Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations/Archive 1

message: Does anyone have a link to these old "IQ-test" findings, at least in the scandinavian nations??  I believe they were quoted in the appendix of the Bell Curve, and this week in the main, local newspaper of Finland?? (comparing 1950 and 1960, increase of 20 points, so now we probably have an average of 140 points)
Plus a link on how, where and why IQ-tests are re-scaled every 10 years, to be sure to keep the 100 point average.
:See Flynn effect. VV 00:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Flynn Effect appears to have stopped, having petered out during the 1990's. Some studies are even showing a slight reversal of the trend; see for instance this article: http://members.fortunecity.com/templarser/iq.html Harkenbane 22:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  10-20 extra IQ-points for every new generation?? 

message: This article strikes me as a tad misleading. The scientific conclusion is more or less "there is a correlation between IQ and GDP." The article fails to point out that correlation is not equal to causation. Especially in this case, I pulled a few quotes from the Copenhagen Consensus on micronutrients:
:"For a variety of reasons, childhood malnutrition often leads to an individual receiving less schooling, which translates directly into lower lifetime earnings for the people affected."
:"a study has shown, for example, that iodine-deficient individuals score an average of 13.5 points lower in IQ tests."
I'd like to add a section along these lines. Feco 16:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Most of us were focussed on the dubiousness of the IQ test calculations; the rebuttals we found implicitly rejected the causatory factor by controlling for other factors, so this point did not get made explicitly.  Please add it, perhaps to further explain the point of the rebuttals in the last section.  --Robert Merkel 01:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah. Lynn is a prominent advocate among intelligence researchers of the nutrition hypothesis.--Nectar 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Article 

message: Why is Guinea listed twice? Which one is right? Also, the list isn't alphabetized within equivalent groups. It's a bit of a mess, and I don't have the book on hand to clean it up. Grendelkhan 01:08, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
:Guinea was not listed twice. Guinea (IQ 66) and Equatorial Guinea (IQ 59) are two different nations. See my explanation above.--hitssquad 00:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first instance where it said Guinea was supposed to be Gabon.  But I left it out since the data for Gabon was an estimate.  AndyCapp 04:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Guinea is not Gabon. See above.--hitssquad 00:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Guinea Guatemala? 84.70.132.186 18:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs cleanup 

message: The following week's edition retracted the data: "Alas, we were the victim of a hoax: no such data exists."
I am fair confident that the above recent addition is itself a hoax because I have the following week's edition (i.e. this week's) and there is no retraction that I can see. Further this data is in the book. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the retraction is real, and precisely as stated.  Thanks to a search, I found it on the next week's issue of the online Economist (although it is well-hidden).  The article is here (though I think you need an Economist.com subscription to access it).  I have reinstated the line in the article. --Shibboleth 02:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Although I don't have the book handy, I have heard this story.  It is a hoax, and according to all sources I checked an IQ by state table does not exist in L&V.  See  . VV 01:45, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of the section. Sorry about that! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I just got the book from the library, and there is absolutely nothing in it about the average IQs of US states.  So I guess it really is a hoax. AndyCapp 18:45, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This hoax seems to have enough currency that our article on the book could usefully note and dispel it.  I've added a section based on what I've read online.  Apparently the online Economist lags behind the print version, because in searching the magazine's website I couldn't find either the retraction or the original article.  I don't think we should go too far in denouncing the list itself as phony, though.  It looks pretty much like what I'd expect to see in a genuine list of U.S. states ordered by average IQ test score. JamesMLane 08:44, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I read a bit about the source of the hoax, and apparently someone cobbled it together based on average incomes for the states, so it might correlate with something.  Of course, no doubt the list would validate certain people's prejudices as well. VV 21:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I think the values are too far spread to possibly be true but it would be good to know what that something is. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  hoax data 

message: The article says: "There are also errors in the raw data presented by authors. The results from Vinko Buj's 1981 study used different scaling from Lynn and Vanhanen's. Also, Buj's original IQ figures in Ireland, Norway and Greece differ from the figures given by Lynn and Vanhanen." Until details can be provided about this, I think the Buj item should be deleted from the article. --hitssquad 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the links. Ultramarine 21:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Ultramarine. That was helpful. hitssquad 21:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vinko Buj's data 

message: 80.170.38.235, what changes would you like to see in the article, and why? I reverted your first edit because you wiped the article. You posted your second edit while I was reverting your first one and so my reversion calcelled both of those edits. --hitssquad 10:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  80.170.38.235 from Amsterdam, The Netherlands 

message: can we put that table in a template and then have the template protected? --Rikurzhen 08:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: moved to a template. hopefully this will deter vandalism. if not, i'll request that it be protected. --Rikurzhen 03:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I put in the request Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations --Rikurzhen 05:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism of data table 

