Talk:IQ/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 17 June 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Normal distribution

It is true that IQ-tests are designed with a normal distribution in mind and with a given standard deviation. This practise is dubious and test results fluctuate.

Still, however one defines intelligence, if at all reasonably, the resulting distribution will certainly be approximately normal, thanks to the Central Limit Theorem. I hasten to add, that this says nothing about the standard deviation. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This article

This article displays some fundamental misunderstandings about IQ. I am going to judiciously re-write large sections of it in line with the published research on the issue. The criticisms section is particularly poor. Tielec01 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"That the hypothetical g remains constant during a person's entire life, or even just during their adulthood, is a large assumption. Other measures of mental acuity, such as short-term memory, are known to fluctuate in response to factors such as age and anxiety. "

This is so confused, g isn't theorised to remain constant until we enter adulthood (obviously it changes during childhood). It's not an assumption it is a consistent finding from the studies that have been conducted into g (eg. Irish cohort). Test scores will fluctuate with age, due to various reasons, some that are understood, and others that remain to be hashed out, but it is not thought that these indicate positive or negative changes in g. The only exception being a catastrophic decline just before people pass away. I've read articles on popular science sites that conflate test scores with IQ scores, and trumpet this as evidence of IQ change with age, but within the published literature it is a well accepted fact that IQ doesn't change (or doesn't change much) throughout adulthood (barring catastrophic events).

If someone wants to re-write, or explain what they meant I am happy to listen, otherwise I am going to delete this. Tielec01 (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

IQ levels

• Brick
• Backward amoeba
• Room temperature
• I scored X in a Mensa test

What are the next levels up? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Average IQ

Tielec01 (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Or possibly 'Reality TV'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

IQ is mostly bull

Fractionating Human Intelligence proves it best. ScienceDaily overview. We should probably reflect this. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 05:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

One study does not overturn a hundred years of consensus. It's an interesting, provocative neurological perspective on intelligence, something to keep an eye on for sure. However, it has to compete with thousands of factor analyses, regressions, SEMs that have consistently found an intercorrelated intelligence factor. That this factor may be composed of three other factors is good to know, but will not significantly change our understanding of IQ (it has been accepted for years that g has various elements to it).

See the response to the article here.Tielec01 (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's worth reading https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf this document for a reasonably up-to-date summary of what has changed from when Intelligence: Known and Unknowns was released. Of course there are aspects of the publication that I disagree with, but it's a reasonably fair precis of what most IQ researchers think on a given subject. Tielec01 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

SciShow Psych on the usefulness of IQ

TL;DW: It's pretty fail. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

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.') 31.51.113.101 (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. 82.132.186.75 (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. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Easy to complain, harder to fix. Bongolian (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. 139.130.16.222 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Have a go at it if you like. Bongolian (talk) 07:33, 10 January 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? 203.54.149.190 (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. 212.159.39.12 (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. 212.159.39.12 (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. 212.159.39.12 (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." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

TFW you don't even have Wikipedia level knowledge but still try to come across as a smartass OTI. 212.159.39.12 (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. 212.159.39.12 (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. 82.132.212.49 (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. 82.132.212.49 (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. 139.130.16.222 (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)