Talk:Intelligence quotient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Autism (Rated Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Intelligence quotient 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality 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.[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)

Useful sources for updating this and related articles[edit]

I see that there is a discussion among editors about correct sourcing of this article. As discussed in the last few months through an RFC on the Race and intelligence article talk page (the talk page of a subarticle of this article), there are a number of current sources available to editors that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources in medicine, which is generally the correct source guideline to apply to articles on human intelligence and IQ testing. (That's because IQ tests are literally used in medical diagnosis, and also used in high-stakes forensic contexts such as finding diminished criminal responsibility in criminal trials, and consequential decisions such as school placement for children.) I will mention sources previously agreed to in a nonexhaustive list of good sources for the other article that also fit this article here, along with a few other sources that come just with my personal recommendation until other editors comment here (as I encourage all of you to do).

As an update, I'll mention that I've also taken care on repeated visits to my friendly state flagship university library to use online journal access to basically exhaustively check all the references currently cited in this and related articles. With all those journal articles downloaded, and with the sources mentioned here, I hope to plunge into top-to-bottom updates of this article (probably starting out as section fixes a few sections at a time, after testing in a user sandbox) Real Soon Now. Of course all of you watching this page are very welcome to comment on improvements for this article. Besides the sources listed here and the sources already referenced in the article, in principle most all of the newer and more scholarly sources in my continually updated user bibliography on human intelligence may be applied to updating this article. Your suggestions of more reliable sources, and especially sources that meet the guideline for reliable sources for medicine are warmly encouraged. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Now that there has been time for editors to check the sources and read through those that are readily available, this will be a productive time of year for updating the article from top to bottom for coherency, due weight on various subtopics, and referencing according to Wikipedia content policy. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources recommended in the previous RFC useful here too[edit]

  • Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry, eds. (2011). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521739115. Lay summary (22 July 2013).  (This authoritative handbook appears to be cited only as a further reading reference, for one specific chapter in this handbook, in the current version of this Wikipedia article. It deserves dozens of citations in this article. It includes chapters by N. J. Mackintosh, Susana Urbina, John O. Willis, Ron Dumont, Alan S. Kaufman, Janet E. Davidson, Iris A. Kemp, Samuel D. Mandelman, Elena L. Grigorenko, Raymond S. Nickerson, Joseph F. Fagan, L. Todd Rose, Kurt Fischer, Christopher Hertzog, Robert M. Hodapp, Megan M. Griffin, Meghan M. Burke, Marisa H. Fisher, David Henry Feldman, Martha J. Morelock, Sally M. Reis, Joseph S. Renzulli, Diane F. Halpern, Anna S. Beninger, Carli A. Straight, Lisa A. Suzuki, Ellen L. Short, Christina S. Lee, Christine E. Daley, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Thomas R. Zentall, Liane Gabora, Anne Russon, Richard J. Haier, Ted Nettelbeck, Andrew R. A. Conway, Sarah Getz, Brooke Macnamara, Pascale M. J. Engel de Abreu, David F. Lohman, Joni M. Lakin, Keith E. Stanovich, Richard F. West, Maggie E. Toplak, Scott Barry Kaufman, Ashok K. Goel, Jim Davies, Katie Davis, Joanna Christodoulou, Scott Seider, Howard Gardner, Robert J. Sternberg, John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey, David Caruso, Lillia Cherkasskiy, Richard K. Wagner, John F. Kihlstrom, Nancy Cantor, Soon Ang, Linn Van Dyne, Mei Ling Tan, Glenn Geher, Weihua Niu, Jillian Brass, James R. Flynn, Susan M. Barnett, Heiner Rindermann, Wendy M. Williams, Stephen J. Ceci, Ian J. Deary, G. David Batty, Colin DeYoung, Richard E. Mayer, Priyanka B. Carr, Carol S. Dweck, James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, Ursula M. Staudinger, Judith Glück, Phillip L. Ackerman, and Earl Hunt.)
  • Weiss, Lawrence G.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Coalson, Diane; Raiford, Susan, eds. (2010). WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives. Practical Resources for the Mental Health Professional. Alan S. Kaufman (Foreword). Amsterdam: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-375035-8. Lay summary (16 August 2010).  (The several individual chapters in this book should be cited much more often in this article. This book includes chapters by Diane L. Coalson, Susan Engi Raiford, Donald H. Saklofske, Lawrence G. Weiss, Hsinyi Chen, Jossette G. Harris, James A. Holdnack, Xiaobin Zhou, Jianjun Zhu, Jacques Gregoire, Munro Cullum, Glenn Larrabee, Gerald Goldstein, Timothy A. Salthouse, and Lisa W. Drozdick. I will look for the specific page reference for the sole citation to the article that appears now. )
  • Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence (second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-958559-5. Lay summary (9 February 2012).  (The first edition of this book is cited, twice, in this article. The article should be updated with many more citations to this edition.)
  • Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7. Lay summary (28 April 2013).  (This appears not to be cited at all in the current version of this article, which is a serious omission. I have owned this book since soon after when it was published.)

