Talk:Intelligence quotient/Archive 2

message: I deleted the word "large" before meta-analysis because it is not necessary.  Meta-analyses are inherently large and this word made the statement sound biased toward the results of the study, or at the very least made the sentence sound awkward.  If anyone thinks it is necessary, feel free to add it back!
I note my point on changes to individual test scores was changed and moved; I don't fully agree with all the changes (as the question may well be a question of degree, with those with learning disabilities, being the primary subjects of the research with which I'm most familiar, showing the most significant change), but I will check some citations and make the changes after I see what other thoughts people have.
I note there are some internal inconsistencies in the article on heritability; I'll leave this to others to sort out, but the added detail here doesn't hurt.
I will add citations to the notion that differences between clusters have been converging as well.  It's probably useful to have citations on both sides of that dispute.
Smawnmahlau 01:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought that text was about the Flynn effect -- so I replaced it with a direct description of the Flynn effect. I'm not familiar with the data on IQ testing and learning disabilities outside of the classfication of mental retardation. Some citations would be great. --Rikurzhen 03:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes 

message: Fifteen points lower than what IQ? This doesn't make sense.
"Research in Scotland has shown that a 15-point lower IQ meant people had a fifth less chance of seeing their 76th birthday, while those with a 30-point disadvantage were 37% less likely than those with a higher IQ to live that long. [24]"
it is necessary to have an actual (specific) dispute in order to put a dispute tag on a page. --Rikurzhen 23:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute tag 

message: what is the HIGHEST IQ someone can have??
i have some questions connected with the discussion on the validity of the test. it seems quite reasonable for me to expect a) that people who have done many tests will ameliorate (even slightly) their results b) ppl who have studied certain fields related with the iq exams, such as maths or formal logic will have a comparative advantage towards those who have not.
in short can (at least to a certain extent) the iq tests considered as a technique one can learn?--Greece666 23:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "teaching the test" is a common problem in the IQ arena, and indeed the Flynn Effect may simply be a result of everyone developing greater test-savvy. Fortunately there are so many kinds of IQ test batteries that teaching to the test is rarely a problem except in instances where individuals know the exact test they will be taking and can study it beforehand. For instance, Jensen's The g Factor points out that vocabulary tests are excellent at measuring intelligence (or g), and I can only assume that they should be useful on individuals in fields like math or logic. So the problem you bring up is meaningful, but not insurmountable. Harkenbane 05:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This article generally focuses on a lot of academic debate over the meaning of IQ scores rather than the practical elements relating to why people use IQ tests, how they are designed, and what kind of problems they are meant to help with.  Even if someone trains themselves in a way that improves their overall score, they are unlikely to train themselves to close gaps between scores of component parts of the test (e.g., Verbal Comprehension and Processing Speed) without effectively addressing the underlying learning disability causing the discrepancy. And that is precisely what the test is designed to help do!  This kind of training, to address deficiencies identified by the test, will regularly add 20 points or more to the IQs of people with dyslexia as they grow up (and in many individual cases, the increase can be even more pronounced).  I've tried to make some changes to reflect the more practical side of these tests. Smawnmahlau 14:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions 

message: Looking at this, I think the whole article could use a section focused just on the practical uses and interpretation of test scores.  These broad statements about components generally correlating, and generally being stable over a life, mask all the interesting details that make these tests useful. Likewise, understanding what each of the discrete components seeks to measure would make this a loss less abstract. Sam 22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical Uses and Interpretation of Test Scores 

message: Notably, Binet himself made no claim that his test properly measured innate intelligence. He stated in his paper New Methods for the Diagnosis of the Intellectual Level of Subnormals that
:"This scale properly speaking does not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured, but are on the contrary, a classification, a hierarchy among diverse intelligences; and for the necessities of practice this classification is equivalent to a measure." 
the quotation does not support the no claim contention. the quotation is about the fact that IQ is not a ratio scale -- about how it measures -- not what it measures. --Rikurzhen 05:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what binet wrote 

message: Would we accept an entry about heart surgery from anonymous users?  Probably not.  Why is intelligence different? Psychologists go to school for several years, receive training, mentoring, feedback, and take licensure exams before they are given the opportunity to comment on IQ and intelligence.  I’d like to know if any of the contributors here have been state-certified or licensed to make expert statements about this topic.
:Please sign your comments, so we at least know which anonymous person you are today!  I'm just a guy without any particular qualifications who agrees with you on this, in particular because I happened to be raised by people who were qualified to deal with some of these tests and have spent a good part of the last decade dealing with some truly excellent physchologists at two major academic institutions.  So, take whatever I have to say with the appropriate grain of salt, though I've also got a phenomenally high IQ, so those of you who worship IQs will want to listen to every word. Sam 20:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notably, our cardiac surgery article (one I readily concede to be of substandard quality, irrespective, even, of its paucity of references) has been frequently edited by anons, who have contributed better than one-third of the content.  With respect to the larger policy question, though, see the WP:EE proposal, which properly notes that, even as experts may be of great use to the project, their views apropos of the formulation of articles oughtn't to be categorically implemented (viz., no appeals from authority) one should also consider that, whilst experts likely are sufficiently familiar with their respective areas as to be able to adduce relevant external references, they also are more likely to deal cursorily with elementary issues that an encyclopedia, to be useful, likely should cover in more depth.  Joe 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State your qualifications 

