Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:36, 25 March 2006

1st paragraph

The following sentence makes no sense to me:

....but rather the way a race measures speed (relatively)....

No doubt the IQ is a relative measure. However Ic no connection to speed/races. Usually the speed is given as an absolute measure.

Formula?

Can someone help with this?

• In the UK, IQ for people under 18 is usually calculated as

           IQ = 100 . (mental age / chronological age)

with the s.d. of this being carried on to ages 18+.

User_talk:Gee Eight, 7 February 2006 12:58 UTC—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.171.194.41 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.171.194.8 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Problems

The formula for calculating regression to the mean is terrible, as far as I can see it's original research, it works under the assumption that genes and enviorment can be seperated, in actual fact certain genes do different things in different circumstances, and genes which make your parents smart or dumb can, in differing combinations, create quite the opposite affect. Therefore I suggest we delete the section.

No information is given as to whether the graph at the top of the page is 16 SD or 15 SD.

No doubt there are countless more errors, therefore I call for a factual accuracy dispute label and a peer review.

See Plomin et al (2001) for a textbook on behavior genetics -- that's the reference for the entire section (any similar review will say the same thing). Click on the image -- it's SD=15 -- but I doubt anyone could tell the difference at that resolution. --Rikurzhen 08:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did Plomin give ancount as to why he thought the effects I mention are either (a) non-existent or (b) insignficant

Problems

The formula for calculating regression to the mean is terrible, as far as I can see it's original research, it works under the assumption that genes and enviorment can be seperated, in actual fact certain genes do different things in different circumstances, and genes which make your parents smart or dumb can, in differing combinations, create quite the opposite affect. Therefore I suggest we delete the section.

No information is given as to whether the graph at the top of the page is 16 SD or 15 SD.

No doubt there are countless more errors, therefore I call for a factual accuracy dispute label and a peer review.

There are also certain lacunae in the text.

The section at the bottom on "improving IQ" needs to be made far more extensive with reference to Klingberg et al, 2002, as well as information on sucesses with nootropics, Creatine, neurofeedback etc. This section is also slightly misleading "with practice and application" might make it sound as if these are the only way's to increase intelligence.

More information should be given on norming. Esp Flynn effect. You can never have enough disscusion on the Flynn affect.

"It has been observed that scores outside the range 55 to 145 must be cautiously interpreted because there are smaller numbers of respondents with which to make comparisons in those ranges. Moreover, at such extreme values, the normal distribution is a less accurate estimate of the true IQ distribution."

Explanation please? Technically speaking IQ by definition ( at least by it's modern definition, since the redundancy of ratio IQ's) fall's on a normal curve. Is the meaning of this statement really that, in practice IQ tests assign scores not on a perfect bell curve at scores over 145, because of insufficently large norming groups? Or is this statement a reference to ratio IQ's?

Overall the articile has a certain amateurish feel and style, it does not inspire confidence, I really think it needs a peer review.

Mental Retardation section

I believe if you review that CDC study, you will find that they are referring to the rate per 1000, not percent. Therefore, I corrected that section.

MAJOR OVERHAUL

This article needs a Major overhaul. There is too much random information, to much disorganization, and way to many headers that have a sentence or none at all. I have not finished reading the entire article (becuase its nearly impossible they way its organized) but i think we should consider a major overhaul. For those of you who regularly contribute and update this page, please consider this and start thinking about what we can lose and bunch up. Thanks! --Gephart 01:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Gephart, and came here to add much the same note. Why, for example, are online tests subtopic #2? In the overall history of IQ testing, this is not the second highest priority to cover... --Dvyost 04:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Orignal research in the Regression section

This section seems to be based on the errenous assumption that enviormental factors= factors of the general community and ignores parental contribution to enviromental factors. Further more I have never seen this equation before, I believe it is orignal research.

gaussian curve

Low IQ?

Why does this image set the upper limit for IQ scores at 130? isn't it a bit silly to set the cut off so low? File:IQ-70to130-ColorBars.png

because the exact distrubtion isn't know above 130 and below 70, but for sake of making a pretty picture, I can expand it to 55-145. --Rikurzhen 04:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The exact distribution is very well known. It is a bell curve AD DEFINITIONEM. IQ is not based on an interval scale of intelligence ("raw" test scores), but on rarity in the general population. --Aiwa 19:13, Aug 11, 2005 (UTC)

What's the data source for this graph? Is it just an idealized distribution, or is it based on actual numbers from a study? If so, which study? The image page says I created with R >IQ<- 70:130 >p<- dnorm(IQ,mean=100,sd=15) >plot(IQ,p,type = "h", col=c(rep(2,15),rep(3,15),1,rep(4,15),rep(6,15)), lwd=3) ) - Why those values? (BTW, a very nice looking chart). Thanks, -Willmcw June 30, 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Read the article again. IQ samples, over the long term, fill a bell curve. The tests are scored so the distribution looks like the graph pictured. 130 and 70 are defined as 2 standard deviations from the mean, which is defined to be 100. Tafinucane 23:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you used SD=15. The examples of high-IQ society threshold scores in the See also section seem to use SD=16. hitssquad 17:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

IQ is mutable downward due to the effects of hypoxia from drownings, strokes, carbon monoxide poisoning, or partial suffocation, and from head injuries and certain poisons (lead is one of the more obvious) or degenerative diseases. No analogous events seem to raise IQ (if such events existed, people would often inflict them upon themselves!). The presence of people whose IQs have been reduced through some calamity are enough to skew the IQ distribution downward and cause a violation of expectations of a bell curve. Accidents and disease happen.--66.231.41.57 16:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Normally distributed

"Tests are designed so that the distribution of IQ scores is more-or-less Gaussian, that is to say that it follows a bell curve."

Does anyone else think that it would be useful to add the term 'normally distributed' to this sentence. I think Gaussian is used less than Normal in common usage. At least where I'm from.--Commander Keane 11:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IQ does not fit a bell curve because certain calamities (hypoxia, degenerative disease, head injuries, and some poisonings) can cause catastrophic losses of cognitive ability in those who endure them. The departure from a normal distribution can be explained to an extent from this fact.

