Talk:Intelligence quotient/Archive 3

message: I removed a lot of things from that paragraph; there was a lot of off-topic and POV stuff (the previous title was: "IQ & oudated methodology: runing society?". It looks like the author was too focused on passing the "2006 paper"'s view. I honnestly think that even this paper will benefit from my edit, since it makes it look far more scientific. Aleph42 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "oudated methodology" paragraph 

message: One of the reasons for a correlation between the two in the article is that "children frequently draw pictures of people with larger heads than is realistic, possibly because the human mind is what makes us ourselves".  Is it just me, or does this sentence make no sense?  Also there is a recent article about how the genes associated with a larger head were not found to have any correlation with IQ, and therefore head size/brain size did not relate to IQ.  Maybe someon could find it and add it to the section.  Surely if head size was related to intelligence, then all the geniuses would have massive heads?  Most of them appear to have average sized, or even quite small heads.  And don't foget that many mentally challenged people have very large heads, although it is often related to a medical condition.
----
Just to mention: Intelligence depends on the amount of creases on your brain. Actually a dolphin's brains are more creased than a humans, but something about the human mind makes us more capable of using it. No idea what. --91.154.63.211 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it depends on a few more things than that. The advantage humans seem to hold over dolphins in intelligence is generally attributed to the existence of "granular layers" in the human cerebral cortex, which pack more neurons and also more neuron connections (synapses), whereas dolphin cerebral cortex contains much fewer of these "granular" areas.--Ramdrake 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head Size and IQ 

message: "Although gender-related differences in average IQ are insignificant, male scores display a higher variance: there are more men than women with both very high and very low IQs. The average IQ being 100 could see man have a s.d. of 16 and women a s.d. of 15. **Differences in variance would mean that more men are less intelligent than women also.**"
What...?
The statement could have also noted that there are more men that are MORE intelligent than woman also. Pointless statement that is clearly NOT NPOV.
I would say get rid of that last part of the statement. It doesn't ned to be said, because the rest of the statement explains it already. and the way that last part is written is a little funny. 144.139.121.27 10:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Statement 

message: It would be a good idea to have example IQ tests online or linked to this page so that people can actually see what IQ tests actually *are*.  
--NukeMason 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The need for online IQ tests 

message: The difference between ration and deviation IQs is explained here. --Jagz 08:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratio IQs versus deviation IQs 

message: "For people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, IQ is highly heritable, and by adulthood the influence of family environment on IQ is undetectable...In the United States, marked variation in IQ occurs within families, with siblings differing on average by almost one standard deviation"
If IQ is "highly heritable," shouldn't we expect each sibling of a given set of parents to have IQs that are much smaller than one standard deviation? The sentence implies "almost one standard deviation" to be a large amount - one standard deviation also overlaps considerably over other sources of error and may be statistically insignificant for the determination of difference between families.
And what about external environment? This paragraph only mentions "family environment." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.250.81 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: The assessment system devised by Binet and Simon was named for them, "the Binet-Simon Scale" (not the Binet-Simon intelligence scale), by users and translators in the USA.
Among the first intelligence tests designed for adult populations were the group-administered Army Alpha and Beta mental tests, developed by the 'Vineland committee' from 1917 to 1920.
Yerkes, R. M. (Ed.) (1921) Psychological examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 15, 1-890.
Subtests from Army Alpha and Beta later formed the basis for Wechsler's individually-administered scales, the first of which was the 'Wechsler-Bellevue Scale'. Londonmatty20 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Just a note to be on the look out.  He has bragged before that he'll just continue to post the spam since it's worth it to him due to the increase in hits at his site.  Normally he posts his spam links at the end of the article and sometimes he posts more than one link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.12 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone continues to spam this article with links to his/her "IQ test" 

message: IQ tests (as with all tests) are inaccurate i.e. somedays you will score higher/lower. Plus if you have disabilities that doesn't mean you're dumb.
* This is an encyclopedia. Link to sources, state what you want to change or add to the article but don't bother with pointless rants. --Svetovid 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ = Trivial 

message: Is it just me, or is the article missing a lot of citations and references? The first few sections have lots of claims, but few sources. The rest of the article has a lot of sources, but the first part definitely needs to be cited or removed because it's not really well written anyway and is pov sometimes. I dunno anything about this stuff but it needs to be fixed.Dan Guan 20:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations? 

