Talk:IQ

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Questions

What is 'g-loading' - a three word description/link would be useful.

Should there not be more emphasis on 'IQ in particular areas' (we all are better at some types of activity than others - which will be a combination of factors - innate ability, skillsets, deciding to acquire expertise etc) rather than summing up different numbers (scores of 1, 1, 10 do tell you more than 'average 4'/'total 12'). Anna Livia (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there probably should be a description of what g is in the article, good point. Unfortunately the editors of the wiki are largely uninterested in the science of this topic in favor of popular understandings.

I have posted a link to the APA statement on intelligence, and straight up incorrect facts refuted by this statement are still in the article, feel free to read it above. No insult to you Anna Livia, but your second paragraph is tentatively grasping at an argument which has been well hashed out in the research (multiple intelligence theory - see Gardner). Unfortunately the empirical evidence is not there for this (popularly believed) hypothesis. Factor analysis, invariance testing, regressions and GLMs all point to a single predictive factor (called g BTW). Theoretically the hypothesis is inconsistent, and devolved into caricature towards the end (i.e. so called existential intelligence).

I would urge anyone wanting to contribute to an article about an area as well researched as intelligence to at least familiarise themself with the APA statement I posted above. In fact, this article could very well be a snarkier, funnier and easier to understand version of that one. However, as it currently stands this article is inferior to ToW and, in fact, not even wrong in areas (e.g. the misunderstanding of what crystallised intelligence is, and it's relationship with fluid intelligence).139.130.16.222 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Woops, to clarify, nothing wrong with posting to a talk page with your thoughts, the issue is when they go straight into the article. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

'No insult to you' but the APA link no longer works, and no mention of Gardner in article or talk page - and I was summarising what I had read/popular perceptions. And if someone with a lower IQ number in a particular area 'learns the skills, knowledge and methods' to get a higher score they may well demonstrate more 'intelligence'/the ability to act more intelligently in that area than someone with a natural aptitude.

And, as is well known, there is only a partial correlation between IQ (and in particular 'claims to IQ level') and ability. Anna Livia (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The article referenced above is called Intelligence, known and Unknowns, I forget what the follow up to it was called, but both are worth reading. Most of what you are writing here is not even wrong, except your last sentence which is 100% wrong. Unsuprisingly, how good you are at completing IQ tests is a great predictor of ability in many different domains. There is a history of 100+ years of research into IQ, it's surprising how many RW editors who consider themselves science-orientated are willing to wade into this debate with no knowledge or research. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So you, .222, go to a member of a high IQ society to get your car serviced rather than a trained mechanic (to take a random example)? What about the trope of the absent-minded professor and the at least occasional examples of persons of claimed high IQ who get scammed? From what I have read IQ tests were originally devised to analyse people's particular mental strengths rather than their 'total intelligence' - and we all know people who can readily resolve certain categories of problem but are average or less with other areas (though this may be in part be that they play to their strengths and rely on collective wisdom for other things).

You do not appear to have a high courtesy-IQ. Anna Livia (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing IQ with knowledge, begging the question in relation to multiple intelligences and relying on 'tropes' for your understanding of a scientific field. I may have low courtesy IQ, but I am not so incourteous as to ignore authoritative references spoon-fed to me, and argue with scientific consensus in a topic I have no knowledge of. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

139.130.16.222, can you actually provide links to these references rather than merely saying they exist? Your notion of spoon-feeding seems to be like telling someone "there's food in the cupboard, go find it!" --Annanoon (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't mean it but this comment is unintentionally hilarious. Type into Google 'Intelligence Known and Unknowns' and click on any link to the article. 61.69.140.12 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

IP - you are being contradictory, and also not answering my question - would you go to the High-IQ person or the mechanic (who may well have particular ability with regards to 'technical/spatial IQ but not so with other aspects) - and we all know people with particular 'intellectual etc' strengths.

There is also context and opportunity - swap a musician and a specialist scientist around and would they be able to reach their full potentials? Would Ada Lovelace have been able to demonstrate her intellectual abilities with regards to programming a century earlier - or, possibly, now? Anna Livia (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

If you read any 5 minute summary of intelligence research you will realise how incoherent your question is. 61.69.140.12 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that 'intelligence' involves more than just completing a series of tests and has many components: you keep on saying 'read something somewhere' (and do not give links), do not answer direct questions and do not adhere to the admixture of 'snark with courtesy' attitude that is a hallmark of RW. And #you are not answering the questions.#

Bear in mind I probably have more patience than you. Anna Livia (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The tests infer intelligence. I know it's tough to understand. 146.255.14.121 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(reset) Prove it (and not just because 'you say so') - and also that IQ tests show more than an ability to do those sort of tests.