message: The intro speaks of ICUE, but does not explain that alternative spelling. Is this a silly joke (which would say something about the author's IQ :) )? DirkvdM 07:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICUE 

message: At the reference desk, someone asked if there is an organisation that determines which iq tests are to be taken seriously. I suppose there is a load of bull out there, so that makes it a good question and I don't see the answer in the article. DirkvdM 08:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the most reliable IQ tests are individually administered by trained professionals. The question asked appears to be getting at "group" administered tests, such as those found online. --Rikurzhen 08:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to suggest that only individually administered tests are reliable, but for the Mensa I did a group test (which got me in), and I suppose they know what they are doing. But the question is (apart from how the test is administered) if there is an organisation that determines which tests are 'official'. How does one determine that? For example, I did some tests from a book by Hans Eysenck and the article suggests an eminence that should make it reliable (in which case I score around 150 :) ). But how can I know for sure? Also, can any test in a book (or on the Internet as you mention) be reliable? DirkvdM 08:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliability is empirically established. To use a food analogy, being "reliable" is not like being "organic", but like being 99% fat free. Reliability is determined by several criteria against which a test can be subjected. Most tests are probably reliable. Validity is probably the more important criteria. Because each test maker would establish validity and reliability while building their tests, I doubt that there's any standard secondary certification. --Rikurzhen 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I meant validity. I don't get the food analogy because I'm not from the US. :) You probably assume a mindset I don't have (eg, 99% fat free is not necessarily a good thing to me - I actually even eat loads of fat). Anyway, it still seems to make sense to have an organisation that checks on the validity of tests. I could devise a test and publish it, couldn't I? DirkvdM 10:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliability of various test 

message: In the "Economic and social correlates of IQ" tables, one entry is "US population distribution". Isn't that supposed to be the same all over the world? And does this mean the figures are all for the US, ie based on a US study? If so, that should be mentioned explicitly because it is about social qualities, which have a different significance in different countries. For example, at what age people get married and how easily they divorce. And the meaning of 'poverty' depends very much on at which country you look. By the way, a comparison of this correlation between different countries would be very informative, indicating how much your chances of economic development depend on intelligence (rather than wealth at birth), but that's a different issue. DirkvdM 08:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the data from table 2 is from a study of a sample representative of the United States population. Values from table 1 are (AFAIK) representative of developed countries. --Rikurzhen 05:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'AFAIK' isn't really good enough. Do you know who added the table? Wikipedia is a bit too slow now to check that. But I'll add the other bit now. I am now a bit suspicious that much of the other information is also specifically about the US. This is rather a big problem on the English Wikipedia. The US is so big that people from there have a tendency to think they represent the world. There is reall no way to correct such errors, unless you can track down all editors and ask them, which would of course be way too impractical. DirkvdM 10:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Table 1 values come from the APA , but they're ambiguous about which studies they are summarizing. --Rikurzhen 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No they're not supposed to add up to 100%. Each value is the percentage of people in that category who meet that criteria, not the fraction of people who meet that criteria who fall in that category (which would add up to 100%). --Rikurzhen 19:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic and social correlates of IQ 

message: Throughout the text, several references are mentioned within the text but there are no links to most of them.  From a practical view point, is it not desirable to see such links? 
--NukeMason 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The need for links to references 

message: Off the top of my head, I can think of two fictional charcaters with high IQs, Commander Keen with an IQ of 314, and Shredder from TMNT with 675. It would be funny if there were a section pondering the probabilities of their IQs, in a comical fashion, much like what happened with Santa Clause. One example would be the percentage of people likley to have an IQ of 675, things like that :) Lovok 13:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light Hearted Humor 

message: Why is Steven Jay Gould given his own section in most wikipedia articles, including this one, when it comes to "intelligence" and related fields?  It appears that either some think that Gould was an expert in the field or want, to at least, leave that impression.  He wasn't, as far as I know.
Probably because it's useful to use his criticisms to address or encompass other criticisms of IQ. I've seen the "Mismeasure of Man" a lot throughout my readings about IQ, and since his statements have an impact on public opinion, he does deserve some mention.Robinson0120 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Gould given prominence in this article?  Gould was not an expert on intelligence.