Other useful sources for this article of WP:MEDRS quality[edit]

  • Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L., eds. (2012). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Lay summary (28 April 2013).  (This comprehensive handbook by multiple authoritative authors is currently mentioned only in the further reading section of this article, which is too little use of this high-quality source. It includes chapters by John D. Wasserman, Randy W. Kamphaus, Anne Pierce Winsor, Ellen W. Rowe, Sangwon Kim, John L. Horn, Nayena Blankson, W. Joel Schneider, Kevin S. McGrew, Jie-Qi Chen, Howard Gardner, Robert J. Sternberg, Jack A. Naglieri, J. P. Das, Sam Goldstein, Lisa Whipple Drozdick, Dustin Wahlstrom, Jianjun Zhu, Lawrence G. Weiss, Dustin Wahlstrom, Kristina C. Breaux, Jianjun Zhu, Lawrence G. Weiss, Gale H. Roid, Mark Pomplun, Jennie Kaufman Singer, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, James C. Kaufman, Alan S. Kaufman, Nadeen L. Kaufman, Fredrick A. Schrank, Barbara J. Wendling, Colin D. Elliott, R. Steve McCallum, Bruce A. Bracken, Jack A. Naglieri, Tulio M. Otero, Cecil R. Reynolds, Randy W. Kamphaus, Tara C. Raines, Robb N. Matthews, Cynthia A. Riccio, John L. Davis, Jack A. Naglieri, Tulio M. Otero, Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso, Samuel O. Ortiz, Catherine A. Fiorello, James B. Hale, Kirby L. Wycoff, Randy G. Floyd and John H. Kranzler, Samuel O. Ortiz, Salvador Hector Ochoa, Agnieszka M. Dynda, Nancy Mather, Barbara J. Wendling, Laurie Ford, Michelle L. Kozey, Juliana Negreiros, David E. McIntosh, Felicia A. Dixon, Eric E. Pierson, Vincent C. Alfonso, Jennifer T. Mascolo, Marlene Sotelo-Dynega, Laura Grofer Klinger, Sarah E. O’Kelly, Joanna L. Mussey, Sam Goldstein, Melissa DeVries, James B. Hale, Megan Yim, Andrea N. Schneider, Gabrielle Wilcox, Julie N. Henzel, Shauna G. Dixon, Scott L. Decker, Julia A. Englund, Alycia M. Roberts, Kathleen Armstrong, Jason Hangauer, Joshua Nadeau, Jeffery P. Braden, Bradley C. Niebling, Timothy Z. Keith, Matthew R. Reynolds, Daniel C. Miller, Denise E. Maricle, Denise E. Maricle, Erin Avirett, Rachel Brown-Chidsey, Kristina J. Andren, George McCloskey, James Whitaker, Ryan Murphy, Jane Rogers, and John B. Carroll.)
  • Kaufman, Alan S.; Lichtenberger, Elizabeth (2006). Assessing Adolescent and Adult Intelligence (3rd ed.). Hoboken (NJ): Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-73553-3. Lay summary (22 August 2010).  (This very useful source is cited in the current version of this Wikipedia article, although some of the material cited is used out of context in the article at present. There are many other references from this handbook that would be good for adding to this article.)
  • Kaufman, Alan S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York: Springer Publishing. pp. 151–153. ISBN 978-0-8261-0629-2. Lay summary (10 August 2010).  (This popular book by an experienced author is already cited in the article, and more citations are warranted.)
  • Flynn, James R. (2012). Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-60917-4. Lay summary (16 May 2013).  (This new book by an experienced researcher, published by a university press, deserves much more use than its current mere mention as a further reading source.)
  • Slater, Alan M.; Quinn, Paul C., eds. (2012). Developmental Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE. ISBN 978-0-85702-757-3. Lay summary (19 May 2013).  (This textbook includes an excellent review chapter on human intelligence issues by Wendy Johnson. Chapters on other issues are by Roger Kobak, Thomas H. Ollendick, Thomas M. Sherman, Peter Muris, Neville J. King, Karen E. Adolph, Kari S. Kretch, David Klahr, Alan M. Slater, Denis Mareschal, Jordy Kaufman, Kelly McWilliams, Daniel Bederian-Gardner, Sue D. Hobbs, Sarah Bakanosky, Gail S. Goodman, Usha Goswami, Coralie Chevallier, Gail D. Heyman, Kang Lee, Jennifer E. Lansford, Richard N. Aslin, and Ann S. Masten.)
  • Gregory, Robert J. (2011). Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications (Sixth ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-78214-7. Lay summary (7 November 2010).  (This book includes a solid general overview of principles of psychological testing, including IQ testing. It is completely neglected in the current version of this article.)
  • Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A., eds. (2 October 2012). Handbook of Psychology. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013.  (This source, the second edition of the key volume of a massive, authoritative handbook of psychology, is so recently published that no editor had seen it as of the last time sources were discussed in the RFC at the other article. It is very good, and I now have it at hand in my office. It includes chapters by Irving B. Weiner, John R. Graham, Jack A. Naglieri, Paul M. Spengler, John D. Wasserman, Bruce A. Bracken, Cecil R. Reynolds, Lisa A. Suzuki, Kurt F. Geisinger, Carina McCormick, Mark E. Maruish, James N. Butcher, Celiane Rey-Casserly, Gerald P. Koocher, Leonard Handler, Justin D. Smith, Martin Sellbom, Brandee E. Marion, R. Michael Bagby, Nancy Howells Wrobel, David Lachar, Jeffery P. Braden, Jerry J. Sweet, Steven M. Tovian, Leslie M. Guidotti Breting, Yana Suchy, Richard J. Klimoski, Torrey R. Wilkinson, James R. P. Ogloff, Kevin S. Douglas, Edwin I. Megargee, Barry A. Edelstein, Ronald R. Martin, Lindsay A. Gerolimatos, Tulio M. Otero, Kenneth Podell, Philip DeFina, Elkhonon Goldberg, Rodney L. Lowman, Andrew D. Carson, Robert J. Craig, William H. O’Brien, Kathleen M. Young, Donald J. Viglione, Bridget Rivera, and Yossef S. Ben-Porath. It should be used throughout this article and related articles.)