message: There are no periods. PLEASE don't use them. Bulldog123 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess would be because I.Q. makes too much sense. See the recent change of S.A.T. from an abbreviation of Scholastic Aptitude Test to just plain SAT which now officially stands for nothing. Aaron Bowen 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's ''IQ'', NOT ''I.Q.'' 

message: An article which gives the basics about IQ should not talk about esoterica like regression to the mean.
I suggest that we delete that section. Bulldog123 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: explain your reasoning that statistical terms used to describe a statistic is esoterica.Tstrobaugh 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Regression" section pointless 

message: the new stuff should be integrated. --W.R.N. 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see something interesting for a non-researcher. Possibly the GSCE, but this is probably similar to high correlations with SAT, which could of course be mentioned.Ultramarine 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  post 1996 IQ correlations papers 

message: *The Underclass Revisited, AEI Press (1999) PDF copy
:I fail to see something interesting for a non-researcher. Possibly the GSCE, but this is probably similar to high correlations with SAT, which could of course be mentioned.Ultramarine 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  social pathologies 

message: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10519-007-9142-7
The Environments of Adopted and Non-adopted Youth: Evidence on Range
Restriction From the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS).
Previous reviews of the literature have suggested that shared
environmental effects may be underestimated in adoption studies
because adopted individuals are exposed to a restricted range of
family environments. A sample of 409 adoptive and 208 non-adoptive
families from the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS) was
used to identify the environmental dimensions on which adoptive
families show greatest restriction and to determine the effect of this
restriction on estimates of the adoptive sibling correlation. Relative
to non-adoptive families, adoptive families experienced a 41%
reduction of variance in parent disinhibitory psychopathology and an
18% reduction of variance in socioeconomic status (SES). There was
limited evidence for range restriction in exposure to bad peer models,
parent depression, or family climate. However, restriction in range in
parent disinhibitory psychopathology and family SES had no effect on
adoptive-sibling correlations for delinquency, drug use, and IQ. These
data support the use of adoption studies to obtain direct estimates of
the importance of shared environmental effects on psychological
development.
--W.R.N. 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  restriction of range effects in heritability has been studied since 1996 

message: the bulleted list under heritability is excellent. --W.R.N. 08:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  excellent 

message: This table makes no sense.  The text below it talks about -1.0 to 1.0 correlations and yet the caption on the table alleges the numbers to be the "percentage of each IQ sub-population".  The first row I follow: 5+20+50+20+5=100 and fits standard distribution.
But now look at the second row:
72% of people married before 30 have IQ below 75! 81% between 75 and 90, 81% between 90 and 110!? 
These can't be percentages of the sub-population, the title of the table says they are correlates, but obviously not in the -1.0 to 1.0 range.  Does anyone have the cited source book for this table?  I think someone mis-transcribed the information and created the incorrect caption.
--Danny Rathjens 08:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic and social correlates of IQ in the USA table 

