Talk:Intelligence quotient

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Archive 2
Archive 3


Contents

[edit] It appears that Audriusa has made substantial changes to the article without prior discussion

On June 30, 2007, Audriusa unilaterially anmd without discussion made a large number of changes to the article. This was done despite the notation at the top of this page that the subject matter is "controversial" and that all substantial changes should be suggested on the talk board first. IMO quite a few of Audriusa's deletions and substitutions provide information that misleads. Dan

The Wikipedia spirit encourages to be bold and just not to forget the references. Maybe one should be more careful if the article is highly mature, but this one surely is not. When I first looked at it, it was just praising IQ as something fundamental and doubtless. All literature references were tuned to support that intelligence is depictable as a single number, capable of rank ordering people in a linear order, is primarily genetically based and essentially immutable. This is then it only takes minutes to find the opposing works in NCBI. From the other side, in an oversized article from the English Wikipedia, nobody found reason to note that IQ tests in employment are normally banned by American law - leave alone to explain who and why did not like this. It seems that a good piece of the IQ history is missing there. The distribution curve was forged with drawing tools and put in the way as it is some kind of a scientific result. In a first chapter, as something frequent and abundant, it was written that a special schools for the people with high IQ exists somewhere (when as placed {{fact}}, my mark was just silently removed). IMHO this article really needs radical alterations to make it Wikipedia compliant Audriusa 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I support Audriusa on this one, he has, single handedly improved the quality of this article, although there are many pieces of the pussle still missing. I will see what can be done to improve this farther, and share it with you on this talk page. AuaWise -Talk- 11:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Galton

Author Stephen Murdoch attributes the genesis of the test to Francis Galton who is not mentioned in this article. Is this an oversight or intentional? -- Beland 01:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] No Tag for Article. Not enough of a critical analysis of Mental Chronometry

The discussion states the article is :

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

But this does not seem to appear on the main article page. If the discussion states this - surely the main article should?

Also, there is a wikipedia article on Mental Chronometry - though there is no mention of some of the strengths and weakness of Mental Chronometry and how this correlates with IQ (or whether this is useful in life/academia, etc....). A link to Mental Chronometry should be included.

KlamkinQuickie 12:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Does anyone else find this table to be incredibly confusing? I thought it was percentages at first and after studying it for almost an hour, I still can't figure out what the numbers of the table are measuring. It's percentages, but then shouldn't each row sum up to 100%? I already understand the population distribution row. It's just the other rows I'm unclear with. I hate sounding stupid, maybe something just isn't clicking in my head, but I just can't understand what the numbers in the rows of this table mean.

Plug in the variables in the following sentence: "Among people whose IQs fall in the range X, the percentage with attribute Y is Z," where X is the IQ range at the top of the chart ("<75" or "90-110" etc.), Y is the descriptor ("divorced in 5 years") and Z is the number value in the cell in question. So for the first cell, you have: "Among people with IQs less than 75, the percentage who are married by the age of 30 is 72%." The chart is rather confusing, because the first row parses completely differently from the rest. The first row tells you how large the groups are in relation to each other, and the rest of them describe the percentage within each group with the attribute described on the left. Hope this helps. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly what was confusing me, I could read the first row but the rest didn't follow the same logic. Thank you, this helps a lot.

So exactly what is the difference in the meaning of "predict" in the social sciences and the other sciences? If there is a problem with a lay undersanding of statistical prediction (i.e., that is is not caual) than the word "predict" should not be used in the arcticle. (It probably shouldn't be used by statisticians along with sayig that one variable "explains" the variance in another).) As written, the layman is likely to think there is some difference in the sciences instead of semantic problems. I suggest the section be written without using the word "precdict". Ill do it if Wikipedia is still open to editing by readers. -- RJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The average IQ

It is supposed to be 100? So how come everybody I've met who's willing to share their "alleged" IQ scores claims to have one of 170+.