message: i added a pov tag to the critique section b/c many of the claims are unsourced/unattributed. they may or may not be accurate: i don't know. --Rikurzhen 09:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a template about sources and attributes would be better than the one about (N)POV? in this case. That template is best suited to specific claims of bias. Pcb21 Pete 13:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm changing it for . -- Schaefer 18:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The figures were obtained by taking unweighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. In most of the nations there were no studies and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.  The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred.  The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available.
There are only 81 countries listed. If 34 had one study each, and 30 had two studies each, there can only be 17 countries left to have had any other number of studies. It's logically impossible for most countries to have zero studies, which the text claims, given these restrictions. -- Schaefer 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I changed many to most. Note that book give IQ scores for all nations, not only these 81 that are listed here and that have studies. Ultramarine 18:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The book does not give IQ scores for all recognized nations. --hitssquad 09:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Another criticism is regarding the use of a blog. However, the book has not passed any form of peer-review or academic scrutiny before publishing. As such, I consider the views of an IQ researcher as valuable as the view of the book.Ultramarine 18:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed you recently reinserted a lot of deleted text in the critique section. If you know where these claims come from, consider adding verifiable attributions to notable people that have written about each of these complaints against the book. I understand that there's a relative paucity of published critiques against this book given what problems seem to exist with its methodology, but policy is policy. Thanks. -- Schaefer 18:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov section 

message: :The authors argued that the People's Republic of China's per capita GDP of roughly USD $4,500 could be explained by its use of a communist economic system for much of its recent history. The authors also predicted that communist nations who they believe have comparatively higher IQs, including the PRC, Vietnam, and North Korea, can be expected to gain GDP by moving from centrally-planned to market economic systems, while predicting continued poverty for African nations. Recent trends in the economy of the People's Republic of China seem to confirm this prediction, as China's GDP has quadrupled since market reforms in 1978.
I feel the section on China is somewhat misleading. The book was published in 2002. Therefore, the authors were already well aware of these trends in China. The way it is written now seems to make it sound as if this was a phenomena predicted by the book which panned out (not that it took a genius to figure out China's per capita GDP would increase as it did when they moved to a market economic system) Nil Einne 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: Is this a marketing gimmick on Wikipedia? Please scrap this article from wikipedia. It is propagating wrong and baseless ideas. If this book is as good as it is claimed, the authors will be able to answer my puzzle instantaneously, here it is:
"I live on a farm, there are 10 trees, I have 6 goats and 10 cars. How many windows does my house have?"  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.228.194.126 (talk) 16:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
::That...my dear Watson...depends on how many goats live in the house!  Jaker5 (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: When did the 'wikipedians' became fool enough to start an article like this? A stupid mere statistical data is not a law. Please start articles like 'IQ and Potato', 'IQ and Chewing Gum', 'IQ and Coca cola'...It 'll be more interesting!!
IQ does not measure intellgence. Intellegence is a vauge and unscientific term. "She's smart" is something children say. No test can measure intellgence. That's like saying, "I want a test that will measure bravery". Instead,
An IQ test measures how adapted a person is to the culture of whoever made the test
Most IQ tests are made by Westerners. Westerners are rich, and being well adapted to the Western enviroment means you will be rich as well (maybe). Therefore, a high IQ means you will be rich, possibly. Of course, there are many ways of becoming rich without having to adapt to Western ideals. The Japanese have shown this. They are rich. They are Eastern. Triumphantly so. In summary, to all you "race concious" bigots with physician friends from Papua New Guinea out there:
IQ does not measure intellegence!
: I suggest you check out the average IQ scores of east asians then. By the way, you're right, IQ is not intelligence but it correlates closely with it (g), depending on the individual IQ test. --Nnp 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is rather interesting that the Japanese manage to not only become rich without adopting Western ideals, but also to outperform Westerners on their supposedly biased IQ tests.  One might wonder why there is systematic racial variation in the ability to beat the white man at his own game.  Tomyumgoong 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IQ test is valuable because it makes accurate predictions. The APA issued a statement saying that IQ differences exist, the test is not biased, and it makes reasonably accurate predictions. It remained "agnostic" on the issue of its origin, be it genetic or cultural. I think the APA's statement is covered in Wikipedia's article on the bell curve by Murray & Herrnstein.
@OP - Personally, I think this book is quite right on the mark.  Wikipedia will start a "IQ with Potatoes" section when a well respected researcher had come to the conclusion that there IS in fact a connection between the two.  
In the mean time, the general consensus is that IQ and intelligence does go hand in hand (and so does Wealth and IQ).  Many research had been done on this topic.  So this will be what we write about.
And about East Asia (and Japanese).  I don't really see what you are saying here.  East Asians have a different culture than Westerners that is true, but if you read the article, both group have relatively high IQ (and high wealth).  User Tomyumgoog says that Japan manage to become rich without adopting Western ideals, true; but they did increase their IQs.  Which is what this book is about.  So while culture is not a factor in getting rich, IQ still is; as imperial evidence shows.
Generally I found this book to be hard to argue against for the simple reason that it is quite truthful.  Both imperially and logically.  As controversial as it is; if you look at it objectively, it sum up the situation quite well.  Yongke 16:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ is not intellgence 