message: This article could use a question or two along with an explanation of why certain answers are right or wrong. Particularly the ones with pattern recognition, a lot of people don't understand why answers in a pattern set are correct or incorrect. Aaron Bowen 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, copyright would almost certainly be an issue with any test currently being administered. Equally unfortunate: If we could get our hands on some older tests whose copyright had expired, certain people would probably dismiss them as being "out of date" and therefore unrepresentative, while any never-copyrighted tests would likely be dismissed as unaccredited or some such thing. Still, if anybody wants to add a couple of IQ test questions and explanations that won't get us into trouble with the copyright people, I'd certainly support that move and take your side against the naysayers. Buck Mulligan 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Help me out here, I thought that a 130 IQ was a gifted person, 150 was a genius and under 75 was a mental retard. Anyone know more fine lines?Therequiembellishere 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of my understanding, a numerical IQ guide to guage mental capability has been proposed, but it has never been accepted due to the inherent fallibility and variability of the tests, and also the Flowers-for-Algernon-esque difficulty that the mentally retarded can often excel at IQ tests.  I vaguely recall that Heinlein had some say in trying to form such a scale, and even inserted it into some of his science fiction works.  Normally I'd scoff at the concept of a SciFi author altering our understanding of social dynamics, but we do live in the age of those kooky Scientologists.  The best you can really do with the results currently is to say that a person over 150 rates as a likely genius and a person under 75 is a likely moron.  e.g.:  I was tested for my age-relative IQ when I was 10 and rated at 170, I was an NMSQT triple-nine scholar (99.9%), and my adult IQ by the Stanford-Binet standard is 149.  What does this tell you about me?  Not much, beyond the fact that I have visited a licensed psychologist for some kind of testing in the last five years - to be entirely honest, I'm a fairly dull individual when it comes to my wits, and I'm simply quite capable when it comes to the particular skill sets of problem solving and test-taking.  I certainly am no "genius," but the numbers as proposed claim that I am. For now, at least, to sum up, we have no accurate numerical rating system for mental state or capability - the IQ test is only an indicator, and even it is not standardized.  82.83.71.153 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about genius when it presents itself is not found in IQ 75 with any great regularity. However the test takers who get the tests repeated correct in very short times or just correct in high ceiling tests have the confidence of humanity who inspite of how hard they try humanities individuals around the average just cannot get the right answer. What seems simple for a genius is unfathomable for the average person in the street. So if a person with IQ 170 or IQ 149 has a passion that they are good at and requires a few brains they can advance human knowledge. In fact your comments in wikipedia, a place where the gifted thoughts over time are collected, may just be another sign of superior honesty and trustworthiness lead others to comment positively and thus starting a movement that does good for the world. Just a thought.RoddyYoung 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels 

message: There are some key points to raise concerning the above analysis : 
1) Is it the case that raw score distributions on tests are normally distributed (I can't imagine this being true historically!).  
2) The point concerning the distribution or proportion of the population with IQ scores that are below "the first x number of standard  deviations above the mean" could be more clearly made and illustrated - perhaps the phi(x) number corresponding to a rational cut-off point for the 300 million mark for Americans could be more clearly made?
3) The process of calibration via which raw scores ARE MADE to be normally distributed should be commented upon - is this particular calibration method known for any faults/forms of bias that it can introduce?
4) "Each IQ test, however, is designed and valid only for a certain IQ range."  
I think it's important to discuss the accuracy of the IQ statistic - does it vary with day/time/season during which it is taken?  I'm sure that the accuracy of the statistic with age has been commented upon, but surely someone has investigated how environmental effects alter IQ?  How does IQ alter with corticosteroid induced neural damage?  Do people register lower IQs after short/prolonged sleep deprivation?  I can imagine that IQ would be lower for those who have poor sleep hygiene than for those who don't.    
Are there tests that enable one to distinguish between 'IQ by genotype' and 'IQ by phenotype'?  I suppose that this last case is the most difficult to phathom - somebody who has been brain damaged due to environmental damage could still exhibit characteristics that would reveal/indicate underlying neural 'genotypic inclinations' - a CAT test might reveal something like the speed of neural structures and circuits within the brain that would most likely be correlated with someone of high IQ, for example.  These questions are motivated by a point that is related to teh point quoted above - 
"Each IQ test, however, is designed and valid only for a certain IQ range."
But is it not also the case that the tests are designed and valid only for certain populations? (This relates to 'culture fair' tests, but, I believe far more than merely this - the issue of the mother tongue and language of those taking IQ tests seems here to be the most important issue.  I cannot imagine being the only one to have made this latter observation).  
5) I have possibly repeated some of the information in the article here - but some points here I think are new.  
MrASingh 22:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Comments on Current Article 

