Talk:Intelligence quotient/Archive 8

Snyderman and Roth 1988
Jytdog removed my citation of Snyderman and Roth's book length survey of public and researcher opinion. It's still the best and most recent such survey as far as I know. There is a researcher survey from 2013, but I don't know any later surveys of public opinion, so I cited the one I do know. I've put it back. Jytdog can you please explain why you don't want to cite a relevant book? --Deleet (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Two refs were added in this dif; a recent review and a book from 1988. Per WP:MEDDATE and just common sense, a book that is almost 30 years old has little to bring to contemporary discussions of IQ.  So I removed it noting that we don't need refs that old.  Neuroscience/psych have not stood still.   User:Deleet who had originally added it, restored it with the note "yes we do".  Anyway, opening discussion here so third parties can weigh in. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A 30 (28 by book date) year old survey is still the most recent such survey as far as I know. I searched on Scholar and could not find any newer study. I think we should use the latest source available. I don't think public opinion has changed too much on this topic since then, but hard to know without a newer survey. (I work in this field.) IMO this is a pretty minor thing to argue about. In general better to cite more stuff than less stuff. Or we could just add a note that the latest study of public opinion on IQ is from 1988. --Deleet (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your claims about the work you do in the RW are not relevant. I could claim to have authored the book. We don't use sources that old as I said.  and we don't base science-based articles on "public opinion".  But we will see what others say as i noted above.  Please be patient and wait for others to weigh in.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We have discussed this highly problematic study at length in the R&I case and consensus has been that it is a study that is of primarily historical interest, and which has problems that makes it unreasonable to use as a neutral source. It is misleading and should not be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the discussion? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligence quotient. 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/20070319031706/http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20020205.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20020205.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228024747/http://www2.psych.purdue.edu/~phs/pdf/81.pdf to http://www2.psych.purdue.edu/~phs/pdf/81.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) 12:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 GWAS study identifying genes linked to intelligence
Content about the subject above was added here. This is a recent, primary source and is "hot news". This is the kind of thing where we should definitely wait for reviews that validate the study, per WP:MEDREV. As to why, see for example this (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out) followed by this - and we now have a whole article on the shebangle, here. We have no deadline here, and we don't do cutting edge here. -- Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Query about use of word "historically"
I wish to query why the sentences offering the standard definition of Intelligence Quotient (Mental Age x Chronological Age x 100) begin with the word "Historically". Vorbee (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Tests are now set up for age ranges for children and normalized against other children. See Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children for instance. Dmcq (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

IQ and Controversy
This page does little to reference the controversy sorrounding the topic!

Jensen, Arthur R. "The current status of the IQ controversy." Australian Psychologist 13.1 (1978): 7-27.

223.24.101.119 (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully argue that far more emphasis is needed on the controversy. 223.24.101.119 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are loads of bits about criticisms in the article and references to sub-articles where one can read more. Jensen is cited numerous times for different things he has written, most of them much later. You can read more about the history of the controversy at History of the race and intelligence controversy, which is also referenced in this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The conception of an intelligence metric would be controversial in a sane society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I also think there can be more around the controversy; more information about how IQ has been used (and misused) throughout history could highlight its contentious nature. I included bits of this under the subheading of 'United States military selection in World War I', but more is needed under the larger History section. Oneironautics (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There DEFINITELY needs to be a LOT more information in this article, regarding the bias inherent in IQ tests in general.

After Gould’s criticism is noted (with far too little mention of the reams of evidence presented in “The Mismeasure of Man”, and almost no listing of the points with which Gould argues this bias), two separate criticisms of Gould are given considerable space in this article. Where are the supporters of Gould? It is extremely easy for a PSYC academic to locate articles and other statements of considerable reliable, valid support for Gould and his book.

As well, this article devotes quite a bit of space to the assertions that IQ tests are reliable and valid. What is sorely lacking in this article is the vast amount of data demonstrating the inherent bias of IQ tests. When bias is mentioned, the validity of claims of bias is almost entirely obliterated by assertions (as if fact) that bias has been proven to not be inherent to IQ tests. This is EXTREMELY disingenuous; there are decades of data demonstrating the bias inherent to IQ tests. This is just one example of this article’s stating assertions and assumptions as fact. The average person accessing this article believes the “fact”; few have the background necessary to see through the veneer. Pigletbunny (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources handy? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Omissions
"Musical training in childhood has been found to correlate with higher than average IQ." The article states the average is 100 but what's the median?

"A study of the relationship between US county-level IQ and US county-level crime rates found that higher average IQs were associated with lower levels of property crime, burglary, larceny rate, motor vehicle theft, violent crime, robbery, and aggravated assault." What about other crimes, speeding, embezzlement, fraud, tax avoidance, corporate negligence, medical malpractice. Why not mention that these increase with intelligence? 87.102.44.18 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * DO you have a source for that last correlation? I would love to see it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They're crimes where the prior distribution of the relevant population is higher than average. Dmcq (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