Another is that seven SDs above 100 is "205" or "212" -- unlikely but hardly impossible, and that seven SDs below 100 is the absurd -5 or -12 (depending upon whether SD = 15 or SD = 16). It is safely said that no person can ever have a negative IQ. This observation is likely dwarfed by the presence of hypoxia, head injuries, and poisonings that would reduce IQ . --66.231.41.57 17:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

"seven SDs below 100 is the absurd -5 or -12"::

Why should negative values be impossible? An IQ of zero doesn't mean no intelligence. The value is just standardized to 100 with a 15 or 16 value for standard deviation. In this sense that is all an IQ value means, so there is absolutely no reason to not have negative IQs. Infact if you want to use that system at all you have to admit that negative values are possible since that is the result the system gives. -5 isn't having negative intelligence, it is simply being 7 standard deviations below the mean. Raoulharris 15:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)::

Bell / Normal curve

The spread of people along the IQ continuum, from low to high, can be represented well by the bell curve (in statistical jargon, the "normal curve"). Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100). Few are either very bright or very dull: About 3% of Americans score above IQ 130 (often considered the threshold for "giftedness"), with about the same percentage below IQ 70 (IQ 70-75 often being considered the threshold for mental retardation).

Can we use this quote? Is it neutral, objective, consensus, mainstream, or what? Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 15:34 (UTC)

It's nearly definitionally true. IQ tests are normalized so that the mean is 100, the standard deviation is 15, and the distribution is normal. That fact is uncontested, although it might be argued that we don't know if intelligence is normally distributed. However, biological correlates of IQ are (approximately) normally distributed, as are most quantitative traits (e.g. height, weight, etc). --Rikurzhen July 6, 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Two qualifications: one is that although someone with an IQ seven SDs away from 100 (SD = 15) has an unlikely, but possible, IQ of 205; someone with an IQ seven SDs below 100 would have the impossible IQ of -5. A zero IQ would be possible in somewone with no mental activity other than the bare necessity for bodily functions necessary for survival, as in a persitent vegetative state.

The other is that IQ is mutable downwards due to catastrophic and irreversible events to one's intelligence: partial suffocations, hypoxia, head injuries, degenerative diseases, and certain poisonings that destroy mental capacity. IQ is not so mutable upwards by any means; if such means existed, then people would inflict them upon themselves despite any associated risks. Positive or negative stimulations due to enriched or deprived environments are most likely to be randomly distributed and exist within the bell curve, but loss of a chunk of genetically-determined intelligence to such an event as carbon monoxide poisoning is not.

Natal (that is, genetically-permitted) IQ may be distributed along a bell curve, and so might the effects of environmental stimulation. Catastrophic losses of natal intelligence (such as fetal alcohol syndrome) that have no genetic cause surely skew the bell curve leftward.--66.231.41.57 17:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Distribution

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

Standard derivation = 24

The paragraph on the distribution says the most common values for the standard derivation is 15 and 16, and then says "24 is used occasionally as well".

I think this is highly incorrect. I've only ever seen standard derivations on 24. The only time I've seen anything else was on a describtion of Mensa membership requirements that said "148* (* in the US 132)"

This leads me to conclude that the common value for standard derivation is 24, and that like so many other standards only the US insist on a US-specific value of 16.

The 15 value is just a round off, just like 24 is often rounded to 25.

No, IQ standard deviations go by tests, the Weschler has a standard deviation of fifteen, while the others have a standard deviation of sixteen. Some less prominent tests have higher or lower standard deviations, but the most popular ones all use 15 or 16 standard deviations.

As for your round off theory, while I speak with no specialist knowledge, it's not really more diffcult to calculate 16 std than 15 std. It's hard to see why you would "round off" 16 Standard deviation to 15 standard deviation. Why "round off" an IQ of 132 to an IQ of 130 or an IQ of 148 to 145? Why not keep an the originals, or, if you so desprately want a standard deviation of 15, just use that in the first place? Do you know something I don't about this? I've never heard of this rounding off, but that could just be my ignorance.

The varied use of 15 and 16 std's is very confusing, people sometimes don't make clear what scale their using, usually because the differences between 15 std and 16 std aren't really clinically signficant. Worse is when people give raw scores on IQ tests, rather than scaled scores. I once had to search for days to find the norms for RAPM, and when I did find the source it was a little suspect. Could we put the norms for different IQ tests in their respective entries, or would that be a violation of copyright?

-

I've added in an example of standard deviation being 24 - the Cattell IIIB test is used by Mensa UK . Even though 15 may be the most common, it's important to mention that tests may use different scales - comparing IQ test results is meaningless with knowing which scale was used. Mdwh 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention Verbal IQ and Performance IQ.

Psychologists use these terms a lot. I'd like to see an explanation of them.

I'm curious as well. When I recently had a clinical IQ test performed I was told three figures (Verbal, Performance, and Overall). I never got a satisfactory answer to what "Performance" IQ is. Verbal IQ I think I understand. -Kasreyn 02:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

24... The definition of consensus is something like "agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief." The sentence is question is a description of the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" piece published in the Wall Street Journal following the publication of the Bell Curve. It was signed by a majority of the members of the intelligence research community at the time. I'm changing the problem sentence to reflect this fact.

"It was signed by a majority of the members": This is not correct. The full story of the WSJ statement is told in the Intelligence journal article written by the statement's coordinator. A majority of respondents (52 of 100 respondents to 131 invitations) signed the statement. There are certainly more than 100 (or 131) members of the intelligence research community, though I do not know the actual number. Several respondents declined to sign despite agreeing with the statement, for various reasons detailed in the article. The claim that the statement represents a majority is technically true, though whether this majority extends to the field as a whole depends on the credence one lends to the coordinator's claim that she attempted to assemble a representative sample of the field, since her own beliefs are clear. --DAD 08:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, allthough the Bell Curve is not mentioned until the "Race and IQ" section, this topic is a very small portion of the book, which focuses more on the rise of meritocracy. For a discourse on race and IQ it would better to discuss a book like Arthur Jensen's "The G Factor: the Science of Mental Ability," which more directly addresses the question.

Please let me know if you have evidence to the contrary. --Rikurzhen 07:04, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

There are two main quotiens, one with average=100, stddev=15, (aka. European IQ) and the other with average=100, stddev=24 (aka. US IQ)

Numbers on page reflects which one ?

"is a measure believed to be of general cognitive ability". Is believed by who? Is there controversy about this? (There certainly should be controversy, since Binet, who invented IQ in the first place, certainly did not believe this, and the know-nothing bozos at Stanford who apparently originated the belief published no scientific evidence to back it up.)

