Open main menu

I will be adding numerous references and bibliography entries.Edit

Last year I began a major revision of a working paper project (begun in 2006, based on shorter research notes I began compiling as early as 1993) largely on this Wikipedia topic. As the talk page templates note, "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute." As a courtesy to the editors who have long been here, I will note that I will begin adding the dozens of books and articles I have at hand for my non-Wikipedia project (a literature review for popular audiences interested in the primary source literature on IQ testing) to this Wikipedia article. At first I will add books and articles from various points of view to the bibliography. Then I will add more references to verify the statements that have already long stood in the article. (I hope to add specific page numbers to both the references I add and the existing references that I am able to look up here.) At some length, I expect to expand sections with additional facts, perhaps add a few subsections, and from time to time do substantive edits under the NPOV principle, as the sources report various points of view. Thanks to all of you who have already worked on this very detailed article. I am lucky to have access to a very comprehensive academic library at which I have circulating privileges, so I am delighted to add some V and NPOV to various Wikipedia projects. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a great job. I'm looking forward to reading your additions. Good luck to you! :) Lova Falk talk 08:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is an update on that project. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have begun substantive edits to this article based on sources that other Wikipedians can check in the Intelligence Citations list. All of you are encouraged to suggest new sources for that list, which will be useful for editing quite a few articles on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As editor discussion of this article has renewed, I should remind new editors here about the Intelligence Citations bibliography in user space, which is due for another revision of its own. I look forward to digging deeply into the best reliable secondary sources and updating this article to Wikipedia good article status. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 20:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Really enjoying your article. Thanks from Dallas Edmund Teaford 1-7 facebook acct or (nick name Jim Teaford 2 facebook acct) APOLLOTHESUNGOD (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

How do IQ tests work?Edit

Originally IQ was defined as the ratio of intellectual age to chronological age. Intellectual age was presumably defined as the age at which half the children had attained a given set of mental abilities. But now we don't use that definition of IQ, and IQ is now just an ordinal scale (as explained in our article). So how is it actually measured? One paper I have looked at[1] simply took tne number of correct answers on a test (out of 75) and normalized this so that the average would be 100 and the standard deviation 15. Is this the normal practice? And how is the test constructed? Is it just a collection of questions of similar difficulty in different realms? Or are the questions deliberately spread out in difficulty, so that the least intelligent children can answer a few and the most intelligent can answer almost all? The distribution of IQ will depend on such things. Do different IQ tests give the same distribution? If so, this must be by design. These points should be addressed in our article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up IQ and intelligence. Intelligence is a more general subject and different people have different ideas about it. IQ is a fairly well standardized scale now with various restrictions on it which makes the various tests pretty much compatible in the circumstances where they are normally applied. Any additions should be about IQ not for instance general intelligence. Dmcq (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dmcq: Well, how have they standardized it? You can compare two people and figure out with enough testing which one is more intelligent (generally intelligent), but how do you make that into a numerical scale? Could be that as IQ tests were devised they were tested (that is, the tests were tested) against older tests to see whether they gave the same results for the same people, and this established a sort of standard, though arbitrary, IQ scale. But I doubt that tests were tested like that, on the same subjects. One could also just check that they gave the same distribution as older tests, but I don't think that was done either, because the article I reference above seems to say that they are the first people to check whether IQ is normally distributed! I have noted, since writing the above, that there's a whole field of study called Item response theory which has to do with using questions (or other "items") in an efficient way to measure something like intelligence. But that doesn't answer the question of how one assigns numbers to the points along the continuum of intelligencde. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of an editEdit

Eric Kvaalen, do try to stick to WP:Secondary and tertiary sources rather than WP:Primary sources, especially for topics like this. And do refrain from WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I strongly object to your reversion of my two edits to this article as well as your reversion of my edit of Sex differences in intelligence.
First of all, you reverted everything I did, including fixing up the English of a poorly written paragraph! The next part I edited was the paragraph saying that IQ is an ordinal scale. I put the important points from the quotes that were in the references and put them in the text, where readers can profit from them, as follows:

IQ scales are ordinally scaled — there are no true "units" of intellectual ability.[2][3] IQ scores can be used to order people according to their intelligence, but one cannot say that the difference betwwen 100 and 110 is the same as, say, the difference between 110 and 120.[4][5] Being an ordinal scale, statistics such as average, standard deviation and mode are not valid, though median is.[6] While one standard deviation is 15 points, and two SDs are 30 points, and so on, this does not imply that mental ability is linearly related to IQ, such that IQ 50 means half the cognitive ability of IQ 100. In particular, IQ points are not percentage points.

