Talk:Intelligence quotient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I will be adding numerous references and bibliography entries.[edit]

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)
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)

Snyderman and Roth 1988[edit]

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)

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

IQ and Controversy[edit]

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. (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

2017 GWAS study identifying genes linked to intelligence[edit]

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)

Query about use of word "historically"[edit]

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)