From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

The nature of IQ

... does not necessarily relate to 'being able to do some tests involving selecting words and numbers and the right image for the sequence.'

There was an advertising test in the papers involving a square in which symbols represented numbers and the reader had to work out what the symbols were and thus the missing number. Were those who spent 'some time' working out the symbols cleverer than those who recognized that it was a simple summing of the two sides 'and lo the missing number is the difference'?

Being able to solve complex problems that are the equivalent of solving a 'shuffling 15 squares toy' (gathering together information and putting/using it in the right order), can be a better definition of intelligence. (And 'the proverbial hunter-gatherers' placed on the proverbial 'uninhabited-by-humans island that is of sufficient size' will survive longer than 'the members of a high-IQ group who have all passed the group's most sophisticated tests.') (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hunter gatherers suck at survival and live in low density high mortality communities without foreign aid, at which point they breed like flies. (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced IQ claims

"Such criticism is poorly informed, and misunderstands the nature of IQ testing."

This is a bold statement about a controversial issue. See Wikipedia's IQ#Criticism of IQ for many sourced examples.

"It is theorised that the reason abstract problem solving has the highest g-loading (or correlation with IQ) is because it is an unpracticed skill"

First, theorized by whom? Second, the idea that abstract problem solving is an unpracticed skill is also questionable and unsourced.

Vi (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bring this to attention. Please note that this is a wiki that you can edit. ClickerClock (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The APA regularly releases publications regarding Intelligence, specifically to combat most of the misunderstandings of intelligence shown throughout this talk page. Read it here (if you like).
Like most scientific fields the IQ research landscape is complex and evolving., however, the comments on this talk page, and information that regularly creeps into the article reflect a general ignorance of even the most basic facts about IQ.
Once upon a time RW used to be a more scientifically rigorous version of ToW, with a bit of bonus humour, but I guess nothing gold can stay. All the best. (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Easy to complain, harder to fix. Bongolian (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Have a go at it if you like. Bongolian (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


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). (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. (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. (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. (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC), 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. (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. (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. (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. (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
You could start getting a basic understanding here. (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. (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! (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. (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. (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. (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. (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). (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. (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. (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. (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, 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, Lgm sigpic.png 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. (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? (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. (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. (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 (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. (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 soe.
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."
" 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. (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do people not like the idea of IQ

Pursuant to the conversation above.

One would expect a science-minded community to accept the mainstream scientific view of IQ, g and intelligence in general.

What is it about IQ research that seems to rub everyone the wrong way, such that they have to start adopting fringe views? (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Many people will accept that IQ tests 'tell you some things' about your problem solving capabilities/capacity to analyse the world in general - but that they do not give the whole picture. 'Intelligence' covers many areas (and will interact with training and context etc - the London taxi drivers' The Knowledge; 'being a natural at...' etc.
There is also the feeling that there is much hype about the matter, companies making money out of doing IQ tests, 'what have persons who highlight their membership of MENSA done for us?'
Some supposedly 'very intelligent people' adopting 'very stupid views' (as distinct from 'my pet theory/hobby idea is …' and 'pursuing ideas #logical at the time# - when the visual spectrum was being extended, and radio was being developed 'spirits and other entities' operating at 'other levels of vibration' might be a logical possibilities')
IQ tests being used to boost some groups (who have the cultural/educational background to appreciate what is involved) over 'the others.'
Behaviour like the above (including attempting to bafflegab interested persons not being members of "the testers' club" into silence).

