in a ' between '? It would be easy to understand even for 8-year-old children. After all, they all take tests in school and surely understand what the word "score" means, let alone "age".


 * PS. I understand that my questions are uncomfortable for professional psychologists which want to be real scientists or at least to be perceived as such. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your questions don't make me uncomfortable; I've been a university professor, psychologist, and physician for decades; I deal with technical questions and challenges on a daily basis. By "too advanced" I refer to the statistics to create the conversion tables, not the simple process of looking at a table. If you want to improve the article, tell us specifically what is not addressed with reliable sources in the article. If you want the entire process of test construction and psychometrics in the article, that is not within the scope of this encyclopedia article since there are many books and journal articles devoted to the process. You won't find it in any broad-spectrum encyclopedia such as Britannica. You certainly can learn about these statistical and psychometric issues either in university courses or on your own with the right sources. But Wikipedia is not the place to try to teach statistics. I don't want to judge your intentions, so no comment about your statement "want to be real scientists or at least be perceived as such" except to say that if you want to critique the field of psychology, the best place to do that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, but again keep in mind every post should relate to improving articles (with reliable sources), not a place to express your personal likes or dislikes. But again, I am assuming good faith on your part. All the best.

Fishing and the Murray Clause
The section on Low IQ contains this perplexing statement: "the clause was originally coined to protect Jackson Murray whose IQ was 57 but due to his fishing accomplishments, he avoided capital punishment". Does anyone know of a relationship between Murray's recreation and his ineligibility for execution? If anything, being a skilled angler would presumably tend to increase his perceived intelligence and thus his eligibility for capital punishment, unless there is something about fishing that is itself protective. Could it be that hanging judges all have a common psychological bent that accounts for both their homicidal tendencies and inclines them to treat fishermen more leniently? And I'll stop there... Pootle (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Richard Feynman and IQ
The idea that Feynman actually scored a 125 on an IQ test of some kind is ridiculous on the face of it. Yes, I know that the man himself liked to tell the story, but I can only assume that he was having his usual iconoclastic fun in doing so. The man who taught himself calculus by age 15 was in the high gifted range, to be sure, and those who accept the story on face value are flunking one of life's little IQ tests themselves. The fact that his biographer accepted it says more about the leftist antipathy to intelligence testing than it does about Feynman. Of course, I can't prove that he didn't actually get such a score on a test, but if he did, it would have been as a prankk - the kid knew what he could do. MarkinBoston (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well back then (when was it?) the tests where not made to exclude certain biases, so it could be true and if he did poorly on the general knowledge, word meaning, spelling, perception, puzzle etc parts, he could get a lower score! Thats why these days they are all on logic puzzles, pure intelligence without he effect or memory, general knowledge etc!--Femanistfantasical (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)