Talk:IQ/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 22 December 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Normal distribution[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Fractionating Human Intelligence proves it best. ScienceDaily overview. We should probably reflect this. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (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[edit]

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