Talk:Intelligence quotient/Archive 1

message: Can someone help with this?
*In the UK, IQ for people under 18 is usually calculated as
            IQ = 100 . (mental age / chronological age)
with the s.d. of this being carried on to ages 18+.
User_talk:Gee Eight, 7 February 2006 12:58 UTC—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.171.194.41 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula? 

message: This article needs a Major overhaul.  There is too much random information, to much disorganization, and way to many headers that have a sentence or none at all.  I have not finished reading the entire article (becuase its nearly impossible they way its organized) but i think we should consider a major overhaul.  For those of you who regularly contribute and update this page, please consider this and start thinking about what we can lose and bunch up.  Thanks! --Gephart 01:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gephart, and came here to add much the same note.  Why, for example, are online tests subtopic #2?  In the overall history of IQ testing, this is not the second highest priority to cover... --Dvyost 04:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MAJOR OVERHAUL

message: Why does this image set the upper limit for IQ scores at 130? isn't it a bit silly to set the cut off so low?
because the exact distrubtion isn't know above 130 and below 70, but for sake of making a pretty picture, I can expand it to 55-145. --Rikurzhen 04:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
::Wrong. The exact distribution is very well known. It is a bell curve AD DEFINITIONEM. IQ is not based on an interval scale of intelligence ("raw" test scores), but on rarity in the general population. --Aiwa 19:13, Aug 11, 2005 (UTC)
::What's the data source for this graph? Is it just an idealized distribution, or is it based on actual numbers from a study? If so, which study? The image page says I created with R >IQ<- 70:130 >p<- dnorm(IQ,mean=100,sd=15) >plot(IQ,p,type = "h", col=c(rep(2,15),rep(3,15),1,rep(4,15),rep(6,15)), lwd=3) )  - Why those values? (BTW, a very nice looking chart). Thanks, -Willmcw June 30, 2005 19:51 (UTC)
::: Read the article again. IQ samples, over the long term, fill a bell curve. The tests are scored so the distribution looks like the graph pictured. 130 and 70 are defined as 2 standard deviations from the mean, which is defined to be 100. Tafinucane 23:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you used SD=15. The examples of high-IQ society threshold scores in the See also section seem to use SD=16. hitssquad 17:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Low IQ?

message: :The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation). [ http://www.mugu.com/cgi- bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/support- bell-curve.html]
Can we use this quote? Is it neutral, objective, consensus, mainstream, or what? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 15:34 (UTC)
:It's nearly definitionally true. IQ tests are normalized so that the mean is 100, the standard deviation is 15, and the distribution is normal. That fact is uncontested, although it might be argued that we don't know if intelligence is normally distributed. However, biological correlates of IQ are (approximately) normally distributed, as are most quantitative traits (e.g. height, weight, etc). --Rikurzhen July 6, 2005 21:59 (UTC)
Two qualifications: one is that although someone with an IQ seven SDs away from 100 (SD = 15) has an unlikely, but possible, IQ of 205; someone with an IQ seven SDs below 100 would have the impossible IQ of -5. A zero IQ would be possible in somewone with no mental activity other than the bare necessity for bodily functions necessary for survival, as in a persitent vegetative state.
The other is that IQ is mutable downwards due to catastrophic and irreversible events to one's intelligence: partial suffocations, hypoxia, head injuries, degenerative diseases, and certain poisonings that destroy mental capacity.  IQ is not so mutable upwards by any means; if such means existed, then people would inflict them upon themselves despite any associated risks. Positive or negative stimulations due to enriched or deprived environments are most likely to be randomly distributed and exist within the bell curve, but loss of a chunk of genetically-determined intelligence to such an event as carbon monoxide poisoning is not. 
Natal (that is, genetically-permitted) IQ may be distributed along a bell curve, and so might the  effects of environmental stimulation. Catastrophic losses of natal intelligence (such as fetal alcohol syndrome) that have no genetic cause surely skew the bell curve leftward.--66.231.41.57 17:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bell / Normal curve

message: The section Intelligence quotient#Distribution has a good table, althought, as with many IQ related things, is a little strange - who knows whether Newton was more intelligent than Einstein, or Shakespeare more intelligent than Spinoza. A lot more attention is payed to higher IQs than lower. 100 is supposed to be the average, yet it seems almost everyone is above 100 - similar to the Lake Wobegon effect. - 05:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution

message: The paragraph on the distribution says the most common values for the standard derivation is 15 and 16, and then says "24 is used occasionally as well". 
I think this is highly incorrect. I've only ever seen standard derivations on 24. The only time I've seen anything else was on a describtion of Mensa membership requirements that said "148* (* in the US 132)" 
This leads me to conclude that the common value for standard derivation is 24, and that like so many other standards only the US insist on a US-specific value of 16. 
The 15 value is just a round off, just like 24 is often rounded to 25.
:No, IQ standard deviations go by tests, the Weschler has a standard deviation of fifteen, while the others have a standard deviation of sixteen. Some less prominent tests have higher or lower standard deviations, but the most popular ones all use 15 or 16 standard deviations.
:As for your round off theory, while I speak with no specialist knowledge, it's not really more diffcult to calculate 16 std than 15 std. It's hard to see why you would "round off" 16 Standard deviation to 15 standard deviation. Why "round off" an IQ of 132 to an IQ of 130 or an IQ of 148 to 145? Why not keep an the originals, or, if you so desprately want a standard deviation of 15, just use that in the first place? Do you know something I don't about this? I've never heard of this rounding off, but that could just be my ignorance.  
:The varied use of 15 and 16 std's is very confusing, people sometimes don't make clear what scale their using, usually because the differences between 15 std and 16 std aren't really clinically signficant. Worse is when people give raw scores on IQ tests, rather than scaled scores. I once had to search for days to find the norms for RAPM, and when I did find the source it was a little suspect. Could we put the norms for different IQ tests in their respective entries, or would that be a violation of copyright?
-
I've added in an example of standard deviation being 24 - the Cattell IIIB test is used by Mensa UK . Even though 15 may be the most common, it's important to mention that tests may use different scales - comparing IQ test results is meaningless with knowing which scale was used. Mdwh 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard derivation = 24 

message: I have a minor beef with this conclusion:
"It is therefore recommended not to take online IQ tests as a true judge of one's IQ, even when considering that people who take these tests voluntarily are likely to be above average anyway."
Lately I've been noticing a lot of advertisements for online IQ tests replacing 'punch the monkey and win $100' web popup ads. The new IQ test ads feature a photo of a typically haggard Albert Einstein and do not offer prize money, only a test score.  These ads are designed to entice as many people as possible to click them.  In other words, they are specifically targeted to the average.  At least as far as the population pool of web surfers goes, it would seem that the desire to voluntarily take online IQ tests is an average desire, and not an indicator of an above average IQ.
:Yes, but your title is misleading.  You imply with your title that volunteering for an IQ test places you at or below average.  What your conclusion (and I agree with you) seems to say is that simply volunteering for an online IQ test does not make you automatically above average.  That DOES make sense.  Tom S.
----
Internet users in general have above-average IQs, globally speaking. The lowest-IQ populations tend to be in the poorest countries. It isn't important, anyway, because these tests usually don't calculate their scores based on anything resembling a normal curve, so it's hard to make any good conclusions based on the data. I'm going to remove the claim because there's no really good evidence on either side. If anyone would like to provide some specific study showing self-selection for high-IQ individuals in online tests (or voluntary tests in general) or to elaborate further on some specific reasoning behind this conclusion, feel free, but until then I just think this shouldn't be in here. - EHS
:I also believe that Internet IQ scores are biased.  It takes a certain level of self esteem to take an IQ test voluntarily.  Many people do not like to humiliate themselves when they doubt their own intellegence.  Even when the test are anonymous, some people just don't want to face the truth. People who take the test voluntarily have confidence in themselves.  They probably take the test as a self-validation to see if they are as smart as they think they are.  No one wants to take an IQ test to prove how dumb they really are.  I think this is just a matter of psychology.  Those who take the test on-line may impact the bell curve and thus the score is inaccurate.  I disgree with the argument that since IQ test ads are targeting average people recently, then the average people would take the test.  I also see Mecedes Benz advertisment on many newspapers, that does not mean I would buy one.  Kowloonese 00:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
:: OK you lost me.  Internet scores are biased because the person taking the test doesnt want to find out how dumb he is?  How'd you reach that?  If the REASON for taking an IQ test has any adverse effect on the accuracy of the results, then why isnt that in the article?  Tom S.
:::No, what's being said is that the Internet scores are biased because people who are most confident and comfortable about their own intelligence voluntarily take the tests whereas people who question or doubt their own intelligence will likely not take the test.  The implied correlation is that higher confidence relates to an actual higher IQ as well as the converse being true.  Whether or not this correlation is accurate is left to debate.  I also took the Tickle test (leaving it on a screen for hours at a time, so rate of response is not a factor) and came out with a score of 133.  While it's flattering to suggest I'm in the top 5%, I question the accuracy of the score as the test is not very long and the questions do not cover a very broad range (mostly analogies, some calculations, some pattern recognition, and some vocabulary and knowledge of common/popular phrases/cliches).  BrionSwanson 14:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People volunteering to take IQ tests NOT likely to be above average 

message: An anonymous user (User:195.229.241.181) added the following information:
 Mensa Club Hall of the fame
 