Your attempted put downs are jejune at best. Anna Livia (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Will mention this as part of the case against the IP's argument (and have come across other material).

The ball is in your court, IP. Anna Livia (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

IQ is the best predictor of a wide range of life outcomes. QED. It's really not complex. IQ gives you the ability to predict much more than IQ test skill. I guess you're just totally ignorant of the subject. Probably because of reading Marxist charlatans like Gould, who is never referenced outside junk pop magazines and sophomoric websites. Sad. 82.132.212.255 (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

You could start getting a basic understanding here. 82.132.212.255 (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The WP link - which does not appear to fully back you up - is the best you can come up with? You have not QED'd well enough.

As I said - the Gould book was merely one example: your limited range of responses do not warrant my spending more time researching the matter.

I have referenced a range of examples - you have to do more than reiterate my supposed 'ignorance' and failure to immediately cleave to your opinion. You also have to disprove my statement that IQ is more than just a number.

And - consider signing in. Anna Livia (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No it's not the best I can come up with. It's just a good starting point in the face of your absolute ignorance, feigned or otherwise. IQ correlates with more than IQ tests. So repeat the contrary, which you now know to be a lie, ad nauseam. 82.132.215.109 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

As I cannot tell whether the several IPs belong to one person or several it is difficult to respond, but if one person the argument does appear to be incoherent - first referring to a single IQ as tested and then cleaving from that opinion to including more than tests.

Being abusive and accusing someone of being a liar and ignorant does not help your argument. Anna Livia (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not making an argument. I'm pointing out basic facts. You're ignoring those facts and whining about tone. Utterly worthless editor. Welcome to Rationalwiki! 46.233.77.137 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There are indeed multiple IPs here, I am the original poster and I disagree with the other's characterisation of Gould, however, he was well outside his bounds of expertise when he wrote on IQ. I have given you the name of an article that is a basic primer on the topic and five seconds in Google will yield you a link. There is a large body of research into psychometrics, and it boggles my mind when someone wanders into this debate without even an understanding of basic terms and hand waves away 100+ years of research. 139.130.16.222 (talk)

You can see the source of my (and possibly others') confusion over this exchange.

I think the problems with discussing IQ include (a) most people's fragmentary knowledge of the subject, (b) their feeling that 'there is more to "intelligence" than can be determined by the various puzzles in popular IQ-testing books and puzzles' (and the feeling that one can learn how to score higher), (c) uncertainty as to what extent 'particular aptitudes' and IQ are separate or overlapping 'things', (d) the tendency for "certain participants in discussions" to be less than friendly/neutral towards others who have less knowledge of the subject/wish their ignorance to be enlightened, and (e) the field being one of those where some aspects are counter-intuitive and 'not logical common sense.' Anna Livia (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, because the Judeo-Commie media broadcasts garbage like Gould to the unwitting masses. 46.233.77.137 (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Either you have done a Poe, or you have broken one of the derivatives of Godwin's Law. Anna Livia (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Ignore the troll.

a) It's funny how little time people have for someone with 'fragmentary knowledge' of a subject like climate change, but give themselves a free pass for other areas of research because...? This is a scientific field with a long history and strong evidentiary base developed by very smart people, it would behove you to conduct even the bare minimum of research before spouting off that the field is wrong about basic facts.

b) The main argument here is usually semantics if you learn what the technical components of intelligence are, and what IQ testing purports to measure you will probably find that you are in vicious agreement with the results. Test-retest improvement is a vexed area of IQ research, and a topic I know a fair bit about. We could argue at length about why people improve upon retest, and there are many competing hypotheses, but so what? Like any field, there are refinements to be made to our understanding but they won't overturn the core findings of IQ research any more than the theory of relativity overturned Newton's law of gravitation.

c) You are begging the question that 'particular aptitudes' (whatever that means) exist. you may feel that they exist because of tropes, your experiences and anecdotal evidence, but in the research 'particular aptitudes' (or multiple intelligences) are far, far outweighed by a single factor. Why would you focus on 10 factors that account for 5% of variance and ignore the one factor that accounts for 90%?

