Talk:Intelligence quotient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page) hi i am 11 years old and my IQ is 110 is that average, good or bad????

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Intelligence quotient, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Questionable Statement 3 People lying about their IQs 4 The need for online IQ tests 5 Kudos. Wikipedia scoops James Flynn by two months or more 6 Ratio IQs versus deviation IQs 7 Contradiction? 8 History 9 Terminology 10 RE: breastfeeding and higher IQ 11 Someone continues to spam this article with links to his/her "IQ test" 12 IQ = Trivial 13 The "Percent Correlation of IQ Tests" table 14 Citations? 15 It's IQ, NOT I.Q. 16 "Regression" section pointless 17 post 1996 IQ correlations papers 17.1 educational achievement 17.2 income 17.3 social pathologies 18 IQ and income 19 restriction of range effects in heritability has been studied since 1996 20 excellent 21 Economic and social correlates of IQ in the USA table 22 Suggestion 23 High-IQ society thing 24 Levels

[edit] Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

[edit] Questionable Statement

"Although gender-related differences in average IQ are insignificant, male scores display a higher variance: there are more men than women with both very high and very low IQs. The average IQ being 100 could see man have a s.d. of 16 and women a s.d. of 15. **Differences in variance would mean that more men are less intelligent than women also.**"

What...?

[edit] People lying about their IQs

If 100 is the average IQ how come so many people are lying online and saying they have IQs of 140-170?

1)Just because there is an average doesn't mean there aren't people above the average.

2)It isn't that difficult to think of reasons for people lying. Raoul 19:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

An IQ of about 150 IQ (15 sd) is about 1/1000. In the world that means there are 6 million people with an IQ >= 150.

But more likely (as pointed out) is that almost no one will willingly associate themselves with the label below average in regards to intelligence. I remember reading a studying saying that approximately 95% of Americans claim to have above average IQ.

AmitDeshwar 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an IQ of about 150 is about 3.15-3.30 SD (depending if you use 15 or 16 points as a SD) from the norm, although it does translate to about between 1/1125 and 1/2330 (for SD15 and SD16 respectively). As far as the rest, you are of course absolutely right.--Ramdrake 22:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To quote from the Mensa International article:

Because different tests are scaled differently, it is not meaningful to compare raw scores between tests, only percentiles. For example, the minimum accepted score on the Stanford-Binet is 132, while for the Cattell it is 148.

On the Cattell scale, an IQ of 150 translates to around 1/50 (2%), or 120 million people worldwide (6 million in the US) ... that's why the high IQ societies all use a percentile for membership, rather than a number. OTOH, given the chance, most people would rather say their's is 151 (Cattell) rather than 135 (S-B) because it sounds more impressive. --141.156.232.179 22:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no world-wide standardisation of IQ data, one cannot say that there are '120 million people worldwide' with IQs in the 98th percentile of Americans, Australians, Britons or wherever. The top two percent of one nation may score much lower than the top two of another and, when grouped together into the same pool of data, may no longer constitute anywhere near the top two percent of the world-wide aggregate.

BCAB 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also at least one scam free iq test online that reports ultra high iq's for everyone and then emails them offers to buy 'intelligence profile' packages. The one I came across reported my IQ as 156 (which it called "genius" level) while other tests from non-commercial interests have scored me around 106 (tiny bit above average). I have a few friends who have taken the scam test as well and none have scored below 150. The test also seemed shorter and easier than the others I've taken since. So some people may be duped by the scam test, we all want to believe we're geniuses I guess ;)

InterLNK 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The need for online IQ tests

It would be a good idea to have example IQ tests online or linked to this page so that people can actually see what IQ tests actually *are*. --NukeMason 09:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I was reading throught this discussion again (yes, I have way TOO much time to deal with). One of the issues that I have about the use of IQ tests and the like is that the article is likely to be very unscientific without having some kind of discussion that shows case studies of how it is that IQ is assigned to specific people based upon a specific test conditions and results. Anyhow, the point I made above (that no-one has responded to, perhaps unsurprisingly, is that there should be a specific test taken so that everyone can take the test, and actually work out their own IQ to see what is being done mathematically, to get a feel for how non-linear statistical effects might make a big difference to IQ results).

I hope that some of the above makes some sense.