There is more where these come from, but these are all very high-quality sources that would do much to improve the quality of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant stuff. I'll leave it though to those with more interest in the article, I'll bow out now that I've been thoroughly shown the error of my ways. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll draw other editors' attention to a source Victor mentioned in the discussion above, which I can acclaim (sight unseen, because I know the journal series and I know other works by the author) as a medically reliable source for further updates of this article. Thank you to Victor for first citing it here. I'll be able to obtain full text of the source he kindly recommended tomorrow. Here is the citation:
*Deary, Ian J. (2012). "Intelligence". Annual Review of Psychology 63 (1): 453–482. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100353. ISBN 978-0-8243-0263-4. ISSN 0066-4308. Retrieved 8 December 2013. 
There are quite a few good sources on the topic of this article that are recent, comprehensively review the earlier literature (both primary research articles and previous secondary sources), and meet the standards of the WP:MEDRS guidelines. I would be delighted to hear suggestions of other sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
While looking up something else, I found a good recent article by Tom Bouchard (listed in the journal that published it as an "original research" article, but more of the nature of a review article) that I will consult as I begin article updates in the mainspace article text. There are a lot of good, recent, reliable, secondary reviews of the topic of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
As Aprock and Victor have recently been updating the article after checking sources, I have just saved on off-line copy of the current article text, and I will be scanning that for how sources are used throughout the article. My goal is to find secondary sources, such as those mentioned in this talk page section and others like them, for all the factual topics in the article. As I encounter citations to primary sources in the article test, of which there are now many, I will check the secondary sources to see how they apply and evaluate the primary research literature as they give overviews of this article's topic and its subtopics. That's the editing procedure recommended by WP:RS. As a first step, I will be updating the Bibliography section as I began to do earlier this year with full, templated citations to secondary sources and to the most major and often cited primary sources that are discussed in the professional literature. The preliminary and minor primary sources (unreplicated case reports and the like) can eventually drop out of the inline references in the article as all references are updated to point to current secondary sources. That will be a long slow process--this is just to let everyone know what I intend to do hand-in-hand with other editors working on this article at the same time. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought I should let other editors know that I've been slogging through this article line-by-line in an off-wiki draft to exhaustively verify every reference in the article. Along the way, I discovered a hyperlinked bibliography for Mackintosh's 2011 textbook IQ and Human Intelligence that provides many helpful DOI or PubMed links to articles that are cited in this article or in the better secondary sources about the same topic. I am referring to those articles as I continue editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I see that after all these years this high-page-view article has never made it to good article status, and I think it's time to change that. Especially, noticing that now IQ classification gains more weekly page views than this article, it seems to me that the best way to bring the topic of this article the prominence it deserves on Wikipedia is to rewrite from top to bottom with better sources, until it is ready for a good article nomination. I know there are several conscientious editors who have contributed to this article in the past who are still active on Wikipedia, and I look forward to them joining in on this effort. With that in mind, I'm here to suggest yet another very helpful source. I have full access through my friendly local academic library to Geisinger, Kurt F., ed. (2013). APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology. APA Handbooks in Psychology. American Psychological Association. ISBN 978-1-4338-1227-9. Retrieved 15 December 2014. Lay summary (6 April 2015).  