d) Imagine presenting long debunked popular arguments against a theory and then ignoring the educational articles that are offered to expand your knowledge, and then accusing the other party of being rude. Would you accept this behaviour for another topic like the curvature of the earth, or the speed of light, or climate change?

e) There are alot of smarter people than me who talk about the role of 'common-sense' in science, I'm sure you have read them before. In any case, it's no substitute for actually reading authoritative statements put out by leading organisations to address common misconceptions. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. That's literally what's happening. Jewish media and academia, fake news, fake science, fake everything. 82.132.229.83 (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how many people are using the IP numbers and to whom they are responding, which makes response somewhat difficult - but you (singular or plural) come across as rather patronising if not insulting, and using arguments from unspecified authorities, while IP 82... is either doing a Poe or entangling with a Godwin's Law derivative.

You have yet to actually prove that 'one single number for IQ' accounts for the whole of 'intelligence etc': when people do have 'particular aptitudes' for eg mathematics, languages, music, wiki development etc and skills and knowledge change over time (and not just eg typing skills). Anna Livia (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesus; this will be my last post. You are dumb as fuck, or deliberately and masterfully trolling. I can't believe how low RW has sunk from the days where almost every editor was scientifically minded.

"Results of factor analyses indicate a strong g-factor of differences between nations (variance explained by the first unrotated factor: 94–95%)" (from the abstract). 61.69.140.12 (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please supply sources for your racist claims.

I am saying we are not all polymaths but have particular strengths and weaknesses - and you call me 'dumb' or 'a masterful troll' (which are mutually contradictory). If provided with sufficient actual facts I do alter my views (as in the Churchill quote).

IPs - consider why you feel threatened by requests for identifiable sources, and by an alternative viewpoint to your own. Anna Livia (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Fellow IP isn't it obvious to you that this utter piece of shit is just lying? She/he/it is just another filthy lying shyster. 82.132.215.169 (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Or, hear me out here, you could be wrong. I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but as a casual observer of this debate I think that maybe, just maybe you IPs could be wrong. But hey, what the fuck do I know, I'm just listening to the debate... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh great another lying shyster. It's almost as if this website is run by lying shysters. 82.132.215.169 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh look, a shill gambit! It's almost like you have no interest in truth, merely smearing those you dislike. How cute. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We're obviously not wrong. IQ correlates with more than IQ tests. You're obviously supporting liars. You disgusting evil lying Jewish cunt. Hitler was 100% right. Sick lying evil Jewish piece of shit. 82.132.215.169 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

What is a correlation? Oh it's exactly the same as a sole source of causation? Neat! ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Just stop. Apart from the bon 139.130.16.222, the rest of you bons should stop this nasty bullshit.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As I have said before I have no objection to 'relevant swearing and exuberant language', and accept the diversity of opinion on display on RW.

I think I am making a reasonable contribution to the wiki - but the abusive and racist language of various of the BONs above make me wonder whether I should continue. Anna Livia (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Just as an aside, you can ban people who go crazy calling everyone they disagree with Jews. That's well outside the limits of productive discussion in every case. There's no reasonable point to be discerned under the crass racism. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Livia I have blocked the last bon commenter for egregious manners (temporarily). I would not object to a permanent ban. My advice is to not let rudeness go by. This last one seemed to be testing you with gradual escalation. Some users here seem amused by these lousy human beings. I am not. Just block them. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You understand my viewpoint (which is flexible enough for RW).

My approach is more 'affecting an air of nonchalant sweet reasonableness' - it does tend to annoy such persons (who have a collective IQ that approaches the December temperature in Omyakon) until they snooker themselves. Anna Livia (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If that BonBon clown posts more anti-Semetic nonsense and shill gambits, that'll be a ban. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's so reflective of modern RW that not a single editor here has actually engaged with the science on the topic, instead you have banned a BoN for being rude when they present yet another article that illustrates the point in question and, hilariously, not blocked the BoN who is clearly trolling with anti-semitism (as if a block does anything in any case). I wondered why Trent was so embarrassed with this place, but that's become very clear. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"not blocked the BoN who is clearly trolling with anti-semitism (as if a block does anything in any case)." You're wrong. "I wondered why Trent was so embarrassed with this place, but that's become very clear." When and where was that said? "It's so reflective of modern RW that not a single editor here has actually engaged with the science on the topic," Are you illiterate? @Anna Livia has continuously addressed this issue, long after they had the right to walk away in disgust and frustration. In summery, you're wrong, and should eat crow and apologize, but you won't. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected, the right BoN was banned.