This needs fixed. There is little controversy. Standardized test have to corelate to quantifiable data. What they are standardized against should be noted here, and is noted in the studies that are used to support, create, and tweak the tests. IQ is not a measure believed to" be anything. It is "demonstrated as correlating to" a number of factors. The contoversy only arrises when people subjectively and unscientificly extend those to intelligence without a scientific definition of intelligence. The one in my old psych book was something like "the skills and abilities needed to survive and prosper in a specific environment". When these things are not noted It either sounds like one is calling others dumb or is used to call others dumb, as was often the case in the early years of the stanford test. I wil try to correct this when I find my psychology book and some time. WilliamJuhl 03:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is a tremendous controversy. Two objections I'm aware of are (1) the lack of a satisfactory definition of intelligence (most define it circularly: "intelligence" effectively ends up being "what IQ tests measure", and (2) the treatment of intelligence as a single quantifiable continuum, as opposed to a more multidimensional entity, as argued by, for example, Martin Gardner. My own impression from my psychologist father is that modern psychology does not place much value in IQ. I should point him at this page.

I believed that IQ was a scale that stopped when you reached 18yrs old. It is achieved over actual age in terms of intelligence e.g. smart as a 10yo at 10yo IQ is 100, smart as a 15yo at 10yo then IQ is 150.

That would be a ratio score (which stops at 15 or 16 years old). The other way of scoring IQ is deviation score. Scores are forced to a Gaussian curve and individual scores represent degrees of deviation from the mean of the curve. Arthur Jensen's 1980 book Bias in Mental Testing has detailed information on this. hitssquad 17:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed this statement:

Around 3% of the people are said to be highly intelligent, of whom 1% reaches the level of genius.

because (aside from being ungrammatical) it doesn't say anything. What does "highly intelligent" mean, or what does "genius" mean? If you define these as simply "in the 97th (and 99th) percentile of IQ", then the statement is a tautology. If you don't define them, then the statement is an unattributed opinion. Something like "Some sociologists call IQs in the 99th percentile 'genius' level", then it becomes a true statement about sociologists, but I'm still not certain that it has any real information content. --Lee Daniel Crocker

Yet, some info should be included to present what is the corelation between iq and number of persons having it. Ex:

Does anyone else think that we should mention Isaac Asimov's (someone famous for his high IQ) essay, "Thinking About Thinking"? --BlackGriffen

The external links don't work any more. It appears that one must buy the articles to be able to download them. --RS

There have been recent statements saying that men and women share the same average IQ (100) but have different standard deviations (higher for men) - meaning that there are more male geniuses and more male imbeciles. Can anyone quantify/clarify/know of sources for this? (I can write it up if someone has the info). Mat-C 17:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Very informative the last paragraph about online tests. I have filed the test from tickle.com with random data, and got an IQ of 84 and the folowing characterization: "Your Intellectual Type is Word Warrior. This means you have exceptional verbal skills. You can easily make sense of complex issues and take an unusually creative approach to solving problems. Your strengths also make you a visionary. Even without trying you're able to come up with lots of new and creative ideas. And that's just a small part of what we know about you from your test results. " . So true, so very true. -- Stelian

I took the tickle test and got 135, "Visionary Philosopher". I think what's going on is that the number is the hard data and that the verbal description is a feel-good statement on what areas you scored highest in. So your random entries rated you the IQ of an idiot with advanced mad cow disease, but most of the right answers just happened to fall in the verbal section. Thus, you are an idiotic word warrior.  ;) Tom S.

People volunteering to take IQ tests NOT likely to be above average

I have a minor beef with this conclusion:

"It is therefore recommended not to take online IQ tests as a true judge of one's IQ, even when considering that people who take these tests voluntarily are likely to be above average anyway."

Lately I've been noticing a lot of advertisements for online IQ tests replacing 'punch the monkey and win $100' web popup ads. The new IQ test ads feature a photo of a typically haggard Albert Einstein and do not offer prize money, only a test score. These ads are designed to entice as many people as possible to click them. In other words, they are specifically targeted to the average. At least as far as the population pool of web surfers goes, it would seem that the desire to voluntarily take online IQ tests is an average desire, and not an indicator of an above average IQ.

Yes, but your title is misleading. You imply with your title that volunteering for an IQ test places you at or below average. What your conclusion (and I agree with you) seems to say is that simply volunteering for an online IQ test does not make you automatically above average. That DOES make sense. Tom S.

Internet users in general have above-average IQs, globally speaking. The lowest-IQ populations tend to be in the poorest countries. It isn't important, anyway, because these tests usually don't calculate their scores based on anything resembling a normal curve, so it's hard to make any good conclusions based on the data. I'm going to remove the claim because there's no really good evidence on either side. If anyone would like to provide some specific study showing self-selection for high-IQ individuals in online tests (or voluntary tests in general) or to elaborate further on some specific reasoning behind this conclusion, feel free, but until then I just think this shouldn't be in here. - EHS

I also believe that Internet IQ scores are biased. It takes a certain level of self esteem to take an IQ test voluntarily. Many people do not like to humiliate themselves when they doubt their own intellegence. Even when the test are anonymous, some people just don't want to face the truth. People who take the test voluntarily have confidence in themselves. They probably take the test as a self-validation to see if they are as smart as they think they are. No one wants to take an IQ test to prove how dumb they really are. I think this is just a matter of psychology. Those who take the test on-line may impact the bell curve and thus the score is inaccurate. I disgree with the argument that since IQ test ads are targeting average people recently, then the average people would take the test. I also see Mecedes Benz advertisment on many newspapers, that does not mean I would buy one. Kowloonese 00:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

OK you lost me. Internet scores are biased because the person taking the test doesnt want to find out how dumb he is? How'd you reach that? If the REASON for taking an IQ test has any adverse effect on the accuracy of the results, then why isnt that in the article? Tom S.