'Cause they're lying? A score of 170 you'd meet in about 1 out of 100,000-1,000,000 people. Statistically, you're not very likely to know one personnally, or professionnally, for that matter.--Ramdrake 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


i cant remember which is which but one IQ test is scored such as that the average is always 100. the other test is marked on marking guidelines and the population averages around 110.

usually relatively intelligent people who understand the world are above 130 and below 150 or so. much above that and they will end up as your boss, rich and successful. 100 is the average of the whole population so if you met someone on the street that you considered a fool, theres no guarantee that they have an IQ below 120.

theres also the issue that between IQ 130 and 160 or so people can be susceptible to depression just by becoming objective about the world. if you understand the problems in the world, even without having serious issues of your own, its easy to consider killing yourself. this may "weed out" the population of reasonable people in their adolescence. Rampaging 15:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of why everyone is 170+ is because mainly they are lying, simple! and there is the other issue of scales. different IQ tests will have the normal distribution around different scores ,sometimes 100, 110, or even 115 or 90. but to reach the point of 170+, i highly doubt that. lastly , it may be different from country to country, [see IQ and the wealth of nations and IQ and Global Inequality].AuaWise -Talk- 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"Different IQ tests will have the normal distribution around different scores ,sometimes 100, 110, or even 115 or 90." Can you offer some citations to this? From what I understand, all of the IQ tests have a mean score of 100. That is, the distribution of IQ scores is normal, centered around 100. The difference between the tests lies in magnitude of the standard deviation: [1]. And I must say a few things about some of the insidious comments above. "Usually relatively intelligent people who understand the world are above 130 and below 150 or so." This is utter nonsense. Literally, it makes no sense. You seem to have thoughtlessly strung together words like "usually" and "relatively" and "intelligent" in an attempt to relate IQ to an 'understanding of the world.' This is not what IQ is. Let's consider the next sentence: "much above that and they will end up your boss, rich and successful." Again, these words are dribble. If anything, exceptionally gifted people are likely less inclined to value money or societal "success." The next sentence, well, I don't even understand what you mean. Finally, this whole matter of highly intelligent people becoming "objective" about the world is ridiculous. For your own good, and society at large, please become more informed about a subject before making such claims.--68.43.216.50 (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Wealth and IQ above 150 do not strongly correlate. Comparing people IQ of 150 with lower IQ populations, does however more strongly correlate to wealth.

'Objective' understanding of reality may not actually correlate to depression. Rather very smart people can perhaps (at a higher rate) fall into the trap of 'living in their heads' at the expense of learning to deal well with their emotions, thus causing depression. This would not be all smart people, but would be a higher rate of smart people than people of average intelligence.

Sean7phil (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Average IQ" is supposed to be 100. That is what the notion of IQ was based about. That the AVERAGE person scored 100 on "some test". And that that test be based on that "average" person. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. The most important reason that it does not work that way is that you cannot test all 6,000,000,000 or so people living right now. So statisticians came up with ways to make tests seem "statistically significant". My personal opinion is that people basing their "conclusions" on Statistics, when they sample only a very small amount of the population, and above that, sample only a very small amount of a SPECIFIC population (i.e. "students between 19 and 21 who live in the state of "<fill in the blank"> and who are mostly male/female. That's ridiculous. And, from a point of people posting and submitting papers, I could even SUCCESSFULLY argue that ONLY U.S. scientists came to those conclusions. Why? Because the U.S. has been posting papers for the past 50 years and posting things on the internet (which they had the most access to) the past 50 years. Unfortunately, most people now believe that everything that a U.S. politician or scientists or even "poster" on an English speaking forum says, is now the ultimate truth.

The "people in power" just change things to whatever they want them to be. The U.S. people keep saying that the Soviet Union changed history and so on. But the US people are much more guilty of this. And, MAYBE, not the AVERAGE U.S. citizen, but, I will even challenge that. I wonder how many U.S. citizens even think President Bush would score over 100? But there is no way I want I person who scored just "average 100" to be my president.

Now think about those statements for a while before you reply... 67.8.55.66 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verbal Versus Mathematical IQ

IQ is a combined math/verbal score and can mask even greater precociousness in either math or verbal capabilities-- (For example, due to averaging, someone with a combined math/verbal score of 150 might actually have a math IQ well below 150 while at the same time having a verbal IQ well above 150).