 Olivier Roberts - 33 (2003) U.S
 RIchard Huts    - 33 (2003) U.K
 Shiny Mathews   - 28 (2004) Ind
 Gregory Peters  - 27 (2004) Hungury
I don't know where it fits..It was added in the lead section, where it definitely does not belong. I'll post a message on the anonymous user's talk page. — David Remahl 11:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mensa hall of fame" 

message: My english is not that perfect and I do want to add something to this article. I'm appealing that women and males do differ of some short in thinking. Most of us agree with that however I argue that the differences are hardwired and not influenced by culture. I'm asking someone to read the following article for more information. And I be grateful if some information of it is used in the article. If you need more information just P(ublic)M me. --A. 13:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection to the above proposal, I've moved the Race and IQ section to Race and intelligence. The first paragraph dealt with The Bell Curve, which is adequately handled in its own article, and I moved one sentence to Charles Murray (author). -Willmcw 09:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Try TAKING AN IQ TEST!  Don't judge in ingnorance, my friend.  It is not testing how much you know.  It is testing how you answer various questions.  Even if you get the answer wrong, the answer you give will reveal what part of the brain you're thinking with to some degree.  Just try taking one, please?  Tom S.
-Yes it does. Have you ever even taken an IQ test? It doesn't ask you to recite a bunch of dates. Just because it's a test doesn't mean it's asking for rote memorization.
-Actually it _does_ require memorization in a more subtle _as well_ (besides equiring other things). This is actually the reason, why some people critize for racial/ethnic bias of some tests. In anyway you cannot really
separate that easily between memorization/knowledge and intellectual/processing capabilities.
The capabilities of neural networks are trained/improved through data (aka "memorization"). Learning a lot of
things by heart does actually increase your intellectual capabilities (though depending on your goal it might
not be terribly efficient).
I followed a link in the external link section and found the following page at
http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/gliaweb/tests/boostiq.html
This page indicates that IQ score from this website can be raised for a fee.  That raised a question of legitimacy of this website and its tests.  The intention of including the link in this wikipedia article is questionable too.  Kowloonese 00:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
kids-iq-tests keeps popping up as the first external link.  It is an ad for an affilliate.  Enough already.
The spammers have left us for the time being.  I took down the boxes.  BrainDoc 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex differences in the brain 

message: I added this section as part of cleanup efforts, merging from Online IQ Test Validity, however, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the information in that article was unsourced. Demi T/C 23:40, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
I know the following doesn't actually fit in with this category, but I didn't want to create a new category and it sort of fits in with the title of the category.
Does anyone else think that something should be mentioned about the validity of the following test: "www.mensa-test.com - Nice intelligence test (not a standart IQ test)". I'm not suggesting it should be removed; it is very interesting and is quite possible a good test of intelligence. However it has huge cultural bias. Not being american it took me ages to get things like ***WARNING - If you want to take the test, dont read ahead yet*** "13 stripes in the united states flag" or "100 cents in a dollar". And I haven't got a clue how I got the "9 provinces in south africa" (I didn't even know that south africa had provinces, it was just something thaat fitted). I think something about the cultural bias and the focus on verbal intelligence should be mentioned next to the link in the article. Raoul Harris 18:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of specific tests 

message: The paragraph on sibling income had a strange transition, starting from Murray 1998's results and then immediately stating:
:However, these differences are less impressive when considering that in 1993 the average family income was $61,800 while the average family income of the richest 10% was $172,400.  (Note these income values are larger than those from Murray's study, possibly because these values include income other than wages. Murray found average family incomes at five IQ tiers of $53,000 for the top 10 percent of IQ, $45,000 for the next 15 percent, $37,000 for the middle 50 percent, $23,400 for the next 15 percent, and $12,000 for the bottom 10 percent.)
The data cited in the paragraph refer to individual income, consistent with the question being addressed in the paragraph, which is, "Does IQ make any difference at the highest levels?"  Specifically, the question is, "Does IQ make any difference in income at the highest levels?"  The average family income data are unrelated to that question.  Also, as the author seems to recognize, they cannot be meaningfully compared to the Murray study.  I've replaced them with the actual reported mean individual earnings ($23,703) for the normal control group in the study.  I'm also not a fan of the editorializing "these differences are less impressive," which is baldly POV.  --DAD 30 June 2005 01:20 (UTC)
These edits were recently reverted "because people have families."  In keeping with that idea, I've left in the Murray family income numbers, which I agree are relevant, and removed the editorial comment.  I'll be happy to see the remaining fragment
:In 1993 the average family income was $61,800 while the average family income of the richest 10% was $172,400.
included as soon as we have a citation for those data.  (Still, it's not clear why such additional family data are needed, unless there is a (published) claim that Murray's numbers are incorrect; we now have the family part covered.)  I request either a Talk entry for such significant reversions or a more thoughtful edit comment. --DAD 1 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)
Economic achievement and IQ have a positive correlation to a certain point, and that point is that at which people choose intellectual stimulation over economic gain. It is possible that persons with extremely high IQs choose creative activities, academic careers, or scientific reasearch that fail to offer the instant rewards that some sales and executive careers might offer. It could also be that extremely high intelligence is inconsistent with a desire for material display, one of the attractions of some career choices, or that the usual status symbols offer little satisfaction for those who see through them. Contrast executive compensation to that for research scientists or university professors, and recognize that very brilliant people might lack reverence for bureaucratic strictures and could easily fail within them.
That said, very brilliant people who choose research, academia, or creative activities as careers do well economically -- but they rarely get the highest incomes which depend upon either inherited wealth (which does not result from high IQ) or motivation to succeed in an environment that offers extreme rewards of material success. That might explain the paradox of "PhDs earning less than MAs".
--66.231.41.57 17:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Income numbers 