Anna Livia has not engaged with the science, they have simply spouted off their understanding of intelligence and ignored the multiple references that have been suggested, or indeed explicitly linked to. Do you agree with Anna Livia's position on intelligence too? 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

BON .222 - you do not know what else I have read on the subject - and 'look up the references yourself' is not a good answer (being only slightly above 'all the relevant words are in the dictionary'). And, perhaps, I was inviting further discussion/explanation (as with eg the Melvin Bragg In Our Time talks).

You (and the other BONs) are failing to engage with my question/view/opinion - that there is more to 'intelligence' than one single number referencing 'general intelligence' - most of us do have 'particular natural intellectual strengths' (even if influenced by training, interest and other factors). Anna Livia (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted a blatant anti-Semitic comment and blocked the relevant IP.

Nobody has answered my questions/engaged in proper discussions: and #this is supposed to be RW#. Anna Livia (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Livia You bring up the notion of different kinds of intelligence, which is, I believe, different from the notion of different kinds of IQ based on the reading and mathematics based models. Intelligence is, after all, what psychologists define it to be. There is an underlying philosophical question: which abilities do we count as significant? For example, a very high IQ score will do little to predict how well I am able to learn to play the trombone. This is by design of course. Musical intelligence has never been considered significant to a useful scale of practical intelligence. In this sense IQ is relative to a number of important task abilities, not including musical ones. One might well consider intelligence to encompass other abilities besides those related to reading and mathematics. It does seem that IQ tests are used to measure what they are designed to measure: the ability to succeed in environments where reading and mathematical problem solving skills are an advantage.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any studies that look at IQ and ability to play the trombone. However, there are plenty of studies that show a link between g and general musical ability. Example 1 Example 2 Example 3. IQ tests measure intelligence (not reading and mathematical ability which is something different, but related) and intelligence has vast, wide-ranging effects Example 3.

Anna Livia your questions are incoherent. The statements you make are largely wrong, when they can be parsed, and rather than explaining that to you as a BoN (who aren't worth shit at RW now) I linked you to statements from authoritative organisations. The article I linked was designed to combat the kinds of misunderstandings you have. You have read none of the provided, and it seems you have no interest in learning anything on the topic. See the follow-up to Intelligence: Known and Unknowns - link. How many mentions of multiple intelligences do you find in the article? Do you understand the difference between knowledge and intelligence now, and how stupid it is to conflate the two? Do you understand why this statement is cringe-worthy "From what I have read IQ tests were originally devised to analyse people's particular mental strengths rather than their 'total intelligence"? How long should anyone engage with you in good faith when you refuse to educate yourself?

Imagine if Anna Livia was arguing in this manner against the Theory of Relativity or Gravity (as per ASchlafly), how much patience would you all have with them? Funny how simply signing up to a RW account can get the tribe to close in around you now, wrong or right. I guess it's ok to tolerate fools as long as they are one of your fools. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit unfair. From the summary of recent research of that very paper you just linked there's an important bit that really highlights how conflating knowledge and intelligence can be quite easy.

“Crystallized” and “fluid” IQ are quite different aspects of intelligence at both the behavioral and biological levels.

That's... relevant? Because the nearest lay translation I can think of to the concept of "crystallized IQ" would be "learned cognitive skill" which you could, very easily, class as a kind of knowledge. The presumption that most IQ tests measures fluid intelligence and not crystallized is not well established in the literature. Even Raven's progressive matrices, the de facto standard for high g-loaded tasks has substantial learned dimensions that is generally just assumed away because people don't tend to do them for practice.

You mention the correlates of intelligence a lot, but your citation on the "music ability" refers to literal first exposure tasks of a purely academic nature(identifying chords, and remembering sounds) and only gets product-moment correlations(which are not the same as effect sizes) of 0.3. It's weak-ass. It's not evidence of the thing you're implying it is. More to the point, music lessons raise IQ(and yes that's a randomized controlled interventionist experiment) raising questions about the directionality of causation in the correlation.

All this is to say, you're mostly overstating your case and you're refusing to engage with the concerns being posed because you disagree with the assumptions that underlie them on somewhat spurious (or at least weak) evidence. Try to answer the questions given, even if they seem unreasonable given what you believe is true. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 02:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Learned cognitive skill is a part of crystalised intelligence, but knowledge would be a more commonly used term for g(C) IMO.

