Talk:IQ and Global Inequality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mistake on the page 2 Clarify Graph 3 qhc variable correlation matrix 4 Fair use rationale for Image:Iqandglobalinequality.jpg 5 Lead section 6 Neutrality tag 7 Original research or unverified claims tag 8 Copyright vio? 9 Synthesis tag

[edit] Mistake on the page

In 2002 Spains reported IQ in the book 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' is 97 not 99.I would change it but I forgot how.I also lost my Wikipedia password and to lazy to make a new one.

I'm not sure whether this is a mistake within the book or on Wikipedia but irelands PPP-GNI per capita is listed at 8,500. Considering it is currently estimated at 43,600, I find it hard to imagine it was this low in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.1.20 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify Graph

I don't think there is any rationale way of estimating that a countries entire average population has an IQ of greater then 105? What is the basis for the whole graph?

[edit] qhc variable correlation matrix

Correlation (r)	PPP-GNI per capita 2002	Adult literacy 2002	Tertiary enrollment 1998-2002	Life expectancy 2002	ID 2002	QHC	National IQ
PPP-GNI per capita 2002	1.000	0.511	0.680	0.616	0.574	0.801	0.601
Adult literacy 2002		1.000	0.627	0.700	0.511	0.793	0.655
Tertiary enrollment 1998-2002			1.000	0.663	0.657	0.876	0.745
Life expectancy 2002				1.000	0.536	0.851	0.754
ID 2002					1.000	0.793	0.529
QHC						1.000	0.796
National IQ							1.000

Looking at the IQ-distribution world map, doesn't it seem that there is a climatic correlation with IQ? There is an almost exclusively blue (various hues) band right across the northern temperate zones (Eurasia and N.America) and another presence of blue at the extremes of the southern hemisphere (Argentina, Australia, NZ). The tropical and equatorial regions, on the other hand, seem more severely deprived in terms of the human intelligence of their inhabitants.

Or is it perhaps that geo-climatic features affect other issues (such as wealth and economic development, nutrition, education, intellectually challenging opportunities, etc.), which in turn have a bearing on IQ?

Or is it a racial question (races of people do tend to be clustered in different locations of the planet, in spite of the phenomenom of immigration).

Or, indeed, are the standard measuring instruments of IQ levels based on Western ideas of what costitutes intelligence, thus not applying fully to certain other "intel-cultural" scenarios?

The IQ of people from different races does not change by many points when they move from primitive to civlilized, educated and comfortable lives (Wealthy blacks in america for example). This proves that this is a racial question. That it would be bent towards western ideas of intelligence is quite silly to even propose as east asians have among the highest scores (Ashkernazi jews have the highest at about 116).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iqandglobalinequality.jpg

Image:Iqandglobalinequality.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

Criticism of the book in the lead section should be something substantial, not the kind of guilt by association nonsense that the Searchlight Magazine quote ("'classic' Aryan and eugenic tracts including a homily to the antisemitic philosopher Count de Gobineau as a pioneer of genetics") represents. Moreover, Gobineau cannot be characterized as an anti-Semite, so the the quote is factually incorrect and should not be included in a Wikipedia article in any case.

If the information about the publisher is so central to understanding the book that it should be mentioned in the lead section, it should be done in a proper and encyclopedic style, not in the frenzied, propagandistic (and factually incorrect) manner that the Searchlight quote represents. The SPLC quote I used is better in this respect.

The fact that academics from several fields have taken interest in Lynn and Vanhanen's theory should also be mentioned; IQ and the Wealth of Nations was published by an academic publisher, and the new book is just an extended version of the same thesis. Otherwise the information about the publisher's history will make it look like the book was some kind of neo-Nazi tract, whereas in reality it is a meticulously researched scientific work by two eminent scholars.

The fact that Lynn has received grants from the Pioneer fund has nothing to do with the book, so I will remove this information from the lead section.

