Talk:Marilyn vos Savant/Archive 2

Naming?
Why is she referred to as Marilyn throughout the article? In a random sampling of other biographical articles, I didn't see first names used that way, so I'm going to change it to vos Savant. Clarityfiend 03:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See the prior discussion. Yes, encyclopedic convention is to use the surname, but the rule is not absolute, and Wikipedia disregards it when convenient: Lula, Voltaire, Sting, Enya.  We default to surnames, but deviate when alternatives are prominent.  The column is Ask Marilyn, the third-party sites are "Marilyn is Wrong!", "Marilyn is Right!", and "Readers for More Marilyn", and in her book Ask Marilyn, every letter starts with "Dear Marilyn".  "Marilyn" is overwhelmingly prominent, while "vos Savant" is secondary and typographically awkward to boot.  To me, "Marilyn" feels neutral and natural, while "vos Savant" strains for an artificial formality. Tim Smith 04:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"see Monty Hall problem for details"
I know we usually don't link twice to the same article, but I think an exception is warranted. We announce that "Despite the criticism, Marilyn's answer was correct under the most common interpretation of the question", but we don't say why she is correct, or what is the most common interpretation of the question, or what is wrong with the criticism. We can hope that readers will think to back up and try the earlier link, but by adding "see Monty Hall problem for details", we show them at once that these crucial explanations were not neglected, and where to find them. Tim Smith 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It still strikes me as unnecessary - the same argument could be made for any number of links in any number of articles ("what if they don't think to click on the first reference? we'd better tell them again!"). But I'm not adament about it, and you make a reasonable argument, so why not replace it and see if anybody else objects (or even notices!). I'll stand aside. - DavidWBrooks 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do; thanks. Tim Smith 00:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Something else
It would be very interesting to know whether Marilyn vos Savant excelled at school or not. 84.192.158.78 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is her name really said like that?
Are the n and t really silent in Savant? Is that final a really rounded? Why is the pronunciation phonetic rather than phonemic? 24.182.226.45 03:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Absent a source for that pronunciation of her name over other possibilities, I have removed it. Tim Smith 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged insensitivity to the blind
whoever posted the potentially slanderous comments about vos savant's insensitivity to the blind will have to cite sources or i will remove the statement.Zmbe 19:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * on second thought i'm just going to take it out.Zmbe 19:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That was vandalism; thank you for removing it. Tim Smith 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"glaring example of her unethical conduct"
I removed the following from the section #The second-sibling paradox. Apart from being a glaringly non-NPOV wording, it cites no source. I dorftrottel I talk I 09:11, December 4, 2007


 * "The fact that Marilyn recycled this paradox and toyed with her readers, without providing any references, is a glaring example of her unethical conduct."

tagged the #The second-sibling paradox section as POV
I have tagged the section and I'm inclined to remove it entirely if relevance of this isn't demonstrated with reliable third-party sources. The addition and particularly its wording clearly happened with the intention to slander Marilyn vos Savant, violating both our policies on citing sources and neutral point of view, and of course WP:BLP. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:41, December 4, 2007
 * In view of all the publicity that she received with respect to the Monty Hall problem, Marilyn's unethical conduct should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with elementary probability paradoxes. I am including the following in the article: "The way in which Marilyn toyed with her readers is discussed at the following links:
 * http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Circuit/1308/question.html
 * http://www.wiskit.com/marilyn/boys.html
 * By failing to provide any references for her readers, it would appear that Marilyn demonstrated glaring unethical conduct. Italus (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable sources. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:51, December 4, 2007
 * Although the two links that I provided may not be considered reliable sources, anyone can read Marilyn's original columns on this problem. Italus (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Algebra I, the vos Savant way
On 4 Dec 2007 I had included the following in the article. It was deleted by dorftrottel on 6 Dec 2007.