There is overlap between g(F) and g(C), you are very correct to identify that and this raises provocative questions about IQ testing, some of which we don't have great answers for. Part of the overlap is 'learned cognitive skill'. If we can use a brain-as-computer analogy your g(F) is the processing power of your motherboard, hard drive capacity and RAM etc... and the g(C) is your operating system and data stored on your hard drive. The ultimate performance of a computer relies on all of these components, the computing task involved and the relative importance of the computer components to the task at hand (i.e. maybe hard drive is more important than RAM for some tasks).

The fact that IQ tests can differentiate fluid intelligence from crystalised is very well established in the literature (I'm parsing your statement here but I think you meant this as obviously they measure both). We might argue the extent of g-loading for each test (e.g. Ravens) but if a test is not g-loaded then it is not an IQ test. In practice, IQ tests involve multiple domains to remove individual variance associated with learned abilities. You may not agree with the literature but you are misrepresenting its findings with your statement.

I haven't mentioned correlates of IQ, as that is a misnomer but with so many IPs I see why you made the mistake (I think someone else did). Firstly your statement above about correlation not equalling causation is a Statistics101 fact that we use to expand a students mind and then spend the next 5 years regretting as it comes across too strong. Keep in mind that it is also true that there is no correlation without causation. If correlation alone was the only evidence we had about the efficacy of IQ, then after we had controlled for all the confounding variables and the results constantly showed correlation we could make reasonable inferences about causation (since we can't manipulate people's IQ ethically). However, we have plenty of deeper level analyses that show causation, invariance testing, constructed general linear models etc...

I am representing the mainstream scientific consensus on IQ. I have linked articles that reflect that consensus. If you think these arguments are on spurious or weak then the problem you have is with the whole field. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You are 'just a bunch of numbers', you are using quite a lot of jargon and you are arguing from authority, and concentrate only on some aspect of IQ called 'g'. Your argument is thus weakened.

The statement is - even if one allows for external factors (opportunities within society etc) there is more to 'intelligence' than a score in IQ tests - and different people have different abilities and/or express their intelligence in different ways. Please state what is incoherent or 'wrong' about this statement.

To put it another way 'I am not (just) a number - I am a person who thinks freely.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody claims IQ captures 100% of the variance in intellectual ability 212.159.39.12 (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You aren't actually responding to my comments - just making negative comments (and 'I am not a snowflake neither'). Anna Livia (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I am exactly addressing what you are (repeatedly) saying. The only question remaining is whether you're lying or stupid. 212.159.39.12 (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A source for the original uses of IQ testing/supporting my case here.

212 - you have been asked to provide the information at a 'generalist' level (given the range of RW users/readers) not ones that 'reflect a consensus' (which? The one you have propounded?) - and you have #not# done so.

There is a difference between the theory of relativity and 'measuring IQ' - one can be scientifically proven the other is far more vague. There are claims that IQ levels have changed over the decades - why? What is the significance of people being able to 'improve' their IQ scores by doing a number of such tests (beyond 'acquiring familiarity')

You have called me 'a liar or stupid', and called RW non-scientific. If you are a professional please act so. Anna Livia (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Direct quote from the article you provided - "The Stanford-Binet intelligence test used a single number, known as the intelligence quotient (or IQ), to represent an individual's score on the test."

"...you have been asked to provide the information at a 'generalist' level (given the range of RW users/readers)" lol. This statement convinced me you were trolling but I checked your userpage and it really looks like you aren't. I don't know where to go from here, if you can't read an article then we are at an impasse. In any case all the best with your time here at RW, I dont think it has changed enough that you will enjoy it. I also think you are quite young, so apologies if I came on a bit strong above.139.130.16.222 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

'Growing older happens: growing up is optional' - a measure of 'childishness' can be appropriate to RW. Anna Livia (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Coming across this pseudo-discussion several years later - are the IPs demonstrating a measure of the Dunning Kruger effect?

IQ is measuring 'something' - with there being 'cultural, classist and other constraining aspects' in its measurement, and there being a component of learnt skills being included in what is being tested (persons who enjoy 'sudoku etc' and 'cryptic crosswords etc' are likely to show different strengths in IQ tests). Anna Livia (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarification and suggestion

The sentence ' There are by this measure people are getting less intelligent' is unclear due to 'multiple-re-editing-itis': should the first two words be removed.

Perhaps some of the entries could be archived - and as it is over a year since the talk page was (justifiably under the circumstances) protected, perhaps the page could be conditionally re-opened to IPs. Anna Livia (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page cite authoritative institutions like the APA?