message: I modified the first paragraph a bit. You do not argue a correlation exists; it either does or does not. One argues the causation of the correlation. My change reflects this, that they demonstrate a correlation and arguably attribute it to differences in IQ. The word arguably, strictly speaking, is not needed, as it is the authors' opinion, and is almost by definition arguable and not universally agreed upon unless stated otherwise. But I didn't delete it. If others agree, they should delete it.
As a Psychology Phd student I think it is important to note that "intelligence" is just a concept that has been defined differently over time in many different cultures (see the works of Gardner on multiple intelligence for another definition of intelligence). By definition, an IQ or intelligence quotient test is a number, designed to represent (with a standard margin of error), "intelligence" usually conceptualised as verbal and numerical ability - in line with western methods of education. Hence the strong correlation with educational results. Most IQ test such as the Stanford-Binet and the Weschler are not "culture-free" and therefore extremely biased to western-style educational environments. As a consequence, they do not actually measure what is commonly understood to be intelligence at all in most non-western societies. It would be like, travelling to ancient Egypt, being given an exam in heirogliphics on Ancient Egyptian mathematical and linguitic items (with very little instruction) and then being told how "smart" you are as a result!
:Yes, it's fair to think of "intelligence" defined by psychometricians as the ability to "succeed" in the modern world. This is an intentional "bias".--Nectar 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  The measurement of intelligence is an attempt to measure g.  It is in no way an attempt to quantify the things that make you succeed in the modern world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: That's nonsense! Those IQ-Tests are all          cause they don't prove anything. Remove this topic. Those IQ tests are lost in the time. Look, today we can't say that someone is intelligent or not. We must ask in wich area this person is intelligent. Of course the people who live in poor countries would not get good results at those ridiculous tests. But I'm sure they can do lots of things that we can't. Things that weren't included on those "tests". Many people think that these things are not important and or irrelevant...
:FWIW, I happen to think the conclusions of Lynn and Vartanen are nonsense.  However, the book has attracted a good deal of attention, and it is thus appropriate to have an article on it, also noting the many and loud criticisms made of the book and the wider claims surrounding race and IQ.  I happen to think, say, astrology is completely bogus.  Should we delete that too? --Robert Merkel 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability, and it is a verifiable fact the the book exists and that says what it says. If you find published criticisms of the contents of the book, I invite you to add those criticisms (sourced and written in a NPOV manner).Randroide 09:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those tests don't prove anything 

message: The phrase "concludes the average human IQ is presently 90, equivalent to the mental age of a white 14 year old. (Standardized IQ tests are normed to 100, the mental age of the average white 16-year-old.)" seems to be an unacknowledged citation of Rushton's review of Lynn's work .  It is also slighty odd, while intelligence tests for children IQ was originally (circa 1910) worked out with reference to mental age this certainly isn't standard practise today, and never was standard practise with adult samples.  It also carries the implication, intended or not, that adults with an IQ of 90 in countries other than where the norm was established (the UK) are child like in their intelligence.  Surely better to say:
"concludes the average human IQ is presently 90 when compared to the norm of 100, or two thirds of a standard deviation below the norm." JonathanE 11:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly agree. "norm" is problematic; what's meant is "White average". --Rikurzhen 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the researchers used a norm from a population other than the ones they are making comparisons with, would UK norm suffice? JonathanE 19:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacknowledged Rushton Citation 

message: The VDARE links are exceptionally biased and not necessarily to be trusted. Sailer is not a reliable source. Steve_Sailer is surrounded by controversy and fails to publish anything peer-reviewed that doesn't end up in a partisan magazine. --129.97.84.62 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to the "Special Case of India", I have shortened and combined it with the main section. I removed speculative phrases such as "there are more geniuses in India" and instead left the more important point of the great IQ variance across India's highly-diverse ethnicities. As for the reference VDARE, I agree that some parts of it are unfounded. Heilme 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Sailer 