--NukeMason 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but a problem I've noticed is that most online IQ tests are either poor indicators of IQ or have costs attached. Finding a decent IQ test is pretty unlikely. If you want to add examples of online IQ tests (purported), and list them as such, that would probably be fine. There's one flash based one at "www.highiqsociety.org/iq_tests/"; I personally think it's pretty poor because it uses knowledge (achievement, I guess) based questions and memory questions in addition to pattern recognition; it also uses a time limit for each question. There are a few extra ones at tickle.com and related websites that are probably even less valid. "High-IQ" tests are less common; I don't know how valid the tests at "http://paulcooijmans.lunarpages.com/p/gliaweb/tests/" are; they have costs but it seems like the author is sensible. Maybe it's pseudoscience, maybe not; I can't pass judgment. If anybody wants to add those, they can go ahead. Hope that helps a little... Robinson0120 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Love them or hate them, they're here to stay. I'd move to make a separate page for them on Wikipedia but obviously I'm a bit biased (not in a statistical sense):). They do warrant some mention in the general article if only to debunk the common myth that they're as valid and reliable as individually administered intelligence tests. IvyIQTest100 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos. Wikipedia scoops James Flynn by two months or more

I travelled over here about a month ago and read for the first time that there were published studies that seemed to indicate that the "Flynn Effect" was slowing or stopped in certain countries. Yesterday, James Flynn himself breaks the news. First, let me say Congratulations!! on scooping Professor Flynn by at least a full two months!!

the man who first observed this effect, the psychologist James Flynn, has made another observation: intelligence test scores have stopped rising. Far from indicating that now we really are getting dumber, this may suggest that certain of our cognitive functions have reached — or nearly reached — the upper limits of what they will ever achieve, Professor Flynn believes. In other words, we can’t get much better at the mental tasks we are good at, no matter how hard we try. If we are to make any further progress, we will have to start exercising different parts of our brain, particularly the parts controlling language acquisition and empathy, according to Professor Flynn, an emeritus professor at the University of Otago in New Zealand....

But that's not the only 'scoop' I've witnessed in just this past week. Scientific American in it's on-line version has just gotten around to reporting the link between IQ and post-traumatic stress disorder that apparently has been in wikipedia's IQ article for some time now.

A big double KUDOS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.8 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I suppose the above commenter is being facetious. Proclaiming facts before they can be cited is called imagination. Tstrobaugh 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. OTOH, stating citable facts while failing to cite them is not imagination, and does seem to happen on WP from time to time.  :-) cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ratio IQs versus deviation IQs

The difference between ration and deviation IQs is explained here.[1] --Jagz 08:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

"For people living in the prevailing conditions of the developed world, IQ is highly heritable, and by adulthood the influence of family environment on IQ is undetectable...In the United States, marked variation in IQ occurs within families, with siblings differing on average by almost one standard deviation"

If IQ is "highly heritable," shouldn't we expect each sibling of a given set of parents to have IQs that are much smaller than one standard deviation? The sentence implies "almost one standard deviation" to be a large amount - one standard deviation also overlaps considerably over other sources of error and may be statistically insignificant for the determination of difference between families.

And what about external environment? This paragraph only mentions "family environment." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.250.81 (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Quite frankly, "Regression

The heritability of IQ measures the extent to which the IQ of children appears to be influenced by the IQ of parents. Because the heritability of IQ is less than 100%, the IQ of children tends to "regress" towards the mean IQ of the population. That is, high IQ parents tend to have children who are less bright than their parents, whereas low IQ parents tend to have children who are brighter than their parents. The effect can be quantified by the equation \hat y = \bar x + h^2 \left ( \frac{m + f}{2} - \bar x \right) where

   * \hat{y} is the predicted average IQ of the children;
   * \bar{x} is the mean IQ of the population to which the parents belong;
   * h2 is the heritability of IQ;
   * m and f are the IQs of the mother and father, respectively.[15]

Thus, if the heritability of IQ is 50%, a couple averaging an IQ of 120 may have children that average around an IQ of 110, assuming that both parents come from a population with a median IQ of 100.

A caveat to this reasoning are those children who have chromosomal abnormalities, such as Klinefelter's syndrome and Triple X syndrome whose "normal" IQ is only one indicator; their visual IQ is another indicator. And so forth."

Sounds like an amateur Mathematician gone wild.

I totally don't know where to discuss this, but it smacks of utter crap. Even the note (15) is referring to plant heredity. Luerim 10:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The assessment system devised by Binet and Simon was named for them, "the Binet-Simon Scale" (not the Binet-Simon intelligence scale), by users and translators in the USA.

