Talk:Intelligence quotient: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:54, 17 October 2017

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: 240 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.

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

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.

Autism Unassessed Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Intelligence quotient.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

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.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 240 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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]

As editor discussion of this article has renewed, I should remind new editors here about the Intelligence Citations bibliography in user space, which is due for another revision of its own. I look forward to digging deeply into the best reliable secondary sources and updating this article to Wikipedia good article status. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really enjoying your article. Thanks from Dallas Edmund Teaford 1-7 facebook acct or (nick name Jim Teaford 2 facebook acct) APOLLOTHESUNGOD (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snyderman and Roth 1988

Jytdog removed my citation of Snyderman and Roth's book length survey of public and researcher opinion. It's still the best and most recent such survey as far as I know. There is a researcher survey from 2013, but I don't know any later surveys of public opinion, so I cited the one I do know. I've put it back. Jytdog can you please explain why you don't want to cite a relevant book? --Deleet (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two refs were added in this dif; a recent review and a book from 1988. Per WP:MEDDATE and just common sense, a book that is almost 30 years old has little to bring to contemporary discussions of IQ. So I removed it noting that we don't need refs that old. Neuroscience/psych have not stood still. User:Deleet who had originally added it, restored it with the note "yes we do". Anyway, opening discussion here so third parties can weigh in. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 30 (28 by book date) year old survey is still the most recent such survey as far as I know. I searched on Scholar and could not find any newer study. I think we should use the latest source available. I don't think public opinion has changed too much on this topic since then, but hard to know without a newer survey. (I work in this field.) IMO this is a pretty minor thing to argue about. In general better to cite more stuff than less stuff. Or we could just add a note that the latest study of public opinion on IQ is from 1988. --Deleet (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims about the work you do in the RW are not relevant. I could claim to have authored the book. We don't use sources that old as I said. and we don't base science-based articles on "public opinion". But we will see what others say as i noted above. Please be patient and wait for others to weigh in. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this highly problematic study at length in the R&I case and consensus has been that it is a study that is of primarily historical interest, and which has problems that makes it unreasonable to use as a neutral source. It is misleading and should not be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the discussion? Samuel Smith 4 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IQ and Controversy

This page does little to reference the controversy sorrounding the topic!

Jensen, Arthur R. "The current status of the IQ controversy." Australian Psychologist 13.1 (1978): 7-27.

223.24.101.119 (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully argue that far more emphasis is needed on the controversy. 223.24.101.119 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of bits about criticisms in the article and references to sub-articles where one can read more. Jensen is cited numerous times for different things he has written, most of them much later. You can read more about the history of the controversy at History of the race and intelligence controversy, which is also referenced in this article. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The conception of an intelligence metric would be controversial in a sane society.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intelligence quotient. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 GWAS study identifying genes linked to intelligence

Content about the subject above was added here. This is a recent, primary source and is "hot news". This is the kind of thing where we should definitely wait for reviews that validate the study, per WP:MEDREV. As to why, see for example this (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out) followed by this - and we now have a whole article on the shebangle, here. We have no deadline here, and we don't do cutting edge here. -- Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query about use of word "historically"

I wish to query why the sentences offering the standard definition of Intelligence Quotient (Mental Age x Chronological Age x 100) begin with the word "Historically". Vorbee (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 :There are loads of bits about criticisms in the article and references to sub-articles where one can read more. Jensen is cited numerous times for different things he has written, most of them much later. You can read more about the history of the controversy at [[History of the race and intelligence controversy]], which is also referenced in this article. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 12:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
+::The conception of an intelligence metric would be controversial in a sane society.
 == External links modified ==