message: Most of the article is based on US studies and data, therefore may not be universally true/applicable. I agree that other regions of the world may lack psychological investigation, but this article may as well be titled: "IQ-as perceived in USA on USA population sample". 
The observation that men's and women's IQ is the same is biased, and based on "political correctness". If men and women differ on size of bones, hormones, lifespan, emotions, it is highly improbable that they have the same IQ. The best one can say is that there is no significant difference observed on average in the long history of testing. Unfortunately, I suspect some tests may be "tweaked" to show this desireable outcome, especially in USA. 
149.99.56.194 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortfalls of this article 

message: I noticed that intelligence test redirects here.  An intelligence test is not the same as an IQ or intelligence test score.  "Intelligence test" would definitely merit its own article IMO.  We already have articles and categories for achievement test (created today) and personality test (created today).  Would anyone have a major problem if I removed that redirect and created an article in its place?  Chupper 19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect of [[Intelligence test]] 

message: Please follow usual Wikipedia rules and give enough information to locate the source of information. The name of the first author alone is not enough. Also, scientists frequently publish more than one publication per year and in various journals. Audriusa 14:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Can someone please illustrate the flawed nature of the IQ test in relation to race? I am SICK TO DEATH of racist people using the IQ test results as a means to proove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that black people are inferiour to white people. It's quite obvious that the difference in IQ test results are based on social constraints and not biological constraints, seeing as only 10 genes determine skin colour, and those 10 have no relationship to intelligence, attitude or emotion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a extreme claim. How about you prove that the factors causing the IQ gap are economic? --Pgecaj (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be PROVEN... however, what we can prove is that IQ is not fixed/immutable.  Read the Flynn/Dickens literature.  Anyone who thinks that IQ measures have eternal value must read more.  By the way, if you read closely, you'll discover that the scores of Blacks and Whites are converging (something like 4 to 7 points since the early 70s.)  Look at what IQ scores were like back in Binet and Simon's time.  Are people just getting smarter?  I think that people are getting more EDUCATED.  You'll notice that the changes in IQ scores correspond neatly (with a few years lag) to changes in the educational system... like various expansions in public education, integration of schools, etc.  We can't prove anything, but social scientists like to look at correlations and do hypothesis tests to see if things are just "coincidental."  They're not, in this case, but, as you've noted, we can't speak in terms of causality [Note: see Mill's three requirements for causality; we only fulfill two here, and not the third which rules out confounds.]  For an incredibly racist eugenics view on IQ, I encourage you to read Richard Lynn.  Lynn not only believes that "black" people are dumber... genetically... but that the more African blood you have, the dumber you are.  Thus, the light-skinned Black would be smarter, on average, than the chocolate-brown Black.  In fact, Lynn postulates that southern Italians are dumber than northerners because they have north African blood.  Also, Lynn has correlated psychopathy and degree of African genetics, as well.  The problem is that Lynn NEVER ONCE bothers to address obvious potential confounds, like the fact that... black people face social obstacles... some born out of history, some a factor of the present... and, among them, the poorer quality of education that they receive.  It is possible to speculate that, the darker the skin, the higher the degree of prejudice.  That's a confound.  Lynn does nothing with that.  We know that tests of GMA are extremely valuable, because they remove about half the variance in predicting performance when selecting candidates.  By contrast, the unstructured interview (by far the most prevalent selection tool) comes in somewhere in the .08-.15 range.  To be clear... the "IQ" test comes in at .5!  That's a staggering difference.  We want to test for intelligence, but we want to build equity at the same time.  That seems nearly impossible.  This is why Sackett and others have tried to underscore over and over that there most certainly IS a difference in "intelligence" (so to speak) between Black and White people and that we have NO REASON WHATEVER to assume that it is genetic.  In the assumption that it is a factor of "nurture," we need to improve the educational system (among other institutions.)  OF COURSE Whites score higher!  There is a common ignorance in this country among Caucasians that Black people simply do not WANT to achieve.  They ignore the facts of education.  Look around online and compare the quality of education that African-American and Caucasian-American children get.  It's pretty shocking.  To sum: The IQ test does have not only a great deal of validity in predicting performance, but it also has a great does of consistency.  Psychometricians have looked at tests of "g" forever... back to the days of Cattell, Carroll, etc., etc.  Ad infinitum.  They do what they're supposed to.  In fact, it is US... as a society... who do not do what WE are supposed to! 98.212.129.80 (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race 