GPS-genome-wide polygenic scores
Should GPS be discussed here? genome-wide polygenic scores in The Times and the The Guardian--ClemRutter (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They have their own article already: polygenic score. Deleet (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Music sourcing
Is there a better source for this claim in the music section? At the very least I wonder if our wording should be improved as it's IMO really confusing at the moment. As should be obvious to anyone familiar with the subject matter, if there is an increase in tests scores this is by many definitions an increase in IQ since we have no clear agreement on what IQ is other than what the test measures. Looking at the source (the paper not the abstract), they mentioned Of these, the statistically significant point, especially when combined with the inter-test variation seems to be of main relevance. We could also mention the single task thing although it doesn't negate the wider issue i.e. if there were a statistically significant increase then this is an increase in IQ even if only temporary and only because of one test. I don't see that "is not related to IQ-increase" properly reflects the source, the closest in the paper is which relates to the earlier issue of single task, but is different from saying there is no IQ increase. Because they found the increase was not statistically significant, they are saying there was no increase but because they are saying it hasn't been demonstrated which isn't really what our article is saying. I'd note there is also a reply by one of the authors of the paper cited disagreeing with a number of the points [//www.nature.com/articles/23614]. IMO if we are going to make such definitive claims as we do at the moment we need better sourcing. Nil Einne (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Are IQ Tests in the Workplace "Illegal"?
Just watched a Jordan Peterson video and he said something to the effect that it is illegal for employers to use IQ tests in the workplace. Not sure if it was in the context of hiring, or for advancement, or what. Came here to see if I could find some mention of this, and could not. Seems very noteworthy if true.2605:6000:6947:AB00:1D9B:AE9C:E37E:9175 (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is illegal in many countries for companies to have tests which are unrelated to performance in the job. One might have to show that an IQ test was relevant. It would be quite relevant for instance if the job required some thinking or initiative and there was no specific skills tests, so in that sort of circumstances using an IQ test would be legal and might well be the sensible sort of thing to do. Dmcq (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Caveat - Wikipedia cannot give legal advice. That is just what someone on the net sat said and On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Dmcq (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How do IQ tests work?
Originally IQ was defined as the ratio of intellectual age to chronological age. Intellectual age was presumably defined as the age at which half the children had attained a given set of mental abilities. But now we don't use that definition of IQ, and IQ is now just an ordinal scale (as explained in our article). So how is it actually measured? One paper I have looked at simply took tne number of correct answers on a test (out of 75) and normalized this so that the average would be 100 and the standard deviation 15. Is this the normal practice? And how is the test constructed? Is it just a collection of questions of similar difficulty in different realms? Or are the questions deliberately spread out in difficulty, so that the least intelligent children can answer a few and the most intelligent can answer almost all? The distribution of IQ will depend on such things. Do different IQ tests give the same distribution? If so, this must be by design. These points should be addressed in our article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you're mixing up IQ and intelligence. Intelligence is a more general subject and different people have different ideas about it. IQ is a fairly well standardized scale now with various restrictions on it which makes the various tests pretty much compatible in the circumstances where they are normally applied. Any additions should be about IQ not for instance general intelligence. Dmcq (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, how have they standardized it? You can compare two people and figure out with enough testing which one is more intelligent (generally intelligent), but how do you make that into a numerical scale? Could be that as IQ tests were devised they were tested (that is, the tests were tested) against older tests to see whether they gave the same results for the same people, and this established a sort of standard, though arbitrary, IQ scale. But I doubt that tests were tested like that, on the same subjects. One could also just check that they gave the same distribution as older tests, but I don't think that was done either, because the article I reference above seems to say that they are the first people to check whether IQ is normally distributed! I have noted, since writing the above, that there's a whole field of study called Item response theory which has to do with using questions (or other "items") in an efficient way to measure something like intelligence. But that doesn't answer the question of how one assigns numbers to the points along the continuum of intelligencde. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

How do IQ tests work?
Originally IQ was defined as the ratio of intellectual age to chronological age. Intellectual age was presumably defined as the age at which half the children had attained a given set of mental abilities. But now we don't use that definition of IQ, and IQ is now just an ordinal scale (as explained in our article). So how is it actually measured? One paper I have looked at simply took tne number of correct answers on a test (out of 75) and normalized this so that the average would be 100 and the standard deviation 15. Is this the normal practice? And how is the test constructed? Is it just a collection of questions of similar difficulty in different realms? Or are the questions deliberately spread out in difficulty, so that the least intelligent children can answer a few and the most intelligent can answer almost all? The distribution of IQ will depend on such things. Do different IQ tests give the same distribution? If so, this must be by design. These points should be addressed in our article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you're mixing up IQ and intelligence. Intelligence is a more general subject and different people have different ideas about it. IQ is a fairly well standardized scale now with various restrictions on it which makes the various tests pretty much compatible in the circumstances where they are normally applied. Any additions should be about IQ not for instance general intelligence. Dmcq (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, how have they standardized it? You can compare two people and figure out with enough testing which one is more intelligent (generally intelligent), but how do you make that into a numerical scale? Could be that as IQ tests were devised they were tested (that is, the tests were tested) against older tests to see whether they gave the same results for the same people, and this established a sort of standard, though arbitrary, IQ scale. But I doubt that tests were tested like that, on the same subjects. One could also just check that they gave the same distribution as older tests, but I don't think that was done either, because the article I reference above seems to say that they are the first people to check whether IQ is normally distributed! I have noted, since writing the above, that there's a whole field of study called Item response theory which has to do with using questions (or other "items") in an efficient way to measure something like intelligence. But that doesn't answer the question of how one assigns numbers to the points along the continuum of intelligencde. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Insufficent citation for new text
The new sections put in by edit Have citations which do not identify with any precision what they are based on. They also read to me like a persons own views rather than a fair summary of anything I can actually see of the sources though I have not read them through thoroughly. In short they seem iffy to me, if someone with more knowledge of the area than me could have a better look and either fix the citations or remove them I think that would be very good. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Intelligence quotient
 * Intelligence quotient
 * They are presented as certain people's views, which is why the text uses WP:In-text attribution. I view the content as WP:Undue weight. It could be trimmed, but two sections devoted to these people's views? Undue. Should either be trimmed and integrated into the article without additional subheadings or removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Extreme scores
I've noticed that the article does not mention the problem of measuring extreme (both high and low, but notably high) scores accurately and reliably. (Compare here, for example.) While it is an issue that, in theory, concerns only few people, it is somewhat more widespread because claims of extreme IQs well above 160 can be found with some regularity, and they are rarely challenged. Our readers should be informed that these claims need to me taken with a shipload of salt, and most of these people are likely bullshitters – some may actually be very smart, but there's no way to be sure how high exactly they might score, and it probably doesn't really matter away. Also, for example, when lists of estimates of the IQs of historical personalities suggest extremely high scores on a regular basis, these estimates should be dismissed as even more fanciful than they should be otherwise. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"IQ by country" figure is useless
I have no clue how to edit wikipedia properly, so please bear with me. The figure "IQ by country" in the "Race and Intelligence" section is useless. It is missing a legend for the colors shown on the map. What does red indicate? What does blue indicate? What does purple indicate? 69.1.51.72 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

IQ calculation
if IQ is mental age divided by chronological age, then the average adult would lose points each year as their chronological age increases; we don't have a test that is 5% easier for a 41 year old person vs a 40 year old person. Brucefhyman (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of an edit

 * Eric Kvaalen, do try to stick to WP:Secondary and tertiary sources rather than WP:Primary sources, especially for topics like this. And do refrain from WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to your reversion of my two edits to this article as well as your reversion of my edit of Sex differences in intelligence.