This three-volume handbook for practitioners is especially authoritative and comprehensive. Volume 1: Test Theory and Testing and Assessment in Industrial and Organizational Psychology includes chapters by Anita M. Hubley, Bruno D. Zumbo, Kurt F. Geisinger, Edward W. Wiley, Noreen M. Webb, Richard J. Shavelson, Stephen G. Sireci, Tia Sukin, Li Cai, Steven P. Reise, Tyler M. Moore, Mark G. Havil, Randall D. Penfield, Jeanne A. Teresi, Richard N. Jones, Neal M. Kingston, Sylvia T. Scheuring, Laura B. Kramer, David J. Weiss, Michael J. Kolen, Amy B. Hendrickson, John J. McArdle, John J. Prindle, Daniel R. Eignor, Jane Close Conoley, Collie W. Conoley, Rafael Julio Corvera Hernandez, Frederick T. L. Leong, Yong Sue Park, Mark M. Leach, Cathy Wendler, Jeremy Burrus, Michael J. Zieky, Michael C. Rodriguez, Thomas M. Haladyna, Samuel E. Krug, Suzanne Lane, Tim McNamara, John P. Campbell, Juan I. Sanchez, Edward L. Levine, Nathan R. Kuncel, Adam S. Beatty, Neal Schmitt, Juliya Golubovich, Nancy T. Tippins, Robert L. Dipboye, Stefanie K. Johnson, Leaetta M. Hough, Brian S. Connelly, George C. Thornton III, Uma Kedharnath, Robert E. Ployhart, Anna-Katherine Ward, Scott Highhouse, John A. Kostek, Eugene Burke, Carly Vaughan, Ray Glennon, Kevin R. Murphy, Paige J. Deckert, Paul M. Connolly, Deniz S. Ones, Stephan Dilchert, Ann Marie Ryan, Paul R. Sackett, Reeshad S. Dalal, Marcus Credé, Paul J. Hanges, Elizabeth D. Salmon, Juliet R. Aiken. Volume 2: Testing and Assessment in Clinical and Counseling Psychology includes chapters by Janet F. Carlson, Sara Maltzman, Virginia Smith Harvey, William M. Grove, Scott I. Vrieze, Beth E. Haverkamp, Elizabeth V. Swenson, Katie L. Sharp, Alexander J. Williams, Kathleen T. Rhyner, Stephen S. Ilardi, Phillip L. Ackerman, Antonio E. Puente, Antonio N. Puente, Irving B. Weiner, James N. Butcher, Shawn Bubany, Shawn N. Mason, Lisa A. Suzuki, Mineko Anne Onoue, Jill S. Hill, Michael J. Lambert, David A. Vermeersch, Sandra L. Horn, Joni L. Mihura, Gregory J. Meyer, Christopher T. Barry, Paul J. Frick, Randy W. Kamphaus, Kirk Heilbrun, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Elizabeth M. Altmaier, Benjamin A. Tallman, Mark E. Maruish, Bryan J. Dik, Patrick J. Rottinghaus, Jane L. Swanson, Melanie E. Leuty, Nancy E. Betz, Moin Syed, Margit I. Berman, Sueyoung L. Song, Hyung Chol Yoo, Stephanie T. Pituc, Stephen E. Finn, Hale Martin, Bonnie Moradi, Mike C. Parent, Michael F. Steger, Jennifer E. Stevenson, Kathleen B. Kortte, Cynthia F. Salorio, Daniel E. Rohe, Jo-Ida C. Hansen, Todd J. Wilkinson, Tammi Vacha-Haase, Cindy I. Carlson, Lauren S. Krumholz, Douglas K. Snyder, and H. Elizabeth King. Volume 3: Testing and Assessment in School Psychology and Education includes chapters by Jack A. Naglieri, Janet E. Panter, Bruce A. Bracken, John O. Willis, Ron Dumont, Alan S. Kaufman, R. Steve McCallum, Nancy Mather, Bashir Abu-Hamour, Bridget V. Dever, Randy W. Kamphaus, Carol Robinson-Zañartu, Jerry Carlson, Tanya L. Eckert, Adrea J. Truckenmiller, Jennifer L. Rymanowski, Jennifer L. Koehler, Elizabeth A. Koenig, Bridget O. Hier, Thomas Oakland, Matthew Daley, Giselle B. Esquivel, Maria Acevedo, Thomas Oakland, Solange Muglia Wechsler, Kobus Maree, Matthew K. Burns, David C. Parker, Susan Jacob, Steven E. Stemler, Robert J. Sternberg, Wayne Camara, Sheryl Packman, Andrew Wiley, Diane F. Halpern, Heather A. Butler, Carina McCormick, Jamal Abedi, Rebecca Kopriva, Craig A. Albers, Mark R. Raymond, Richard M. Luecht, Drew H. Gitomer, Courtney A. Bell, Ruth A. Childs, Pei-Ying Lin, Richard J. Tannenbaum, Irvin R. Katz, Ronald K. Hambleton, April L. Zenisky, Neil J. Dorans, Michael E. Walker, Christopher P. Borreca, Gail M. Cheramie, Elizabeth A. Borreca, Kadriye Ercikan, Juliette Lyons-Thomas, Gregory Camilli, Derek C. Briggs, Finbarr C. Sloane, Ting-Wei Chiu, John Hattie, and Heidi Leeson. This source will be very useful for updating this article. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent edits[edit]