There are probably other aspects. Anna Livia (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

One reason is that IQ doesn't necessarily reflect a person's innate intelligence, it represents their educational level. IQ is determined by environment, so if someone lived in a shitty environment, ie poverty, with not much time able to be devoted to education, their IQ will only reflect the lack of education the person has, not their innate intelligence. Ɖøn Ĵuan Annoy 14:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Bullshit. (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Or... quite well established by quasi-experimental methods. You know, one of those things(and not the one you said). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You got "IQ is determined by environment" from that? Laughable. And childhood IQ is malleable and converges on genetic potential in adulthood. Not that I'd expect the utter ignoramuses here to know basic facts of the subject they shit all over on their childish website. (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, you got robust and explicit evidence contradicting that, but you're so sure, so repeating your belief is the same as being right. That's what native geniuses with high IQ do, you know? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
No I got irrelevant bullshit. IQ being malleable by a few points in childhood doesn't mean it's "determined by environment". How can anybody possibly be this stupid? Sad. (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
"IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect."
TFW you don't even have Wikipedia level knowledge but still try to come across as a smartass OTI. (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't think we haven't noticed your inability to effectively respond to any of our points. You resort to citing links because you cannot formulate a coherent, rational argument. You resort to swearing to compensate as a result of your inability to formulate a valid argument. Ie, you're the special snowflake who just got his ego bruised, not us. Ɖøn Ĵuan Annoy 16:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You're a liar. (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You do realize that you're only continuing to prove our point, right? Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 16:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
You are either lying or mistaken. One can be wrong and not be a liar, as a lie is defined by a willful intent to deceive rather than simply being incorrect and/or unable to understand the points being raised. TL;DR You just engaged in a spurious Ad hominem attack, apologize. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
To be fair: it's okay to be angry sometimes. But to even more fair, this is not one of those times. People were all being fairly specific and direct with argumentation.
Also fucking hell just look at that wikipedia link. In the lede they have this text "more specifically, over 500, and is thought to be up to 80% genetic in origin" and for that sentence, they cite this new scientist "article". And the only citation to that is the entire journal Molecular Psychiatry. So I went back for to look for studies from 2018 that refer to the biobank this is literally the only study that does, so I have to conclude that's what they're referring to. And, of course, literally everything included in the fucking New Scientist single paragraph blurb is wrong. They didn't find 500 fucking candidate genes, and they sure as hell don't back the 80% is thought to be genetic bullshit.
In the researchers' own words:

There is not a direct link between heritability and the molecular genetics of a trait (beyond a non-zero heritability implying that overall genetic similarity is correlated with phenotypic variance). Heritability alone is not informative about the potential biological consequences of statistical associations, except in placing a limit on explanatory power. In this GWAS, common variants explained 22% of the variance in intelligence (and gene-wise associations will only capture a portion of that). A considerable proportion of variance in intelligence is not captured in our analyses, and therefore it should be noted that our conclusions draw on only one part of the genetic and non-genetic correlates of this trait.

Which pretty much explicitly rebuffs the 80% figure, which only exists in the first place because heriditarians love to over-extrapolate from naive experimentation. Because they're fucking idiots.
I don't know if I have the evil-anti-science-by-reading-the-actual-fucking-article life force in me to do this kind of rigorous backcheck any of their other citations, literally the first one I looked at was enough to make me want to pull my fucking hair out. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
What in Christ's name are you even babbling about you utter retard? Oh is it "find the genes"? Yeah we didn't find the genes yet. That doesn't support either position. (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
IP - Christ said - Love your neighbour: you are not doing so. Therefore do not invoke Christ.
Can someone calculate how many persons are behind the several IPs. Anna Livia (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems like you just quickly read a few words before dismissing it with an obvious insult so it kinda looks like you don't have anything legitimate to say, IP. -𝓪𝓵𝓮𝔁 here! 18:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You people are garbage and your website is universally regarded as a joke. Carry on. (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright then. Godspeed. -𝓪𝓵𝓮𝔁 here! 18:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It is people like the IPs here which lead to other people regarding visiting RW as a joke (or worse). Anna Livia (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Uh, no. They're just a dumbfuck who doesn't read anything they post. They want to be told they're a special baby who's always right. That's both why they have so much invested in IQ stuff, and why they're not actually engaging with the points given. "Entitled loser" has a lot of explanatory power here. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
They are diverting attention from those creatively developing RW, and they are entitled only in their own imagination.
Those people who need several different explanations to help them understand something (we all have 'concepts our brains have problems with), need someone to turn their source material into readable text, and the 'enjoy a good argy-bargy to make the other participants think' are not a problem. Anna Livia (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, now I feel personally attacked. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you not described by 'Creative disagreement, splatting the nuisances and RW-vampires, and the second part of Daniel 12:4'? (a quote someone used in one of their signature logos.) Anna Livia (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do people not like the idea of IQ, Part 2.