Therefore sub-scores indicating independent 'math IQ' and 'verbal IQ' should also be provided in any testing results, but rarely are.

Sean7phil (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visual IQ

Another point for consideration is perhaps that one could have lower mathematical and verbal IQs and yet be a visual artist (perhaps a painter) with much higher, and yet very hard to measure, capability in that area.

Sean7phil (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Negative IQ

Maybe this needs its own stub. Does any definition of IQ prohibit or eliminate the existence of negative IQ? Making the calculation once, I saw that a population increase of only a "small" number of orders of 10 should gaurantee the existence of the person with negative IQ (and the person with 200+ IQ.) This is based on strictly defining IQ as a normal distributibution.

So, is there any source or reference at all that has any mention what so ever about the concept of negative IQ?

Another view is that the reality of IQ is dependent on the body of tests who's results actually define (rather than measure) IQ. 75.4.245.11 07:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, AFAIK, the boundaries of the curve are defined such that a negative or zero IQ is impossible, and so I believe, is an IQ over 200. Please remember that the IQ curve, although it looks like a normal distribution curve, actually differs significantly from this kind of curve, at each end.--Ramdrake 09:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
We would be fine to accept your AFAYK as a source, but besides that, where can I see a definition of IQ made to "look like a normal distribution" but is defined differently? Also, the significant difference between a normal distribution and IQ curve does not seem to be pointed out in the article. Anyway. I'm still after a source that makes any statement about negative IQ.
I don't exactly see any problem with an actual normal distribution of IQ. Accuracy in extreme ranges would be difficult or impossible to achieve/measure, but this in itself doesn't seem to have any direct effect on the guarantee that a large enough population must have members < 0 and > 200. Certainly any actual IQ test ever developed would not consider those populations, along with the difficulty (near impossibility) of actually being able to accurately determine IQ in those ranges.
The article mentions that IQ may not be sufficiently scientic or robust. So, is it true that IQ has ever been defined with the constraints mentioned, or is that just an imagination? 75.4.245.11 19:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To those more qualified on this subject

Hello!

While I'm not a close contributor to this topic, I can't help but notice a counter claim to diminishing marginal value that mis-characterize the parent argument, have biased or erroneous citations or simply do not make much sense.

Firstly, I am changing

Some researchers have echoed the popular claim that "in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much."[51][52]

by dropping "have echoed the popular." It feels biased, like some pseudo-scientists are championing the commons and, in any case, is not strictly needed.

Next,

However, some studies suggest IQ continues to confer significant benefits even at very high levels.[53]

I feel "significant" is a subjective quality. However, my main objection is that the central argument for a diminishing effect does not make claims about the additional value of any one point in IQ, but rather only suggests that the benefit of any added IQ point is necessarily less than the preceding points before it. In which case, this counter-claim of "significant benefits" and the claim of diminishing marginal value do not necessarily contradict one another. As such, I am eliminating this statement.

Continuing,

Ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance [54].

This, intuitively, seems like an absurd claim because of the inherent difficulty of measuring, precisely, the magnitude of a performance increase. Thats like saying "A 10 point increase of IQ, at any level, results in exactly 14 doctor performance points." It would be interesting to see exactly how "performance" is measured in order to establish its linear relationship with IQ.

Alas, even with an article database, I am unable to get more than the abstract of this document. So, I will leave it alone for someone more experienced in the subject to make a judgment one way or the other.

In an analysis of hundreds of siblings, it was found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background

This final statement belongs to Charles Murray, and considering his bias in preference of the IQ (read his wiki-entry), it seems we should not link this as an impartial study any more than a study orchestrated by Cuba on Americans. It was sponsored by, after all, the AEI. As such, I will add in that this study was conducted by Charles, but leave the rest unchanged.

Overall, the new passage reads:

Some researchers claim that "in economic terms it appears that the IQ score measures something with decreasing marginal value. It is important to have enough of it, but having lots and lots does not buy you that much."[51][52] Other studies show that ability and performance for jobs are linearly related, such that at all IQ levels, an increase in IQ translates into a concomitant increase in performance [53]. Charles Murray, coauthor of The Bell Curve, found that IQ has a substantial effect on income independently of family background [54].