I see two other editors in the last twenty-four hours have been digging into an important mainstream secondary source to update this article regarding IQ as a predictor of work performance. I had in mind to do the same (I have the source at hand), so I thank you for sparing me that task. I more generally have had in mind for a long time to extensively update this article to trim away citations to primary sources, to add in citations to reliable secondary sources, to rearrange sections and subsections to reduce redundancy and match the flow of topics and subtopics in most other reliable sources on this article's broad topic, and generally to do a coherent rewriting of the article from top to bottom. Having each of the editors who have just been involved in editing the article involved in that task will be a delight. Of course I welcome anyone else looking on who has access to good sources or who would like to read this article with fresh eyes to see if it is coherent and backs up its statements with citations to join in on the work. This article is on a topic important enough that the article deserves a chance to be brought up to good article and then featured article status, and I think the recently involved editors will be good collaborators in an ongoing effort to do that. See you in the article text; I'll be keeping off-line drafts of different states of editing as we go along, especially to make sure that all sources are verified. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverts of data table edits[edit]

One new user appears to be edit-warring in editing the content of the sortable data table in the article, despite being reverted by at least four other editors. I have the source at hand for the data table, and I confirm that the text that the other editors are restoring is correctly sourced. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I checked the source once more today just to be sure. It appears that a follow-up vandal with a new user account is coming to replace the user who was just banned for edit-warring. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Future direction of the article[edit]

