Talk:Intelligence quotient

I will be adding numerous references and bibliography entries.

Last year I began a major revision of a working paper project (begun in 2006, based on shorter research notes I began compiling as early as 1993) largely on this Wikipedia topic. As the talk page templates note, "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute." As a courtesy to the editors who have long been here, I will note that I will begin adding the dozens of books and articles I have at hand for my non-Wikipedia project (a literature review for popular audiences interested in the primary source literature on IQ testing) to this Wikipedia article. At first I will add books and articles from various points of view to the bibliography. Then I will add more references to verify the statements that have already long stood in the article. (I hope to add specific page numbers to both the references I add and the existing references that I am able to look up here.) At some length, I expect to expand sections with additional facts, perhaps add a few subsections, and from time to time do substantive edits under the NPOV principle, as the sources report various points of view. Thanks to all of you who have already worked on this very detailed article. I am lucky to have access to a very comprehensive academic library at which I have circulating privileges, so I am delighted to add some V and NPOV to various Wikipedia projects. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a great job. I'm looking forward to reading your additions. Good luck to you! :) Lova Falk talk 08:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an update on that project. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have begun substantive edits to this article based on sources that other Wikipedians can check in the Intelligence Citations list. All of you are encouraged to suggest new sources for that list, which will be useful for editing quite a few articles on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The article is unbalanced in its presentation of criticism against G. There are many serious intrelligence researchers from Sternberg to Gardner who dispute the usefulness of G as a measure of general intelligence. They should be included. The very short criticism section presents the criticism as if Gould's is the most important and the presents a length quote from Flynn as the last word, giving the distinct impression that any critique is unfounded. Psychology textbooks do not generally present a view of IQ as an unproblematic measure of cognitive ability, neither should this article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There's an article General intelligence factor. Shouldn't that be the appropriate article with just a short summary here with a see also at the top? Also this article is about IQ rather than g so I'm not certain why the section is there at all except to note it is a general argument against measures of intelligence. AFter all g and IQ are different measures of intelligence. Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sternberg does not dispute g. This is what he wrote in his article in The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (2003):

The evidence in favor of a general factor of intelligence is, in one sense, overwhelming. This evidence is so well documented by Jensen that there is no need to repeat it here. One would have to be blind or intransigent not to give this evidence its due. Not only is there evidence for the internal validity of the g factor, there also is evidence for its external validity as well. Again, Jensen's documentation, as well as that of others, is scientifically impressive. The impact of Jensen's work on g to the field of psychology—in terms of both the support and the criticism it has generated—is a tribute both to Jensen and to his many ideas, including that of a general factor.

Sternberg's shtick is to claim that there are types of intelligence that are not correlated with g. He does not claim that g does not exist. He says that besides analytical intelligence (=g), there are creative and practical intelligence. However, I don't think anyone besides Sternberg and some of his students actually believe in this triarchic theory because there is very little empirical evidence behind it.

Gardner, in his turn, is not an intellectually serious researcher. He is hostile to all attempts at empirically investigating his myriad intelligences, and while his work has influenced some educationalists, he is a non-entity in academic psychology.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sternberg disputes the "g-ocentric" view of intelligence as he has published in several different papers he thinks that G is not the whole story of cognitive abilities. I did not say that he disputes its existence. Whether you think that "nobody" believes his thriarchic theory is utterly irrelevant - his theories and those of Gardner are presented in most psychology textbooks treatment of Intelligence. Your arrogant characterization of Gardner is also not relevant or helpful - [ and it seems rather arrogant to me ]- as he is also frequently cited in psychology textbooks.^{this comment has been redacted for enhanced civilty} ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please try to avoid characterizing other peoples comments as 'arrogant' or suchlike, see WP:CIVILITY. Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not characterize Victor as arrogant, I characterised his statement as such, which it clearly was. Please try to avoid giving bogus civilty warnings. Referring to professional scientists as having a "schtick" or as being "a non-entity" is arrogant, does not help build consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who actually understands the mathematics of what's going on, g is not a physical thing, it is a model parameter. While g may (or may not) be an effective model of intelligence, to suggest that it is a physical thing is nonsense. Some might discuss whether or not that model parameter correlates with something that is physically real, but g is not a physically real thing. I am honestly surprised that this sort of implication is even in the article. aprock (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

High standardized test scores are best viewed as a sufficient but not necessary condition to determine how well someone's mind works. For instance, I know many smart people who test poorly and many people who scored very highly (nearly perfect) on tests like the SAT and GRE and also highly on iq tests. They were also very intelligent. Smart people can do poorly on these tests. Dumb people cannot ace them. I believe this bit of common sense is lost in the debate over correlation with g , etc. I believe most of the correlation breaks down when smart people do not test well. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscience/Neuropsychology resource

As Brain Changes, So Can IQ; Study Finds Teens' Intellects May Be More Malleable Than Previously Thought OCTOBER 20, 2011 by ROBERT LEE HOTZ ... new findings by researchers at University College London, reported online in Nature ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

table showing different iq scores per individual

Does this table make any sense given that various test have different standard deviations and perhaps even centers? It would be more useful to report different iqs in terms of percentile. For instance, a stanford-binet iq score will usually be higher than a wechsler due to different variation. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

IQ tests are standardized to have the same distribution nowadays. And even when they weren't the difference was something like a standard deviation of 13 or 15. Even that would make a trivial difference to the overall tenor of those results. Dmcq (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(Some versions of) Cattell Culture Fair uses SD 24, a significant difference over 15/16. I'm not sure if they are used that much anymore, but certainly historically there is a large variance of different SD's. Subarctica (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Race

An editor is putting a table into the race section which doesn't summarize anything in the race and intelligence article which is the main article about that. This article should not have a whole load about a subtopic which is not in the main article about the subtopic. In fact it should not have a whole load about the subtopic in the first place and especially not tables, it should just summarize what the subtopic says - the relevant points in the subtopics lead. Dmcq (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I've reverted it twice but the editor seems to think I'm on some ideological mission. Amazing the way people attribute to others what's most probably true of themselves. So over to somebody else to assess. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello

How accurate are IQ online tests? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.207.155 (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stanford or Emory?

Next to Lewis Terman's name there's a redlink - [[Emory University School of Education|Stanford University]] . Emory University is in Georgia, there's no mention of Emory on Terman's page but there is Stanford_University_School_of_Education - is that what should be linked here? --24.23.193.132 (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Brain size and weight

There is a small but significant link between brain weiht and intelligence, see Height and intelligence. The following is wrong plus anyway a citation would be needed for the following which was inserted:

"Brain size is not correlated to intelligence: Anatole France (1017 gr), Einstein (1209 gr), Gauss (1490 gr), etc... being the main value 1300-1400gr. (It seems someone erase this sentence, but it is true, so i'll continue to put it here). People that correlates brain size and intelligence are doing pseudoscience, called: phrenology. Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology#Method and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology#Pseudoscience"

The ip has been warned about the threat to edit war and directed here. Dmcq (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)