Talk:Intelligence quotient

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aprock (talk | contribs) at 16:25, 11 November 2010 (→‎Correlation and causation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Other Intelligence Tests?

Besides IQ, what other forms of measuring cognitive abilities are there?

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]

I will be adding a lot of see also references to Wikipedia articles not already linked from this article.

It happens that last year I gathered a bunch of Wikipedia article links for my own working paper project, and now I see that not all of those are yet linked from this article. So I will be updating the See Also section of this article to add those. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I ran into the issue that most of those articles need edits also. But as long as I have the Intelligence Citations list posted for all Wikipedians to refer to (and your suggestions of new sources for that are most welcome), it should be possible gradually to make progress in editing the various articles related to this topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. A nit on article links and "Psychometrics". As presented in the article, Psychometrics is (despite a link to a much better description in its own article), portrayed here as only associated with the sordid history of eugenics - an unintended smear on all those good folks in the field today, I'm sure, but an unjustified association nonetheless. Perhaps a following sentence to rectify that, or just linking to its better description in its own article, would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.4.187 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit unclear about what part of the article text (as I surmise) you are referring to by your comment. (That's because I didn't write much of the article text here, and I am still becoming familiar with the article as a whole and with its details.) What sources would you suggest for a good overall view of psychometrics? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section edits coming up.

I saw an edit summary in a diff calling for more sources for the new reliability section of this article, and I expect to supply those soon (I hope as early as later today). On the basis of published sources all Wikipedians may consult I will also be restructuring this article, at first not adding or subtracting much content but simply moving sections together or reordering sections to match the usual treatment of the subject of IQ testing in published books and review articles. As that goes on, I will try also to update sources so that they rigorously meet Wikipedia source guidelines for medicine-related articles. If anything I'm doing looks weird or controversial, feel free to ask me about it here on the article talk page. And of course normal editing conditions still apply here. Other than that the article is on pending changes review, anyone can edit, and I encourage everyone else who watches the article or who surfs by to think about ways to improve and better source the article and to make it an even more valuable resource for readers than it already is. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin some of those section edits. At first I will just be moving text around without changing anything other than drop-dead-easy copyedits. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was distracted by the Arbitration Committee case on the Race and intelligence article recently, but I'll return now to doing section moves and eventually other edits on this article. As before, at first I'll just rearrange section order with matching the structure of this article to the structure of reliable secondary sources in mind. I won't be changing article text at first. Later on, I will be changing article text a lot—typically with notice to fellow editors here on the talk page—to add in sourced content from sources of the highest reliability, which is important for articles like this article that have medical and forensic implications that literally can be issues of life and death. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current structure of the article is a mess. Can you post a draft here of what you think the structure should be like? I also think we should create a separate article named History of intelligence testing or something like that, so that this article could concentrate on current results and controversies.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history section doesn't seem large enough to warrant splitting off, so I can't see the point. I think invoking life and death over intelligence quotient is rather over the top. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't heard about the Atkins case? That's the court decision that literally makes IQ scores a matter of life or death, that is eligibility or not for capital punishment in the United States. It has been claimed in several articles on Wikipedia, including this one, that IQ has some implications for health, and that is why I agree with the suggestion of RexxS that it's best to apply the medical sourcing rules to articles on IQ. (Those rules strike the correct balance between primary and secondary sources, for one thing.)--?
At the very least the history section should have fewer than seven subsections.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's an example of my not being bold so far. That's too fragmented a presentation of the history in its current form.--?

Off the top of my head, I think the structure should be something like this:

1. History
2. Test construction and reliability
3. General mental ability (g factor)
3. Validity and social significance
4. Environmental and genetic influences
5. Flynn effect
6. Group differences
7. Criticisms
8. In popular culture