We might want to add unemployment or welfare etc.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The section is very poorly sourced now, and even the content with references doesn't fairly represent what the references actually say. The whole section will have to be rewritten. I have been gathering sources for that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with that, Some informations don't even have a source.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We might want to change the part about brain size to something with sources. We also need a part about mental chronometry and its correlation with IQ. And what about testorone, that have some correlation with IQ. I will look into it. Furthermore the passage about sex differences in IQ seems biased, that view is not universally accepted. James Flynn and Nisbett disagree with that view from what I understand.ParanoidLemmings (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Those other forms of behavioral observation are still important for validating classifications based primarily on IQ test scores."

Read this sentence. It's contradictory. How can they be important if they're based PRIMARILY on IQ tests scores? I don't participate in Wikipedia but this example goes to show how many of you need to find something else to do than write glib and contradictory sentences — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

High-importance, B-class Article[edit]

This article has been rated high-importance for WikiProject Psychology, but its content rating is a (generous) B class. This article gets lots of page views, so I propose that we collaborate to improve Intelligence quotient to good article status by reading reliable sources carefully and discussing aspects of this article to improve. I have seen this process work very well over the last few months on the English language article, which should be submitted for good article review soon. Who would like to do this? What sources do you know about that would be good for updating and fact-checking this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "brain anatomy" section[edit]

[1] What is the basis for removing the article's discussion of brain anatomy? This section was cited to a high-quality source, and it seems strange for the Wikipedia article to make no mention of the neurological basis for human intelligence. (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This introduces the issue of the scope of this article, which other editors have desired to discuss. Thanks for bringing this discussion to the article talk page. Other editors have been wondering about the topic scope of this article. In view of the presence of other articles on Wikipedia on closely related topics, and in view of which redirect terms lead to this article (examples are "IQ test", "Intelligence test", "Intelligence testing", and so on), I think it's fair to say that there is a distinction between the core topic of this article and the topic of, say, the more newly created article Human intelligence. I fully agree that the source cited in that small section of this article is a good source and well suited for use on Wikipedia. (The source's co-authors have written newer and more on-point articles suitable for various articles on Wikipedia since then, too.) My concern as I take a look at this article from top to bottom is that its topic focus be tightened to tests and procedures for assessing human intelligence as such, with more of the content related to the nature of human intelligence and the correlates of human intelligence moving over to (or being newly written for) the articles that are focused more squarely on those topics, for example Human intelligence. The comment by the I.P. editor here is thoughtful and well appreciated. In general (this doesn't apply particularly to the source mentioned in this talk page section), the entire article here needs to be rewritten from top to bottom with more reliance of reliable, secondary sources, not just for accuracy and currency of information, but also for due weight on which issues are the issues most closely related to the article topic and which relate more to the topics of other articles on Wikipedia. Thanks for the comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
If I understand your comment correctly, you removed the section because you think it belongs in the Human intelligence article instead of this one. Is that correct? It seems more on-topic in this article to me, because this article includes the most discussion of other influences on IQ such as health and music lessons. (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
We are all entitled to our own opinions, but meanwhile what do the sources say? In other words, if you read encyclopedic-style sources written by and for professionals that include articles about IQ testing (and I have some of those at hand in my office), what topics do those articles emphasize? Agreeing with you that the article by Johnson and others is a good article, what other sources do you recommend editors look at as we improve coverage of the topic of this article and other articles as Wikipedia continues to improve content quality? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You're being very vague. Can you please answer the question? When I asked why you removed the "brain anatomy" section, your answer (as far as I can tell) was that it belongs in the Human intelligence article instead of this one. If it does, it should be added to that article. Is that your opinion? (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
?? That was a really simple question. If you can't provide a straightforward explanation for why you removed the section, or you don't want to, you shouldn't have removed it. I'm going to add it back. Please don't remove it again unless you can explain why you think it doesn't belong, without off-topic discussions about your long-term plans for the article. (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a literature on this topic, and the Deary et al. article is a pretty high profile review of it, so I think the section should probably stay.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've been looking for literature that shows what the scope of the topic "Intelligence quotient" is, as contrasted with the scope of "Human intelligence." I've found some good sources through the ScienceDirect online reference works. The articles I'll list here don't exhaust the articles that could help us determine the encyclopedic scope of this Wikipedia article on the topic here.
How does this relate to the section you removed? I asked you to please stay on topic in this discussion. Can you please try harder to do that? (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Ask that question of yourself. Are you checking any sources as you form a preference about what content to put here, or are you already locked into an opinion before you look at the sources? And, by the way, what general, encyclopedic sources specifically on the topic of this article do you recommend to other editors? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're doing here. I asked you to justify your removing the "brain anatomy" section (and reverting me when I restored it). It would take no more than two or three sentences for you to answer that. Are you not reading what I'm asking, or is there some reason you can't answer it? (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard deviation calculation[edit]