 * Over the years Marilyn's columns have contained various Algebra I problems. Usually she just gave the answer. Her convoluted solutions to several problems are posted at:


 * http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=477092&messageID=1461880#1461880


 * http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=483184


 * http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=1492000

In view of all the hoopla in the article about her high IQ, it is important to note that Marilyn has made a complete mess out of some Algebra I problems. Italus (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Copyediting"
Emerson7: I appreciate the recent effort you have put into the article, and some of your changes are worthwhile. However, edit summary of "copyediting" notwithstanding, a number of your modifications not only do not improve the longstanding text, but actually introduce typographical and grammatical errors, which other users are now having to fix. Worse, you restored some of these errors after they had been removed. I'm open to discussion and am willing to work with you, but please be careful to review your changes and make sure that they are really improvements, and do not need extensive copyediting of their own. Here are some explanations for my latest restorations and changes; let me know what else needs discussion.


 * In the lead, I prefer "her listing in the Guinness Book of World Records under "Highest IQ" to "her listing in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest intelligence quotient (IQ)". What Guinness said was that she achieved "the highest childhood score" and that she was the "topmost scorer" on the admissions test of "the most elite ultra-high IQ society".  That's close, but still a little different than saying she had the highest IQ period.  I'd rather be strictly factual and just say in the lead that she was listed under "Highest IQ", and then give details later in the article.


 * I prefer 'which in 1998 gave her a "Women Making History" Award, citing "her contribution to changing stereotypes about women"' to 'where she received the "Women Making History Award" in 1998 for contributions made to changing stereotypes of women'. By putting the NWHM's reason in quotes, we make clear that we are not asserting it ourselves, but only relaying what they said.

Tim Smith (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Biography
Her biography section was removed,, by an anonymous IP whose only other contributions have been two acts of vandalism. Since there was no discussion about removing the section, I pretty much cut-and-pasted the whole thing back in, except for avoiding the repetition of the Baumgold reference that would have caused and also some minor copyediting. Ariadne55 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

IQ Conversion...?
Since it is inarguable that IQ is merely an abstract concept (you will not be "aware" of your IQ until someone carefully explains the concept to you), how can we say that a specific kind of IQ is equal to another kind of IQ? If I remember correctly, the article states something like "she was proclaimed to have an IQ of 184, but because of (abstract concept), this is actually closer to two-hundred-something". And does an IQ garnered so long ago still make sense today? A "mental age of 22 years and ten months" is not generally accepted anymore, as the standard IQ system today believes that "adult IQ" is obtained at the age of sixteen... Adult IQ is then based on how you "compare" to everybody else, in a varying correlation that doesn't really make any sense unless you look at the actual amount of people who did better than you, ie. a person with an "IQ score" of two hundred is not considered to be twice as smart as a person with 100, or anything like that. Tsetses (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We won't (and shouldn't) resolve the IQ controversy here. It is sufficient that she has been reported to have had an IQ of x, for it to be reported here. --Michael C. Price talk 05:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... "Deviated IQ". That's got to be the silliest thing I've ever heard of. It's like saying that god/God is six foot five instead of five foot six... Not only is the existence of god/God in question, but then people with a different system start going on about how tall he/He is. It must also be mentioned that the page DOES NOT IN FACT state that her "deviated iq" is that number... It simply illustrates the method the writer of that snippet used to determine it. Should it be written that "deviated two" is six, because some guy thinks that all numbers should be multiplied by three? Deviation IQ is not really an official term... In fact, when I searched Google for "Deviation IQ Wikipedia", the only mention of it I could find was on this page... Tsetses (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If a god is reported as six foot five instead of five foot six in the literature of a sect then that is how their beliefs are reported here. --Michael C. Price talk 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But what about the rest? The source is unusable for the purposes of this article, as it only demonstrates a calculation... It doesn't actually say what her deviated IQ is. Asperger, he&#39;ll know. (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"uppity bitch", able-ism?
The last paragraph under Biography currently reads as follows:

''... although her steadfast refusal to acknowledge American Sign Language as a language - or to learn it herself - has earned the ire of millions of deaf. Declared "an uppity bitch" by the American Society for the Deaf spokesperson, Emily Moin, Vos Savant was almost stripped of her honorary degree following accusations of "able-ism."''

This sounds like something that would definitely need a reference/source to be allowed to stand under current rules.

I can't find a single reference anywhere on the internet. unless this can sourced i think needs to go.