Obviously I think people who brag about their IQ are dumb- but this seems to be the focal point of the article. Like maybe some history "https://www.slideshare.net/iapsych/chc-theory-101-from-general-intelligence-g-to-chc-theory" or something beyond this. For example, the American Psychological Association’s authoritative task force on intelligence stated that the g-based factor hierarchy is “the most widely accepted current view of the structure of abilities” in psychology (Neisser et al. 1996:81)

Theres some expert surveys like http://lepo.it.da.ut.ee/~spihlap/snyderman@rothman.pdf which surveyed the APA among other experts

idk, just like something more robust... ^{— Unsigned, by: 2605:7fc0:0:85:a514:6ad5:47e9:d2f8 / talk / contribs} 04:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: , on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The Pseudoscience Claim Should be Dropped and/or the Page Rewritten

I think the notion that IQ is pseudoscience should be removed, and the page should not be classified as such. Look, the APA's position is very much not that IQ is pseudoscience. You won't find the WHO disputing it either. That doesn't necessarily prove the validity of IQ, but it's pretty dishonest to just declare that it's pseudoscience and only list criticism. If you want to make that argument, you should make it clear that you're arguing against the consensus of professionals. Or at least agree not to roll back this information if someone else provides it, because I'm sure not going to spend time writing an APA stance section if I expect it to just immediately be deleted and the page protected.2601:984:8101:5C80:0:0:0:F24D (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The pseudoscience claim was added recently actually. I've reverted it. No idea why nobody hasn't reverted it until now. LongStylus (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I've skimmed through the edit history and I haven't seen any reverting of the consensus of professionals, or maybe I'm missing something. I encourage you to be bold and add information to balance out the critcism. LongStylus (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The notion that IQ is a reliable measurement is a cornerstone of white supremacist ideology. It is especially unacceptable that RationalWiki would support this pseudoscience now, less than a month after the Buffalo supermarket shooter cited this "research" as a basis for gunning down ten black people.

The publications cited in the gunman's manifesto included this paper, [1] titled "Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings", by Robert Plomin, a well-known pseudoscientist whose name is everywhere in intelligence research. That paper is cited on the manifesto's 17th page. Is the use of such "research" to support the murder of ten black people not enough for RationalWiki to take a stand against this racist trash? Really? How many more innocent people will have to be murdered before we can call it out as pseudoscience? CBH (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd to see like some peer reviewed articles on why IQ is a pseudoscientific concept (ie. it does not follow the scientific method). Of course IQ has its limits and it's often abused by pseudoscience promoters that forget that sociological variables matter as much as the biological ones (see: The Bell Curve), but claiming that it's pseudoscience just because cranks misuse it is just association fallacy. GeeJayK (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What you're saying sounds like a false dilemma: we can only adopt one of two situations:

1. We don't state that IQ is pseudoscience and support its use by white supremacists
2. We state that IQ is pseudoscience and don't support its use by white supremacists

Why can't we both admit IQ as being part of mainstream science while also calling out its abuse by white supremacists? LongStylus (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Quoting this article: "Many of the criticisms of Richwine's fraudulent research focus on his Strangelovian obsession with IQ tests – IQ is a metric of such dubiousness that almost no serious educational researcher uses it anymore."

This book chapter says: "The new field of psychology was a Petrie dish of eugenic invective. IQ psychologists were steeped in eugenic ideology and to a large extent it shaped their science (Gersh, 1981). [...] Psychologists, many of whom were part of the economic and cultural elite, were motivated to produce a measurement tool that would “prove” the intellectual superiority of Whites. Such superiority was, for them, evidenced by history; the “failure” of Reconstruction and the obvious “backwardness” of Africa, Asia, and Latin America showed that, beyond a doubt, Nordics were the only race capable of governing themselves (Gossett, 1963). The quest for a “normal distribution” infused decades of educational psychology research. The mission was twofold: to provide the public with a scientific understanding of heredity and to develop a test that would “prove” hierarchical inequity."