I feel this is pretty fair.

If you wish to research sensitive issues honestly, you may need to take what ever resources are given to you, whoever the giver:

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2003suppressingintelligence.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.252.200 (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The non - correlating part of the population

Someone has added a section with this name. It is not good. --Xyzzyplugh 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is defended by two references, both from peer-reviewed journals. Audriusa 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem was the writing, not the content. It appears to have been written by someone who is not entirely fluent in english.--Xyzzyplugh 00:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The section appears to be lacking context of some sort--as such, it makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.7.51 (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only does it make no sense, if you check the cites used as support, those cites don't provide the support that's suggested. This isn't the only part of this article that misleads or misstates, there seems to be plenty of work to do here when those inclined find the time. DukeWins!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.26 (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybee I just have a low IQ, but ...

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be mean to anyone, just add some critic that can hopefully make this article a better.

This articles legibility is awful, it's typography is very confusing. There are to many headlines with just a small amount of text which basicly makes it hard to discern any information from the article. Just my 2 cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyml (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rising IQ?

About two years ago I saw an article on a newspaper: Rise your IQ. It told that by eating a lot of beans, peas or such, having an evening walk before going to sleep and listening 15 minutes to classical music per day could rise your IQ by 15 year. Of course there is a limit, depending on the person, and one of lower IQ could rise more than one of high... There were other things to do, maybe 10-15. I only remember those three. If anyone has ever seen anything like that could you please tell the methods here? I'm doing a bit of research about maximizing your "capability". Also it would be a very interesting method of threating problem-students. If they are willing, of course.

Thank you. --Zhenit'ba 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (Created an account)

I can't answer your question but if you're "eating a lot of beans" the advice of an "evening walk" is sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hee tee tee tee tee! --68.206.144.17 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"Eating Beans" ???? So logically thats means, the more you fart the smarter you are?
Sorry for the 'pre-school' humour but Stephen Hawking must stink....
It's a good question! Can someone give a serious answer? Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 18:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Not all questions should be answered seriously. Cema (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is "Immediate Intelligence" ?

Someone added an unsourced statement in the first paragraph of the article that "Many think" IQ discloses "immediate intelligence." First, who are the "many" and what is "immediate intelligence?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.23 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I see it's been added back by the same person. Please. I have no problem with the statement's inclusion as long as it's sourced and the concept "immediate intelligence" is explained. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.22 (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health and IQ

I noticed in the 'Health and IQ' section, it states, "Persons with a higher IQ have generally lower adult morbidity and mortality. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, severe depression, and schizophrenia are less prevalent in higher IQ bands." Curious, I looked at citations 48 and 49 for 'severe depression', and personally, I don't think they demonstrate that persons with higer IQ have lower prevalence of depression at all.

Maybe someone can take a look at these citations, but the only thing I think they demonstrate is that severely depressed persons score lower on IQ tests... and when their depression is alleviated, they score higher. In other words, depression can temporarily lower your IQ. Neither article makes any assertion that higher-IQ persons are somehow more resistant to depression! (I'm sure as hell not!)

[48] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1572949&dopt=Citation

[49] http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2006.01564.x


(Note, however, that the PTSD citation appears valid - that post specifically states that higher-IQ persons are less likely to develop symptoms of PTSD in response to trauma, or that their symptoms are milder.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.52.225 (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

––I, too, raised an eyebrow when I read this sentence. The studies cited do not support this claim, and I am going to flag this sentence. While it is documented that mental disorders, such as (clinical) Depression create a "deficit" in cognitive functioning (see above sources), this is not relevant to population differences between higher-IQ individuals and lower-IQ individuals. Can someone offer any support to the original claim? If not, it should be removed, or at least flagged. 68.43.216.50 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have you noticed?

Have you noticed everyone and their mother has an IQ of 165? 63.227.5.54 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

it's a very good test —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.137.55 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] OPINION

The race related section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidblue8388 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gaussian distribution

I think that the "Gaussian distribution" picture and explanation are misleading and leave a lot to be desired from a theoretical standpoint. I think a true histogram from a respectable study would do a much better service. Unfortunately I cannot offer one. 83.67.217.254 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Jay Gould quote

This quote:

"…the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness, invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups—races, classes, or sexes—are innately inferior and deserve their status. (pp. 24–25)"

is an incomplete sentence. It makes no sense just to have it preceded by "He wrote:".