 * First of all, you reverted everything I did, including fixing up the English of a poorly written paragraph! The next part I edited was the paragraph saying that IQ is an ordinal scale. I put the important points from the quotes that were in the references and put them in the text, where readers can profit from them, as follows:
 * IQ scales are ordinally scaled — there are no true "units" of intellectual ability. IQ scores can be used to order people according to their intelligence, but one cannot say that the difference betwwen 100 and 110 is the same as, say, the difference between 110 and 120.  Being an ordinal scale, statistics such as average, standard deviation and mode are not valid, though median is. While one standard deviation is 15 points, and two SDs are 30 points, and so on, this does not imply that mental ability is linearly related to IQ, such that IQ 50 means half the cognitive ability of IQ 100. In particular, IQ points are not percentage points.


 * Your objection to this seems to be that it is "editorializing". I don't see why you say that. Please consult the quotes below in the references as to whether I have correctly summarized them. I then added this:
 * "Nevertheless,studies have been done on the form of the distribution of IQ scores as determined by a particular test. One such study on Scottish children of the 1930s and 1940s found that the distribution though unimodal was not at all Gaussian (or 'normal'), but could be modeled as the sum of a large Gaussian centred on IQ 105 plus a smaller Gaussian centred around 78. Slightly more than 50% of the children had a score above the average of 100."
 * I have no idea why you thought that was unacceptable. Later, in my second edit, I added this:
 * "There is a greater spread in IQ among boys than among girls. A 2008 study analyzed intelligence test results from practically all 11-year-olds in Scotland in 1932 and in 1947. It found that there were about twice as many boys as girls at both the lowest levels and the highest levels. As a case in pint, of the 87,498 children tested in 1932, five boys answered correctly all but one or two of the 75 items in the test, whereas only one girl managed this. The significance of the greater spread of IQ among males as an explanation for the greater number of male academics has been debated, but the authors point out that this cannot be the whole explanation for the preponderance of males in academic positions in mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering where the ratio is between 7 to 1 and 14 to 1."


 * Here your objection seems to be that I'm using a "primary source". There's nothing wrong with using a research article like the one I cite. In fact, there are many articles cited in our article that are similar, and by these same authors. It is well known (as my reference explains) that IQs are more spread out for boys than for girls. All I did was to find a very good reference for this. As explained in the reference, the data from Scotland are better than other studies because practically all the children were included. Your edit comment when reverting the similar paragraph which I wrote in Sex differences in intelligence was:
 * Eh? Why should we be including this material regarding very old research, especially given what the Historical perspectives section and WP:Secondary sources state, and why from Scotland? Definitely WP:Undue. See the talk page about adding primary study after primary study.
 * The research is fairly new, but they used old data because it was so comprehensive. Why do you accuse me of "adding primary study after primary study"? I only added one study.
 * I would like to hear from other editors. Do you agree that what I added is interesting, relevant, and well documented?
 * Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Eric Kvaalen, primary sources are an issue per what is stated in this section. After reading that section, do you not understand why we shouldn't be relying on primary sources? At least not heavily? Do you not understand why WP:Primary sources cautions against their use? How do you not see that "a study [that] analyzed intelligence test results from practically all 11-year-olds in Scotland in 1932 and in 1947" is WP:Undue weight? Why should this one study get a mention? I see what you stated above, but there are so many studies, and often with conflicting information, which allows editors to cherry pick what they like. This is a valid reason why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, and tertiary sources to a lesser extent. On Wikipedia, we don't include things because they are interesting. I didn't accuse you of adding "adding primary study after primary study." All I did was point you to a discussion about primary sources. And as for words like "nevertheless," it is WP:Editorializing. If the source uses the word nevertheless, we still shouldn't unless we put it in quotation marks. As for other wording you used, as long as it's an accurate summary of the sources, I don't have an issue with that. If it's the source exact words, those words should be in quotation marks, and with WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, I have stuck in a header "Discussion of an edit" before your first comment because it's off the subject of the section I started called "How do IQ tests work?" I also moved the comment of User:Dmcq up, because he seems to be responding to what I had written under "How do IQ tests work?". When I wrote my response to you I hadn't noticed his comment. I hope other people will respond to what I wrote on that.
 * I was unaware that there was any controversy about the spread of males being greater than that of females. Can you give some more information on that? In the discussion at Talk:Sex_differences_in_intelligence you quote a book from 2010, but I would like more information. I don't see how someone could find results that contradict the results of the study I cited, unless they were studying something other than general intelligence. In this Scottish exercise, which was done twice with an interval of 15 years, they got almost all the 11-year-olds to take a 75-question test. And both times, the boys were a bit more spread out than the girls. Those who got more than about 50 questions right were mostly boys, between about 25 and 50 questions right were mostly girls, and below that were mostly boys again. (Unfortunately the paper doesn't give the raw data, which they could have done because it consists of just 300 numbers, so I'm estimating by looking at their graph which shows the ratio of boys to girls as a function of "IQ". The "IQ" is just the test score normalized so as to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The graph for 1947 is not exactly the same as that for 1932 of course.)
 * One might argue that this was 11-year-olds, and doesn't apply to adults. But the paper cites a couple other studies showing the same thing for adults. In fact, it gives quite a long historical review of studies and thought on the question. They do mention a paper (from way back in 1936) that concluded that there was no consistent evidence for greater male variability. ("Though they observed that studies using samples of college students tended to show greater male variability, they recognized that such samples were not representative of the population. Overall, they concluded that there was no consistent evidence for greater male variability.") Is that what your 2010 book is referring to??
 * I actually started at a "secondary source", an article in New Scientist that says "There is also more variability in these measurements between men than between women – interesting because, although there is no overall difference in intelligence between the sexes, men tend to be over-represented at both ends of the intelligence spectrum." It gave the link which I followed to the article I cited. We could cite the New Scientist article, but I think it's much better to cite the Perspectives on Psychological Science article. There's no rule in Wikipedia against citing "primary sources". And the article is almost a review article, besides giving their analysis of the Scottish results.
 * Going back to the other parts of my edit, do you agree that the sentences I added after the sentence about IQ being an ordinal scale accurately reflect the quotes in the footnotes? I think these things should be said in the text, not just in footnotes, because they are important and most people probably wouldn't understand what it means to say that IQ is just an ordinal scale!
 * The reason I used the word "Nevertheless" is because talking about whether IQ is normally distributed or not goes directly against what was just said about it being an ordinal scale. Things like "average", "mode", and "standard deviation" are pretty much meaningless, and that's what the paragraph talks about. Maybe we should therefore leave the paragraph out completely, but it doesn't make sense to put it in without the word "nevertheless". I thought it was interesting that most people have an above average IQ! But you say we're not supposed to put interesting things into the article. So what do we put in??
 * Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the addition of the content, and I explained why above. You don't seem to understand what I am stating about WP:Primary sources and WP:Undue weight; so I don't see how continuing this discussion with you would help. I mean, you even stated: "You say we're not supposed to put interesting things into the article. So what do we put in??" What gave you the impression that Wikipedia articles are about putting in things that we personally find interesting? Yes, a Wikipedia article might be created because someone finds the article interesting, but WP:Notability determines whether the article should be created, and our rules determine what should be added to the article. If what we find interesting is compliant with those rules, okay then. Per WP:INTERESTING, we don't keep or delete an article because the topic is interesting. The same goes for what's in the article. No one said a thing about a policy against WP:Primary sources. That is not the point. The point is what WP:PSTS states, what WP:Undue weight states, and what I stated in the aforementioned linked discussion. We can ask for opinions from WP:WikiProject Neuroscience, WP:WikiProject Psychology, and WP:WikiProject Sociology and/or start a WP:RfC on the matter, but I will not be engaging in a lengthy debate with you on it. As for the "sentences [you] added after the sentence about IQ being an ordinal scale accurately reflect[ing] the quotes in the footnotes," I already commented on the matter. If it's accurate, it's accurate. If it's not, it's not. We can get other opinions on that as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All right, I will do a Request for Comment. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment
See above. What parts of my edit should be allowed? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