message: This section should include a link to the article "Race and Intelligence" for more information.  Also, I do not think posting an editorial by Michael Nesbitt constitutes factual research.  I could just as easily post statements to the contrary by James Watson whose credentials far outweigh Michael Nesbitt's.
Lets try to find the truth here and not make political statements, or give in to some other possibly insecure need to ascribe physiological equality to all humanity.  I'm sorry but editorials have no place being a reference for an encyclopedia.  I could get a monkey to write editorials all day long.  It just looks idiotic and smacks of a huge bias on the part of this articles authors.Your IQ is low and that means your dumb but if its high that means ur own your way to the wide road babyy! LMFAO
Mrgreenluv (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has just such a link, so I don't understand the complaint. That said, limiting this section to only one researcher is an admitedly absurdly deviation from WP:NPOV and particularly WP:UNDUE. The referenced Nesbitt article also needs to be cited (surely this wouldn't be hard). And the section following this is even worse. "Children on average are more intelligent than their parents"? I don't think Flynn or many others would agree that increasing IQs equates to increasing intelligence. I'm pretty sure 21st century humans are not vastly more intelligent than 1st century humans. CAVincent (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added that link into this section actually.. :)   I probably just should have changed it without mentioning it here.  It kind of blew my mind that many other main articles were linked to but not that one.  Again, I think its a political bias on the part of certain users.Mrgreenluv (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range and Intelligence 

message: On June 30, 2007, Audriusa unilaterially and without discussion made a large number of changes to the article.  This was done despite the notation at the top of this page that the subject matter is "controversial" and that all substantial changes should be suggested on the talk board first. IMO quite a few of Audriusa's deletions and substitutions provide information that misleads. Dan
::The Wikipedia spirit encourages to be bold and just not to forget the references. Maybe one should be more careful if the article is highly mature, but this one surely is not. When I first looked at it, it was just praising IQ as something fundamental and doubtless. All literature references were tuned to support that intelligence is depictable as a single number, capable of rank ordering people in a linear order, is primarily genetically based and essentially immutable. This is then it only takes minutes to find the opposing works in NCBI. From the other side, in an oversized article from the English Wikipedia, nobody found reason to note that IQ tests in employment are normally banned by American law - leave alone to explain who and why did not like this. It seems that a good piece of the IQ history is missing there. The distribution curve was forged with drawing tools and put in the way as it is some kind of a scientific result. In a first chapter, as something frequent and abundant, it was written that a special schools for the people with high IQ exists somewhere (when as placed , my mark was just silently removed). IMHO this article really needs radical alterations to make it Wikipedia compliant Audriusa 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Audriusa on this one, he has, single handedly improved the quality of this article, although there are many pieces of the pussle still missing. I will see what can be done to improve this farther, and share it with you on this talk page. AuaWise -Talk- 11:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It appears that Audriusa has made substantial changes to the article without prior discussion 

message: Author Stephen Murdoch attributes the genesis of the test to Francis Galton who is not mentioned in this article.  Is this an oversight or intentional? -- Beland 01:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really Galton's test.  Galton was the father of individual difference, on some level (or at least the spiritual godfather.)  He was also the father of eugenics.  He didn't develop this kind of test, like Binet and Simon's, but certainly he did believe in using tools to measure differences in traits.98.212.129.80 (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francis Galton 