message: don't delete material. the reasons given odd given the content of the book. the data tables and figures reflect those seen in the book, distinctions and comparisons made by the authors. --W. D. Hamilton 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Selective representations of data tables are clearly violating WP:NOR.  Present what was presented, instead of trying to synthesize a new presentation with your own filtering. --JereKrischel 02:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you should know that the book specifically breaks down the 81 countries for which there is actual data and the 185 for which there is a mix of real data and estimations. The 81 calculated numbers are the main focus of most reviews/uses of the book, and so are the important values. --W. D. Hamilton 06:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using only the 81 calculated values, instead of including all 185 with appropriate labeling, is avoiding something that is important.  The entire table, with its calculated and estimated values, should be included, if the table is to be included at all. --JereKrischel 08:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put down and write down which part you have seen that it was omitted and also give comment "specifically" so that our readers can compare and judge.  Don't simply remove it just because there is some parts was omitted.  Give us a concrete example.  For example. if the table list all 185 countries, what is the basic difference between the entire table and the current table that we are reading on this topic.  Is this difference important?  if so, how?  and why that difference makes deviation?  if you have time, please go to give supplement instead and add everything that you think it is necessary to reflect the true face on that table (if you said: The entire table, with its calculated and estimated values, should be included, if the table is to be included at all).  Now it is a good time for you to make contribution. 72.138.191.63 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the table has been specifically truncated to overstate the accuracy of the numbers available world-wide.  By including all of the data, it becomes more clear the state of accuracy is not terribly high.  If you feel like recreating the entire table, with its original title and notes, please feel free. --JereKrischel 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the reponsbility is falling on your part, not mine.  Again, your reason is not suffice.  Why don't you simply add the "missing" information on that table in order to look more comprehensive?  You didn't explain it (i.e. which part of data missed to make the state of accuracy is not terribly high) but you simply remove it at your whimp and fancy. 72.138.191.63 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are more than welcome to add the missing information.  It would be a very helpful use of your time. --JereKrischel 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one should go there and add the information because "you are the one" who discovered the missing information.  How can I know which part is missing?  the missing part is what you claimed.  Just like you went to a police station but you didn't tell them what happened.  Rather you just told them try to guess and investigate something.  Does it make sense?  how can I know what something is?  72.138.191.63 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to avoid responsibility for improving the article, please by all means, stop editing.  If you'd like to fix the table, on the other hand, to include the omitted estimated IQs, please, feel free.  If you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying, please let me know and I'll try to communicate more clearly. --JereKrischel 05:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: excuse me, may I quote what you said?  that is the exact thing that I wanted to tell you.  You are the one who is avoiding the responsbility.  If so, please stop editing and go somewhere else to do something in a more constructive way.  I don't practise telepathy as you do.  I couldn't guess what you thought.  You didn't tell us all readers what kind of information specifically were actually missed, even right now.  Missing information means many things.  What are you talking about?  you made no sense.  You were just coming here to vandalise the page, that's it.  That is what I saw.  72.138.191.63 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If what I said is what you wanted to say, then it seems that you should take your own advice. --JereKrischel 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what you wanted to say seems to me is illogical and rambling.  If you couldn't even figure out which part of information were missed on that table, please leave wiki right away.  One thing is illogical that make us didn't understand AT ALL is why you didn't expand the table, but you simply removed it at your whimp and fancy?  Refer to "History" and look at what you did.  I even couldn't figure out what you were doing there.  Excuse me?  what were you doing there?  72.138.191.63 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you wanted to say something to me that you consider illogical and rambling?  I think you're having problems understanding some fairly basic things here, so I'll try to be more clear - the table as presented is a violation of WP:NOR by selectively removing data from the table.  I question its utility in the first place, and consider removing it a perfectly reasonable alternative to expanding it.  That being said, my objection is primarily based upon its limited nature.  If you would like to expand it, and address my concerns, please feel free.  --JereKrischel 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  SO WHAT?  I don't care what the violation of WP:NOR is.  You didn't provide any concrete evidence AT ALL.  Which parts were missed on that table leading to WP:NOR, huh?  you still didn't answer our question.  Missed WHAT??  Just like you tried to say that person is a murder, but you didn't find out who the victim is.  Your logics is contradicted to what you said.  If you said: consider removing it a perfectly reasonable alternative to expanding it  but why did you say: If you would like to expand it, and address my concerns, please feel free.  What are you talking about?  think carefully before you would like to talk to me.  Don't assume others are idiots.  I suggest you had better get out of here.  To talk to you is basically wasting my time.  I am not going to reply your useless message anymore.  If you vandalise the page again, I will simply revert what you did.  That's it  72.138.191.63 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the direct source reference. --JereKrischel 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this data table using Google. Any of you could have done the same. There appear to be multiple copies mirrored on the web. --W. D. Hamilton 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any citation for the original source?  That is to say, is there a original place where this was published, so that we can check the accuracy of any mirroring? --JereKrischel 06:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the book? Richard Lynn's own web site has all the numbers as well. --W. D. Hamilton 06:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleting material 

message: Here are external links which quote the book's 94 IQ rating for Israel:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2HJU3WLVCXWAK
http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/zhekaya/post39896846
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm
http://www.isteve.com/IQ_table.htm
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/skymik/challenger.htm
http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-7080.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.121.129 (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel's IQ has been raised from 94 to 95. 

message: i don't have a copy of the book at hand, but that's Table 7.7 to the best of my knowledge/memory. the table with all 185 countries is Table 8.9. --W. D. Hamilton 12:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it is not identically labeled to Table 7.7 on page 100 of the book.  Please update the scatterplot to include all 81 countries from Table 7.7, and label the Y-axis to an actual column of the table.  Thanks! --JereKrischel 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "residuals" and "fitted" values have to do with linear regression. the values are the real GDP values, from which the linear regression is calculated (along with IQ). all 81 countries should be there. --W.R.N. 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I guess all we need to do is label the Y-axis appropriately (identical to the table column).  Can you make that update?  It might also be nice to make the dots a bit smaller so that all 81 points are clear.   It would also help to make a specific reference in the image to Table 7.7 on page 100 of the book, maybe include the table's title.  --JereKrischel 07:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identical to Table 7.7 

message: according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Precision: --W.R.N. 03:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. That makes sense. I thought some of these titles were confusing. futurebird 04:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are, but you'd never find the book if you redirected the titles to their literal referent. I think that's the reason for the naming convention. --W.R.N. 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to (book) 

message: I noticed that there already is a clean-up tag for this section.  I believe this section also need some balancing.  For example, the first paragraph talked about a few critics who had a negative outlook on this book.  Since there already is a critic's section, I think it's only fair to have the more positive critics be in this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongke (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer-review and follow-up studies 

message: I can't imagine that everyone in the academic community embraced this book as the new gospel, in fact, I imagine some nasty things were probably said about it. The critique section currently tries to refute the books premiss... while I think this is a nobel aim, we ought to focus instead on people who critiqued this book and what they said. So, can we start revising this section in that direction. I think what's there now is too close to being original research. Sure this book is racist and ought to be refused, but we need to make this section more about the book and less about the ideas in the book. Is that fair? futurebird 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I obviously think the section is OR or close to it. There's plenty of verifiable criticism in the section preceding it. It may be helpful to add some organization to that section to make the criticism, praise, and follow up distinct sections. The section in dispute can probably go -- it can be saved on the talk page for future utility. --W.R.N. 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The right kind of critique 