As far as it is possible to tell from that bit he might have written something like: "It is to the credit of the brave pioneers of IQ testing that they were willing to argue the case for the abstraction of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain...etc" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.75.237 (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for cites within a quoted passage?

There was a quote within this article that was itself cited back to the source --- however, someone added requests for cites to sources within the quote itself. I deleted those since it didn't make sense. The quoted materal, as a quote, stands alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.34 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image for use in "Group differences" section

Racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. show differences in average IQ test scores, but the distributions of scores overlap greatly. (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987)
Racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. show differences in average IQ test scores, but the distributions of scores overlap greatly. (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987)

Here is an image that can be used in the "Group differences" section. --Jagz (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here, for a number of reasons: its origins are very controversial (basically taken from The Bell Curve), the current section on group differences (or the one on race and intelligence) are very short and do not warrant a large graph added, and the subject is already covered at length in the Race and Intelligence article.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
When did "controversial" become the test of acceptability? It isn't as far as I know. <<DAN>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.41 (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The image was not taken from The Bell Curve, the graph can be large or small depending on how you edit it, and you deleted the graph from the "Race and intelligence" article. --Jagz (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say the graph was the exact same as that in The Bell Curve; I just said it was "basically the same". Also, I said the subject was covered in Race and Intelligence, not that the graph was in the article (although there is in that article a very similar graph, which is why this one was removed, for reasons of avoiding redundancy). My point is that such a small section doesn't warrant a graph at all, as per WP:UNDUE; it is just given undue prominence to a subject which is rather minor and peripheral to the subject.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not very similar, it is only somewhat similar. Minor and peripheral??? Can I borrow your crack pipe please? --Jagz (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Please, WP:NPA. This was one.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Highest IQ

Is the IQ on a finite scale? What is the highest score one can have? Llamabr (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop and think for a second and you'll realize that the anser is 'No.' IQ tests have to be standardized. How could questions be standardized on an infinite scale? Honestly, this is like the negative IQ question above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.21 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I admit that I did stop and think -- yet I don't see why a limitless scale would preclude standardization (assuming a typo in your answer (did you mean that I would realize the answer is 'Yes'?). Anyway, I don't see any evidence that there's an upper limit. I would appreciate any references you could provide, though. Llamabr (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll play along. Since you "don't see why a limitless scale would preclude standardization" - please explain how that's done. I'm actually looking forward to your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.15 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This sort of question would be more approprate for WikiAnswers or Yahoo Answers; this is for work on the article. ffm 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is your claim, then, that this information is irrelevant to the article? Llamabr (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.89.37 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idiot Distribution

It's well known that IQ, in the United States anyway, does NOT have a Gaussian distribution and actually has a Chi-squared distribution. By application of the central limit theorem its samples tend to the gaussian limit, however portraying the parameter as normal is grossly misleading. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism -> semi-protection

Seems to be a lot of IP vandalism in the past few days. I'm going to semi-protect for a few days. — ERcheck (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IQ a score you are born with?

"An Intelligence Quotient or IQ is a score which you are born with." I don't consider myself an expert on intelligence, but I think its pretty common sense that an individual's IQ is not something that stays continuous from birth. Its not like the doctor slaps a sicker on your butt at birth and says "Well it looks like this one's a 105, congratulations folks, your kid's above average!". On the other hand I guess the statement could be considered in the sense that you start out with some sort of IQ...I just don't think the statement is appropriate or very specific. Any comments? Rmkreeg (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have a comment. Where is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.11 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Its been deleted, I guess... Rmkreeg (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Environmental factors

Check this site for lots of environmental factors with evidence links: http://iqandenvironment.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.150.215 (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any info on Lorge-Thorndike

My old high school transcripts show a "Lorge Thorndike" test. Based on google, this appears to be another IQ test. Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article on this one, parallel to Stanford-Binet, etc. Could anyone write a brief article?