No, what's being said is that the Internet scores are biased because people who are most confident and comfortable about their own intelligence voluntarily take the tests whereas people who question or doubt their own intelligence will likely not take the test. The implied correlation is that higher confidence relates to an actual higher IQ as well as the converse being true. Whether or not this correlation is accurate is left to debate. I also took the Tickle test (leaving it on a screen for hours at a time, so rate of response is not a factor) and came out with a score of 133. While it's flattering to suggest I'm in the top 5%, I question the accuracy of the score as the test is not very long and the questions do not cover a very broad range (mostly analogies, some calculations, some pattern recognition, and some vocabulary and knowledge of common/popular phrases/cliches). BrionSwanson 14:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"mensa hall of fame"

An anonymous user (User:195.229.241.181) added the following information:

Mensa Club Hall of the fame
Olivier Roberts - 33 (2003) U.S
RIchard Huts    - 33 (2003) U.K
Shiny Mathews   - 28 (2004) Ind
Gregory Peters  - 27 (2004) Hungury

I don't know where it fits..It was added in the lead section, where it definitely does not belong. I'll post a message on the anonymous user's talk page. — David Remahl 11:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More added by User:195.229.241.182, note that these numbers aren't consistent with the above:

Mensa Hall of fame

oliver peter - 33 ( US)
Gregory peck - 33 (UK)
Shiny mathews - 28 (Ind)
Johan Yusuf   - 27 ( SYR)

— David Remahl 11:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sex differences in the brain

My english is not that perfect and I do want to add something to this article. I'm appealing that women and males do differ of some short in thinking. Most of us agree with that however I argue that the differences are hardwired and not influenced by culture. I'm asking someone to read the following article for more information. And I be grateful if some information of it is used in the article. If you need more information just P(ublic)M me. --A. 13:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"A difference has been documented between the IQ score distributions of left-handed and right-handed test subjects; the distribution in left-handed people tends to cluster at the two extremes of the IQ scale"

Does this control for sex? Most psychometricians believe the I.Q.s of men and women are roughly the same, but the distribution is different: you are more likely to find idiots and geniuses among men whereas women are more sharply clustered amongst the average. And I believe men are more likely to be left-handed.

I removed a claim that most intelligence researchers support a non-social cause of racial IQ disparity. This seems to have been based on an article that originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

Even a cursory review of material online shows the claim to be dubious. The revised version of the book "The Mismeasure of Man" disputes many of the arguments in "The Bell Curve". It is clear experts in the field have differing opinions.

The Misplaced Pages article "Race and Intelligence" covers this in much more detail providing some very interesting and persuasive counter-examples to the position stated in "The Bell Curve".

I think the section on Race and Intelligence in this article should be dropped and replaced with a link to the article "Race and Intelligence" (any useful information that would otherwise be dropped can be moved into "Race and Intelligence").

--Robert Brockway 05:23, Nov 16 2004 (UTC)

Seeing no objection to the above proposal, I've moved the Race and IQ section to Race and intelligence. The first paragraph dealt with The Bell Curve, which is adequately handled in its own article, and I moved one sentence to Charles Murray (author). -Willmcw 09:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--==== SO IN THE END ====--

So in the end, IQ measures basically how many questions you can answer right... hmm, doesn't really sound much like a way to measure your intelligence- it sounds more like HOW MUCH YOU KNOW. As you know, there are different types of intelligences, and it would seem to make more sense to say that there are simply too many factors to consider to put together a "meansurement" for your intellience. What about athletes? And artists? Everybody thinks differently, and IQ tests don't leave any room for interpretative reasoning.

Try TAKING AN IQ TEST! Don't judge in ingnorance, my friend. It is not testing how much you know. It is testing how you answer various questions. Even if you get the answer wrong, the answer you give will reveal what part of the brain you're thinking with to some degree. Just try taking one, please? Tom S.

-Yes it does. Have you ever even taken an IQ test? It doesn't ask you to recite a bunch of dates. Just because it's a test doesn't mean it's asking for rote memorization.

-Actually it _does_ require memorization in a more subtle _as well_ (besides equiring other things). This is actually the reason, why some people critize for racial/ethnic bias of some tests. In anyway you cannot really separate that easily between memorization/knowledge and intellectual/processing capabilities. The capabilities of neural networks are trained/improved through data (aka "memorization"). Learning a lot of things by heart does actually increase your intellectual capabilities (though depending on your goal it might not be terribly efficient).

Advertisements in External Link section

I followed a link in the external link section and found the following page at http://members.chello.nl/p.cooijmans/gliaweb/tests/boostiq.html This page indicates that IQ score from this website can be raised for a fee. That raised a question of legitimacy of this website and its tests. The intention of including the link in this wikipedia article is questionable too. Kowloonese 00:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page or section may contain link spam masquerading as content. Spam on Misplaced Pages consists of external links mainly intended to promote a website. If you are familiar with the content of the external links, please help by removing promotional links in accordance with Misplaced Pages:External links.

kids-iq-tests keeps popping up as the first external link. It is an ad for an affilliate. Enough already.

Validity of specific tests

I added this section as part of cleanup efforts, merging from Online IQ Test Validity, however, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that the information in that article was unsourced. Demi /_C 23:40, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

I know the following doesn't actually fit in with this category, but I didn't want to create a new category and it sort of fits in with the title of the category.

Does anyone else think that something should be mentioned about the validity of the following test: "www.mensa-test.com - Nice intelligence test (not a standart IQ test)". I'm not suggesting it should be removed; it is very interesting and is quite possible a good test of intelligence. However it has huge cultural bias. Not being american it took me ages to get things like ***WARNING - If you want to take the test, dont read ahead yet*** "13 stripes in the united states flag" or "100 cents in a dollar". And I haven't got a clue how I got the "9 provinces in south africa" (I didn't even know that south africa had provinces, it was just something thaat fitted). I think something about the cultural bias and the focus on verbal intelligence should be mentioned next to the link in the article. Raoul Harris 18:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Religiosity and intelligence

I removed this section again, because I don't think we should by synthesizing material from "what we expect" a main article to become. The referenced article does not establish sources for any correlation of religiosity and IQ, and while it seems like it will pass VFD, I'm not sure it will. When there's sufficient material from this "main article" to include here, it can be done then. Demi /_C 19:12, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

And never take an IQ test that asks for your religiosity or politics. The LOWEST I have ever measured in tests that do not is 127, and I measured 135 on Tickle. I'm curious as to what my ACTUAL IQ is... but back on track now; I took an IQ test on one of these links. Before giving me my score, it asked for some "demographic information". I chose the ultimate PC dumb guy: white, male, christian right-winger. I scored 122. Now if I could only remember which link I followed... Tom S.