message: WP:WTA should probably be used in the article. i tried to do so in some earlier edits. it's a little boring, but it basically says that the only words you should use in most cases are "write", "say", "state", or "argue". words like "claim", "find", and even "report" should be avoided. it's a bit silly, but it's top shelf NPOV language. --W.R.N. 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't like "argue" it makes the source sound... well... mean. "said" and "wrote" are always safe bets. futurebird 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Say" in my opinion implies a personal opinion and is a poor choice anything having any form of support. I would certainly notice it if used in a peer-reviewed article. "Report", "find", "claim", "argue", can be found in peer-reviewed articles but not "say". The suggestion that "say" should be used both for something subjective and completely unsupported AND uncontradicted factual assertions is extremely strange.Ultramarine 05:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was written and not spoken, then "say" is of course out. I never had a problem with report myself because the term is so often used in review papers, but I was going to let WTA be the judge of that one. I do see the reasons not to use "claim" or "find". Write, argue, and conclude seem like suitable alternatives if we're going with WTA. So-called, creative rephrasing is also possible in some cases. --W.R.N. 06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:WTA 

message: Look at the table and the real data here:
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp
As usual, in race related articles,we have a dark shadow of manipulation behind them. What a disaster for this place. I will try and fix some. 
Well, surprise! It was just Spain, someone changed it to 97 and it is 99. 
Anyway, from the history of the article, it seems that a lot of people are manipulating these data. Watch out for it.
70.156.140.49 01:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data wrong 

message: So, the average Equatoria Guinean is a mental retard?
82.12.236.241 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW 

message: 3)The statement that the values are calculated gives an impression of meaningfulness to the diagram that is not objectively verifiable.  The values were interpolated from other studies in the area.  None of the IQ values were experimentally measured by Lynn and Vanhanen 
4) The data used to generate the scatter plot should be given on the article (even if the scatter plot is taken directly from the book – the data should be presented so that it can be subject to statistical analysis, to see if it is likely to genuine, for example).  
The fact the GDP and IQ are supposed to have an independent variable-dependent variable relationship is OBVIOUSLY an gross over-simplifcation of the reality of how GDP and IQ would related to one another in reality.  Thus, the relevance of this graph within the context of displaying a relationship between GDP and IQ is questionable at best.   
On the scatter graph there is NO scale whatsoever it goes from 100 to 1000 to 100000 this graph should be remade accuratly.DPM 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scatter Graph Criticisms 

message: 5) An Emphasis placed on the word BELIEVE in the sentence : 
“The authors believe that average IQ difference between nations are due to both genetic and environmental factors. They also believe that low GDP can cause low IQ, just as low IQ can cause low GDP.”
Have they proven this? (Of course, that IQ has an effect on economic growth may be obvious – but that they are 
6) The sentence:“Rather than do their own IQ studies (a potentially massive project), the authors average and adjust existing studies.” Should be emphasised in BOLD.
7) Surely this is STATISTICAL MALPRACTICE (it introduces a whole world of subjectivity!)? : 
“To account for the Flynn effect (an increase in IQ scores over time), the authors adjusted the results of older studies upward by a number of points.” 
8)The publisher should be named.  The lack of peer review should be emphasised. :
“IQ and the Wealth of Nations' was not peer-reviewed before publication but was published by a publisher of academic literature. Peer reviewed articles have used the IQ scores presented in the book and some have also commented on the claims in the book.”
9)An Emphasis placed on the word BELIEVE in the sentence : 
“The authors believe that average IQ difference between nations are due to both genetic and environmental factors. They also believe that low GDP can cause low IQ, just as low IQ can cause low GDP.”
Have they proven this? (Of course, that IQ has an effect on economic growth may be obvious – but that they are linearly related in a way meaningfully measurable via the use of correlation is surely stretching the truth?
I will offer more criticism when time permits.  
ConcernedScientist 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Criticisms

message: Someone is deliberately changing values: 
See here: Spain 99.
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp
Someone is changing it to 97. 65.11.207.219 00:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has done a lot of vandalism reverts, I think I can provide the answer.  Google "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" + Spain and you get this page as the first match: http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm  Scroll down to Spain, and look in their "Book Score" column, and you see 97.  So I can't really consider it vandalism, I think it's an attempt at good faith editing. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  data 

message: let's retain the table as it is not quite easy for one to build up. 74.14.121.82 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  table 

message: That does NOT seem right to me. Can somebody double-check this??? Grandpafootsoldier 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism, it's been reverted. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan 84??? 

message: For at least 24 hours Iran's estimated IQ was 105 and not 84. This kind of romantic behaviour are not appropriate in Wikipedia. How can this be reported?
We need facts and accurate information on the Internet if we want to solve problems.
:I motion for putting protection on this page. BGManofID 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion (for partial protection, anonymous IPs seem to be most of the problem). Poindexter Propellerhead 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran's estimated IQ: 105 ????? 