Your objection to this seems to be that it is "editorializing". I don't see why you say that. Please consult the quotes below in the references as to whether I have correctly summarized them. I then added this:

Nevertheless,studies have been done on the form of the distribution of IQ scores as determined by a particular test. One such study on Scottish children of the 1930s and 1940s found that the distribution though unimodal was not at all Gaussian (or "normal"), but could be modeled as the sum of a large Gaussian centred on IQ 105 plus a smaller Gaussian centred around 78. Slightly more than 50% of the children had a score above the average of 100.[7]

I have no idea why you thought that was unacceptable. Later, in my second edit, I added this:

There is a greater spread in IQ among boys than among girls. A 2008 study analyzed intelligence test results from practically all 11-year-olds in Scotland in 1932 and in 1947. It found that there were about twice as many boys as girls at both the lowest levels and the highest levels. As a case in pint, of the 87,498 children tested in 1932, five boys answered correctly all but one or two of the 75 items in the test, whereas only one girl managed this. The significance of the greater spread of IQ among males as an explanation for the greater number of male academics has been debated, but the authors point out that this cannot be the whole explanation for the preponderance of males in academic positions in mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering where the ratio is between 7 to 1 and 14 to 1.[7]

Here your objection seems to be that I'm using a "primary source". There's nothing wrong with using a research article like the one I cite. In fact, there are many articles cited in our article that are similar, and by these same authors. It is well known (as my reference explains) that IQs are more spread out for boys than for girls. All I did was to find a very good reference for this. As explained in the reference, the data from Scotland are better than other studies because practically all the children were included. Your edit comment when reverting the similar paragraph which I wrote in Sex differences in intelligence was:
Eh? Why should we be including this material regarding very old research, especially given what the Historical perspectives section and WP:Secondary sources state, and why from Scotland? Definitely WP:Undue. See the talk page about adding primary study after primary study.
The research is fairly new, but they used old data because it was so comprehensive. Why do you accuse me of "adding primary study after primary study"? I only added one study.
I would like to hear from other editors. Do you agree that what I added is interesting, relevant, and well documented?
Eric Kvaalen (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Eric Kvaalen, primary sources are an issue per what is stated in this section. After reading that section, do you not understand why we shouldn't be relying on primary sources? At least not heavily? Do you not understand why WP:Primary sources cautions against their use? How do you not see that "a study [that] analyzed intelligence test results from practically all 11-year-olds in Scotland in 1932 and in 1947" is WP:Undue weight? Why should this one study get a mention? I see what you stated above, but there are so many studies, and often with conflicting information, which allows editors to cherry pick what they like. This is a valid reason why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, and tertiary sources to a lesser extent. On Wikipedia, we don't include things because they are interesting. I didn't accuse you of adding "adding primary study after primary study." All I did was point you to a discussion about primary sources. And as for words like "nevertheless," it is WP:Editorializing. If the source uses the word nevertheless, we still shouldn't unless we put it in quotation marks. As for other wording you used, as long as it's an accurate summary of the sources, I don't have an issue with that. If it's the source exact words, those words should be in quotation marks, and with WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I have stuck in a header "Discussion of an edit" before your first comment because it's off the subject of the section I started called "How do IQ tests work?" I also moved the comment of User:Dmcq up, because he seems to be responding to what I had written under "How do IQ tests work?". When I wrote my response to you I hadn't noticed his comment. I hope other people will respond to what I wrote on that.
I was unaware that there was any controversy about the spread of males being greater than that of females. Can you give some more information on that? In the discussion at Talk:Sex_differences_in_intelligence#Primary_source_after_primary_source you quote a book from 2010, but I would like more information. I don't see how someone could find results that contradict the results of the study I cited, unless they were studying something other than general intelligence. In this Scottish exercise, which was done twice with an interval of 15 years, they got almost all the 11-year-olds to take a 75-question test. And both times, the boys were a bit more spread out than the girls. Those who got more than about 50 questions right were mostly boys, between about 25 and 50 questions right were mostly girls, and below that were mostly boys again. (Unfortunately the paper doesn't give the raw data, which they could have done because it consists of just 300 numbers, so I'm estimating by looking at their graph which shows the ratio of boys to girls as a function of "IQ". The "IQ" is just the test score normalized so as to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The graph for 1947 is not exactly the same as that for 1932 of course.)
One might argue that this was 11-year-olds, and doesn't apply to adults. But the paper cites a couple other studies showing the same thing for adults. In fact, it gives quite a long historical review of studies and thought on the question. They do mention a paper (from way back in 1936) that concluded that there was no consistent evidence for greater male variability. ("Though they observed that studies using samples of college students tended to show greater male variability, they recognized that such samples were not representative of the population. Overall, they concluded that there was no consistent evidence for greater male variability.") Is that what your 2010 book is referring to??
I actually started at a "secondary source", an article in New Scientist that says "There is also more variability in these measurements between men than between women – interesting because, although there is no overall difference in intelligence between the sexes, men tend to be over-represented at both ends of the intelligence spectrum." It gave the link which I followed to the article I cited. We could cite the New Scientist article, but I think it's much better to cite the Perspectives on Psychological Science article. There's no rule in Wikipedia against citing "primary sources". And the article is almost a review article, besides giving their analysis of the Scottish results.
Going back to the other parts of my edit, do you agree that the sentences I added after the sentence about IQ being an ordinal scale accurately reflect the quotes in the footnotes? I think these things should be said in the text, not just in footnotes, because they are important and most people probably wouldn't understand what it means to say that IQ is just an ordinal scale!
The reason I used the word "Nevertheless" is because talking about whether IQ is normally distributed or not goes directly against what was just said about it being an ordinal scale. Things like "average", "mode", and "standard deviation" are pretty much meaningless, and that's what the paragraph talks about. Maybe we should therefore leave the paragraph out completely, but it doesn't make sense to put it in without the word "nevertheless". I thought it was interesting that most people have an above average IQ! But you say we're not supposed to put interesting things into the article. So what do we put in??
Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with the addition of the content, and I explained why above. You don't seem to understand what I am stating about WP:Primary sources and WP:Undue weight; so I don't see how continuing this discussion with you would help. I mean, you even stated: "You say we're not supposed to put interesting things into the article. So what do we put in??" What gave you the impression that Wikipedia articles are about putting in things that we personally find interesting? Yes, a Wikipedia article might be created because someone finds the article interesting, but WP:Notability determines whether the article should be created, and our rules determine what should be added to the article. If what we find interesting is compliant with those rules, okay then. Per WP:INTERESTING, we don't keep or delete an article because the topic is interesting. The same goes for what's in the article. No one said a thing about a policy against WP:Primary sources. That is not the point. The point is what WP:PSTS states, what WP:Undue weight states, and what I stated in the aforementioned linked discussion. We can ask for opinions from WP:WikiProject Neuroscience, WP:WikiProject Psychology, and WP:WikiProject Sociology and/or start a WP:RfC on the matter, but I will not be engaging in a lengthy debate with you on it. As for the "sentences [you] added after the sentence about IQ being an ordinal scale accurately reflect[ing] the quotes in the footnotes," I already commented on the matter. If it's accurate, it's accurate. If it's not, it's not. We can get other opinions on that as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
All right, I will do a Request for Comment. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for CommentEdit

See above. What parts of my edit should be allowed? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