Among the first intelligence tests designed for adult populations were the group-administered Army Alpha and Beta mental tests, developed by the 'Vineland committee' from 1917 to 1920.

Yerkes, R. M. (Ed.) (1921) Psychological examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 15, 1-890.

Subtests from Army Alpha and Beta later formed the basis for Wechsler's individually-administered scales, the first of which was the 'Wechsler-Bellevue Scale'. Londonmatty20 19:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I feel that one of the reasons this article is controversial is that in places there is confusion between the terms 'intelligence' and 'IQ'.

For example, the section on 'Influences of genetics and environment' begins with the phrase, "The role of genes and environment (nature and nurture) in determining IQ is reviewed in ...". Similarly, the section on 'Development' begins, "It is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should ..."

In both cases, and many places later, I think the term IQ - a score on a test - has been used inappropriately in place of intelligence. Discussion of a putative index (measure) of any mental phenomenon should be distinguished from discussion of the underlying construct. See the articles under Psychometrics for further explanation.

There needs to be some acknowledgment that what influences intelligence (however defined) can be considered separately from what influences scores on intelligence tests. Most of the current content of sections 4 (Influences of genetics and environment), 5 (IQ and the brain) and 7 (Group differences) probably belong elsewhere. Londonmatty20 15:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree that IQ studies are "controversial" - I don't agree with the assertions that the article is "controversial" because of "confusion." The article's first sentence, the one I'm certain is read by most everyone coming to the article, reads this way --

An intelligence quotient or IQ is a score derived from a set of standardized tests of intelligence.

The rest of the first paragraph of the IQ article takes a similar tone. As such, I'm not sure there's reason for the confusion that you see -- or even that there is confusion. Second, while I do agree that the area of intelligence testing is controversial, I wonder if intelligence testing isn't "controversial" for the same reasons that global warming or teaching evolution are "controversial" – that is, the science is under pressure from either the political left or right - or both.

~~Bob~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.10 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree: the opening paragraphs of this article are very clear; and that IQ studies are controversial is without doubt, for good or ill. Neverthless I feel that one of the reasons that this article is controversial is because some contributors use the term IQ in place of (when they mean) intelligence: that is, they confuse the measure with the construct. The current content of sections 4, 5 and 7 belong in the article on intelligence. This article could more profitably focus on the history, uses and critique of this particular measure of intelligence. Londonmatty20 20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Both the opening article and the first section of the article defines 'IQ.' So I simply don't agree with you on the 'confusion' - nor do I see the 'controversy' part without the motivator of politics -- but, frankly, my opinion is one. So, in those places where you feel a 'contributor' him or herself specifically uses 'intelligence'/ 'IQ' where 'IQ' / 'intelligence' would be a better term - I would think you should feel free to make those specific changes -- in terms. (Recalling all the while when a 'contributor' is using his own language or the language of a cited study) Doing this might clear the confusion you feel is there and that's what wikipedia is about. However, as far as I can tell, the studies which are cited in the sections you feel are 'confusing' use the term 'IQ' and sometimes 'intelligence' in their language - this is the language of the researchers and most are linked to the original publications. In these instances, I doubt it would be a good idea to change the terms used by the researchers who did the studies even if you feel they should not have used 'IQ' / 'intelligence' so freely. The article is about 'IQ' and the studies cited are expressly about 'IQ'. If a researcher sometimes uses 'IQ' with 'intelligence' than that's probably what they mean. On the other hand, if you not agree with the choice of language in the studies why not make an addition indicating such in one of the sections of the article? The sections near the end seem to discuss some of this.

Bob207.69.139.7 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an article on intelligence in addition to this article. --W. D. Hamilton 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: breastfeeding and higher IQ

It was noted in the body of the article that a reputable source was needed to support the claim that sustained breastfeeding results in a higher IQ for the infant. Science Daily contains a summary of a well-known and oft-cited 1999 University of Kentucky study which shows these results, specifically that breastfed children have higher IQs and that sustained breastfeeding continues to provide cognitive benefits. See the article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/09/990928075022.htm Another study (1993)shows greater cognitive development in infants who were breastfed - this article was included in the collection Undernutrition and Behavioral Development in Children, which was a publication of the International Dietary Energy Consultative Group: http://www.unu.edu/Unupress/food2/UID04E/uid04e0j.htm 66.82.9.11 22:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Pamela Jennings

There is a 2006 study done with British children and their mothers (described and cited in this article) that takes mothers IQ into consideration -- something that, according to that study at least, was not done by previous studies. Once mothers IQ was considered, brestfeeding did not appear to be a factor in childrens IQ. I'll go get the link to that study (from this article) and post it here --

The longstanding belief that breast feeding correlates with an increase in the IQ of offspring has been challenged in a 2006 paper published in the British Medical Journal. The study used data from 5,475 children, the offspring of 3,161 mothers, in a longitudinal survey. The results indicated that mother's IQ, not breast feeding, explained the differences in the IQ scores of offspring...

