Talk:Intelligence quotient

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Intelligence quotient, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:

Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligence quotient article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 90 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intelligence quotient article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 90 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Psychology B‑class High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology B‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Link to a vaild online IQ test

Is there an online site, such as an university, that offers one or more of the major free IQ test that is not marketing based. I know that it would greatly enhance the article if the readers were able to reliable test their own IQ score. I don't know how the Wikipedia rules work for suggesting an outside souce that is accurate, but I think universities would be the first place to start.

These are the reliable tests that I was thinking about: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Stanford-Binet, Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities, or the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-II, 71.201.50.30 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Ben[reply]

Wikipedia isn't in the business of advertising sites, just in providing an encyclopaedia with information about a subject. A test yourself site does not provide any extra encyclopaedia type information. Dmcq (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that i understand, I think then there needs to be focus on the popular culture usage section of the article. It states that there is a lot of poorly constructed online IQ test but does not offer information about good tests online or what makes a test online valid. Are there good test online? Can your IQ be accuratally measured by a test online? 71.201.50.30 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Ben[reply]

Are there WP:Reliable sources that discuss that point? Find some citations first. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit of welcome data to User talk:71.201.50.30 since it looks like you might like to edit articles. You don't have to read it all, I never did, but the principles in WP:5P are always worth a read. The applicable one here is pillar 2, citing sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding has always been that there is no such thing as a valid online IQ test. It should be administered by a trained professional. It would be no more legitimate than a Cosmo 'does your guy have the hots for you' quiz. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proliferation of "IQ and environment" articles

There are way too many overlapping or otherwise unsatisfactory articles about environmental influences on IQ. Firstly, there's Environment and intelligence, which has lots of material similar to the much better written Heritability of IQ. Then there's Malleable intelligence, which is a collection of mainly neurobiological findings that may or may not be related to "malleable intelligence". Finally, there's IQ testing environmental variances, which is a crude POV fork of Race and intelligence.

I suggest we do the following:

Delete IQ testing environmental variances entirely.
Merge Environment and intelligence with Heritability of IQ. The article could be renamed to Genetic and environmental influences on intelligence or perhaps Nature and nurture of intelligence.
Merge the worthy bits of Malleable intelligence with Neuroscience and intelligence or some other article(s).

--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That "IQ testing environmental variances" article is pretty awful. Maybe someone should nominate it for deletion. Your other suggestions sound good too. There seems to be little logic to how information is divided between these articles. Perhaps it would be helpful to create a Wikipedia project on intelligence to help prevent info duplication among articles?-SightWatcher (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just proposed IQ testing environmental variances for deletion.--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is horrible - but that is not a reason for deletion. The topic is clearly notable and there is a wide lterature about it. It could be a merge is in order - but I think that there will eventually be room for an article that describes only the many, many ways in which intelligence correlates with enviromental factors - we have one on Heritability of IQ - this one seems like its logical twin. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my eye on some of those articles for a while as candidates for merger with Heritability of IQ, which has long had its own set of problems. At the very least, there should be redirects from previous article titles to appropriate sections of a newly sourced and improved article on what "heritability" means and what reliable secondary sources on the issue of heritability of IQ say. P.S. There is already a WikiProject Psychology that needs more participation by more editors, and especially more participation by more editors who are familiar with the secondary literature on psychology. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus, the article is not about environmental influences on intelligence in general. It is specifically and only about environmental influences on racial differences in intelligence. Heritability of IQ deals with genetic and environmental influences (mainly within populations), and there are two other articles, linked to above, that deal with environmental influences. IQ testing environmental variances is not a "logical twin" of the heritability article, but rather a bastard child of Race and intelligence from which it was originally cut and pasted. There is nothing worthwhile in it that is not already included in other articles.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not as it is written now. But the question is whether the topic deserves an article - I think it does and it already has one and that is Environment and intelligence. I suggest that the sources and information included here, such as the material from Jencks, Flynn and other sources info be merged to that article.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing deletion discussion concerning the environmental variances article. More people should take a look at it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre's edits to the history section

I disagree with edits such as this[1][2][3]. Generally it seems that Miradre is removing every connection between scientific racism and the early history of IQ measurement - this amounts to falsifying history as there was an intimate connection between the development of IQ measurement and racialist science and eugenics. The argument that we have another argument about race and intelligence does not mean that it should nt be mentioned here. It is part of history of IQ (even psychology textbook's mention this part of it) therefore it should be covered here. I am of a mind to revert Miradre's latest 20 edits or so, but post here instead to let him rather show good faith and do so himself. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer we can give a link to the History of the race and intelligence controversy.Miradre (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd prefer to give a historical treatment of the development of IQ measurement that doesn't attempt to hide the fact that it started out as a less than noble venture. Also you have turned rather coherent prose into an incoherent list of events. Its not a bullted list but it reads like one. This isn't good writing, a history section should be developed as a cohesive historical narrative.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previously there was no mention of most of the history of the IQ tests. There were several factual errors as documented in my edit summaries. Obviously we cannot duplicate the whole History of the race and intelligence controversy here but I will add a link.Miradre (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide the needed historical context of the events described.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC) (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

???

if you think that the history section should be edited, then why don't you edit it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A.a.p.cool (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unprofessional and possibly racist remark I can't remove

Section 14.2 on Race has the last sentence looking like this for me:

"In contrast, other researchers such as Richard Nisbett argues that environmental factors can explain all of the average group differences. (wild stab in the dark .... which race has the lowest iq ?)"

I think the parenthetical statement is wholly unnecessary in this section, but I can't see it on the edit page for some reason. Perhaps I don't have the clearance to edit this? Someone please fix this though; it's a pretty offensive remark on a controversial topic. SnehaNar (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been removed by ClueBot with this edit. Shearonink (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]