Also, the "Association fallacy" is not a fallacy. Read this article. We all understand that Michael Woodley can't be forgiven for his work being used to justify the Buffalo shooting. No one seriously disputes that Woodley deserves to lose his position and possibly his PhD because he unintentionally supported this mass murder. But the shooter's manifesto cites "reputable" intelligence researchers such as Plomin and Bouchard even more prominently than it cites Woodley. This doesn't discredit only Woodley, it discredits the entire field of intelligence research. CBH (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

None of these say that IQ is a pseudoscientific, they say white supremacists misuse it, and we have dozens of articles proving them wrong. Also, I think you might have misunderstood what I meant with association fallacy. My point is, the fact that white supremacists use IQ tests to "prove" their point doesn't invalidade the whole concept of IQ. GeeJayK (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It was my impression, based on the talk page history, that the pseudoscience claim has been defended for some time. For example, the person before me mentioned adding information from the APA and did not receive an answer. Based on the responses here, I guess that was a misunderstanding. In that case, thank you for letting me know, and I will make a note to add information to this page in the near future. For the rest of this discussion, I basically agree with GeeJayK and add that a claim made by an article in The Guardian isn't exactly the most reputable refutation. The author, Ana Marie Cox, has no expertise in psychology, nor does she cite any source for her claim, she merely asserts it as common knowledge. It's basically the journalistic equivalent of going "source:trust me, dude."2601:984:8101:5C80:0:0:0:F24D (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

We look forward to your future contributions. And thank you for spotting the pseudoscience claim for us. The claim was added on June 10, 2022 while the preceding talk page comment was added on May 21, 2021, so the claim was not defended at all. It seems to me an oversight on our part. Your criticism of the Guardian article is apt. In fact, it's not even a news report. It's an opinion piece, so that might explain why the Guardian left that claim unchecked. LongStylus (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@CBH I understand your frustration with IQ being used to justify white supremacy. But it's not IQ that's being pseudoscientific; it's white supremacy that is so. Studies have shown that racial IQ gaps are caused by environmental factors, not genetic ones. This is something that white supremacists would deny. Studies have also shown that IQ is associate with nutrition and socioeconomic status, proving that we can raise people's IQ by perhaps having a strong social safety net, bringing people out of poverty and fighting against famine. This is something that white supremacists may also deny. We cannot fight pseudoscience (white supremacy) with more pseudoscience (denying IQ as scientific); we have to fight it with science. LongStylus (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

You're all behaving like concern trolls. This article is about 75% criticism. What else besides "pseudoscience" do we call a concept where the heavy criticism of it is literally the most important thing to mention about it? CBH (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Because that isn't true/is circular reasoning. The article is mostly criticism because mostly criticism was written, and your response to me pointing out that's inaccurate is "it must be pseudoscience, that's the impression I get from the article!" With all due respect, maybe you should do the bare minimum to find out what the psychological consensus on this is, not what some pundit says. For example, and a preview of something I plan to include, the APA Dictionary notes that "discrepancies between [verbal and nonverbal intelligence scores] can be used diagnostically to detect learning disabilities or specific cognitive deficiencies." That sounds pretty important to me. What basis do you have to say it isn't? That you weren't aware of that? That you don't like it? The APA goes on to say, of many criticisms included in this article, that "these problems seem to apply to the interpretation of IQ scores rather than the validity of the scores themselves." An old saying goes "not to judge a fish by its ability to climb trees," but it would be unreasonable to say that testing climbing ability has no functionality. Finally, just because a criticism is made doesn't mean it's, well, good. If you consider the article cited in favor of "multiple intelligences," for instance, it doesn't actually disprove the idea of the g factor, it merely asserts that it's the result of different networks coordinating rather than one ability that underlies all of the others. That may be true--I would even say probably is--but it's not really a big change in what we know about intelligence. Localization of function within the brain is old news, and this would still mean that IQ reflects a generalized ability to use these networks and wouldn't change how that's tested. That's far from refuting the concept of IQ or the validity of testing it.2601:984:8101:5C80:C54C:D6E:823A:FF7D (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@CBH has added dubious claims and nonsense to several articles to destroy them. See their edit conflict on hereditarianism. Their agenda is to discredit RationalWiki. Brain Galaxy (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Brain Galaxy I feel that you're right. CBH wrote an interesting edit summary here: [2] ("everyone knows it's impossible for POC to be racist") I think we have to do a systematic review of every single one of their edits. LongStylus (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