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38978.699583.55v1

~~Bob~~

[edit] Someone continues to spam this article with links to his/her "IQ test"

Just a note to be on the look out. He has bragged before that he'll just continue to post the spam since it's worth it to him due to the increase in hits at his site. Normally he posts his spam links at the end of the article and sometimes he posts more than one link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.12 (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] IQ = Trivial

IQ tests (as with all tests) are inaccurate i.e. somedays you will score higher/lower. Plus if you have disabilities that doesn't mean you're dumb.

• This is an encyclopedia. Link to sources, state what you want to change or add to the article but don't bother with pointless rants. --Svetovid 16:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

One link mentioned that depressed and schizophrenic people had a lower score. How do you test a large group of schizophrenics to know what their IQs are - depressed would be as hard to test. Mental hospitals and prisons in the past had many extremely high IQ patients - but testing the extreme cases of illness would have been problematic ( their score could be 0 most days ). The severly depressed wouldn't care what the score was - as I suppose would they very poor, etc ( is a good score really going to improve your life anyway?). Much of this - politics and social science stuff belongs in pseudoscience. There are articles on Jewish intelligence in wiki - any articles on Asian intelligence. We might as well learn about the highest , not the second place group.

• Making these points in that way is independent/original argument, which is not allowed under the Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to contribute this line of argument, you should do it in the "Criticism" section of the article, and cite "reliable source[s]". There are many respectable sources who argue that IQ testing is a pseudoscience the function of which is to reify inequality. If you are looking for sources, I suggest "The IQ Mythology: Class, Race, Gender." by Elaine and Harry Mensch. You might also cite Walter Lippmann's 1922 debate with Lewis M Terman, the S-B test's creator (in "The IQ Controversy: Critical Readings (NY: Pantheon, 1976)). The race connection is fairly thoroughly explored by contributors to "Race and IQ" (NY: Oxford UP, 1975), edited by Ashley Montagu. Hope that helps Isaacabulafia 06:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Percent Correlation of IQ Tests" table

The "Percent Correlation of IQ Tests" seems odd to me. What does 87% correlation of tests which the same person takes twice mean? Seems odd. I belive that this is supposed to be the correlation factor, r, which is in this case indicated with 0.87, not 87%. I've never seen r used like percents - r is just an number, indicating strength between groups of numbers.

Could someone clarify?

---G. 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw that table in a book called Genome: An Autobiographyby Matt Ridley. Don't own it -- saw it while checking out some bookstore science books.

I also made a quick internet search and found this -- a link to a NewsHour interview with Ridley / Ray Suarez about Ridley's book. (I also noticed the table in teaching materials on the Net) Didn't look beyond the interview, but the linked PBS site might provide something - since it is about the book and provides other links.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june00/genome_2-29.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.9 (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

most of the data you could want should be in this paper: Bouchard, T. J. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities. Human Biology, 70, 257–279.

if it's not, the textbooks by Plomin are a good source. --W.R.N. 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make a proper citation in the article.Ultramarine 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

Is it just me, or is the article missing a lot of citations and references? The first few sections have lots of claims, but few sources. The rest of the article has a lot of sources, but the first part definitely needs to be cited or removed because it's not really well written anyway and is pov sometimes. I dunno anything about this stuff but it needs to be fixed.Dan Guan 20:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's IQ, NOT I.Q.

There are no periods. PLEASE don't use them. Bulldog123 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why?--LocrialTheSequel 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be because I.Q. makes too much sense. See the recent change of S.A.T. from an abbreviation of Scholastic Aptitude Test to just plain SAT which now officially stands for nothing. Aaron Bowen 13:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Regression" section pointless

An article which gives the basics about IQ should not talk about esoterica like regression to the mean.