_____


 * Support for inclusion, but with usual caveats as to the necessity for caution and attribution in this area. -  As far as I can tell, the sourcing has been scrupulous, and the associated footnoted quotes with regard to the first paragraph help to establish that this is not WP:SYNTHESIS, but rather a series of sequential WP:Verified statements which map faithfully to what is being said in the sources. I understand Flyer's concerns on this of all articles, but these are not controversial statements in the science, and the sourcing is more than sufficient in my view. That goes also for the third paragraph, regarding apparent differences in distribution of IQs between the sexes (which should not under any circumstances be mistaken as a proxy for differences in IQs between the sexes in general): this study and effect is a fairly well known one, one which other analyses have claimed to replicate.


 * However, there is perhaps benefit in Flyer's concern, as we arguably should introduce any such evidence with more over attribution in the statements than presently exists in the proposed versions. That would, I hope, assuage concerns somewhat, while improving the transparency/educational effect of the content. After-all, when it comes to psychometrics, we are talking about the area of the cognitive sciences that has, as a historical matter, been the most impacted by chauvinistic bias (in terms of race and gender) to an extent that is greater than any other field that kept around.  I think in this context, it behooves us to mention exactly who is making a particular claim, and who made it first, even if later research seems to confirm it. Only highly basic and overwhelmingly accepted/non-contentious claims should appear in Wikipedia's voice here. Snow let's rap 07:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please summarize the dispute (ideally with reference to the actual edits or proposed changes) briefly in the RFC itself; asking people to read the entire fairly massive discussion above this seems unlikely to get many people weighing in, especially since the discussion starts with a comment that assumes familiarity with the dispute in question. --Aquillion (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have modified the article in response. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just saw the RfC (which came all this time after the August 2018 discussion), and I reverted. Snow Rise was the only one who gave an opinion on this. He stated "this study and effect is a fairly well known one, one which other analyses have claimed to replicate." It should be easy to add a secondary source for it then. Why are we relying on any primary sources/single studies? And especially from the 1930s or 40s? Synthesis? There is synthesis. Eric Kvaalen's addition states, "Nevertheless, studies have been done on the form of the distribution of IQ scores as determined by a particular test." His addition then goes on to cite a study on Scottish children of the 1930s and 1940s. That does not at all support "studies have been done on the form of the distribution of IQ scores as determined by a particular test." It's one study. Eric Kvaalen's addition states, "There is a greater spread in IQ among boys than among girls." His addition then goes on to cite a 2008 study that analyzed intelligence test results "from practically all 11-year-olds in Scotland in 1932 and in 1947." That does not at all support "there is a greater spread in IQ among boys than among girls." This is because it is not the type of source we should be using. These are the two additions I'm focused on. And considering the above RfC and what Aquillion stated about the summary, I might need to start another RfC on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Topics like this should follow what WP:SCHOLARSHIP states. Simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts:
 * First, yes, the action on the RfC responses to date was premature: usually RfCs run for a minimum of a month before action is taken, and even if it were called early for lack of participation and general agreement among the few !votes, it would still require at least a few more participants to claim a consensus.
 * As to the sourcing, while the sole source is primary [edit: I originally misstated here that it was secondary--it is in fact primary], but one which directly addresses the significance of this widely discussed effect. The source also has the benefit of expressly addressing why such an effect cannot account for the disparate participation levels between the genders in STEM fields, which is useful information for our readers, as consensus is that active and unfair bias is a big player in this arena, and here we can have a source which both discusses the effect in empirical terms, confirms (or at least proposes to confirm, which is why we attribute to it directly) the existence of that effect, and yet frames that evidence in a light that expressly rejects the conclusion that it can be held as an alternative explanation for women's low field representation, relative to men.
 * Primary sources are permissible in this context, as is indicated in both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SCHOLAR, where the statements are short and to the point, accurately reflect the conclusions of the study, and (as urged above) are clearly and fully attributed. In any event, as I noted before, this is nothing like a fringe claim: it's a well-documented phenomena (though far from universally accepted) in psychmometrics going back some ways, and while you and I may have some caveats in mind about such findings, ultimately our speculation would amount to original research; I have little doubt that the source presented here is WP:RS and do establish sufficient WP:WEIGHT for at least attributed reference. More so, even if you continue to battle it out with the OP over this matter, you can take my word for it that they are going to be able to find yet more sources, because you can find this tidbit of the field littered throughout the literature on the field. Psychometrics is not really my field (and I am a skeptic about some of its methodology), but I've nevertheless seen this effect referenced in the literature, in symposium materials, and at least one debate between public intellectuals in the field. So I'd just recommend not wasting energy on that fight, and instead focusing on exactly how the content is framed/phrased and attributed, so that it cannot be misconstrued (in addition to the issues described above) to suggest women don't reach the same peaks in terms of IQ.
 * On a last note, I would recommend not starting multiple competing RfCs--I would instead urge you two to collaborate on improving the wording of this one so that it clearly states the issues. Be sure to add a note that the RfC prompt has been reformed though, so my and Aquillion's comments still make sense in context. :)