--Xorkl000 11:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That was vandalism; thank you for removing it. Tim Smith 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say (pardon my candor), for vandalism, that was pretty damn funny. Uppity bitch is a great name to sling at someone.Ohnoitsthefuzz (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't help but wonder what the ASL for "uppity bitch" is... FiggyBee (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, people who lack knowledge on a subject matter should stop trolling incessantly by adding things that are untrue, and/or without a reference. Rock8591 (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Seriously, where did you get this quote? Feeling discontent over being held back by a system which incorrectly evaluates human intelligence is definitely upsetting, I must say, but is this really true or is this someone lashing out again a corrupt system? Mathemagician83 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A Question of Distinguishability
The beagle problem is really simply a philosophical question of whether or not in this particular situation the beagles should be treated as distinguishable. vos Savant's answer must be assuming that they are in fact distinguishable. If a is female and b is male, then in the eyes of the buyer looking for a male, the possibilities are aa, bb, and ab, where ab and ba are equivalent from the perspective of the buyer. However, when judging the probability of both beagles being male, you have to take into account the fact that beagles are born into the world by beagle mothers. Hence, there are 2 times as many cases in which a male is born to one mother and a female is born to the other. So, effectively, it is necessary to treat the beagles as distinguishable, in spite of the fact that ab = ba to the buyer. So, the possibilities, as stated previously on this page somewhere are aa, bb, ab, ba. Or, you could just say that ab = ba, but P(ab) = 2*P(aa) = 2*P(bb). This is effectively a semantics issue.

So, the probability of two boys, given that at least one is a boy is P(bb|b) = 1/3, as stated. However, if it is assumed that the beagles are indistinguishable, thus not taking into account the fact that there are twice as many cases in which a boy is born to one and a girl to another than there are cases in which two boys are born and two girls are born, then the possibilities are aa, bb, ab, and P(bb|b) = 1/2, as argued by vos Savant's readers. However, this would not correctly reflect the actual probability in nature.

The other way to look at it is via instance probabilities: $$P(a) = P(b) = 1/2$$. So $$P(bb|b) = \frac{1/2 \cdot 1/2}{3/4} = \frac 1 3$$.

This is one of those circumstances which sheds serious doubt on the ability of "standardized" tests to measure intelligence. It isn't a wonder why fewer and fewer colleges make use of standardized tests like the SAT, ACT, and GRE. Of course, there will always be the medical profession, the most superficial and bureaucratic of all. Don't get me started on that. I digress.

Has anyone read her criticisms of the Fermat proof? She is overstepping the bounds of her knowledge.

Happy Hunting,

Mathemagician83 (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument, but you're more likely to find a good counter-argument at Boy or Girl paradox. In particular, the phrasing of the question is central to the debate, however the vos Savant article fails to mention which flavour it lends itself open to, or why.   Socrates2008 ( Talk )   12:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read that one yet... will do. I imagined it would come down to some sort of philosophical confusion. I'm a mathematician at UCSD in simulation of electronic structure, and this is an extremely well-known problem. However, this version of the problem has been mangled into a word puzzle. Worrying about what is actually meant by each particular statement in the problem... This is almost a matter of determining whether it is even well-posed as stated. I think that that is where the issue is though: the actual probability is at odds with the one you might calculate from the buyer's perspective. This is because there are two perspectives; there's the buyer's and then there is nature... the dogs being born to mothers at a specific rate. It's cute, I must say.

--Mathemagician83 (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Worries/Anti-HiQ Bias?
Perhaps if HiQ folks would distance themselves from crackpot/Nazi/Fascist/Eugenicist organisations such as Pioneer Fund, the "inferiors" would not be so quick to attack. I'm HiQ myself, and I repudiate the race purifiers that have contributed to the attacks on "brains" such as myself. "Miscegenation" contributes to genetic health, not the loony policies of a Pioneer Fund or the likes of the race-monger Walter Plecker. Prometheus brought the sunshine/lightning, NOT the tools for a few elitists to smugly proclaim themselves superior! JBDay (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a place for editorializing. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This also isn't the place for anonymous IPs to post and expect to be taken seriously. Rock8591 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Many would say the same about editors with redlinked user pages. Judge editors on the contents of their contributions, not by the status of their accounts. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree, except that much of the vandalism to the page recently has been done almost completely by anonymous IPs. By "vandalism," I do not mean any remark that is critical of Marilyn, but random insertions such as "uppity bitch", or listing that she was born in 1997 (a false notion as there is) can only be referred to as vandalism, nothing less. Rock8591 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, wrong again.
"If we could shake a pair of puppies out of a cup the way we do dice, there are four ways they could land", in three of which at least one is male, but in only one of which both are male.

Uh, there are three ways they could land. 1. They're both male. 2. They're both female. 3. They're different genders.

Learning that one is male eliminates the possibility that they're both female. Saying that "they're different genders" actually represents two possibilities (BG vs GB) is a distinction without a difference, and additionally violates Ockham's Razor. Puppies are commutative unless there's a reason for them not to be. No such reason exists in the question. The answer is 50%, Mary. --70.131.121.96 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, mr IP address, why don't your write and tell that? I'm sure she'll be happy to explain why you're wrong. Here's a clue: 1. They're the same gender.  2. They're different genders. --Michael C. Price talk 07:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. Anonymous IP: Marilyn will tell you that you are 100% wrong. By saying that "they are male, both female, different genders", you fail to account for EACH AND EVERY DISTINCT SCENARIO, because "they're different genders" is a group that encompasses several scenarios, not a single one. Just like it would be nonsensical for me to say that "I have 50% chance of winning the lottery; I'll either WIN or WON'T." Rock8591 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that my response was to 70.131.121.96 and that I was defending Marilyn. Your censorship of my post followed by a warning was completely hotheaded and I suggest you cool down and read WP:V before threatening users again. I will not repost my remark because some defenders of Marilyn seem to be a fair bit more quick to anger than I. 75.64.247.79 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your post which I have deleted was when you said "must be another PhD that thinks he's hot shit." You were deleted for profanity and going off topic; do not play the victim card and resort to calling other people hotheaded as a result. Rock8591 (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I find it a bit amazing just how much vandalism there is to the page. Just look at the history section of MVS's Wiki. Rock8591 (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Take just today, user IP 71.211.177.51 inserted in this article the following information.
 * birth_date = April 2nd, 1997.
 * occupation = Basketball player.

If this isn't vandalism, I don't know what is. Rock8591 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph and Highest IQ
In my opinion it would be better if the first paragraph mentioned that the IQ rating of 228 was from a test that she took when she was 10 years old. (She got listed in 1986, but the test took place in 1956.) This would give the reader a bit more perspective. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification Please
"Vos Savant agreed with the algebra teacher, writing that the chances are only 1 out of 3 that the woman has two boys, but 1 out of 2 that the man has two boys. Readers argued for 1 out of 2 in both cases, prompting multiple follow-ups. Finally vos Savant started a survey, calling on women readers (with exactly two children and at least one boy) and male readers (with exactly two children - the elder a boy) to tell her the sex of both children. With almost eighteen thousand responses, the results showed 35.9% (a little over 1 in 3) with two boys."

I guess the reader should infer from the paragraph that Marilyn was probably wrong since the combined total should have been closer 83% with two boys(50%+33%). Or, perhaps the writer of the paragraph means of the female respondents the results showed 35.9% Or,...of the male respondents the results showed 35.9%.

In any case, it looks like poor Marilyn only has a 1/3 chance of being correct. 71.193.200.133 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)bumpkin

Vos
What is "vos" supposed to mean, anyway? I've never seen it in any other name. Did she just choose it because it sounds better than "von Savant," or what? ~ CZeke 08:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Her mother is Mary vos Savant. --Michael C. Price talk 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll bite. So why was her mother named "vos Savant"?  This name is unusual enough that it warrants some explanation in the article. Robert K S 09:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Vos is a Dutch surname. There are many people in the Netherlands named Vos.Lestrade 13:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * A surname, or a habitational prepositional prefix indicating nobility? If the former, it should be capitalized, right? Robert K S 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Surnames are capitalized. Nobility prefixes can be uncapitalized. Maybe the family was ahead of its time. The trend today is to have fabricated, made-up names such as Dantay, Andruw, Laktisha, Halle, Luscious, Jarmayn, Gloribee, Schakita, Marquice, Kiesha, Jesslyn, Ulyesses, and Keyonna, etc.Lestrade 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade
 * That's the trend in the Netherlands? It's also a trend in the US - DavidWBrooks 01:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Her parents were Mary vos Savant and Joseph Mach, and her grandparents were Mary Savant and Joseph vos Savant, and Anna Moravec and Anton Mach. So both "Savant" and "vos Savant" appear in her family. "In the Kingdom of the Brain" says her mother and grandmother were Italian. I don't know anything about "vos", though. According to a 1992 Chicago Sun-Times article, she's the granddaughter on both sides of coal miners, so I don't know if it's a nobility prefix. Anyone? Tim Smith 02:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Vos" is indeed a Dutch surname (meaning "Fox"), but why is it not capitalized in this case? And why would she have a Dutch surname? Känsterle 15:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So she could be full of it just taking the name as a publicity stunt?--Energman 11:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * &lt;&lt; Vos Savant &gt;&gt; then begins to make sense transliterated into something like a Nederlands version of 'Wily Fox'. Lycurgus 11:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This conversation is not only ignorant, but also shows laziness and facetiousness of the original poster. It is something he can easily find out for himself for that matter. Last but not least, it is hardly academic. Rock8591 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Boy, that was sure important enough to say three years later. (For the record, I wasn't being facetious, and I think an encyclopedia was a perfectly reasonable place to look for this kind of information.)  ~ CZeke (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Lestrade, some of the names you listed ARE real names (some, sadly). Dantay is an actual variant of Dante (and a surname as well, meaning "enduring"). I'm not sure about Andruw, but Think Baby Names says it's a varient of Andrew and Andre. Laktisha, I've never heard, heh. Halle is actually a true name, usually male though (it's norse, meaning Rock or stone or something). Marquice is an odd spelling of Marquis(e). Keisha is a short version of an actual name, Lakeisha, which is an Arabic name based on a Hebrew name (thinkbabynames also has a snippet about it). Jesslyn is a real name, used frequently here in the United States (it's cross-cultural, I think, and there are people of different races with it so I don't see much of an ethnic trend) so... I'm not sure how you see it as made up. I can't believe you think Ulyesses is made up... you've never heard of the name? Ever heard of Homer's Odyssey? The lead character's Latin name is Ulyesses. And Keyonna, believe it or not, is an Americanized variant of Kiana. I don't know the other names, but I'm sure a simple Google search would help. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Better source found for how Marilyn vos Savant's IQ score was (mis)calculated.
I have, by the way, read the manual for the version of the Stanford-Binet IQ test (the 1937 version) that was current in Marilyn vos Savant's childhood. Someone else who has read the manual, the eminent scholar on IQ testing Alan S. Kaufman has comments on her IQ score, which I have just added to the article. Some other passages that are plainly contrary to the best reliable sources on IQ testing and that have long been flagged in the article have just been deleted, and should stay out of the article to keep the article up to Wikipedia encyclopedic quality standards.