I'll restore my earlier version of the lead section. --Victor Chmara 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It could also be included that the book is inconsistant. Southeast Asia was by far the most underdeveloped part of Asia (another notable example would be Korea) until the 1960s. Iranian Americans and Indian Americans blow White Americans out of the water in standardized testing (SATs, ACTs) as well as per capita income. Iranian Americans have the highest per capita income of any community within the United States of America. The book would also fail to explain why Germanic/Nordic peoples and the Mongols were amongst the least developed people on the Eurasian continent for over 2 millenia. While the Sumerians were writing epics and the Egyptians were building pyramids, the Western/Northern Europeans were living in caves like animals until the 1st century AD (and even then, they still were barely better than hunter-gatherers). The "dumb" Arabs were responsible for civilizing the Spaniards. Other noticable inconsistancies: Why are Turks so much smarter than Central Asian Turks? The Turks did not migrate tens of thousands of years ago; the Turks migrated to West Asia after the rise of Islam! According to the map, Turks living in Azerbaijian are dumber than Turks living in Turkey, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Moreover, Iranians and Afghans (Persians) are dumber than Tajiks in Tajikistan (Persians still). What type of ludicrous inconsistancies are these? Lynn and Vanhanen are not "eminent scholars." They aren't even biologists or geneticists! LOL. Lynn is a psychologist and Vanhenen has a degree in political science. So please don't talk about how these are "eminent scholars." I'm not a specialist and even I can observe the blatant inconsistancies and the blatant cherry-picking of data to validate their (weak) thesis. The only "subhumans" are the two racists that wrote this garbage book and the morons that believe it. At least this is better than their last world map that showed that the European side of Turkey has a higher IQ than the Asian side (LOL). I believe geneticists for the most part remain consistant that the humans have far more similarities with one another than differences, and the likelihood that "global equality" could be a result of European genes is utter nonsense. Perhaps Psuedoscientists/Psychologists might be interested with this garbage. Then again, 20 years ago the Psychologists were still saying homosexuality is a mental disorder. Psychology has always been useless. The authors attempt to use evolutionary necessity to justify their thesis, but they fail to acknowledge even the basic principles of evolution. Evolution does not usually occur in large organismal samples; the genetic pool would dilute almost all mutations in such situations (hence why a noticeable change in intelligence between Turks from Turkey and Turks from Azerbaijain and Turks from Central Asia would be dubious). Usually the population must be approaching close to extinction for an organism to experience evolution (and in most cases, the organism does go extinct). How could literally millions of Turks experience some sort of radical evolutionary development in their intelligence simultaneously? Moreover, if such a thesis were true, it would not explain why Americans have high IQs, because they endured rather harsh conditions upon immigrating here and were primarily servants; aristocrats did not immigrate to early America. If there were a genetic link to intelligence that is overwhelmingly noticeable, then why is Australia so developed? The Australians are descended from criminals! This book is based on cherry-picking and racemongering, not the facts. The authors should have their own intelligence inspected. -68.43.58.42 (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

Quote from Southern Poverty Law Center is POV pushing. --Jagz (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV: "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A controversial subject does not make an article non-neutral. I see almost nothing in the article that could be construed as violating NPOV. Every single sentence in the lead and summary sections are facts. The rest of the article consists of numbers directly from the book; or sentences that are clearly just reporting what the book says, which is entirely different than arguing that those sentences are true. The article clearly states that the book is controversial so the reader is already informed that some disagree with its conclusions. I support removal of the neutrality warning. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research or unverified claims tag

I didn't put the original research/unverified claims tag on the page but since the discussion doesn't seem to have started yet, I will chime in first. We can eliminate the "original research" aspect of the discussion as this is about a book which has been published; therefore, it is not original research in the Wikipedia policy sense. The unverified claims aspect is more difficult. First because the wording of the policy itself mixes verifiability of facts against sources and the reliability of the sources sources themselves. I want to quote this sentence from the WP:VER policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." All the sentences and numbers in this article presumably could be checked against the book itself; so in that sense it does not violate verifiability. It is that sense which I think the policy is mostly intended. The only thing left is to question the publisher. Since, according to the article, Washington Summit Publishers is criticized by some anti-racist groups, I'm sure those groups would claim Washington Summit is a unreliable, questionable source. So the question is if Washington Summit is a reliable source. If you read the reliable source subsection of the policy you'll note that the source is not "most reliable" as it is not peer-reviewed but it is a continuation of peer-reviewed research. At the same time "the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." I have noticed that any book that claims a correlation between race and IQ draws controversy regardless of the quality of the research so I am not surprised that some group somewhere discounts the book's conclusions. Because the numbers and sentences can be verified against the book itself and because the source's reputation is not called strongly enough into question, I weakly support removal of the 'original research or unverified claims' tag. (NOTE: I had trouble for some reason with the "+" link working with this talk page.) Jason Quinn (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The OR tag was originally put on because the article called the book controversial and did not provide a citation to support that claim. Also, I would imagine that a book of this type would have some difficulties finding an academic publisher. --Jagz (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lynn previous book on the same subject found a publisher. Other explanations for not getting an academic publisher include poor research and wanting to get a bigger money share.Ultramarine (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright vio?

If the table in this section IQ and Global Inequality#National IQ and QHC values is pulled from the book, I think that it would be considered beyond the "limited amount for commentary" (or whatever the wording is) that is allowed under fairuse of copyright material. (and if all that is different is adding pictures of flags, that is not significant analysis of the data). Does anyone have a deeper insight into this potential issue? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tables of data are not copyrightable (at least in the US). For example, the phones listings in a phone book cannot be copyrighted, and thus there are multiple competitors. Likewise, there are many similar lists of data in wikipedia. --Legalleft (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis tag

There is no evidence that the publisher was criticized because of this book as the article implies. --Jagz (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In scientific literature all potential forms of bias should be listed. Having a publisher accused of racism certainly counts as a possible bias.Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Try listing it in a way that does not imply that the criticism was because of this book. --Jagz (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not implying that the publisher is criticized due to the book. We list one potential bias for the book.Ultramarine (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It can be interpreted that way though the way it is written. --Jagz (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Put the sentence you broke back together and that possible ambiguity vanishes.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it sounds like the criticism is because the book was not published by an academic publisher. --Jagz (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get that at all. Which part of the sentence structure makes you imply this causation?--Ramdrake (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people are going to interpret the sentence as meaning that the criticism being directed towards this: "the book was not published by an academic publisher but by Washington Summit Publishers". Most people are not going to interpret the sentence as meaning that the publisher is being criticized, just the fact that it was not published by an academic publisher. --Jagz (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I re-read the sentence once more, and it's obvious to me that it says that the book's publisher had been criticized. We could always have an RfC on this particular phrasing, see who else might misintepret it, if anyone does.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)