 * I'll be off project for a few days, but when I get back I will be happy to assist in finding a middle ground solution on this issue: this does not strike me as a zero sum context we can speak to these findings without giving them undue weight or implying conclusions which are not found in the sources. Sno<b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 04:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Snow Rise, I do appreciate you weighing in. I think you know that I always appreciate you weighing in on a topic. I'm not looking to start an RfC on this. And, yes, it's about how the material is presented. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear that secondary sources are preferred and why. As currently seen on Eric Kvaalen's talk page, editors have tried to repeatedly guide him away from relying so much on primary sources, lower quality sources, dubious sources, and giving undue weight to them. Doc James has repeatedly tried. So when Eric Kvaalen doesn't yet have a good grasp on what sources are best to use and WP:Due weight, it's not ideal to tell him that using primary sources are fine as long as he sticks to what the sources state. My objection to the material that Eric Kvaalen is adding is not about my personal opinion. You know that it's never about that for me. Or I would think you would know that by now. You stated "[an] effect [that] is a fairly well known one," but without being clear what you mean. What parts of Eric Kvaalen's additions do you support? All of it? You stated, "'Support for inclusion, but with usual caveats as to the necessity for caution and attribution in this area." What pieces are you supporting? I didn't state that I object to all of Eric Kvaalen's changes. I asked, "Why are we relying on any primary sources/single studies? And especially from the 1930s or 40s?" Why should we add information on this old Scottish study? I fail to see how the Scottish children study is WP:Due weight. As for something like "There is a greater spread in IQ among boys than among girls.", Eric Kvaalen should use a better source for that. And there is no need to go into information about an old Scottish study just to relay that. You stated that "they are going to be able to find yet more sources." He should do that then. Better sources, not just more. It's been months, and he has not. I could look for him, but I prefer where WP:ONUS states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, : sorry for the delay in response; I was traveling this week for a professional obligation. Regarding your response, I agree that the WP:ONUS is on Eric to provide the justification. Personally I think that burden has been met, but since I don't doubt there are secondary sources out there discussing this topic (and also other studies and reviews), I don't see a problem with asking him to provide them before adding the content--and if I can find the time, I will do some of the leg work there myself, since I have access to databases that will facilitate that search. Indeed, I can think of at least one public debate about the extent and nature of sexual differentiation in neurophysiology/cognitive nuances (between eminent scholars) that mentions this effect, so I'll look for a recording of that while I am at it.


 * As to which part of Eric's additions that I support--as per my comments above, I actually think all three sections he proposes in the previous thread are adequately sourced and reasonably neutral. But I had the impression that at the moment we were only talking about the issue of the alleged differential in the spread of IQs between the genders, so that was the only issue my last post addressed. Needless to say, there is plenty more to unpack in those three paragraphs and their sources, so there's no reason to rush the content in: let's start with the current topic and find a version of the content that is agreeable to both of you (and adequately sourced) and then work our way backward through the other two paragraphs and their sources. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 05:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Snow Rise, no need to apologize. You did let me know that you would be "off project for a few days." I wasn't focused on the "differential in the spread of IQs between the genders" aspect. Well, not as focused on it as the Scottish stuff. But, yeah, it's something that should have better sourcing. And I still do not agree with the inclusion of the Scottish children detail. On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to it. I won't ping you either for the rest of this discussion unless you want me to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

____

Definition
A recent edit by User:82.197.189.197 changed the definition of IQ from: "An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence."

To: "Intelligence quotient (IQ) is a relative measure of a persons ability to reason in comparison to the same-aged population. It is usually derived from several standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence."

I fixed the grammar mistakes, but I'm not sure the definition is accurate, as I understand age is not adjusted when calculating the IQ from a normal distribution. Instead, the population covers all ages, which allows you to track normal development over time (measured as increasing IQ during developmental years). I also deleted the "usually" because I think that by definition the score is derived from a standardized test, otherwise it would have no purpose. Does anyone have an opinion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agucova (talk • contribs)


 * I reverted. It needs sourcing. Either version does. One can look on Google Books for sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest the former is much closer and more appropriate for the lede, as the latter presumes that g is real (which this article later addresses the dispute over). I'll look through the existing sources and see if I can find one with a clear definition to cite. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[ dubious – discuss] 04:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up Criticism and views section
Hi all, I've been doing a bunch of editing on this article and related topics in the past few days so do not want to overstep, but it seems to me that the Criticism and views section is rather messy. I'll be happy to apply what seems to me to be a judicious eye and try to reorganize it unless there is significant objection or someone else beats me to it. First, though, I'd like to invite comment from the community. How, in your view, can this section be improved? What are the key criticisms (and views)? Is "Criticisms and views" even the right heading? See in particular the essay WP:CRIT. Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for working on improving this article. Here are my comments/opinions on the section "Criticism and views", organized by subsection:


 * Criticism of IQ. I'd replace worthiness by value. The quote from The Mismeasure of Man reads badly, but I think it can be fixed by just deleting the first few words of the quote and starting it with "its quantification". The Jensen quote is too long. The first sentence (before "Well-known...") is sufficient. I'd suggest removing Eysenck entirely, since we don't want to give undue influence to fringe views and what he says makes no logical sense anyway (and Jews are not a race). In the following paragraph the word "persistent" doesn't belong.