  • Support for inclusion, but with usual caveats as to the necessity for caution and attribution in this area. (Summoned by bot) - As far as I can tell, the sourcing has been scrupulous, and the associated footnoted quotes with regard to the first paragraph help to establish that this is not WP:SYNTHESIS, but rather a series of sequential WP:Verified statements which map faithfully to what is being said in the sources. I understand Flyer's concerns on this of all articles, but these are not controversial statements in the science, and the sourcing is more than sufficient in my view. That goes also for the third paragraph, regarding apparent differences in distribution of IQs between the sexes (which should not under any circumstances be mistaken as a proxy for differences in IQs between the sexes in general): this study and effect is a fairly well known one, one which other analyses have claimed to replicate.
However, there is perhaps benefit in Flyer's concern, as we arguably should introduce any such evidence with more over attribution in the statements than presently exists in the proposed versions. That would, I hope, assuage concerns somewhat, while improving the transparency/educational effect of the content. After-all, when it comes to psychometrics, we are talking about the area of the cognitive sciences that has, as a historical matter, been the most impacted by chauvinistic bias (in terms of race and gender) to an extent that is greater than any other field that kept around. I think in this context, it behooves us to mention exactly who is making a particular claim, and who made it first, even if later research seems to confirm it. Only highly basic and overwhelmingly accepted/non-contentious claims should appear in Wikipedia's voice here. Snow let's rap 07:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please summarize the dispute (ideally with reference to the actual edits or proposed changes) briefly in the RFC itself; asking people to read the entire fairly massive discussion above this seems unlikely to get many people weighing in, especially since the discussion starts with a comment that assumes familiarity with the dispute in question. --Aquillion (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have modified the article in response. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the RfC (which came all this time after the August 2018 discussion), and I reverted. Snow Rise was the only one who gave an opinion on this. He stated "this study and effect is a fairly well known one, one which other analyses have claimed to replicate." It should be easy to add a secondary source for it then. Why are we relying on any primary sources/single studies? And especially from the 1930s or 40s? Synthesis? There is synthesis. Eric Kvaalen's addition states, "Nevertheless, studies have been done on the form of the distribution of IQ scores as determined by a particular test." His addition then goes on to cite a study on Scottish children of the 1930s and 1940s. That does not at all support "studies have been done on the form of the distribution of IQ scores as determined by a particular test." It's one study. Eric Kvaalen's addition states, "There is a greater spread in IQ among boys than among girls." His addition then goes on to cite a 2008 study that analyzed intelligence test results "from practically all 11-year-olds in Scotland in 1932 and in 1947." That does not at all support "there is a greater spread in IQ among boys than among girls." This is because it is not the type of source we should be using. These are the two additions I'm focused on. And considering the above RfC and what Aquillion stated about the summary, I might need to start another RfC on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Topics like this should follow what WP:SCHOLARSHIP states. Simple. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
A few thoughts:
  • First, yes, the action on the RfC responses to date was premature: usually RfCs run for a minimum of a month before action is taken, and even if it were called early for lack of participation and general agreement among the few !votes, it would still require at least a few more participants to claim a consensus.
  • As to the sourcing, while the sole source is primary [edit: I originally misstated here that it was secondary--it is in fact primary], but one which directly addresses the significance of this widely discussed effect. The source also has the benefit of expressly addressing why such an effect cannot account for the disparate participation levels between the genders in STEM fields, which is useful information for our readers, as consensus is that active and unfair bias is a big player in this arena, and here we can have a source which both discusses the effect in empirical terms, confirms (or at least proposes to confirm, which is why we attribute to it directly) the existence of that effect, and yet frames that evidence in a light that expressly rejects the conclusion that it can be held as an alternative explanation for women's low field representation, relative to men.