I suggest that we delete that section. Bulldog123 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

explain your reasoning that statistical terms used to describe a statistic is esoterica.Tstrobaugh 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] post 1996 IQ correlations papers

the new stuff should be integrated. --W.R.N. 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] educational achievement

• Ian J. Deary, Steve Strand, Pauline Smith and Cres Fernandes, Intelligence and educational achievement, Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 13-21. [2]
  • The correlation between a latent intelligence trait (Spearman's gfrom CAT2E) and a latent trait of educational achievement (GCSE scores) was 0.81. General intelligence contributed to success on all 25 subjects. Variance accounted for ranged from 58.6% in Mathematics and 48% in English to 18.1% in Art and Design.
• Marley W. Watkins, Pui-Wa Lei and Gary L. Canivez, Psychometric intelligence and achievement: A cross-lagged panel analysis, Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 59-68. [3]
  • Within the limits imposed by the design and sample, it appears that psychometric IQ is a causal influence on future achievement measures whereas achievement measures do not substantially influence future IQ scores.
• Treena Eileen Rohde and Lee Anne Thompson, Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability, Intelligence, Volume 35, Issue 1, January-February 2007, Pages 83-92. [4]
  • When controlling for working memory, processing speed, and spatial ability, in a sample of 71 young adults (29 males), measures of general cognitive ability continued to add to the prediction of academic achievement, but none of the specific cognitive abilities accounted for additional variance in academic achievement after controlling for general cognitive ability. However, processing speed and spatial ability continued to account for a significant amount of additional variance when predicting scores for the mathematical portion of the SAT while holding general cognitive ability constant.

[edit] income

• Charles Murray "IQ and economic success." Public Interest, 128, 21–35. (1997)
• Charles Murray Income Inequality and IQ, AEI Press (1998) PDF copy
• Murnane, R., Willett, J. B., Braatz, M. J., and Duhaldeborde, Y. (2001). Do different dimensions of male high school students’ skills predict labour market success a decade later? Evidence from the NLSY. Education Economic Review, 20, 311–320.* Zax & Rees, 2002

[edit] social pathologies

• The Underclass Revisited, AEI Press (1999) PDF copy

I fail to see something interesting for a non-researcher. Possibly the GSCE, but this is probably similar to high correlations with SAT, which could of course be mentioned.Ultramarine 06:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IQ and income

I've removed this part of the article: "IQ correlates... very weakly or not at all with accumulated wealth, especially inherited." I've seen studies where the IQ-income correlation is as high as .4. In most studies I've seen (and in the NLSY cited in tThe Bell Curve), the correlation is in the mid .3s. In the social sciences, that's hardly negligible.

• "income" and "accumulated wealth" are very, very different.

[edit] restriction of range effects in heritability has been studied since 1996

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10519-007-9142-7

The Environments of Adopted and Non-adopted Youth: Evidence on Range Restriction From the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS).

Previous reviews of the literature have suggested that shared environmental effects may be underestimated in adoption studies because adopted individuals are exposed to a restricted range of family environments. A sample of 409 adoptive and 208 non-adoptive families from the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS) was used to identify the environmental dimensions on which adoptive families show greatest restriction and to determine the effect of this restriction on estimates of the adoptive sibling correlation. Relative to non-adoptive families, adoptive families experienced a 41% reduction of variance in parent disinhibitory psychopathology and an 18% reduction of variance in socioeconomic status (SES). There was limited evidence for range restriction in exposure to bad peer models, parent depression, or family climate. However, restriction in range in parent disinhibitory psychopathology and family SES had no effect on adoptive-sibling correlations for delinquency, drug use, and IQ. These data support the use of adoption studies to obtain direct estimates of the importance of shared environmental effects on psychological development.

--W.R.N. 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] excellent

the bulleted list under heritability is excellent. --W.R.N. 08:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic and social correlates of IQ in the USA table

This table makes no sense. The text below it talks about -1.0 to 1.0 correlations and yet the caption on the table alleges the numbers to be the "percentage of each IQ sub-population". The first row I follow: 5+20+50+20+5=100 and fits standard distribution. But now look at the second row: 72% of people married before 30 have IQ below 75! 81% between 75 and 90, 81% between 90 and 110!? These can't be percentages of the sub-population, the title of the table says they are correlates, but obviously not in the -1.0 to 1.0 range. Does anyone have the cited source book for this table? I think someone mis-transcribed the information and created the incorrect caption. --Danny Rathjens 08:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think its saying that 72% of people with IQ below 75 are married before 30, not vice versa. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If that were the case then wouldn't the proper numbers for the first row be all 100s? ah. Someone has modified the table to make that row separate and to look as if it is part of the header. That makes a lot more sense to me now; I just misinterpreted which axis defined the sub-populations. Although I still think it is a bit confusing to show a table of percentages called "correlates" next to a table of "correlation coefficients" with a range of 0.0 to 1.0 (apparently meant to elucidate the concept of correlation) followed by text talking about validity correlations ranging from -1.0 to 1.0. (and surprisingly I have a high IQ! ;) --Danny Rathjens 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