--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very concrete suggestions. I'll take your list of sections (by copy-and-paste) and annotate it here.
1. History - yes, in this article history should probably be first, and I agree with your separate suggestion that the history section shouldn't be so busted up into separate subsections
2. Test construction and reliability - I'm glad you added test construction here (I just found a book-length source on that over the weekend, not yet logged into my source list)
3. Validity and social significance - I think it's customary in most of the secondary literature to mention validity immediately after reliability (and "social significance" might be treated as one aspect of validity) You are, I suppose, thinking of some of the things Linda Gottfredson has written about IQ scores and life outcomes.
4. General mental ability (g factor) - noting that there is a separate article about General intelligence factor, and that most current tests are based on CHC theory, maybe this could be called Factor structure of tested abilities
5. Environmental and genetic influences - with of course "heritability" being the summary term that examines the balance of each, and with malleability/mutability/changeability definitely needing mention in that section
6. Flynn effect - I'll check secondary sources, as I think you are right that this usually follows the heritability section in a typical current source
7. Group differences - I think, by the way, that this would be a good neutral title for a rewritten version of the article that just went through the ArbCom case
8. Criticisms - this would draw in information from disciplines other than the psychometric subfield of psychology for NPOV
9. In popular culture - I think this kind of section is actually disfavored by veteran Wikipedia editors like John Broughton, although this is certainly a topic with more than a typical amount of popular culture references, and you certainly see sections like this all over Wikipedia
Thanks for the helpful suggestions. I've had to rearrange my whole office just to put the few dozen most useful sources nearest to my computer as I type. It will be good to dig into the sources together and rewrite the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good comments, thanks. "Factor structure of tested abilities" is a good heading. Flynn effect could also be rolled into the section on "Environmental and genetic influences". I agree that the Popular culture section is a bit superfluous, but I think high-IQ societies could perhaps be discussed there instead of in a section of their own (I think they're worth mentioning).
I don't think "Group differences in intelligence" is a good title for the R&I article for the reasons I discuss on the R&I talk page.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Victor and History of...: The current history section is very choppy and doesn't seem very cohesive in being a narrative on the evolution of testing. Perhaps simply rewriting that section would be a start, if it gets too big it can be summarized and spawn a daughter article. Also, unless I'm mistaken, shouldn't "1929" be "1939"? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Peters: I can probably redo the history section soon with material I have (footnoted and everything) from my working paper. @Dmcq: I'm glad to see you pondering the section levels, and the issues of what sections belong. I'll have to look at the included content of each section; I think validity would belong right after reliability (the typical order in secondary sources). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To all: I've decided the most efficient way to do the edit of the history section, which is a good bit too long, is to copy the entire section off-line and edit it there. You'll see the results soon, with fewer sections and more up-to-date references. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Group differences section now being actively edited.

I see from watching diffs that there is editor activity now in the group differences section of this article. As the section currently notes, the issue is very controversial. As many experienced Wikipedians know, the main article linked out to from that section was recently the subject of an Arbitration Committee case, which has just been decided. I have just reverted a graphic that was just kindly inserted into that section by an editor whom I have not had the pleasure of interacting with before. I am happy to discuss my rationale for reverting the graphic here on the article talk page. As a precaution and friendly reminder to new editors here, I will post at the top of this talk page a template that links to the ArbCom case decision. Let's discuss how we can improve that section and all sections of this important article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the image has been restored by the editor who submitted it at first. I think to avoid undue weight problems it would be necessary to mention a lot of criticism of the source from which the image comes, if the source is cited in such a brief paragraph that points to a longer article. It would be better editorial practice, based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy, to have no image at all there but perhaps a slightly expanded summary paragraph or two (cited to a balanced selection of current secondary literature) rather than relying on one source, and one source only, in that section. Thanks for any thoughts any of the rest of you have on this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's (IQ by race, Lynn ete al. as I recall) gone again. It's definitely misplaced in this article, plain and simple. There's no value judgement associated with that. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Group differences is a different topic from predictive validity. Now the article gives the impression that all research on the predictive validity of IQ was about group differences, whereas most research on validity is about individual differences within populations. We should have a small section on group differences, with links to Sex and intelligence and Race and intelligence, and a separate section called "Validity" or "Validity and social significance" with subsections on the associations between IQ and health, job performance, school performance, etc.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race an intelligence

An editor has been sticking a lrge amount about race and intelligence into this article. I've pointed out there's a separate article Race and intelligence but they are persisting.