Primary sources are permissible in this context, as is indicated in both WP:PRIMARY and WP:SCHOLAR, where the statements are short and to the point, accurately reflect the conclusions of the study, and (as urged above) are clearly and fully attributed. In any event, as I noted before, this is nothing like a fringe claim: it's a well-documented phenomena (though far from universally accepted) in psychmometrics going back some ways, and while you and I may have some caveats in mind about such findings, ultimately our speculation would amount to original research; I have little doubt that the source presented here is WP:RS and do establish sufficient WP:WEIGHT for at least attributed reference. More so, even if you continue to battle it out with the OP over this matter, you can take my word for it that they are going to be able to find yet more sources, because you can find this tidbit of the field littered throughout the literature on the field. Psychometrics is not really my field (and I am a skeptic about some of its methodology), but I've nevertheless seen this effect referenced in the literature, in symposium materials, and at least one debate between public intellectuals in the field. So I'd just recommend not wasting energy on that fight, and instead focusing on exactly how the content is framed/phrased and attributed, so that it cannot be misconstrued (in addition to the issues described above) to suggest women don't reach the same peaks in terms of IQ.
  • On a last note, I would recommend not starting multiple competing RfCs--I would instead urge you two to collaborate on improving the wording of this one so that it clearly states the issues. Be sure to add a note that the RfC prompt has been reformed though, so my and Aquillion's comments still make sense in context. :)
I'll be off project for a few days, but when I get back I will be happy to assist in finding a middle ground solution on this issue: this does not strike me as a zero sum context we can speak to these findings without giving them undue weight or implying conclusions which are not found in the sources. Snow let's rap 04:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Snow Rise, I do appreciate you weighing in. I think you know that I always appreciate you weighing in on a topic. I'm not looking to start an RfC on this. And, yes, it's about how the material is presented. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear that secondary sources are preferred and why. As currently seen on Eric Kvaalen's talk page, editors have tried to repeatedly guide him away from relying so much on primary sources, lower quality sources, dubious sources, and giving undue weight to them. Doc James has repeatedly tried. So when Eric Kvaalen doesn't yet have a good grasp on what sources are best to use and WP:Due weight, it's not ideal to tell him that using primary sources are fine as long as he sticks to what the sources state. My objection to the material that Eric Kvaalen is adding is not about my personal opinion. You know that it's never about that for me. Or I would think you would know that by now. You stated "[an] effect [that] is a fairly well known one," but without being clear what you mean. What parts of Eric Kvaalen's additions do you support? All of it? You stated, "'Support for inclusion, but with usual caveats as to the necessity for caution and attribution in this area." What pieces are you supporting? I didn't state that I object to all of Eric Kvaalen's changes. I asked, "Why are we relying on any primary sources/single studies? And especially from the 1930s or 40s?" Why should we add information on this old Scottish study? I fail to see how the Scottish children study is WP:Due weight. As for something like "There is a greater spread in IQ among boys than among girls.", Eric Kvaalen should use a better source for that. And there is no need to go into information about an old Scottish study just to relay that. You stated that "they are going to be able to find yet more sources." He should do that then. Better sources, not just more. It's been months, and he has not. I could look for him, but I prefer where WP:ONUS states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22 Reborn: sorry for the delay in response; I was traveling this week for a professional obligation. Regarding your response, I agree that the WP:ONUS is on Eric to provide the justification. Personally I think that burden has been met, but since I don't doubt there are secondary sources out there discussing this topic (and also other studies and reviews), I don't see a problem with asking him to provide them before adding the content--and if I can find the time, I will do some of the leg work there myself, since I have access to databases that will facilitate that search. Indeed, I can think of at least one public debate about the extent and nature of sexual differentiation in neurophysiology/cognitive nuances (between eminent scholars) that mentions this effect, so I'll look for a recording of that while I am at it.
As to which part of Eric's additions that I support--as per my comments above, I actually think all three sections he proposes in the previous thread are adequately sourced and reasonably neutral. But I had the impression that at the moment we were only talking about the issue of the alleged differential in the spread of IQs between the genders, so that was the only issue my last post addressed. Needless to say, there is plenty more to unpack in those three paragraphs and their sources, so there's no reason to rush the content in: let's start with the current topic and find a version of the content that is agreeable to both of you (and adequately sourced) and then work our way backward through the other two paragraphs and their sources. Snow let's rap 05:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Snow Rise, no need to apologize. You did let me know that you would be "off project for a few days." I wasn't focused on the "differential in the spread of IQs between the genders" aspect. Well, not as focused on it as the Scottish stuff. But, yeah, it's something that should have better sourcing. And I still do not agree with the inclusion of the Scottish children detail. On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to it. I won't ping you either for the rest of this discussion unless you want me to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)