message: I was just curious to see how to edit a wiki page and I think it was a good page to try. I understand that is not an appropriate thing to change a page that gives “real useful information” to people. 
However, I am 100% percent sure that not only I can make a test that Iranians can get “105” in it but also I can make one that people from Equatorial Guinea get higher scores than any other nation in the world. So if you want my identity just let me know. Or if you prefer I can hand myself to the international police for changing a crappy racist page on Internet. Then I will have enough motivation an time to work on my new IQ test in jail.
At the end let me tell you dear friend that if my act was romantic yours is definitely comic: you call this page "facts and accurate information on the Internet" 
 Thanks for solving the problem of human being and sorry for causing so much trouble for you in reaching this goal by changing one IQ from 84 to 105.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.80.190 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  response 

message: What is the IQ score of Spain anyway?  97 or 99? Guia Hill 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain 

message: Look, this book is not without its controversy.  In fact, the statistical analyses of intelligence are like all fluid statistics; they are merely estimates and contain a certain variance of inaccuracy.  But for some readers who post comments to the effect of "This is a racist article - remove it" - I have only one thought.  The internet is not american network television.  Free idea exchange is the web's greatest attribute, so for all those who want to silence the messenger and control the message, I say stay in your home and unplug your computer!  You are obviously incapable of critical thinking and lack free will.  Thoughts should not be controlled.  And until one of you critics does a similar study and finds drastically different results, Wealth of Nations is what we have.  
For those of you who look at these numbers & suspect a racially motivated skewing of the facts - I challenge you to find opposing statistics.  And the "culturally biased" argument is rubbish; I cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study  - but take heed, critics; you might always not like what you learn when you actually free your mind!   :o (unsigned comment by Brnoamik, 09:04, 13 July 2007)
:Nobody has said that the article is racist, the article is just an encyclopedic book report. One poster felt that the book was racist, which it may or may not be, but resolving that issue is outside the scope of our job as editors. Repeat: this is just a book report. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Wikipedia be Politically Correct? 

message: Saudi Arabia has average IQ 39! Iran, Germany is 109?
Does writer have political, religious, or racial axe to hack?
What is gene IQ? 
This supports my overall belief that open access sites on internet
CANNOT by biological law have clear discussion about ethnic/racial
matters. Call it the law of Open Access Racial Perversion. OARP for short.
:The three scores you mention were all the result of vandalism.  The correct figures have been restored. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Arabia et al 

message: Over the last few days, vandalism has been so heavy that I have been hitting the 3RR limit on this article (as I write this, it's severely vandalized, but I won't be able to revert it for another 12 hours) , and at least one other editor seems to have exceeded the limit. Of course, vandals have exceeded it too, and I have reported one of them for doing so. But this is really getting old, in my opinion. What does everyone else think about asking for protection for this article? Poindexter Propellerhead 08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now semi-protected. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: In the table, Turkey's average IQ is reported as 101. However, in the book Vanhanen and Lynn report it as 90.Victor Chmara 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right! Fixed. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish IQ 

message: Two weeks without a vandalism! I'm going to miss it, but hopefully some repeat offenders have moved along. Nice work, folks! Poindexter Propellerhead 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farewell, semi-protection 

message: Why is  The Moon on the list? That's rather strange. It really made me search for studies regarding the IQ of people that went to the moon and stuff, but I couldn't find anything yet. And also, what is the GDP on The Moon?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octav43 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Moon? 

message: dear world,
i believe, and not only believe i saw it in a magazine once (not that everthing in magazines is right but anyways) that the national iq of the united states of america is way lower. people in america are mostly dumber than in any other country ( and i travelled the world, i know) im from holland btw. and the dutch iq must be lower than scandinavia. and neither do i believe that canada is below usa. and these arent opinions, or maybe they are, but... i cant get this. i must say that iq depends on school/education a lot and that america's school system is made for people with a learning-delay. im sorry for any indulges. but dont you think that african people are indulged by all the things about iq i saw here, that there are racial differences between white and black people? i really dont think that the amount of pigment in the cells has any influence on one's iq? (pure scientifically looked at, no partial meanings or any of that kind). 
i do believe in iq, national iq, individual iq, i believe those tests have meaning. (coming from an atheist, i believe, lol) so dont come back with that. ( i will study neuro-genetics, after laboratory education, not that that has anything to do with anything but while im typing a big story with no actual point i can put that on here as well) 
i guess ive made my point, or not, doesnt really matter, i just think american people are the dumbest people in the world, without meaning any harm.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by ireallyhavenocluewhothiscomputerisfrom (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA 

message: China is listed as having an average IQ of 100, yet on the map it's coloured as if it has an iq of 105. It's true that the IQ of people in Hong Kong is much higher, but Hong Kong is a district in China with only 7 million people, as opposed to 1.3 billion, where rich and well educated people have moved to, so it isn't very representative for the whole of China which should be coloured as 100.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.171.134 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was the map deleted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.20 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is using data from another book.Ultramarine (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China is wrong on the map 

message: If notoriety is a criterium for deletion then accuracy should be one too. This article has more stuff plainly wrong with it than Erich von Danikens 'Charriots of the Gods' and it really pains me so see such drivel in Wikipedia. Also, this article is used elsewhere to bolster all out racism so the fall out is possibly even worse than the article itself.
Please do yourselves a favour and get rid of this, it is a blemish on Wikipedias otherwise quite solid reputation.
I'm not even going to attempt to come up with specifics, maybe except for this one item: variance in IQ tests is +- 20% points on repeated tests (with the same individual), IQ tests are meant to be administered to individuals and you can not use the same IQ tests for different social backgrounds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.119.78 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we just please get rid of this article 

message: Well anyway... Flynn also grouped Microstates into their nearest most ethnically and culturally appropriate country. E.G. He classified Malta, Vatican City, San Marino as microstates grouped with Italy. Therefore, in the table, they need to bee added with some format like this:
Italy
(including microstates:
*
*
*)
Also, he grouped Monaco with France.
Please add these as appropriate.
Thanks 89.241.243.42 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is this page protected? 