Let's try that again. It may be useful to formulate reasons why one is uncomfortable with the concept of IQ as currently established. Please just do that in this section. I think that the label "intelligence" has very strong association with the ability to complete common tasks. I don't like the idea that people can be organized into totally ordered sets using their IQ. Ariel31459 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, intelligence and wisdom are hard to distinguish, though it it can become obvious Ariel31459 (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It's impossible to refute the many misunderstandings on display in the sections above, none of which are actually informed by the science but by personal feelings about Intelligence. Most of what people are writing is directly contradicted by the research (e.g. someone posting that IQ is a measure of education), incoherent (e.g. Anna Livia's misunderstandings about basic concepts) or overgeneralisations (e.g. Ikanreed checking one article from wikipedia and concluding that the whole field of research is conducted by idiots- BTW most of the hundreds of studies conducted into heritability estimate that the heritability of IQ is somewhere between .4 and .8 for adults). All of these misconceptions are addressed in this article which, as far as I can tell, only Ikanreed has bothered to actually read, albeit poorly. This is a fruitless discussion, and I'm tired of it, but I would urge the participants here to ask themselves how they would view a climate change denier who ignored authoritative articles on a topic written by scientific organisations in favour of their own preconceived notions.
It would be rude of me not to respond to you though Ariel31459 as you started this thread. Once again, I'm not even sure what the question means - organising people into totally ordered sets using IQ? Perhaps you mean ranking people? If that's what you mean then as with any measurement we have measurement error bands such that if people score closely then it is accepted that there could be cross-over. On the other hand (again with all measurements) some things will be bigger, or longer or higher than other things. Does it offend you that we can order people in terms of height?
Perhaps you have unexamined notions about the relative contribution of intelligence to the worth of a person that is causing you to viscerally react to research on the issue? Being high IQ is similar to being tall - notions of the value of these traits are personal and subjective. I feel that this may be the heart of the issue, but of course, this is just speculation as I have no evidence. (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
BON - you come across as patronising towards, or even rude about, other participants in the discussion, rather than addressing their direct questions, which you dismiss with 'look at the scientific articles.' You claim I have basic misunderstandings - but make no reasonable attempt to explain: merely reiterating 'look at the studies which say X' is not a proper answer.
You are fetishising IQ-the-number as 'a single number totality' - when other participants here define intelligence as a combination of factors/aspects, including particular skills acquired and 'innate abilities', knowledge and so on.
And which interpretation of 'the worth of a person' are you using? If people say that your attitudes are detracting from your worth #as a RW-contributor# what is your response? Anna Livia (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind that, excluding those cases where specialist technical/subject expertise is involved, 'trust me, I am the expert/just read the references' is likely to provoke an kneejerk response on RW - mostly 'prove it/justify yourself' and occasionally 'look - opinions for dinner!' Anna Livia (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Is it hyperbole to state that the #collective# IQ of the IPs is at or below the midwinter temperature level in Oymyakon and falling? Anna Livia (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I believe it's quite accurate. -𝓪𝓵𝓮𝔁 here! 16:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This page is now protected. I mention this here because I protected it myself without realizing it had already been protected. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If I had been told something along the lines of 'there are very technical aspects to measuring IQ (to allow for different educational/cultural/other aspects etc), but a simple explanation (aimed at all 'generalist persons') is that IQ tests are used for... and what is #colloquially# called "intelligence" is...' I would have accepted it. What I got was 'yes you can nail this very watery jelly (Jello) to the wall.' Anna Livia (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (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)