  1. ^ Wendy Johnson; et al. (Nov 1, 2008). "Sex Differences in Variability in General Intelligence". Perspectives on Psychological Science. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x. Explicit use of et al. in: |last1= (help)
  2. ^ Mussen, Paul Henry (1973). Psychology: An Introduction. Lexington (MA): Heath. p. 363. ISBN 0-669-61382-7. The I.Q. is essentially a rank; there are no true "units" of intellectual ability.
  3. ^ Truch, Steve (1993). The WISC-III Companion: A Guide to Interpretation and Educational Intervention. Austin (TX): Pro-Ed. p. 35. ISBN 0-89079-585-1. An IQ score is not an equal-interval score, as is evident in Table A.4 in the WISC-III manual.
  4. ^ Bartholomew, David J. (2004). Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-521-54478-8. Lay summary (27 July 2010). When we come to quantities like IQ or g, as we are presently able to measure them, we shall see later that we have an even lower level of measurement—an ordinal level. This means that the numbers we assign to individuals can only be used to rank them—the number tells us where the individual comes in the rank order and nothing else. Cite uses deprecated parameter |laysummary= (help)
  5. ^ Mackintosh, N. J. (1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 30–31. ISBN 0-19-852367-X. In the jargon of psychological measurement theory, IQ is an ordinal scale, where we are simply rank-ordering people. ... It is not even appropriate to claim that the 10-point difference between IQ scores of 110 and 100 is the same as the 10-point difference between IQs of 160 and 150
  6. ^ Stevens, S. S. (1946). "On the Theory of Scales of Measurement". Science. 103 (2684): 677–680. Bibcode:1946Sci...103..677S. doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677. PMID 17750512.
  7. ^ a b Wendy Johnson; et al. (Nov 1, 2008). "Sex Differences in Variability in General Intelligence". Perspectives on Psychological Science. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x. Explicit use of et al. in: |last1= (help)