message: Please mention how he estimated the Laos IQ, which is by taking the result of tests on children in one village 'not in abject poverty' and averaging it against the score of the mothers of those kids.  Obviously no scientist would consider this a statistically valid way of figuring a country's IQ score.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.156.177 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laos IQ 

message: I remember reading that the Spanish economic miracle was accompanied by a marked fall in the percentage of "backward" children.
It would be helpful if someone more qualified than me could add a paragraph or two on this book's assumption that it is higher IQ which "causes" higher GDP rather than the reverse.
By which I mean that as a country becomes richer (for whatever other reasons) this leads to improved health for young children and expectant mothers, notably a fall in the percentage who are under-nourished. Over time this leads not only to an increase in average physical stats (height, etc) but also (arguably) to a parallel improvement in intelligence scores. Jameswilson (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  chicken and egg 

message: Intelligence varies from person to person, culture, environment, education, financial status, family backgound all play important roles. When intelligent varies so much in the family that one sibling is of higher intelligence than the rest , considering rest of the factors of relatively less importance. How can you judge the entire country or culture as of higher or lower IQ based on some tests? , developed and countries with higher literacy have more probability to have higher IQ than developing and countries with low literacy rates, grouping them is highly controversial and serve the purpose of nazi, fascist and racist people of the world.
--Himhifi 09:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments do not help to improve the article. --Jagz (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  White people and Chinese are  Dumb too, this article is racist and biased! 

message: OECD figures for 2005: GDP per head USD PPP adjusted.
State.         	GDP
Luxembourg     	70245
Norway         	47207
United States  	41789
Ireland        	38850
Iceland        	36183
Switzerland    	35650
Netherlands    	35120
Austria        	34393
Australia      	34240
Denmark        	34137
Canada         	34058
Belgium        	32998
United Kingdom 	32860
Sweden         	32111
Finland        	30959
Japan          	30842
Germany        	30777
EU15           	30438
France         	30266
OECD Total     	30065
Greece         	29578
Italy          	28094
Spain          	27400
New Zealand    	25950
Korea          	22098
Czech Republic 	20606
Portugal       	19889
Hungary        	17483
Slovak Republic	15983
Poland         	13894
Mexico         	10627
Turkey         	7711
I have misunderstood the table in the article! It needs to have GDP added to it for the year in which the IQ scores were taken. Also it would be helpful if the columns were in the order: Nation, IQ, GDP. The table in the article needs a table heading which states the origin of the table the year of complication -- similar to the table heading I have provided on the one to the right. Also as with the table on the right it would be nice to have the table sortable on various columns (see Help:Table#Sorting). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The table needs a date 

message: The book is available on google books.Information is on page 77.Type in Google search books "IQ and the Wealth of Nations Spain 97"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Check01 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reported IQ for Spain is 97 not 99 

message: People with 'IQ's  below 70 are generally classified as mentally retarded, I am going to correct this article. thanks.  Dwilso 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to suggest that the effects of famine are not real, here, and now? This is not offensive at all, rather, it is people such as yourself who jump straight to the wrong conclusions, who are so offensive. Ignoring the devastating effects of famine on these nations and on the health - mental and physical - of the people who live in them will NOT make those problems go away, and will more likely than not make those problems worse. If you wish to help, perhaps you should focus on making the cause of lower IQs in these cases - that is most likely, childhood malnutrition - better understood! Zaphraud (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ 

message: There is following sentence in the article:
"It is generally agreed many factors, including environment, culture, demographics, wealth, pollution, and educational opportunities, affect measured IQ."
I think it needs a citation. Generally agreed where and by whom? 82.181.231.31 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, one could cite the very authoritative APA statement on intelligence: Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, right here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...It is generally agreed... 

message: Hello.  I believe I may have said this before (perhaps in the less productive environment of R&I) but there is rarely any mention of genetics in modern theories of economic growth.  I say rarely to not set myself to prove a negative, but at least I have never seen theories that rely on racial differences to explain income differences; and this is not because economists are shy.  To those more familiar with this book, is there any statistical or econometric critique of it? Or was this book so irrelevant that few bothered to invalidate its claims?  If you clicked on shy, note that many economists argue counter to Summer's claims, my point was that the discipline is not "PC".  Thanks for any leads.  Brusegadi (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking 

message: Can someone please correct the IQ's in the table as per the original source?  It looks like someone vandalized the table and the figures was never reverted. We may want to link National IQ to IQ and Global Inequality for the most recent (2006) values. Does anyone agree? Nirvana888 (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should have the original values as they were in the book, otherwise the tabel is pointless.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Randrake, the reason why I suggested this was because the new values are actually published in a new book (2006)  by the same authors and National IQ currently links to the 2002 values. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm aware that the author published a corrected data set in a new book. However, that's a different book, and we shouldn't be linking to the other book. However, if the corrected values had been published in a new version of the book, instead of a different book, I wouldn't object. This may sound like a technicality to you, but it's actually an important distinction.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I was not suggesting that we link this article to that article. That would be illogical since they are different books and thus I fully agree the distinction should remain. Instead, I was proposing that we link Ranking of National IQ which currently leads to this page to the page with the corrected values. Nirvana888 (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections in table 