This article could use a question or two along with an explanation of why certain answers are right or wrong. Particularly the ones with pattern recognition, a lot of people don't understand why answers in a pattern set are correct or incorrect. Aaron Bowen 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, copyright would almost certainly be an issue with any test currently being administered. Equally unfortunate: If we could get our hands on some older tests whose copyright had expired, certain people would probably dismiss them as being "out of date" and therefore unrepresentative, while any never-copyrighted tests would likely be dismissed as unaccredited or some such thing. Still, if anybody wants to add a couple of IQ test questions and explanations that won't get us into trouble with the copyright people, I'd certainly support that move and take your side against the naysayers. Buck Mulligan 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High-IQ society thing

Somebody flagged a bunch of stuff in the new section on societies for people who think they're geniuses. While I didn't add the section, I did edit it extensively, and I don't think that pointing out the obvious (i.e., that people with common interests--in this case their smart-guy complex--use the Internet to form societies. Furthermore, it seems rather obvious to me, looking at the prose, that the claims of the society mentioned are dubious to say the least. As such, there's no need for a "notability" flag. It might all be nonsense, but it's entirely relevant to the topic of IQ in the modern age. Buck Mulligan 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have watched over many years the development of the high IQ societies. Unfortunately it is hard to disprove them and they are self regulating. They exist because those that qualify for them accept that they should exist. It his hard to critique them when one can not qualify. The science behind them is sound and generally understandable. High IQ societies is a social product of IQ testing. The very gifted have found a way to set tests for themselves and rank each other. An interesting concept that still has room to grow.

My personal favorite is the existence of groups who claim to be in the 99.9997%, and do so by administering their own, emailed, unsupervised "mega-test," which can be scored for a nifty fifty dollar bill. Some of these groups are really quite self-aggrandizing - of course, I was always of the opinion that Geniuses were supposed to be smart. You'd think folks in these societies could manage a means to find a way to pat their own backs without paying somebody else to do it for them. 82.83.71.153 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have simpathy for these rare groups, and I do call them rare for good reason, as the skill level is a treasure for the world.RoddyYoung 13:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levels

Help me out here, I thought that a 130 IQ was a gifted person, 150 was a genius and under 75 was a mental retard. Anyone know more fine lines?Therequiembellishere 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, a numerical IQ guide to guage mental capability has been proposed, but it has never been accepted due to the inherent fallibility and variability of the tests, and also the Flowers-for-Algernon-esque difficulty that the mentally retarded can often excel at IQ tests. I vaguely recall that Heinlein had some say in trying to form such a scale, and even inserted it into some of his science fiction works. Normally I'd scoff at the concept of a SciFi author altering our understanding of social dynamics, but we do live in the age of those kooky Scientologists. The best you can really do with the results currently is to say that a person over 150 rates as a likely genius and a person under 75 is a likely moron. e.g.: I was tested for my age-relative IQ when I was 10 and rated at 170, I was an NMSQT triple-nine scholar (99.9%), and my adult IQ by the Stanford-Binet standard is 149. What does this tell you about me? Not much, beyond the fact that I have visited a licensed psychologist for some kind of testing in the last five years - to be entirely honest, I'm a fairly dull individual when it comes to my wits, and I'm simply quite capable when it comes to the particular skill sets of problem solving and test-taking. I certainly am no "genius," but the numbers as proposed claim that I am. For now, at least, to sum up, we have no accurate numerical rating system for mental state or capability - the IQ test is only an indicator, and even it is not standardized. 82.83.71.153 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The point about genius when it presents itself is not found in IQ 75 with any great regularity. However the test takers who get the tests repeated correct in very short times or just correct in high ceiling tests have the confidence of humanity who inspite of how hard they try humanities individuals around the average just cannot get the right answer. What seems simple for a genius is unfathomable for the average person in the street. So if a person with IQ 170 or IQ 149 has a passion that they are good at and requires a few brains they can advance human knowledge. In fact your comments in wikipedia, a place where the gifted thoughts over time are collected, may just be another sign of superior honesty and trustworthiness lead others to comment positively and thus starting a movement that does good for the world. Just a thought.RoddyYoung 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)