The text indicates that the test is so designed that the standard deviation is fifteen points. While this may have been true at one point, it appears no longer to be true.

First, American Mensa (and, one hopes, they know at least a little bit about IQs) has chosen an IQ of 142 as the cutoff, which, per their intent, limits their membership to the top two percent of the population. Read another way, their assertion is clearly that persons possessing an IQ >= 142 represent 2% of the population. Citing the Q function table in an appendix to J. Melsa and D. Cohn, Decision and Estimation Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), the closest figure to 2% (viz., 0.0202) corresponds to an argument of 2.05. In other words, Mensa asserts that 142 represents an IQ 2.05 standard deviations above the mean, i.e., the standard deviation is 42/2.05, or approximately 20.5.

Second, citing the standards maintained by a similar organization, known as the Six Sigma Society, we run into a rarefaction problem. Specifically, the value of Q(6) is less than 1.82 times 10 to the minus 9th power (sciz.,, most charts run only to Q(5.9), and its value is 1.82x10E-9, so Q(6) is necessarily slightly smaller). Given that the earth's population is approximately seven billion, this would allow for only three or four members—planet-wide—of the Six Sigma Society. Does the assertion that only three persons on the planet possess an IQ of 190 or greater even remotely make sense? If, citing the preceding argument, we adopt the figure of 20.5 for the standard deviation—in fact, let us use 20 for simplicity's sake—then we conclude that only three persons on the planet possess an IQ of 220 or higher, which is far more reasonable, if considering no more "reliable" source than a decades-old Guinness Book of World Records, which cited Kim Ung-Young of Seoul, who possessed an IQ of 210, as "the smartest person in the world." (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll check the article statements, which have long been based on reliable sources, if I remember correctly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The standard deviation in IQ points is something that test makers can freely choose. Many tests use 15 points these days. The American Mensa accepts many different tests. The qualifying score is usually 130 or 132 on individually administered tests like the WAIS and the SB[2], that is, 2 SDs above the mean.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! When I joined Mensa many, many years ago, the flat statement on their Web site was that a minimum score of 142 was required; it said elsewhere that this corresponded to the cutoff of the 98th percentile, sciz., the point below which 98 percent of the population would score. It's interesting to see that they now cite 130 or 132 in many different contexts—as well as that, on a scale called Cattell, the minimum is 148! I imagine that corresponds to a standard deviation of 22.5, which is a peculiar number indeed.

I guess it's quite a separate question why so many people in Mensa were so very disturbed. Not only that, but you occasionally met someone who was obviously extremely intelligent but who—despite having two Ph.D.s, both of them earned—was employed as a stockroom clerk. In one extreme case, a supremely gifted gentleman was able within one evening to create a short story where he won a SCRABBLE game against the Devil with the score 1075-1074 (with all details explicitly specified) but was literally unable to respond to "Good evening" or "How 'bout those 'Skins [Washington Redskins, familiarly]?" at a party. These folks must've occurred as genetic accidents to families that had no idea of how to deal with them, making them end up somewhat like the (supposedly humorous) character Brick on The Middle. Admittedly, Brick doesn't have much of an intellect at all—instead having mastery of some mellifluous turns of phrase because of his perpetual nose-in-book state—but he does have a need for rather intensive psychiatry! (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)