 * Systematic exclusion of threshold effects. I'd delete systematic from the subsection title. I'd also cut out everything after the first two sentences (and split the first run-on sentence into two sentences, delete "are not gradually variable", and shorten the end of the second sentence to "at threshold numbers of connected neurons"). The rest of the long paragraph is barely comprehensible, too detailed, and gives too much coverage to one viewpoint.


 * Test bias. This section should start with the evidence of bias (the last sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph) and then go back and include the earlier material that raises doubts about test bias (but I'd delete Hunt's comment, which doesn't add anything). I'm also bothered by the apparent contradiction between the California court decision and the APA statement. Perhaps part of the explanation is that there's about 2 decades between them, and it's likely that the most obviously biased questions were usually weeded out once IQ test designers realized that they had to respond to the criticisms. So more recent tests might be much freer of obvious cultural biases than earlier ones.


 * Intermingling cultures and IQ classification fairness. I'd be tempted to remove this subsection entirely. It deals not with a general criticism of IQ but with how it's used to define retardation, and it's poorly written, mixing up different concepts in a way that the reader cannot easily decipher.


 * Outdated methodology. This has to be either explained (that is, expanded upon) or else deleted.


 * Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Much of this section can be omitted, but perhaps the first 2 sentences of the 3rd paragraph could be incorporated into the earlier discussion of the APA's views in the "Test bias" subsection. There should be a wikilink, since there's a whole article about the APA report, Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.


 * Dynamic assessment. How important is Vygotsky? This section probably is too long, and should be cut roughly in half, perhaps deemphasizing Vygotsky but keeping most of the 2nd paragraph.


 * These are just a layperson's comments; I have no specialized knowledge in this area. Thank you. NightHeron (talk)
 * IMO the section could be most improved by dispensing with it altogether, and distributing the content throughout the rest of the article. I don't think "criticism of IQ" is the right way to present it, as if IQ is something one can be "for" or "against" (like a political position), or something to be "praised" or "criticized" (like a film). I think this article should have two major parts: the first part covering the history of IQ that discusses its origins, how it's been used and abused in the past, how it's evolved over time; and the second part setting forth modern views on IQ and placing it in the context of other types of intelligence. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 03:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and Thank you both for these thoughtful suggestions. I agree on all counts. The only qualm I have with the suggestion of an overhaul of the whole article is that I wouldn't be comfortable doing it on my own. But I would be more than happy to contribute to a group effort toward that end. Generalrelative (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think a complete overhaul is needed. I still think a (much shorter) criticism section is appropriate, perhaps retitled Methodological criticisms. Certainly the "test bias" subsection could be moved to the main section that discusses the need to remove cultural and other bias (with that section retitled Test bias rather than Test bias or differential item functioning). That would also clarify the historical issue I raised that in the 1970s the California court found IQ tests to be biased, but the APA statement in the 1990s said they are not. In other words, early tests had problems that were later largely removed. I also suggested removing much of the criticism section that is undue or unclear. The section could explain (i) the objections to reification of intelligence (i.e., describing it by a single number) of Gould and others; (ii) the threshold objection, that is, that the scale is shoehorned into a bell curve; (iii) the dynamic assessment theory, which says that it's more meaningful to measure facility at improving mental ability rather than some supposedly fixed level of mental ability; and possibly (I'm not sure) (iv) the critique of Denny Borsboom in Measuring the Mind, but that would require more than the one throw-away sentence we have now. NightHeron (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I'm advocating going further than what NightHeron has laid out here, I agree with the changes NH has laid out. Overhauling the entire article would be a very large task; I can see it might be better to make more incremental changes, and revising the Criticism section (rather than dispensing with it altogether) seems like a good place to start. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 21:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done! Once I got going it became clear to me that it was easier to move appropriate content to other sections because almost everything worth saying had a place elsewhere. Obviously there may be disagreement about my choices so I tried to give detailed summaries along the way. Happy to revisit if anyone has opinions on how this could be further refined, or if my edits should be rolled back in any way. Thanks again for your suggestions! Generalrelative (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's much improved. Thank you for cleaning it up! Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Something is wrong here.
I don't thing that an average 50yo person scores better on the IQ tests than an average 25yo person. However, according to the formula, if a 50yo person obtains the same score as an average 25yo person then their IQ is 50, right? But IQ 50 means moderate mental retardation. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The original formula you refer to was the ratio of the "mental age" (in months) to the chronological age, multiplied by 100. An older person was expected to have a higher mental age than a younger person, as evidenced by responding to more test items correctly. Theoretically a person whose intelligence was exactly in the middle of the average range would have an IQ of 100 regardless of age. The formula had a lot of problems, however, because of the lack of precision in the test. Today the formula is a moot point as it is no longer used. As the article explains it has been replaced by the deviation IQ, which is much more sophisticated statistically and psychometrically. Sundayclose (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The deviation IQ is described in IQ classification, but I am still not satisfied. Anyway, thanks for your response :-) 85.193.228.103 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IQ is a specific number. IQ classification refers to ranges of IQ scores. Sundayclose (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2020 (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) 14:58, 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) 15:12, 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) 17:31, 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. Sundayclose (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A disputed phrase about eugenics
The phrase by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior was recently added to the definition of eugenics by an IP-editor and then reverted by User:Sundayclose as "unsourced". It's actually the identical phrasing to that in the Eugenics article (where a source is given for the phrase, although I'm not sure how accurately the source is being represented). I think that either the phrase should be restored here, or else it should be removed from Eugenics, so that we're consistent. NightHeron (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another editor has restored it with appropriate sourcing. Sundayclose (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks to you both. The source is indeed accurately represented. The citation (which I borrowed from Eugenics) helpfully quotes a passage on Galton's ideas of "positive and negative" forms of eugenics and notes that "the practice of eugenics referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia", which is precisely what the added clause refers to. Generalrelative (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I will be adding numerous references and bibliography entries.
Last year I began a major revision of a working paper project (begun in 2006, based on shorter research notes I began compiling as early as 1993) largely on this Wikipedia topic. As the talk page templates note, "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute." As a courtesy to the editors who have long been here, I will note that I will begin adding the dozens of books and articles I have at hand for my non-Wikipedia project (a literature review for popular audiences interested in the primary source literature on IQ testing) to this Wikipedia article. At first I will add books and articles from various points of view to the bibliography. Then I will add more references to verify the statements that have already long stood in the article. (I hope to add specific page numbers to both the references I add and the existing references that I am able to look up here.) At some length, I expect to expand sections with additional facts, perhaps add a few subsections, and from time to time do substantive edits under the NPOV principle, as the sources report various points of view. Thanks to all of you who have already worked on this very detailed article. I am lucky to have access to a very comprehensive academic library at which I have circulating privileges, so I am delighted to add some V and NPOV to various Wikipedia projects. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great job. I'm looking forward to reading your additions. Good luck to you! :)  Lova Falk     talk   08:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an update on that project. 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) 17:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have begun substantive edits to this article based on sources that other Wikipedians can check in the Intelligence Citations list. All of you are encouraged to suggest new sources for that list, which will be useful for editing quite a few articles on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As editor discussion of this article has renewed, I should remind new editors here about the Intelligence Citations bibliography in user space, which is due for another revision of its own. I look forward to digging deeply into the best reliable secondary sources and updating this article to Wikipedia good article status. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Really enjoying your article. Thanks from Dallas Edmund Teaford 1-7 facebook acct or (nick name Jim Teaford 2 facebook acct) APOLLOTHESUNGOD (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Nations and intelligence
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nations and intelligence. Generalrelative (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Heritability of IQ
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Heritability of IQ. Generalrelative (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Style of article is both revealing and problematic
Nearly every section of this article that mentions a study that could suggest that 'g' is anything other than a perfectly inherited single entity is met with a curt closing counter point.

The style of writing in almost the entire article is basically this: "DISCUSSION POINT: such and such replicable respected study found that certain factors appear to influence, to some degree, scores. CURT COUNTER POINT: This is wrong because another study which is not replicable done by persons historically invested in g-factor research said it was wrong. END OF DISCUSSION NEXT SECTION."

The problem with this style of writing, apart from what it obviously reveals to anyone with "social" intelligence and "critical reasoning", is that each study and point is presented with equal weight. Which is very interesting when one considers the main and mathematically strongest criticism laid at the feet of strong 'g' proponents, which is that by arbitrarily manipulating the weights of certain factors, without changing the factors, one can arrive at a desired conclusion quite easily.

This article does not read like an encyclopedia article, it reads as a posturing defense of theories that strongly support a 'g' model of human intelligence. A lay person, after reading this article would be better prepared to argue why a 'g' view of intelligence is the accurate view of human intelligence rather than explain what 'g' or and intelligence quotient actually is. 68.7.65.150 (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're raising an important point. Could you be specific about which passages are biased in favor of the claims for a reified 'g' factor and how you'd propose to fix those passages? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And since you claim that "nearly every section of this article that mentions a study that could suggest that 'g' is anything other than a perfectly inherited single entity is met with a curt closing counter point", we would need you to point out how each of the "other studies" used for the "curt closing counterpoint" is not reliable. I also would like to see your evidence that g is "perfectly inherited". We need a lot more than your opinions. We need reliably sourced evidence. Sundayclose (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't think the IP editor's comment is fully accurate, I do think there's room for cleanup. On a quick look through, some particular areas:
 * General factor (g) - Could use better sourcing and removal of WP:WEASEL use of "still accepted, in principle, by many". I'd also suggest we should move the three-level theory out of the 'g' section and leave it in the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory section where it belongs (which is well written, apart from perhaps odd wording and needing sourcing on the 'g was earlier often subdivided into only Gf and Gc...' sentence). If this is cleaned up, I'm not convinced a direct rebuttal is needed if the final paragraph is cleaned up to indicate that Spearman's g, as he defined it at the time, is somewhat antiquated. Basically, direct the reader to the following sections.
 * Reliability - ends with a critique of the scores (I updated this section, could use further improvement), and I think is reasonably fair.
 * Validity as a measure of intelligence - I think this section is the best example of the original comment, as the end of a long list of critiques about whether IQ measures intelligence is a single WP:WEASEL sentence, suggesting the test "generally" has "sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes". Which purposes? What exceptions to that general rule? Are any of them directly related to IQ's measurement of intelligence (g or its sub-components), or is this sentence better suited to the Reliability section? Is there more or less validity for aggregate use on a cohort than individuals? I'm tempted to just move that sentence to the previous section and improve it from there, if not removing it entirely.
 * Test bias or differential item functioning - Thoughts on moving this section underneath Reliability and validity and moving the "A 2005 study found that..." paragraph from the above section into this one?
 * Flynn effect - Any reason not to include a quick summary of the Flynn effect in the Reliability section with a wl to the main article?
 * Age - Suffers from some issues, IMO. Per the original comment, this is a section that reads clearly assuming that IQ = g. It's written that if IQ scores, despite all the variance issues listed in previous sections, can only exhibit age variance due to fluid/crystal intelligence. Which of course is silly, since IQ tautologically is normalized by setting 100 to the mean score for a given age. IMO, this section should describe the variance of IQ scores with age, not the variance of underlying general intelligence with age, but it currently reads as the latter. I also removed a 'however' which seemed to be trying to phrase the r correlates as 'good'. Should probably place meaningful context around these numbers, though. I'm an engineer that's reasonably comfortable with math and stats, but have no idea how to analyze these naked r-values.
 * Health - Two cn tags from 2012, and fitting the criteria of the original comment. As above, I think it's worth trimming down to how health affects scores and how IQ tests are used in cognitive epidemiology, then direct readers to those specific articles.
 * Crime - Wanted to point out this section as one that I found well balanced, and would suggest is a good example for the other sections. Shows historical links, but ends on modern critiques of causality.
 * Group-IQ or the collective intelligence factor c - Doesn't seem to fit this article, as there's no Collective Intelligence Quotient test that I can find linked here. Let the main article be linked to from the articles on g et al.
 * Group differences - Another section I think is written well, speaking specifically to IQ, not g while linking to articles where that association would be appropriate.
 * I made a handful of edits along my way. I think I'd like at least a little consensus (or at least, lack of disagreement) before I make some of the suggested changes. I also wouldn't claim to be qualified to make some of the edits. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be a super thoughtful agenda for improving the article. Specifically with regard to folding "Test bias or differential item functioning" and "Flynn effect" into the "Reliability and validity" section, I'd been thinking along similar lines when doing a round of edits a few months back but didn't want to rock the boat too much all at once. Same goes for getting rid of (or straightening out) the weasel language in "General factor (g)" and "Validity". Since you've come to similar conclusions, that may be a good indication that the changes are indeed warranted. Generalrelative (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I began some updates, starting with the history section. Mostly just removing duplicate information, actually. Even the weasel wording in the g section ended up being cited in the CHC section so that was nice and tidy. I also did the grouping of all the error sources, tagging the comments above which I can't easily remedy. I'm wondering if Sources of error or Accuracy and precision would perhaps be a better title for the section. On the other hand, I suppose reliability and validity generally are just being given more specific examples in the added sections. Also tagged the old health tags and removed group-IQ (the latter I recognize may be contentious). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks great. I'd tend to agree with your "on the other hand," that issues related to accuracy, precision and sources of error are best presented as specific examples under the heading of reliability and validity. Generalrelative (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Gould doesnt accept Iq tests!
"Some scientists have disputed the value of IQ as a measure of intelligence altogether. In The Mismeasure of Man (1981, expanded edition 1996), evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould compared IQ testing with the now-discredited practice of determining intelligence via craniometry, arguing that both are based on the fallacy of reification, “our tendency to convert abstract concepts into entities”.[84] Gould's argument sparked a great deal of debate,[85][86] and the book is listed as one of Discover Magazine's "25 Greatest Science Books of All Time".[87]"

His personal opinion is not of any value to the subject, and should be removed!Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Gould's argument was that IQ tests are not a valid measure of human intelligence broadly construed. This is entirely consistent with current scientific understanding. See for example the quote from Wayne Weiten in the same subsection: "IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable." Note that Weiten's statement is WP:RS/WP:TERTIARY because it is from a recent, respected textbook, not an individual study, and therefore can be taken as representative of the field. Generalrelative (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:G factor (psychometrics)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:G factor (psychometrics). Generalrelative (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"Online IQ Test Validity" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Online IQ Test Validity. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Buffalo8's addition
I suggest that discuss the statement they wish to add to the article here. That statement, as they've written it, is When averaging across all test batteries, samples of male subjects typically display an intelligence quotient advantage of four points over female subjects. As I stated in my edit summary, I believe that in the context presented this misleadingly suggests that evidence indicates a clear case for male superiority in intelligence when the author (Earl Hunt) is explicit that this is not the case. Indeed, here is what Hunt has to say about precisely this issue within the page range cited: If men have higher scores on some subtests, and women on other subtests, then depending on the weights assigned to each subtest you could produce a summary score that favored men over women or vice versa. And it is certainly true that if a test battery omits an important ability on which there are male-female differences, then the balance of men's and women's scores in an overall index will be different than it would have been had the omitted ability been evaluated. Generalrelative (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As a side point, that figure of a 4 point difference is stated to be an outlier, present when comparing average male and female scores on two specific test batteries (WAIS-III and WAIS-R) and only in China and Japan; very far from what was stated in Buffalo8's edit. In the U.S. and Canada, male-female averages of those test batteries show a 2 to 3 point spread. But even still, the larger point is that the author considers this spread to be very plausibly an artifact of the types of ability measured by the test batteries in question rather than a real difference in general mental ability between the sexes. Generalrelative (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In addition to the lack of context present in the Hunt source, the edit appears to be ignoring all research not mentioned/summarized in Hunt or conducted afterward, much of which finds no evidence of male/female sex differences in IQ. I am not 100% sure that a statement like Buffalo8's doesn't belong in the article, but I am confident that the WP:ONUS is on Buffalo8 to build consensus for the change instead of edit warring. Firefangledfeathers 13:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that the statement as written doesn't belong in the article. If anything similar is restored the nuances of interpretation and additional related research should be included; and it likely should get consensus here. I'm not accusing anyone, but on the surface this edit gives the appearance of either lack of knowledge of the research, or intentional POV. Again, that's not an accusation, but we need to be careful to avoid the appearance of bias or misunderstanding. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

IQ Testing Reliability
"On aggregate, IQ tests exhibit high reliability, although test-takers may have varying scores when taking the same test on differing occasions, and may have varying scores when taking different IQ tests at the same age."

This statement is meaningless without also including the significance of the variability. The scores vary, but the degree of variation is not significant enough to merit being used to diminish the overall reliability of IQ testing, relative to all other forms of psychometric testing. Standard IQ testing is the most reliable form of psychometric testing that there is.107.195.106.201 (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, IQ is still suspect to errors. If your claim that it's the most reliable psychometric testing out there, then all other psychometric forms of testing are also suspect to errors in reliability and validity worse then IQ tests. 110.175.125.253 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please use your registered account instead of using this Sydney IP. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)