message: The discussion states the article is : 
But this does not seem to appear on the main article page.  If the discussion states this - surely the main article should?
Also, there is a wikipedia article on Mental Chronometry - though there is no mention of some of the strengths and weakness of Mental Chronometry and how this correlates with IQ (or whether this is useful in life/academia, etc....).  A link to Mental Chronometry should be included.  
KlamkinQuickie 12:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Tag for Article.  Not enough of a critical analysis of Mental Chronometry 

message: Does anyone else find this table to be incredibly confusing? I thought it was percentages at first and after studying it for almost an hour, I still can't figure out what the numbers of the table are measuring. It's percentages, but then shouldn't each row sum up to 100%? I already understand the population distribution row. It's just the other rows I'm unclear with. I hate sounding stupid, maybe something just isn't clicking in my head, but I just can't understand what the numbers in the rows of this table mean.
:Plug in the variables in the following sentence: "Among people whose IQs fall in the range X, the percentage with attribute Y is Z," where X is the IQ range at the top of the chart ("<75" or "90-110" etc.), Y is the descriptor ("divorced in 5 years") and Z is the number value in the cell in question. So for the first cell, you have: "Among people with IQs less than 75, the percentage who are married by the age of 30 is 72%." The chart is rather confusing, because the first row parses completely differently from the rest. The first row tells you how large the groups are in relation to each other, and the rest of them describe the percentage within each group with the attribute described on the left. Hope this helps. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is exactly what was confusing me, I could read the first row but the rest didn't follow the same logic. Thank you, this helps a lot.
So exactly what is the difference in the meaning of "predict" in the social sciences and the other sciences?  If there is a problem with a lay undersanding of statistical prediction (i.e., that is is not caual) than the word "predict" should not be used in the arcticle.  (It probably shouldn't be used by statisticians along with sayig that one variable "explains" the variance in another).)  As written, the layman is likely to think there is some difference in the sciences instead of semantic problems.  I suggest the section be written without using the word "precdict".  Ill do it if Wikipedia is still open to editing by readers.  -- RJ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The requirements for determining causality are still Mill's, in essence: 1. X is related to Y; 2. X precedes Y; 3. Other explanations are ruled out for the relationship X>Y.  The third one is very tough... but it's a bit like "beyond REASONABLE doubt."  The requirements for predictive validity are a bit looser.  It's correlational.  You're not trying to say that an individual difference CAUSES performance, after all.  What you're trying to do is remove variance.  Let's say a coin flip is r=0.0 as a predictor.  Tests of cognitive ability correlate at .51.  That means you're removing about half of the variance by utilizing an "IQ test."  You can SAY that the variance isn't being predicted, but if you want to be a crank, you can easily make that tired argument that Russell makes that there is no causality... which actually is correct on the universal level.  When we observe a correlation... X is related to Y... and X comes before Y... we don't have to do an intervention to "prove" anything.  We need to rule out confounds.  One thing you can do, of course, is to run massive meta-analysis and do regressions.  Anyway... read some Schmidt & Hunter and Hunter & Hunter if you'd like more info on precisely WHY we consider IQ tests to "predict" performance.98.212.129.80 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic and social correlates of IQ in the USA Table 

message: IQ is a combined math/verbal score and can mask even greater precociousness in either math or verbal capabilities-- (For example, due to averaging, someone with a combined math/verbal score of 150 might actually have a math IQ well below 150 while at the same time having a verbal IQ well above 150). 
Therefore sub-scores indicating independent 'math IQ' and 'verbal IQ' should also be provided in any testing results, but rarely are.
Sean7phil (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a major confound when it comes to "verbal IQ."  Tests that are highly verbally-loaded have massive adverse impact on racial subgroups.  This is the reason that the Raven APM was developed back in the mid 1930s.  Someone had the presence of mind to notice that some people don't speak English as well as others but are equally intelligent to them.  Ideally, we should find non-verbal tests if we want to measure intelligence, but, realistically, it is valuable to screen people on verbal "ability" (not intelligence) if we're selecting for people who speak well.  Also... we don't identify a distinct difference between verbal and mathematical intelligence when SCREENING for general mental ability.  It's simply not possible.  They're both part of General Mental Ability and can't be isolated.  98.212.129.80 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbal ''Versus'' Mathematical IQ 