This also isn't the first time CBH tried to add the pseudoscience claim. They first did it all the way back in 2018: [3] LongStylus (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, however, their user page reads as a parody of an extreme progressive and there were multiple allegations from different users on hereditarianism talk saying the same thing. This is unlikely to be a real left-wing person. It has been repeatedly claimed CBH is a sock of someone from OpenPsych. They are possibly a racist trying to parody a progressive and discredit RationalWiki by inserting the "everything is white supremacist" nonsense. I guess this is an example of Poe's law. CBH wrote the original Eric Turkheimer article which was deleted for libel (see page history). Turkheimer is a critic of hereditarianism but CBH falsely accused him of being "alt right" and a racist. Absolute nonsense. No one genuinely who is against race and intelligence pseudoscience would attack Turkheimer like this - he has put out articles criticising Charles Murray's views on race and IQ. Brain Galaxy (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that up. I have brought this to ATIM. I've also revoked CBH's autopatrol, so this kind of vandalism would not reoccur. LongStylus (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I am getting strong sense that you folks have spent zero time in a humanities department, CBH is actually pretty normal in regards to political progressives it is hardly "parody" not really that much that is far out for anti-racist activists about it. Also the motivation for a white supremacist to delegitimize IQ testing for the sake of "discrediting rationalwiki" does not make a whole lot of sense as a motive it's almost conspiratorial. As a psychology graduate myself I can tell you that such attitudes are par for the course regarding IQ testing outside of the psychology department. Most social sciences and humanities from anthropology to sociology discredit IQ. It's also not a very uncommon take among certain biologists and philosophers. Psychologists by and large disagree, and the legitimacy of their objections sort of depends on how legitimate you view psychology as a science. I for one don't think the test itself is pseudoscience, but to make that claim arguably requires a demarcation criteria that includes IQ testing and psychometrics as a whole. If I were to guess I would probably charitably assume that CBH's exposure to the topic of IQ testing only comes from critics outside the field of psych and they are just very confident in the legitimacy of those criticisms. I don't thinks it's malice, there is no evidence of it. I don't think the statement CBH make are accurate but I don't think they are entirely nonsensical either. Y'all are just extremely uncharitable. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC).

This is a tough one, because there is no scientific evidence that 'intelligence' means anything. Since IQ purports to be an 'intelligence quotient', this is problematic. IQ is essentially based on a survey, like any other kind of survey. IQ has statistical significance, but then, everything has statistical significance. I think the article needs to focus on what IQ can tell us and what it can't tell us. The main point used to defend IQ is its 0.65-0.75 correlation with educational attainment and 0.5 for job performance. These correlations are listed at the beginning of the article. But we need to put that stat in perspective. Other factors have much greater correlation to educational achievement, such as poverty: "Comparing students who received FARMS services to those who did not, the gap in Grade 5 PARCC scores was 0.88 standard deviations for mathematics and 0.87 standard deviations for English Language Arts (ELA). " - Source OSA data files. White supremicists rely on the IQ correlation to educational achievement, so we need to provide stronger correlations to educational achievement from other factors (such as poverty) because doing so would diminish the strength of the narrative that the correlation of IQ to educational achievement. So I challenge other RationalWiki users to find more correlations to educational achievement that are greater than the correlation of IQ to educational achievement. The more we can show stronger correlations to educational achievement, especially ones that highlight inequality, the more we reduce the perception that the correlation of IQ to educational achievement is in fact a strong correlation. It may be a statistically significant correlation, but the more stronger correlations we can find, the weaker the IQ correlation can be said to be. I will try to add the poverty correlation to this article if there are no reasonable objections. FairDinkum (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No mention of being used in racist arguments?

One of the biggest controversies around IQ is that people have tried to suggest it proves that black people are inferior. This has since motivated plenty of people to go ahead and disprove it does any such thing, I'd argue that the entire learned component and "measurement of social class and familial advantages" owes pretty greatly to discussions around IQ and race and the explanations of the differences. There's been plenty of stuff on it, this being a sensitive subject, it'll take care to include it in the article and will need community revision, so, should I bother to start some section on the racist history of IQ? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I say go for it. I've written a bit about it in a Google Doc I plan to bring over information from once I'm satisfied with everything I've written, but there's a good chance you'll end up saying most of what I would have said and then some.2601:984:8101:5C80:0:0:0:9F7F (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section

The beginning of the third paragraph under the heading Criticism does not make sense:

"Another issue is that it is a normalised measure, calibrated to have 100 as the average and 68%[8] of people in the 85-115 range under Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. So an IQ of 140 measured now is not the same as an IQ of 140 measured 10 years ago. By this measure people are getting less intelligent.[9] "

The last sentence does not follow from the sentence before it. I fixed incoherency in the last sentence, but the whole passage needs to be rewritten. Furthermore the last paragraph in this section needs a citation or at least a rewrite to indicate that this conclusion is according to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory.FairDinkum (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)