message: Why is this even here? Pardon if I missed something, but I don't see why tests that have nothing to do with IQ (such as the Tickle) are mentioned here. Peoplesunionpro July 6, 2005 15:37 (UTC)
:Agree.  I'm also bothered that the g-loadings are uncited.  Go for it! --DAD T 6 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
:I don't agree, and find these links helpful and relevant.  // PoorLeno
::Great.  Kindly provide citations and re-add them, or simply list them in the External References section.  They don't belong in the article unless the attributed data is verifiable and there is obvious effort to ensure they are not simply advertising. --DAD T 19:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These unverifiable scores keep getting re-added.  Will keep reverting unless they're sourced.  If you want to include them, WP:Cite your sources.  --DAD T 02:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here because the APA and Clinical Psychologists see immense potential in their professional use.  The current state of online IQ testing is fraught with error, however, and you would do well to read both the journal article and all pages of the website prior to taking anything that sells itself as an IQ test.  Online intelligence assessment: If it smells like a pig, it probably is. BrainDoc 01:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That iqte.st website probably isn't legitamite, considering the online IQ test that they rank as most valid is a test that has absolutely nothing to do with IQ. 64.136.173.16 16:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is well taken, but the point of iqte.st, I think, is to point out the non-validity of every online IQ test.  The BBC IQ test correlates .83 with an obscure professional British IQ test.  That makes it better than anything else online.    
I added a new external link.  It ought to be the first stop for anyone who wants more information about an online IQ test.  BrainDoc 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online tests 

message: I propose we set up a separate page for all these high IQ society things and have one see also link to that. Some of them seem pretty non-notable. One that was linked in external links (Giga Society]), claims six members. I removed it along with two other obvious linkspam items. Some of these societies border on vanity sites, if you ask me. Jokestress 18:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those lists are constantly getting spammed. --Rikurzhen 23:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I removed two links. They were not informational links.  Rather, they were created to drive traffic to unprofessional business ventures that do not expand our discussion of Intelligence. 123spamfighter123 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See above.  Our spammer relisted his site.  123spamfighter123 19:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also and External Link guidelines 

message: I had added a bit to this section but I am no expert here so please correct what I've put if it is wrong: "However, tests are only renormalized occasionally to obtain mean scores of 100, for example WISC-R (1974), WISC-III (1991) and WISC-IV (2003). Hence it is difficult to compare IQ scores measured years apart." 
See, for example .
Thincat 10:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Flynn effect 

message: In considering the reversion of the addition of Clinton, it occurred to me that this is just as valid (that is, made-up) as most of the historical figures in this chart. I've tried to substitute some generic language, but perhaps this chart is a transcription of a source that speculates as to the position of these figures, and could thus somehow be included (it wasn't clear to me what, if any source, was used for the table). Demi T/C 00:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: some of it was questionable. other parts i'd seen before PDF, see page 5 --Rikurzhen 07:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made "employment' portion of IQ chart generic 

message: This table contains some bogus information.  It says the number of people born with an IQ below 75 is 39% of 5%, 17% of 20%, 6% of 50% and 7% of 20%.  That adds up to about 10%.  Yet the first line says than only 5% fall in that category.  Since the numbers don't add up, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the other data in this chart as well.  These data are from "The Bell Curve", right?  I don't have a copy.  Can someone please check the referenced page numbers and see if the numbers fail to add up there as well?
good catch! p. 230 says "bottom decile", which is around IQ < 80, not IQ < 75. --Rikurzhen 10:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, correlation between heights of parent and child are presented for comparison. The description of correlations as low/medium/high is subjective and context dependent. In the social sciences, a correlation >.6 is high. --Rikurzhen 06:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table: Economic and social correlates of IQ