Neurobiology of Intelligence: Science and Ethics

From Gray & Thompson (2004) ... stuff we should integrate here and/or brain size and intelligence. --Rikurzhen 07:40, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Neurobiological determinants of intelligence as measured by IQ:

1. Posterior lesions often cause substantial decreases in IQ. Duncan and colleagues suggested that the frontal lobes are involved more in Gf and goal-directed behaviour than in Gc (Fig. 2). In addition, Gf is compromised more by damage to the frontal lobes than to posterior lobe...
2. MRI-based studies estimate a moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.40 to 0.51
3. g was significantly linked to differences in the volume of frontal grey matter, which were determined primarily by genetic factors... the volume of frontal grey matter had additional predictive validity for g even after the predictive effect of total brain volume was factored out
4. Only one region is consistently activated during three different intelligence tasks when compared to control tasks...The surface features of the tasks differed (spatial, verbal, circles) but all were moderately strong predictors of g (g LOADING; range of r, 0.55–0.67), whereas control tasks were weaker predictors of g (range of r, 0.37–0.41). Neural activity in several areas, measured by a positron emission tomography (PET) scan, was greater during high-g than low-g tasks.
5. Speed and reliability of neural transmission are related to higher intelligence (reviewed in Refs 15,20). Early neuroimaging studies using PET found that intelligence correlated negatively with cerebral glucose metabolism during mental activity54 (for a review, see Ref. 55), leading to the formulation of a 'neural efficiency' hypothesis...
6. Gf is mediated by neural mechanisms that support the executive control of attention during working memory...greater event-related neural activity in many regions, including the frontal, parietal and temporal lobes, dorsal anterior cingulate and lateral cerebellum. Crucially, these patterns were most distinct during high-interference trials, even after controlling for behavioural performance and for activity on low-interference trials within the same regions
7. RAPM scores obtained outside the scanner predicted brain activity in a single left parietal/temporal region, and not in the frontal lobes.
8. An exploratory fMRI study60 (n = 7) indicated that parietal areas are involved in inspection time tasks, specifically Brodmann area (BA) 40 and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (BA47) but not the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

Behavioral Genetics of IQ:

1. Monozygotic twins raised separately following adoption show a correlation of 0.72 for intelligence
2. For 48 identical twin pairs separated in early infancy and reared apart, Bouchard et al.83 found remarkably high between-twin correlations for verbal scores on the WAIS (0.64) and for the first principal component of special mental abilities (0.78)
3. Psychometric g has been shown to be highly heritable in many studies, even more so than specific cognitive abilities (h2 = 0.62, Ref. 87 compare with Ref. 88; h2 = 0.48, Ref. 89; h2 = 0.6–0.8, Refs 90,91)...
4. Intriguingly, the influence of shared family environments on IQ dissipates once children leave home — between adult adoptive relatives, there is a correlation of IQ of -0.01

Molecular Genetics of IQ:

1. Chorney et al.104 discovered an allelic variation in a gene on chromosome 6, which codes for an insulin-like growth factor-2 receptor (IGF2R), that was linked with high intelligence...
2. Later studies identified a second IQ-related polymorphism in the IGF2R gene, and others in the cathepsin D (CTSD) gene, in the gene for an acetylcholine receptor (CHRM2)106, and in a HOMEOBOX GENE (MSX1) that is important in brain development107, 108.
3. Influence of each polymorphism was minimal — variants of CHRM2 accounted for a range of only 3–4 IQ points, whereas different forms of CTSD accounted for about 3% of the variation between people...None of these associations has yet been replicated by other research groups
4. Some patients with microcephaly also possess the ASPM mutation, indicating that a shortened version of the gene might lead to the development of fewer cerebral neurons and a smaller head.
5. Polymorphism in the human brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) gene is associated with impaired performance on memory tests
6. Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene influences the activation of working memory circuits. COMT polymorphisms seem to be highly specific to some prefrontal cortex-dependent tasks in children.
7. Dopamine receptor (DRD4) and monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) polymorphisms are associated with differences in performance and brain activity during tasks that involve executive attention

Most of these have much to fine detail for a general encyclopedia. Especially the last and last section which is completely uninteresting for anyone except for an active researcher and he probably already knows it all. We should not paraphrase every article ever done in the overview article. Ultramarine 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mainly, I was thinking about this stuff for brain size and intelligence, which I think should be renamed. See the talk page there. --Rikurzhen 04:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Illogical

The section regarding brain size & IQ is pure intellectual chicancery. High IQ does not mean good health, not in the slightest. Why does this explicate why several 'geniuses' suffer immense bouts of depression? Something needs to be elucidated regarding this matter, what do you think? The correlational studies linking IQ to health seem, at the least, good fodder to contradict, so as to provide a neutral point of view.

Question: Why 'so called' geniuses suffer depression? Happiness is achieved in accomplishing a goal. When a genius outdoes all his peers, he no longer has a goal: his previous life of bettering what others have done is now gone: he must readjust. Society does not teach to adapt: a true genius would not work for another. I know this, since I have been there. One day I will teach what I know, so others may not fall into such a pitiful state. For now, I am accomplishing a goal.

- TcheQ 1:44AM, 18-7-5

As a general rule the intelligent are healthier and live longer ( though they do have a higher suicide rate, cf Terman.) Don't confuse your sterotypes about the gifted with the real thing. Also consider that the kind of geniuses you refer to don't merely have a high IQ, they usually are obsessional, they have to be to acheive their extraordinary sucesses, in addition, many display charcterstics of Asperger's and Autism. So they are not typical of the general gifted population

Income numbers

The paragraph on sibling income had a strange transition, starting from Murray 1998's results and then immediately stating:

However, these differences are less impressive when considering that in 1993 the average family income was $61,800 while the average family income of the richest 10% was $172,400. (Note these income values are larger than those from Murray's study, possibly because these values include income other than wages. Murray found average family incomes at five IQ tiers of $53,000 for the top 10 percent of IQ, $45,000 for the next 15 percent, $37,000 for the middle 50 percent, $23,400 for the next 15 percent, and $12,000 for the bottom 10 percent.)

The data cited in the paragraph refer to individual income, consistent with the question being addressed in the paragraph, which is, "Does IQ make any difference at the highest levels?" Specifically, the question is, "Does IQ make any difference in income at the highest levels?" The average family income data are unrelated to that question. Also, as the author seems to recognize, they cannot be meaningfully compared to the Murray study. I've replaced them with the actual reported mean individual earnings ($23,703) for the normal control group in the study. I'm also not a fan of the editorializing "these differences are less impressive," which is baldly POV. --DAD 30 June 2005 01:20 (UTC)

These edits were recently reverted "because people have families." In keeping with that idea, I've left in the Murray family income numbers, which I agree are relevant, and removed the editorial comment. I'll be happy to see the remaining fragment

In 1993 the average family income was $61,800 while the average family income of the richest 10% was $172,400.

included as soon as we have a citation for those data. (Still, it's not clear why such additional family data are needed, unless there is a (published) claim that Murray's numbers are incorrect; we now have the family part covered.) I request either a Talk entry for such significant reversions or a more thoughtful edit comment. --DAD 1 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)

Economic achievement and IQ have a positive correlation to a certain point, and that point is that at which people choose intellectual stimulation over economic gain. It is possible that persons with extremely high IQs choose creative activities, academic careers, or scientific reasearch that fail to offer the instant rewards that some sales and executive careers might offer. It could also be that extremely high intelligence is inconsistent with a desire for material display, one of the attractions of some career choices, or that the usual status symbols offer little satisfaction for those who see through them. Contrast executive compensation to that for research scientists or university professors, and recognize that very brilliant people might lack reverence for bureaucratic strictures and could easily fail within them.