message: WHY IS IT AFRICAN COUNTRIES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE...THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, IT IS RIDICULOUS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.20.46 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Errm, because that's how African countries scored in tests? It is not Wikipedia's policy to remove verifiable data just because it offends you. Also bear in mind that this data does NOT imply that Africans are inherently stupid. All it means is that they do badly on IQ tests, for a whole range of different reasons such as malnutrition and poor education. --Cambrasa confab 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOW OFFENSIVE 

message: Surely, someone must have written about it in the scientific literature. If IQ is associated with education and nutrition, and wealth is required for good education and good nutrition, then the association between IQ and wealth may be mediated by other factors. It's not a causative relationship necessarily. 201.217.109.37 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No discussion of confounds? 

message: Here is some criticism : 
===Introduction===
1)“RE : IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1]”
>Perhaps it would be wise to emphasise that neither of them seem to have obtained any qualifications in the mathematical sciences.  Of course, they may have taken modules in certain mathematical sciences – however, this does not necessarily translate into a sufficiently technical understanding of statistics as to ensure that their academic opinions are valid.   
2)RE : “The authors interpret this correlation as showing that IQ is one important factor contributing to differences in ‘national wealth’ and ‘rates of economic growth’,”
>These terms are essentially politicised and are quite subjective or beyond the analysis of science (for example, some notions of inflation do take into account housing prices, others don’t – meaning that the notions of wealth and economic growth have a large subjective component to their analysis
:ConcernedScientist 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much Needed (and OBVIOUS) Criticism 

message: 1)“RE : IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1]”
>Perhaps it would be wise to emphasise that neither of them seem to have obtained any qualifications in the mathematical sciences.  Of course, they may have taken modules in certain mathematical sciences – however, this does not necessarily translate into a sufficiently technical understanding of statistics as to ensure that their academic opinions are valid.   
2)RE : “The authors interpret this correlation as showing that IQ is one important factor contributing to differences in ‘national wealth’ and ‘rates of economic growth’,”
>These terms are essentially politicised and are quite subjective or beyond the analysis of science (for example, some notions of inflation do take into account housing prices, others don’t – meaning that the notions of wealth and economic growth have a large subjective component to their analysis
:ConcernedScientist 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Finding correlation of A, IQ,  and B ,Wealth, does not necessary imply A is the cause of B, B can be the cause of A too, and they could both be the result of an unknow fact C. Or they both be the cause and consequence of each other. In this case, the relationship of IQ and wealth are more likely to fit the last model, that is they influence each other. Poor wealth can cause poor education, therefore poor IQ level.
Plus there is one major statistical flaw, the wealth and IQ of Chinese do not fit in the correlation, people in China has very high IQ but very low average wealth level. This group of 'outlier' count for 20% of world population. How can people possible have 20% of sample to be outliers? The arbitray down ajustment of Chinese for 6 points is another flaw, the adjustment is actually not arbitrary, the author do it on purpose, he want to make sure north european nation list before China so 6 was chosen, it would reinforce his hidden argument that european desendents are more intelligent so they deserve the wealth. 
This book is nothing but a propoganda material of racial discrimination. Shame on you Richard Lynn, do you forget the colonization from which some groups of people build huge amount of wealth and other groups lost it?
:unsigned post by User:Loveworldlovepeace 03:49, 20 August 2008
:Who written this needs to get rid of his victim mentality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.68.179 (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of statistics 

message: There is a currently a disclaimer on this page saying the article cites no sources, there clearly are reference notes and also this article's primary subject is a published book which is widely available. Whoever put the disclaimer on the page was being mendacious and the disclaimer should be removed promptly. 78.152.249.134 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source citing 

message: Based on each country's average IQ, it should be readily apparent to just about anyone that the numeric rankings are incorrect.  For instance, Australia, Denmark, France, Mongolia, and the USA are all tied for 9th.  The ranking system punishes countries based on alphabetization.
--67.181.165.220 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I will change this myself when I have the time. Flamarial (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings 

message: I recommend a Wikipedia editor to put the sign on top of the page stating the controversial nature of this page. This topic and especially the content by the authors of this book is at best a controversial personal opinion and hardly deserves a seperate page on Wikipedia. Imagine different racistic views having their own page here. This page and its notorious and presumptive table has already made its way into other websites while this is an unfair and relatively unchallenged personal opinion of two authors from an industrial country. I will get into this more later but the above suggestion should be taken seriously by the editors. Gmotamedi (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: According to statistics from Irib.com and farsnews the average IQ of Iranian people (note: iranian) is about 93. If there is any source or any information available that could prove that iranian peoples average IQ is 84 than please publish them here. 
I now some other sources that says iranian peoples average IQ is about 87 but then they count around 5 million refugees from Iraq, afghanistan and kurds.  --Achemenidian (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Average IQ is estimated to be <93. 

message: I remove the October 2006 cleanup tag from section ==Related studies==.  If someone wants to add it back I understand but please write a note so we know what need specifics need to be improved.  RJFJR (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup