Talk:Intelligence quotient

message: First, the edit gives the misleading impression that Bouchard's estimate is generally accepted. The Minnesota Twin Studies have been criticized, and they're partially financed by the Pioneer Fund. Secondly, the 80% estimate goes back to Cyril Burt in mid-20th century or earlier, so it shouldn't be called "a recent estimate". NightHeron (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A meta-analysis or review would be better, if one exists. BooleanQuackery (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

text: If it goes back to Cyril Burt, it should not even be called an "estimate". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Burt's estimate was correct. Leon Kamin found extensive evidence that Burt faked his data, see The Science and Politics of I.Q.. NightHeron (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you implied that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I'm reverting edit citing Bouchard 

message: Obviously, a section with criticism is needed, because IQ has always been full of controversy and inaccuracies. If not, then Wikipedia is not encyclopaedic 78.106.255.87 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but not the one you were adding, which apparently copied text from elsewhere in violation of copyright. - MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

text: No. See WP:CSECTION. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, criticism/controversy is already in the article, but not in a dedicated section, per WP:CRITS. Sundayclose (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

text: There used to be one. See this discussion from a couple years back. I took the lead in integrating the valid criticisms that were mentioned there into the rest of the article, as is suggested in the essay WP:CRIT. Any new criticisms added to the article should follow that pattern. Generalrelative (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's striking seeing the changes in the article since 2015. Read  and compare with the current version. John Nagle (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism/Controversy 

message: Thanks to @Generalrelative for asking why I think it would be beneficial to cite new Dworak study. The current page on the Intelligence quotient already has a paragraph talking about the "negative flynn effect", citing a 2016 study coauthord by Richard Lynn and a 2018 study coauthored by Bernt Bratsberg. In the current issue of the "Intelligence" journal there has been new research on the topic, including the (2023) study I cited. I think that study would be beneficial to cite since it provides interested readers of Wikipedia another, more recent, source on the topic.
Apologies - but I don't know what you mean by the topic being contested? The negative flynn effect definitely a phenomenon for which evidence has been recently discovered. Besides, I didn't add any new description, only another source for the already existing description confirming what the previous sources already have shown. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant? LenoJeno (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: When another editor reverts your addition, that means it's been contested, see WP:BRD. The article you wanted to add from the journal Intelligence is a primary source appearing in a journal that often publishes questionable material. There are already two sources, so there's no need to add a 3rd source that's low-quality. NightHeron (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, so "contesting" refers to other editors here, thanks. It's weird then to see how one of the other two sources accepted are also from Intelligence, in fact, coauthored by Richard Lynn, who is the scientific racist. Surely that's even lower credibility. Many thanks for the clarification anyway @NightHeron! LenoJeno (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should remove the Richard Lynn source. Unfortunately Intelligence does not conduct any meaningful peer review to screen out pseudoscience when race / ethnicity / nationality are concerned, so I'd be concerned about the new Dworak study for that reason. A secondary source would be better. Are you aware of any that we could use to discuss the "negative Flynn effect"? For now I'll remove the Lynn source and retain the NAS Norway study. Generalrelative (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Negative Flynn Effect Citation 

message: It is learning from examples. There is lots of this all the time in out environment. Inductive reasoning Ran8dom9 (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk pages are for discussing suggested improvements to an article, not discussion of our personal thoughts about the topic. Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? Induction as a specialized ability (a subfactor of fluid reasoning) has been demonstrated by Thurstone (and a tremendous amount of subsequent research by a vast number of researchers, including  Cattell, Horn, and Carroll) using factor analysis of massive amounts of test data. Can you cite research from peer-reviewed academic journals that clearly refute all of that research, and not just your personal opinion? Sundayclose (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Induction is not a specialized ability like spelling 

message: § "Job performance" includes this paragraph: "Newer studies find that the effects of IQ on job performance have been greatly overestimated. The current estimates of the correlation between job performance and IQ are about 0.23 correcting for unreliability and range restriction."
I fear this presentation lacks WP:BALANCE, given that it's citing what is essentially a single paper by two researchers (the other is a minor follow-up) which has been subject to quite significant significant criticism from experts in just the few months since publication, who point out that it's narrow (only including supervisor ratings as a "performance" measure) and is hardly "new" (as its range-restriction claims have been brought up and dismissed in the past). Moreover, the paper(s) referenced find diminished correlations between almost every other metric and performance (e.g., interviews; work sample tests; job-knowledge tests, etc.)
Given that there is hardly a consensus in support of the Sackett, et al. paper(s) it seems unbalanced to include them, at least in the current framing. I'm in favor of removing it entirely, since it runs contrary to consensus backed by an staggering amount of research. Alternately, we could add its narrow focus and other significant criticism, but that may just compound the WP:UNDUE issue. Frankly, I'm not sure it adds much to our article, since of course Sackett, et al. still concede that cognitive ability is one of variables most highly correlated with job performance. Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Job-performance correlation issue