That said, very brilliant people who choose research, academia, or creative activities as careers do well economically -- but they rarely get the highest incomes which depend upon either inherited wealth (which does not result from high IQ) or motivation to succeed in an environment that offers extreme rewards of material success. That might explain the paradox of "PhDs earning less than MAs". --66.231.41.57 17:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Online tests

Why is this even here? Pardon if I missed something, but I don't see why tests that have nothing to do with IQ (such as the Tickle) are mentioned here. Peoplesunionpro July 6, 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Agree. I'm also bothered that the g-loadings are uncited. Go for it! --DAD 6 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)

I don't agree, and find these links helpful and relevant. // PoorLeno

Great. Kindly provide citations and re-add them, or simply list them in the External References section. They don't belong in the article unless the attributed data is verifiable and there is obvious effort to ensure they are not simply advertising. --DAD 19:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

These unverifiable scores keep getting re-added. Will keep reverting unless they're sourced. If you want to include them, WP:Cite your sources. --DAD 02:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's here because the APA and Clinical Psychologists see immense potential in their professional use. The current state of online IQ testing is fraught with error, however, and you would do well to read both the journal article and all pages of the website prior to taking anything that sells itself as an IQ test. Online intelligence assessment: If it smells like a pig, it probably is. BrainDoc 01:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a new external link. It ought to be the first stop for anyone who wants more information about an online IQ test. BrainDoc 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

i.q. for different ages

Does anyone know the normal i.q. for a fourteen year old?

IQ is age-relative. The "normal" IQ for any age group is 100. --Rikurzhen July 7, 2005 01:15 (UTC)

So, what would the average fourteen year old's IQ be if they were scored as being... 30 years old? Peoplesunionpro 23:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

File:Mental-ability-age-iq.PNG not for use in the article --Rikurzhen 02:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

doesn't make sense

The table in "Practical importance", lists this element : Married by age 30 <72 81 81 72 67>

As anyone can see, these don't add up to 100.

Nor should they. It's "percentage of people at each IQ level that is married by age 30". Could be 100% across the board. --DAD 16:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, maybe this should be clarified? PoorLeno 11:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Done. (Or at least attempted.) --DAD 15:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mainstream Science on Intelligence statement is "old"?

The full text of this statement was recently posted, and even more recently removed with the "reason" that it was "old" and "extremely long". Now, I'm no fan of putting the whole statement in the article, but "old"? That's a) pure POV and b) difficult to swallow. "Old" either implies "old in years" -- at 11 years old, it's hot off the presses, and so far as I can ascertain, virtually all the signers, many of whom are senior scientists, are still alive and active -- or "superseded by newer data" -- and there's no indication in the literature that the consensus on these points has changed a whit in the ensuing 11 years. Nor is there a newer consensus statement that substantively contradicts its content. Kindly defend the POV. --DAD 16:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This should be enough . Give an external link instead. Ultramarine 16:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Read my post again. You've addressed the part we agree on. --DAD 17:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing against posting some kind of link, of course nothing that is 11 years old. Ultramarine 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That sentence is ambiguous (not a sentence). What do you mean? --DAD 17:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Give a link to the material but note that the consensus is 11 years old. Ultramarine 17:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Note the date of publication. --Rikurzhen 17:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

It grossly distorts the article. Put it in Wikisource or use an external link. Ultramarine 17:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

An external link should be fine. --Rikurzhen 17:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Repeat: we're in violent agreement that the external link is fine. I wanted to push you on the "old" statement, to see if there was anything other than your opinion behind it. Like, anything that might indicate a change in the consensus statements. --DAD 17:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

IQ is highly heritable?

I think this is inaccurate. Since IQ is a score, taking the excellent racing metaphor in the summary, it would be accurate to say (hypothetically) athletic ability is highly heritable, but inaccurate to say times in the 100m dash are highly heritable. I am trying to think of a simple way to say this. Suggestions:

• proficiency on IQ tests is highly heritable
• IQ scores suggest test-taking ability is highly heritable

Thoughts? Jokestress 02:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

IQ is a metric, and any measurable trait can be heritable. For example . --Rikurzhen 03:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that IQ is a test score, not a trait. The trait is "intelligence." This gets to the larger issue of whether "intelligence" can be measured. Like a number for how wise or how funny someone is. Jokestress 03:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I know it seems sort of odd, but in the language of genetics (behavioral genetics in this case) any measurable property of an organism is a "trait" (i.e. phenotype). A far out example from intro genetics is that even the patterns of restriction enzyme digested DNA on a gel (RFLP) is a phenotype (the actual polymorphism is the genotype). (In this case, a ~100% heritable one.) An alternative to "IQ is heritable" might be "general cognitive ability, measured by IQ tests, is highly heritable", but that's basically just replacing IQ for general cognitive ability. To go along with the height/racing example, you could measure the heritability of either height or racing performance, despite the fact that one phenotype is measured on an absolute scale and the other a relative scale. --Rikurzhen 03:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Just getting back to this. It seems that intelligence/cognitive ability has something like a heritable potentiality, like athletic ability, but that even if the genes for this ability were isolated, it would not predict outcome (i.e. time or placing in a race). I guess that's why "IQ is heritable" seems inaccurate. The score itself is not heritable, any more than a 9.95 100m dash is a heritable trait. Does that make sense? I am sure there are technical terms for this, but that's what I'm getting at. Jokestress 17:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If I understand your meaning, you're hitting on an easy misunderstanding of heritability. Heritability relates to a population, not to an individual. Just as there can be an average IQ for a population, but there can't be an average IQ for a person. Within a population, variation in IQ can be divided between genes and environment (and/or more sophisticated categories). However, this division has no meaning at the level of an individual. Each individual is a product of both their genes and their environment. To say that IQ is highly heritable (among the affluent populations of industrial societies) is just to say that variation between individuals is due more to genetic variation between those individuals than environmental variation between those individuals. A single person has only one genotype and one environment, and so heritabilty can't be described for a single person. Which is not to say that we couldn't predict with some level of accuracy (depending on the true heritability of IQ in that person's environment) a person's IQ, if we knew the effect on IQ of all genetic variations and we knew that person's genotype. If it's not there already, we should work this distinction into the heritability article. --Rikurzhen 23:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