The Race and intelligence article has been edited quite a lot recently. What I'm wondering is has it changed significantly so this article should be updated and how much about the subject should be here? I pointed out to the editor that the Sex section just before Race was quite small and the main stuff was also in another article. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good initial call. This article, which bears on its talk page a notice about the recent Arbitration Committee case, is surely of interest while editing several other articles that were enmeshed in that case. It's best to seek consensus on the talk page before making major changes of content in this article—as other editors and I have been careful to do. As we discuss, I encourage all editors to look up reliable sources on the subject and to suggest new sources that will be helpful to other editors. P.S. probably semiprotection of the main article (after a long period when it was full-protected) has driven some I.P. editors over here to do section edits. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pending changes protection has been removed from this page after the test period for it. Pity, I certainly thought it helped and I prefer it to the type of protection on Race and intelligence which stops all IP edits.
I'd have thought that the leader of the race and itelligence article would be the maximum one wold want here so anything not in that could usually be considered as being over he top here. Dmcq (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in general if a set of Wikipedia articles have already established an article including subarticles structure, the whole point of the subarticle is to be the place to go on at somewhat greater length on a more specific topic. A good lede paragraph or two (which is something the editors over at the subarticle are still working on) ought to be about the right length for a similarly worded "For further information, see . . . " section over here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkheimer et al.

A paper by Turkheimer et al. claiming that the heritability of IQ varies by SES in small children is discussed in the article. The paper itself is cited along with some non-scholarly website. This is problematic, as we should use reliable secondary sources. Citing this study by Turkheimer et al. is also problematic because it's just one study, and other studies[1][2] have failed to replicate its findings. I'm not sure if Turkheimer et al. should be discussed in this article at all, but if it is discussed, we should use secondary sources and point out that its results are contradicted by other studies and also perhaps make it clear in this context that the heritability of IQ rises with age.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkheimer has written some good recent review articles (thus, secondary sources) that well belong in this article as sources. He is, of course, one of the most experienced researchers in twin studies of human behavior. I agree with the general proposition that this article, and the several related articles, could be improved by deleting statements that can only be found in primary sources (especially unreplicated primary sources). In lieu of primary sources, we should all look for the latest reliable secondary sources for more statements that can be backed up by those (which may be the same statements already in the article, now cited to less reliable sources). A review of the best current secondary sources will also provide guidance for the overall structure of the article. The earlier discussion on this talk page had Victor, Dmcq, and I discussing a revision of the structure of this article that still seems sound to me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many templates does one article need?

A new editor has kindly added a new template to the top of this article and to several other articles linked to from the template. So far he (and I, and the one other editor who has done any editing on that template) hasn't achieved a broad consensus about what the template is for, what should be included in it, and how it can help readers of Wikipedia. What do you think? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with having a template for the many intelligence articles? Obviously a template about intelligence articles will help reader interested in intelligence. That is why Wikipedia have templates for similar articles. There is no other intelligence template on this article and only one other template about "Human group differences" which is a much broader topic. A dispute regarding exactly what the template should contain is not a reason for removing it.Miradre (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"How many roads must a template walk down, before you can call him a man...?"

The template is for human intelligence articles. It contains intelligence articles. Thanks WBB for adding an article to it, I hope others add stuff too. Woodsrock (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two paths forward