Insufficent citation for new textEdit

The new sections put in by edit [1]

Have citations which do not identify with any precision what they are based on. They also read to me like a persons own views rather than a fair summary of anything I can actually see of the sources though I have not read them through thoroughly. In short they seem iffy to me, if someone with more knowledge of the area than me could have a better look and either fix the citations or remove them I think that would be very good. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They are presented as certain people's views, which is why the text uses WP:In-text attribution. I view the content as WP:Undue weight. It could be trimmed, but two sections devoted to these people's views? Undue. Should either be trimmed and integrated into the article without additional subheadings or removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Extreme scoresEdit

I've noticed that the article does not mention the problem of measuring extreme (both high and low, but notably high) scores accurately and reliably. (Compare here, for example.) While it is an issue that, in theory, concerns only few people, it is somewhat more widespread because claims of extreme IQs well above 160 can be found with some regularity, and they are rarely challenged. Our readers should be informed that these claims need to me taken with a shipload of salt, and most of these people are likely bullshitters – some may actually be very smart, but there's no way to be sure how high exactly they might score, and it probably doesn't really matter away. Also, for example, when lists of estimates of the IQs of historical personalities suggest extremely high scores on a regular basis, these estimates should be dismissed as even more fanciful than they should be otherwise. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"IQ by country" figure is uselessEdit

I have no clue how to edit wikipedia properly, so please bear with me. The figure "IQ by country" in the "Race and Intelligence" section is useless. It is missing a legend for the colors shown on the map. What does red indicate? What does blue indicate? What does purple indicate? (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

IQ calculationEdit

if IQ is mental age divided by chronological age, then the average adult would lose points each year as their chronological age increases; we don't have a test that is 5% easier for a 41 year old person vs a 40 year old person. Brucefhyman (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Intelligence quotient" page.