All the race and intelligence articles nod to the fact they discuss group differences, but after reading the heritability article, I think I have a better sense of how the term is being used by experts vs. lay readers. As you note, I don't think most casual readers will know the distinction being made (I didn't). We should link heritability on all those pages. I still have a couple of questions about this in relation to IQ, but they will have to wait till things slow down a touch. Jokestress 00:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure that the way heritability is used in the race and intelligence article to describe the question of the cause of group differences is correct. The question is very similiar (dividing genetic and environmental causes) but it might not be technically "heritability". It might be more precise to just call it genetics versus environment, although there is clearly a relationship between heritability and the solution to this question. --Rikurzhen 00:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

This was an extremely enlightening exchange. Very perceptive question, very good answer. Thanks to both of you. Arbor 20:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Jokestress, let me point you to Block (1995) "How heritability misleads about race". Cognition 56:99–128 (also listed in the Race and intelligence (References)), which contains a readable presentation of a POV that might coincide with one of your fundamental criticism of the genetic hypothesis of race and intelligence research. Arbor 13:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Supplements/nutrition and IQ

Does anyone know if it possible that caffeine/taurine/B complex amino acids/Ginseng+ginkgo/Ma Huang/Omega 3 fish oil etc affect IQ? --Raddicks 16:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If possible, could somebody please augment the "improving IQ" section and add links to the scientific studies as well as summaries of the studies?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.176.3 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 8 December 2005.

Pretty much everything either enhances or damages cognition :). Has anyone ever considered how vital food was to cognition, why if you stopped eating it you'd pretty soon have an IQ of 0.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.93.169 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 December 2005.

Diet likely has very little to do with IQ, provided that you eat sufficiently and do not severely lack any kind of vitamin or mineral to the extent that it would impair your mental capacity. -UBERGOD—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.165.33.57 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 1 February 2006.

"Developed" Countries

Most of the IQ studies described above were conducted in developed countries, such as the United States, Japan, and Western Europe. However, a few studies have been conducted in Moscow, East Germany, and India, and those studies produce similar results. Any such investigation is limited to describing the genetic and environmental variation found within the populations studied. This is a caveat of any heritability study.

Apart from the apparent confusion as to what is a country, and the implicit claim that Moscow and East Germany are somehow "undeveloped" (I cannot comment on India, but I suspect that high levels of "development" co-exist with high levels of backwardness), this paragraph doesn't take into account that these three places have (or had) a very high standard of education. Comparing the US, Japan and Western Europe with Moscow, East Germany and India isn't comparing modern industrial societies with the 3rd world, its comparing modern indstrial societies with slightly poorer modern industrial societies. --BadSeed 00:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The word "however" is the problem there. It could be "also". --Rikurzhen 23:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is evidence that raising mean IQ leads to considerable gains in overall Gross Domestic Product in this soon-to-be-published article in Intelligence.

See Also and External Link guidelines

I propose we set up a separate page for all these high IQ society things and have one see also link to that. Some of them seem pretty non-notable. One that was linked in external links (Giga Society]), claims six members. I removed it along with two other obvious linkspam items. Some of these societies border on vanity sites, if you ask me. Jokestress 18:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Those lists are constantly getting spammed. --Rikurzhen 23:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I removed two links. They were not informational links. Rather, they were created to drive traffic to unprofessional business ventures that do not expand our discussion of Intelligence. 123spamfighter123 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

See above. Our spammer relisted his site. 123spamfighter123 19:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Flynn effect

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

Binet's Claims on IQ

Dewdney, A.K. book Yes, We Have No Neutrons (ISBN 0471295868 or ISBN 0471108065) refutes the modern usage of IQ tests as a test for intelligence, because, among other things, how can you test a property that hasn't been satisfactorily defined (like intelligence).

It's stated that Binet foresaw the abuse of the test that was originally designed to identify students who need closer attention. He foresaw his test being used to condemn certain groups instead of helping them.

Sure, the standard IQ tests of today are probably very different to the ones that Binet designed, but they still address the learning capacity of people. Most of the current tests are very biased against certain ethnic groups.

Originally, the tests were designed to be given orally, in a one-on-one situation so that neither social skills or the ability to read and write could interfere with the results.

I think a lot of this article strays from the NPOV. The intellegence quotient is not a measure of intellignce, merely one's learning capability.

smadge1 00:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That's mostly wrong. --Rikurzhen 07:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The postion of the scholarly community favours IQ as a geniune measure of intelligence ( i.e "mainstream science on intelligence." It is not a violation of NPOV. You are misunderstanding the meaning of NPOV.

learning capability ( in it's broadest sense, of being able to acquire and understand concepts and data) IS intelligence, it is all that intelligence is. Other abilities fall under the heading of creativity. - Timothy

IQ in primates

Unless I´m mistaken, the article doesn´t include info. on IQ tests carried out on higher primates that communicate with sign language. I´ve read articles, for example, about the gorilla Koko who registered an IQ between 75 - 90 on various adapted tests. Could someone detail the pros and cons of IQ tests on such animals, and showing those tests (with results) that have received serious scientific consideration - thanks.

Any and all claims about Koko's abilities are controversial. Though to what extent I don't know. Certainly that score would be treated with skepticism by many.

Made "employment' portion of IQ chart generic

In considering the reversion of the addition of Clinton, it occurred to me that this is just as valid (that is, made-up) as most of the historical figures in this chart. I've tried to substitute some generic language, but perhaps this chart is a transcription of a source that speculates as to the position of these figures, and could thus somehow be included (it wasn't clear to me what, if any source, was used for the table). Demi /_C 00:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That table is completely ridiculous. I've removed all of the speculative data. Google searches reveal no scientific sources or merit to these labels. --Barfooz 07:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

some of it was questionable. other parts i'd seen before PDF, see page 5 --Rikurzhen 07:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Gene variant lowers male IQ

Randy Jirtle of Duke University reports that males with IGF2R (acronym for type 2 insulinlike growth factor receptor) have lower group average IQ scores by about 20 points. . Here's Jirtle's lab.

Improvement?

>Some studies have shown that exercise and almonds can improve cognitive function.

What studies have shown this? How about some references?

>Ginseng and ginko biloba are said to increase bloodflow, thereby possibly improving brain function.

Anything is possible. But is there any actual evidence that this is true?