message: Another point for consideration is perhaps that one could have lower mathematical and verbal IQs and yet be a visual artist (perhaps a painter) with much higher, and yet very hard to measure, capability in that area. 
Sean7phil (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual IQ 

message: Hello!
While I'm not a close contributor to this topic, I can't help but notice a counter claim to diminishing marginal value that mis-characterize the parent argument, have biased or erroneous citations or simply do not make much sense.  
Firstly, I am changing 
Some researchers have echoed the popular claim that "in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much."[51][52]
 
by dropping "have echoed the popular."  It feels biased, like some pseudo-scientists are championing the commons and, in any case, is not strictly needed.  
::'I'm inserting my comments here and below The idea of decreasing marginal value is absurd.  It has been shown TIME AND TIME AGAIN that this is not true... that the validity of GMA as a predictor of performance goes up linearly... ALL the way up.  One can include whatever quote one finds, but this view is not at all accepted by the APA.  If you're interested, please read Coward, W. M., Sackett, P. R. (1990).  Linearity of Ability-Performance Relationships: A Reconfirmation.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 297-300.98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: YOU SHOULD NOT REMOVE THIS.  IT'S EASY TO USE WORDS LIKE "INTUITIVELY," BUT FORTUNATELY SCIENCE DOESN'T USE THEM.  I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND, HOWEVER, HOW YOU MISUNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY THE LINEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GMA SCORES AND PERFORMANCE.  PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE I HAVE INCLUDED ABOVE BY COWARD AND SACKETT.  AND I AM WRITING THIS IN CAPS BECAUSE I AM SCREAMING IT.  IT IS NOT OK TO REMOVE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS FROM A PAGE LIKE THIS UNLESS YOU'VE READ THEM AND HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY MEAN. 98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to research sensitive issues honestly, you may need to take what ever resources are given to you, whoever the giver:
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003suppressingintelligence.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.252.200 (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Bell Curve is deeply flawed, not in the research per se but in the inferences it draws.  Look at Flynn/Dickens' writing on IQ and you'll immediately see the fallacy.  IQ is a measure of where people's intelligence stands TODAY.  It measures crystallized intelligence as much as fluid.  Crystallized intelligence is a product of nurture (especially early nurture.)  The Bell Curve encourages us to think of "g" as principally genetic, when we know that not to be the case.  If it were, why would African-Americans' IQ score be converging on Caucasians as they have since the early 1970s?  The fact is... yes... Whites score higher on IQ tests than Blacks TODAY.  It would be controversial to say that white people are more intelligent than black people... because it implies a genetic component.  The biggest changes you'll note in GMA test scores follow changes in the educational system... not in "natural selection."  By the way... if you believe in IQ scores as absolute and immutable... we're much more intelligent than we were back in Binet's day.  Look at the numbers.  You'll laugh.98.212.129.80 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To those more qualified on this subject 

message: Someone has added a section with this name.  It is not good. --Xyzzyplugh 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is defended by two references, both from peer-reviewed journals. Audriusa 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was the writing, not the content.  It appears to have been written by someone who is not entirely fluent in english.--Xyzzyplugh 00:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only does it make no sense, if you check the cites used as support, those cites don't provide the support that's suggested.  This isn't the only part of this article that misleads or misstates, there seems to be plenty of work to do here when those inclined find the time. DukeWins!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.26 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The non - correlating part of the population 

message: Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be mean to anyone, just add some critic that can hopefully make this article a better.
This articles legibility is awful, it's typography is very confusing. There are to many headlines with just a small amount of text which basicly makes it hard to discern any information from the article. Just my 2 cents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyml (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybee I just have a low IQ, but ...