 * WeijiBaikeBianji, why didn't you sign your above comment? You are mucking up this article. Writing encyclopedic is not writing what's true but what's believed (to paraphrase Jimmy Wales). I think you misunderstand that the article is about Marilyn vos Savant, not intelligence quotient. It is well-established (by Guinness, by Parade, by vos Savant's books and by articles about her) that her IQ is 228. She is famous for this score and she is widely believed to hold this score. She has qualified for every high-IQ society using this score. One analysis (what may be true) doesn't substract from any of that (what is believed). Her 228 score must be emphasized; Kaufman's analysis must take second place. Many reliable sources hold other views (not sources related to psychology, mind you, but sources related to vos Savant). Moreover, a ratio IQ of 228 corresponds nearly exactly to a deviation IQ of 186. This is a fact, not original research. It is careless to present these two scores without indicating the sort of quotients they are. Many people wrongly conclude that they are different scores. The easy misapprehension is reason enough to include a clarification, which can be pared down and sourced. 99.55.157.8 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, 99.55.157.8, you asked, "why didn't you sign your above comment?" What happened on that particular occasion, which I think may be reflected in the edit summaries, is that adding the source reference ate my signature. There is no reason to bite the newcomers, but of course I appreciate your kind suggestion to remember to sign my posts to talk pages, as I usually do. You write, "Writing encyclopedic is not writing what's true but what's believed (to paraphrase Jimmy Wales)." That's a paraphrase that I believe misrepresents what Jimmy Wales believes. You can see on his  user page that he includes the user template there "This user recognizes the importance of citing sources," linking to  Wikipedia's citing sources guideline. I'm sure he would be the first to acknowledge that information about  living persons must be especially stringently sourced to  reliable sources. I have an opinion, which evidently differs from yours, about what to do if an article says "Famous person had this IQ score." It is a matter of the historical record what IQ tests were available the year the person was tested, what the scoring tables in the IQ test used for that person said, and what proper scoring procedures were for that test. There are reliable sources on all those issues. A Wikipedian who finds reliable sources on those issues could report what those sources say, or even better could report what an expert familiar with all those sources says in a published secondary source. I reported on what Alan S. Kaufman has to say on the issue of Marilyn vos Savant's IQ score after reading his book for information about the content of other Wikipedia articles. Kaufman correctly represents the content of the sources on IQ testing in the era of Marilyn vos Savant's childhood (which I happen to have also seen, independently). You further write, "a ratio IQ of 228 corresponds nearly exactly to a deviation IQ of 186," to which I say, where is your reliable published source? I have access to an excellent academic library, and I will take care to look it up. P.S. Do you have a particular reason for not registering a user name here? That can help other Wikipedians know who they are talking to. Welcome aboard; thanks for your questions about the recent edits. What I will continually try to do while editing the world's largest English-language encyclopedia is to seek reliable sources to verify article content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Vos Savant is not just any famous person. She's famous for her IQ score. She's since become famous for other things. However, her IQ is only relevant in the context of her fame for it. A recent article in the Financial Times (10 April 2009) about vos Savant didn't mention Kaufman. It did, though, mention the 228 IQ and its derivation. (FT article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4add9230-23d5-11de-996a-00144feabdc0.html). The FT source trumps the Kaufman reference: This is not an article about IQ but about Marilyn vos Savant. I won't re-add the controversial paragraph. However, vos Savant's 228 score is a ratio IQ (which you should know: she was 10, it was the Stanford-Binet). Her 186 score is a deviation IQ (which you should know, too: she was in her 40s, it's the Mega Test). This information is easily sourced (and shouldn't be contentious, anyway). (I'm no newcomer. I just have a static IP. It ought to go without saying that I'm the same 99.55.157.8 you refer to above).70.225.74.238 (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the restructuring of the paragraphs and new section labeling, which I think is helpful for readability of the article. Any statement about IQ testing that appears in article text has to be cited to a reliable source, and personal opinion of individual Wikipedians or other people online (even highly knowledgeable personal opinion like yours and mine) is not a reliable source by Wikipedia policy. I have read very deeply in the professional literature about IQ testing, including Samuel Pinneau's whole book about changing the scoring tables for the Stanford-Binet test from "ratio" IQ scoring (second revision) to "deviation" IQ scoring (third revision). Unlike most people who write about IQ testing online, I have also read Lewis Terman's 1937 book about how the Stanford-Binet test was developed, in which he points out that error of estimation in IQ scores increases rapidly as IQ scores increase above IQ 100, and in which he includes a table showing that IQ scores often varied widely between form M and form L of his test. (The data plot showing varying scores for the same individual on form M versus form L has been reproduced in several reliable sources in IQ testing published more recently, but the general fact of individuals not having "her IQ" that lasts for life but rather some particular score on each particular test when tested is a fact that is too little known.) The book I cited for editing this article (Kaufman 2009) is helpful for correcting common errors like that about how IQ scores are interpreted by the lay public. One thing that all high-IQ people who read Wikipedia can do to improve Wikipedia articles is practice and develop the scholarly skills of research and verifying sources. I'll put up a note about one set of sources this article badly needs as the next section on this article talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)