>Studies have also shown that consuming green tea, rosemary, fish oil, and sage can benefit brain function.

What studes have show this?

Unless some references are provided, I think the "Improvement" section should be deleted.

Intresting question. I don't know whether green tea improves cognitive function, but wealth of studies has shown it preserves it. I'd be very suprised if it didn't help it somewhat. But your right of course about the lack of references. There's no question about exercise, one study found it DOUBLED working memory capacity in older patients.

Table: Economic and social correlates of IQ

This table contains some bogus information. It says the number of people born with an IQ below 75 is 39% of 5%, 17% of 20%, 6% of 50% and 7% of 20%. That adds up to about 10%. Yet the first line says than only 5% fall in that category. Since the numbers don't add up, it makes me wonder about the accuracy of the other data in this chart as well. These data are from "The Bell Curve", right? I don't have a copy. Can someone please check the referenced page numbers and see if the numbers fail to add up there as well?

good catch! p. 230 says "bottom decile", which is around IQ < 80, not IQ < 75. --Rikurzhen 10:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Making sense of the numbers for laymen: Some comparisons would be helpful. For example, what is the correlation between leg length and age in an adolescent (or think of something better). Also, when two random variables have a correlation of .55 can we say they are "highly correlated"? According the correlation article a correlation of greater than 0.9 is considered "high".

Right now, correlation between heights of parent and child are presented for comparison. The description of correlations as low/medium/high is subjective and context dependent. In the social sciences, a correlation >.6 is high. --Rikurzhen 06:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

High-IQ Elites Want To Maintain Their Status; Not Everyone Can Be Part Of The Cognitive Royalty.

"In contrast, others claim that the refusal of high-IQ elites to take IQ seriously as a cause of inequality is itself immoral.17"

This is a highly interesting point in the work, but unfortunately one which is barely touched upon. The link provided doesn't go into nearly as much detail as i'd expected or desired.

This issue makes me wonder just how many of the cognitive elite would desire a world of others like themselves - High IQ Elites, even though they're always complaining of feeling lonely in a world overwhelmingly consisting of the feebleminded and worthless.

My impression is that the high IQ elite want other intelligent people around, but, for comfort, just not too many. After all, how many gifted people around does it take to extinguish the typical high IQ's perception of himself as special, as looking down on the rest.

The high IQ elite businessman can easily accumulate obscene wealth by simply pandering to the stupid. That's how the system works, ((our style of capitalism)), and how it continues to work. The more the feebleminded are exploited, the more the high IQ business elite can live the American Dream.

The World is: People who're too stupid(feebleminded) to realize that they're being screwed, and shifty, crafty, cunning, businessmen constantly dreaming up fresh idiocies to market to the feebleminded. What a sad, evil state of things.

I don't trust many high IQ business and political people and i highly suspect that in a world saturated by only the brightest, all the high IQ business schemes classically practiced on the slow and feebleminded would come to a hasty end. What then? 4:34PMUS-est, Feb, 15, 2006

Cretins of the world unite! --BadSeed 11:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, What's your opinion on widespread wage slavery and exploitation(by High IQ Business Elites) of the poor, incapable and infirm?

Also many High IQ elite are in a constant state of denial, insisting that they have the things that they have because they worked harder than everyone else, not because they are smarter than everyone else.

There's one thing I'd like to point at.

It's not uncommon for someone that is of average intelligence, that's in a position of power, be it business or political, to try and defeat, discourage, or keep out, individuals that are more intelliegent than themselves. I point this out as someone in power, does not want to be replaced or overpowered. They may often see a person that's brighter than themselves as a threat and take action against this percieved threat. An example of this could be in the hiring practices of a manager. He/She probably wants to control their employees easily, not have someone gain their power or surpass them. That manager may avoid hiring those percieved or shown to be of high intelligence, as the manager would be anxious, that a person higher up in their company might notice the employee and have them run the establishment, thus replacing the original that gave this replacement their original position.

Sir Milas Boozefox The Third 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

social construct section needs total re-write!

i recently edited this section because it is very poor, i admit that my editing was not great, and it has since been removed, however the person who removed my changes did not trouble himself to replace them with something better, two points

1)"The social-construct and real-ability interpretations for IQ differences can be distinguished because they make opposite predictions about what would happen if people were given equal opportunities. The social explanation predicts that equal treatment will eliminate differences, while the real-ability explanation predicts that equal treatment will accentuate differences."

this is a caricature of the social-construct position, and in fact it does NOT necessarily make this prediction, and by the way the problem i highlighted about defining "equal conditions" is a very real one if you wish to claim empirical arbitration between two views!!!!

2)"IQ scores are not intended to gauge a person's worth, and in many situations, IQ may have little relevance. this statement is simply NOT TRUE, and manages to be extremely vague at the same time, which is some achievement!

i) intended by whom exactly? as i pointed out it HAS been used (abused?) for that very purpose, i gave a concrete example of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century if you mean not intended by it's creators then say so! if you mean by the organisations that use it then (a) say so, (b) explain what types of organisation you are referring to and (c) back your claim up with evidence or at least references (remember something about content being verifiable?)

ii) in many situations iq may have little relevance????????????! really? are you sure? you mean all this time i thought that it was extremely important for dishwashing i was wrong?! this is an extremely dishonest statement which covertly implies that it definitely is relevant in other situations, something which is actually disputed and therefore deserves to be treated (as it has been elsewhere in the article) as such, even if you then conclude (and there is a fair bit of evidence) that it is.......besides, it is extremely obvious that there ARE some situations in which iq has no relevance and if not modified surely this statement should be stricken as apart from inaccuracy and bias it doesn't really say much anyway!

now it is true that my editing was poor, but if somebody doesn't edit this section then wikipedia will definitely go down in my estimation, you cannot just leave it, i do not understand how someone can be bothered to edit my poor but honest contribution and yet leave this poor and dishonest section untouched!

US ARMY ENLISTEE REQUIREMENTS

How about adding a section dealing with armed forces qualification & IQ? Wouldn't that make for an interesting bit?

Two Questions: What's the lowest average IQ accepted into the armed forces?

What do they do with enlistees with IQ's above a certain range? For example, would they automatically assign you a high ranking position if your IQ was at the level of an MIT professor?

"Tend To"?

"Some groups (e.g. East Asians and Jews) tend to cluster higher than whites, while other groups (e.g. Blacks and Hispanics) tend to cluster lower than whites."

They do not "tend to cluster" higher/lower than whites; they do cluster higher/lower than whites. I have removed both "tend to's."