Talk:Malleability of intelligence

Problems with this article
(1) There are several articles that heavily overlap with this one, including Environment and intelligence, IQ testing environmental variances, and Heritability of IQ. All of these should be merged into one or two articles.

(2) This article has a whiff of original synthesis and perhaps POV pushing in it, as it combines all sorts of studies purportedly related to something called "malleable intelligence". There's also an undue emphasis on neurobiological and cognitive scientific findings, with little mention of behavioral genetic and psychometric research. Some sources used are dubious. For example, has ''Nelson, C. (2010). Harvard Children's Hospital. Laboratories of Cognitive Neuroscience. [Personal Interview]'' been published somewhere?

(3) The stuff about SES and IQ in the lead section is false or at least highly misleading.

(4) If we decide to not merge this article with some other one, it should perhaps be renamed to Malleability of intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See discussion here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. It is more than suspect that no reference is given for the IQ and SES assertion, which is wrong and misses the key points related to intelligence and the study of twins. The say thing is that evidence indicates that intelligence as measure by cognitive ability tests, is not all that malleable unless one damages the nervous system (and the result is almost always to lower intelligence. I'd vote to shorten this page and put it in the article on intelligence.  Rob Czar (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If there's a controversy over whether intelligence is malleable, could we please mention what the sides are? Who espouses each side? I'm aware - vaguely - of notions that:
 * intelligence is largely or entirely inherited from one's parents (presumably because of genetics)
 * some races are therefore more intelligent than others (on average, mind you!)
 * on the other hand, how children are raised could (does?) have a much greater impart on intelligence than racial differences


 * This, of course, all relates to things like Race and intelligence, along with some claims by obscure, isolated people like Layman Allen and John Mighton who report huge increases in IQ (or at least math ability) as a result of innovative training methods. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2017 (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) 21:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring article
I see a lot of stuff has just been chopped out of the article. In general, I think a few of the factual assertions made in the deleted in the previous sections can be supported with better sources, but I'm so much in agreement with the general principle of using better sources for all articles on Wikipedia that on the whole I can't object to any of deletions from the article text. I see by reviewing the article talk page here that there has long been an issue of how different articles on related topics relate to one another as subarticles (of what main article?) and that issue will be worthy of discussion too. Meanwhile, I'll keep slogging away at looking at better sources for this and many other articles. See you on the wiki; keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)