(1) A while ago, editors Victor Chmara and Dmcq and I discussed some restructuring of this article, with some rearrangements of sections. I still think that the outline largely proposed by Victor is sound and would be a good framework for improving this article. (2) Having been reminded about Wikipedia reliable source guidelines through editor discussion on other articles, I am beginning to flag article text statements cited only to primary research studies, to remind editors to collaborate in looking for reliable secondary sources for article text statements in this article and elsewhere. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, primary sources are not disallowed. Explain concretely what is wrong with the specific sources you tag. Otherwise I will eventually remove the tags.Miradre (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the Wikipedia reliable sources guideline ("Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research.") and the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources (medicine) ("Respect secondary sources Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim (see Wikipedia:No original synthesis that advances a position). Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field.") for guidance on what sources to prefer for Wikipedia article text, especially for statements about human intelligence or neuroscience or other medical claims. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, primary sources are not disallowed generally. The science articles are full of peer-reviewed articles. If you have a specific problem with a specific source, then take it up here for discussion. But mass tagging peer-reviewed articles because they are peer-reviewed articles is not acceptable. Again, explain for each specific source what is the specific problem. Otherwise I will eventually remove the tags.Miradre (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miradre, you have referred on other article talk pages to what you observe in other articles. Wikipedia has 6,823,845 articles, and most of those have no article rating at all, or are rated as stubs or start class articles. The thing to do if you would rather use inductive learning (look at examples and then develop a practice for editing) rather than deductive learning (look at Wikipedia policies and guidelines and then develop a practice for editing) is to look at recently featured articles. Articles that have achieved featured article status and are about related topics may indeed be good examples of how sources are used. They have passed a review process that most Wikipedia articles have never experienced. One article I like, Confirmation bias, is an illustrative example. The article cites what are plainly primary research articles, supporting your statement that those can be allowable sources on Wikipedia. It also cites a rather larger number of standard textbooks and review articles from professional journals than most Wikipedia articles, which is a condition that I think more Wikipedia articles ought to achieve. Any statement in article text that is cited to a reliable secondary source doesn't have any sourcing issue, so a source tag is an opportunity for an editor to find a better source. Referring to secondary sources rather than primary sources, as the Wikipedia guidelines I quoted above note, helps ensure that primary sources used in articles are used with due weight, a separate issue from sourcing that relates to the core Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view. Again, the reason that Wikipedia editors have long had an editing template available to them to mark primary sources is that reliable sourcing is important for all of the 6,823,845 articles on Wikipedia, most of which do not have reliable sourcing yet. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a general point I will note that literature reviews in no way guarantees neutrality or accepted scholarly consensus. For example, regarding if genetics are a partial explanation for the racial gaps in the US regarding IQ and other achievement tests, both sides have produced literature reviews with totally opposing conclusions.
Looking at featured science articles, such as Big Bang, Coeliac disease, Ant, and the others at Wikipedia:Featured articles, there are numerous peer-reviewed articles as sources. Neither is there any general prohibition of such sources in any policy. Yes, there may be specific problems in specific situations. But you have not given any specific explanations for why each the sources you tagged have specific problems. Please explain the specific reasons for each source tagged or I will eventually remove the tags.Miradre (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While secondary sources are of course preferable and articles should be mainly based on them, there is no reason to dogmatically oppose all use of primary sources. WP:PRIMARY lays out the rules for using primary sources:

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

As to the structure of the article, this is what I propose, based on the earlier discussion:

1. History
2. Test construction and reliability
3. Factor structure of test batteries
4. Validity and social significance
5. Environmental and genetic influences
6. Flynn effect
7. Group differences
8. Criticisms
[9. In popular culture]

--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation and causation

Correlation means a lot of things and all of these are described in Correlation and dependence. This includes that correlation does not imply causation. The source material says IQ correlates with something without making a statement about causation so why should "correlation" link to an article only about this principle? This leads the reader to the conclusion that this principle of correlation is uniquely relevant here, when the source doesn’t support that.Boothello (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question wouldn't mostly be directed to someone new here, as the article text has been as it is for a while, but what is the rationale for mentioning the IQ correlations at all? What does reliable secondary literature (rather than one or another researcher's unreplicated primary research finding) say about the correlations? Perhaps better sourcing is needed in the section of the article under discussion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IQ tests were invented as performance predictors, so it makes perfect sense for the article to discuss whether they predict the things they were designed to predict. Maybe better sources can be found for this. In the meantime though, you aren't disputing the point that it makes no sense for the word "correlation" to link to an article about only one aspect of correlation, so I'm changing it back again.Boothello (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IQ tests were invented to measure relative intelligence. With respect to predictability IQ predicts some things, and some things predict IQ. This general problem of direction of causality (which you might also be confusing) is exactly why some explanation of correlation vs. causation is relevant. But the extent to which it is discussed depends on reliable sources, and is probably more relevant to include in the body of the article rather than hidden under a link. aprock (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article about Alfred Binet, who invented intelligence tests, the tests were invented to predict scholastic performance and identify students who were in need of special education.Boothello (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the article says at all: Binet made it his problem to establish the differences that separate the normal child from the abnormal, and to measure such differences. aprock (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligence_quotient&oldid=396150185"