message: Wikipedia articles on IQ and its tests seem to completely ignore the differences in standard deviations used in different tests. This makes the statements about point differences somewhat meaningless as the used standard deviation is not mentioned. Petruspennanen 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard deviation differences not mentioned 

message: Sorry first time contributing so forgive me for any signs of being a newbie, but I believe that the words "higher income caucasians seem to produce higher scores on IQ tests than black loser classes" is racially insensitive especially on such a controversial article.Ghostbearkhan 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it completely. --Rikurzhen 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly won't complain. :)--Ramdrake 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Strange, I don't see it.--Ramdrake 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race and IQ 

message: See Talk:IQ test controversy. Arbor 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody disagreed, so I killed that page and redirected it here. There was not much there that was not already here. I renamed the Social construct section into Controversy, so that headline now also includes MoM. I don't know why we need The view of the APA. It just repeats what this article says anyway, the only controversy it highlights is a debate about the  genetic explanation of between-race differences in intelligence, which is covered ad nauseam elsewhere. I propose to kill that section; the implicit "appeal to authority" of that section would properly appear as footnotes to the other claims in this article. Arbor 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of dissenting opinions notwithstanding, I seem not to have followed standard procedure and consequently undid my merger. So I slapped on the proper merging templates on both pages. These will remain for 5 days, after which, triumphantly, I will re-perform the merger. Arbor 07:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they should be merged. However, the controversy article needs significant clean up. For example: the political ramifications of IQ scores are not a problem with IQ tests. They are a political debate,not a pyschological one.--Marvuglia 21:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make sure that you don't make the article so politically correct that it strays from science. Assuming all people looked similar millions of years ago, it would be surprising if the only changes that evolved since then were those obvious to the eye such as the visual differences between people of different race. --Jagz 17:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be a bit clearer on what you mean?--Ramdrake 18:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Jagz 19:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The subject of this article is IQ and not just IQ Test Controversy so it doesn't need to be cleaned up until it is merged into this article if such a merger is going to happen. --Jagz 19:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That's much clearer.--Ramdrake 19:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[IQ test controversy]] 

message: Do I have to explain it?100110100 05:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Psychological Association is a worldwide organization. I'm Canadian and a member. Now the "World Series" of baseball, that is another topic.--Marvuglia 07:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide Tag 

message: Someone has gone through and added multiple references to Klinefelter's Syndrome in various parts of this article.  I find it questionable whether this is notable enough for all these mentions of this, so I've removed one of the mentions, from the Brain areas associated with IQ section.  Feel free to put it back, or whatever, if it's worth keeping.  The text I removed: "Studies, conducted on one particular individual with Klinefelter's Syndrome indicates that visual IQ tests (pattern, shape, colour, mathematical series), computation, can be greatly enhanced by using puzzles such as WASGIJ's. Increased Visual IQ from around 110 to 155 is not impossible when such tests are conducted on some individuals with Klinefelter's Syndrome. Both individuals with Klinefelter's Syndrome and Triple X syndrome have an enhanced Parietal lobe which facilitates visual spatial thinking". --Xyzzyplugh 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Klinefelter's Syndrome

message: The Social Construct section is almost entirely unsourced and may be mostly POV.  In the first instance, this prevents others from weighing the material presented.  In the second instance, the section needs at least radical revision.  In either event, when this is the case, and according to Wikipedia standards for  controversial topics, one should "supply full citations."  This clearly has not been done by some of those initially contributing.
:Learn how to spell its. -lysdexia 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you never misspell a word, now do you? And BTW, it's dyslexia. ;>
--Ramdrake 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Under Wikipedia standards, the Social Construct section needs it's sources.

message: Where do the IQs listed in this section come from? Are the IQs listed adjusted for the Flynn effect or not? --Jagz 03:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should probably be made into a separate article because it shows bias towards those with high IQs. What about famous people with low IQs? --Jagz 15:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the list.  A lot of it looked like it came from this website's list of "estimated IQs" .-SpuriousQ 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous or notable high IQs 

message: The "The definition of the IQ" and "Misconceptions about the IQ" sections are the worst things I've read on Wikipedia. 
:Care to explain "why"?--Ramdrake 23:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions are atrocious 

message: Is it just me, or does the repetition between the introduction and "Components of intelligence" seem at least somewhat undesirable?  It has been there for some time and no one has seen fit to change it, but it seems unfit for an encyclopedia to directly re-use sections within the same article.  --Tiak 20:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition 

message: I changed this part : "IQ correlates highly with school performance but the correlations decrease the closer one gets to real-world outcomes, like with job performance". This is false, in fact IQ correlates with school performance and job performance equally well. In fact, one of the table on the very same page states that the correlation with School grades is 0.5, while the correlation with job performances is 0.54 , meaning IQ correlates more with job performance than with grades.
--Guillaume777 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: In "The definition of the IQ section" it says: 
Originally, IQ was calculated with the formula 100 \times \frac{\text{mental age}}{\text{chronological age}}. A 10-year-old who scored as high as the average 13-year-old, for example, would have an IQ of 130 (100*13/10). Because this formula only worked for children, it was replaced by a projection of the measured rank on the Gaussian bell curve with a center value (average IQ) of 100.
So what do IQ scores of children mean now? Do the scores compare them to other children or everyone? Will the child be expected to have about the same IQ score when they are an adult? --Jagz 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on it: Only to the extent that child doesn't move up or down in the bell curve (that is, learn more quickly or slowly than their peers).  There are many children who see "jumps" and "plateaus" as they learn, particularly if they are overcoming learning disabilities.  While test/retest statistics show a high level of consistency, the "average" cases is never the most interesting, and I know of multiple situations where a child's IQ has varied by more than three standard deviations as they grew up. Sam 01:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of children's IQ scores