Talk:IQ and the Wealth of Nations

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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IQ and the Wealth of Nations article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] What is this?

Is this a marketing gimmick on Wikipedia? Please scrap this article from wikipedia. It is propagating wrong and baseless ideas. If this book is as good as it is claimed, the authors will be able to answer my puzzle instantaneously, here it is:

"I live on a farm, there are 10 trees, I have 6 goats and 10 cars. How many windows does my house have?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.228.194.126 (talk) 16:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

That...my dear Watson...depends on how many goats live in the house! Jaker5 (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

These authors have appointments at major universities...this book's print run is likely in the thousands, I doubt marketing is a big incentive here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.163.8 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you live on the farm, sell a couple of cars and buy a house!

[edit] Spains reported IQ in this book is 97 and not 99

Please check here www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm

[edit] IQ is not intellgence

When did the 'wikipedians' became fool enough to start an article like this? A stupid mere statistical data is not a law. Please start articles like 'IQ and Potato', 'IQ and Chewing Gum', 'IQ and Coca cola'...It 'll be more interesting!!

IQ does not measure intellgence. Intellegence is a vauge and unscientific term. "She's smart" is something children say. No test can measure intellgence. That's like saying, "I want a test that will measure bravery". Instead,

An IQ test measures how adapted a person is to the culture of whoever made the test

Most IQ tests are made by Westerners. Westerners are rich, and being well adapted to the Western enviroment means you will be rich as well (maybe). Therefore, a high IQ means you will be rich, possibly. Of course, there are many ways of becoming rich without having to adapt to Western ideals. The Japanese have shown this. They are rich. They are Eastern. Triumphantly so. In summary, to all you "race concious" bigots with physician friends from Papua New Guinea out there:

IQ does not measure intellegence!

I suggest you check out the average IQ scores of east asians then.
By the way, you're right, IQ is not intelligence but it correlates closely with it (g), depending on the individual IQ test. --Nnp 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is rather interesting that the Japanese manage to not only become rich without adopting Western ideals, but also to outperform Westerners on their supposedly biased IQ tests. One might wonder why there is systematic racial variation in the ability to beat the white man at his own game. Tomyumgoong 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The IQ test is valuable because it makes accurate predictions. The APA issued a statement saying that IQ differences exist, the test is not biased, and it makes reasonably accurate predictions. It remained "agnostic" on the issue of its origin, be it genetic or cultural. I think the APA's statement is covered in Wikipedia's article on the bell curve by Murray & Herrnstein.


@OP - Personally, I think this book is quite right on the mark. Wikipedia will start a "IQ with Potatoes" section when a well respected researcher had come to the conclusion that there IS in fact a connection between the two.

In the mean time, the general consensus is that IQ and intelligence does go hand in hand (and so does Wealth and IQ). Many research had been done on this topic. So this will be what we write about. And about East Asia (and Japanese). I don't really see what you are saying here. East Asians have a different culture than Westerners that is true, but if you read the article, both group have relatively high IQ (and high wealth). User Tomyumgoog says that Japan manage to become rich without adopting Western ideals, true; but they did increase their IQs. Which is what this book is about. So while culture is not a factor in getting rich, IQ still is; as imperial evidence shows.

Generally I found this book to be hard to argue against for the simple reason that it is quite truthful. Both imperially and logically. As controversial as it is; if you look at it objectively, it sum up the situation quite well. Yongke 16:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Posted by LJQ - IQ tests the individual's ability and skill to tackle those problems that were posed. It is designed to evaulate the individual's ability to solve problems, recognise patterns, visual manupilation ability, logic, mathematics, etc... Further, there are a lof of free IQ tests on the internet that should not be taken seriously IMO.

"What? Japanese manage to become rich without adopting Western ideals? Japan is still copying the West up till this day, see the cars, culture, music everything they copy" They just don't like to admit it and claim it's their supposed originality. Japan is very smart on developing and rebuilding on an old technology though. And I do think this IQ test is somewhat valid, yes there is a reason for IQ difference among nation. I don't believe one nation is smarter than another given the same circumstances. If this stats prove anything, it only shows what nation has a lot of work to catch their students up with those of other nations. And to the person below that wrote US IQ is much lower, don't underestimate U.S. so much, because they have some of the most brilliant people here as well. Lot of technologies were invented and developed in US btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mit923 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


It doesn't matter what IQ tests measure, it is still interesting that IQ correlates with national wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.163.8 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Paragraph

I modified the first paragraph a bit. You do not argue a correlation exists; it either does or does not. One argues the causation of the correlation. My change reflects this, that they demonstrate a correlation and arguably attribute it to differences in IQ. The word arguably, strictly speaking, is not needed, as it is the authors' opinion, and is almost by definition arguable and not universally agreed upon unless stated otherwise. But I didn't delete it. If others agree, they should delete it.

As a Psychology Phd student I think it is important to note that "intelligence" is just a concept that has been defined differently over time in many different cultures (see the works of Gardner on multiple intelligence for another definition of intelligence). By definition, an IQ or intelligence quotient test is a number, designed to represent (with a standard margin of error), "intelligence" usually conceptualised as verbal and numerical ability - in line with western methods of education. Hence the strong correlation with educational results. Most IQ test such as the Stanford-Binet and the Weschler are not "culture-free" and therefore extremely biased to western-style educational environments. As a consequence, they do not actually measure what is commonly understood to be intelligence at all in most non-western societies. It would be like, travelling to ancient Egypt, being given an exam in heirogliphics on Ancient Egyptian mathematical and linguitic items (with very little instruction) and then being told how "smart" you are as a result!

Yes, it's fair to think of "intelligence" defined by psychometricians as the ability to "succeed" in the modern world. This is an intentional "bias".--Nectar 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No. The measurement of intelligence is an attempt to measure g. It is in no way an attempt to quantify the things that make you succeed in the modern world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.235.10 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Those tests don't prove anything

That's nonsense! Those IQ-Tests are all cause they don't prove anything. Remove this topic. Those IQ tests are lost in the time. Look, today we can't say that someone is intelligent or not. We must ask in wich area this person is intelligent. Of course the people who live in poor countries would not get good results at those ridiculous tests. But I'm sure they can do lots of things that we can't. Things that weren't included on those "tests". Many people think that these things are not important and or irrelevant...

FWIW, I happen to think the conclusions of Lynn and Vartanen are nonsense. However, the book has attracted a good deal of attention, and it is thus appropriate to have an article on it, also noting the many and loud criticisms made of the book and the wider claims surrounding race and IQ. I happen to think, say, astrology is completely bogus. Should we delete that too? --Robert Merkel 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability, and it is a verifiable fact the the book exists and that says what it says. If you find published criticisms of the contents of the book, I invite you to add those criticisms (sourced and written in a NPOV manner).Randroide 09:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unacknowledged Rushton Citation

The phrase "concludes the average human IQ is presently 90, equivalent to the mental age of a white 14 year old. (Standardized IQ tests are normed to 100, the mental age of the average white 16-year-old.)" seems to be an unacknowledged citation of Rushton's review of Lynn's work [1]. It is also slighty odd, while intelligence tests for children IQ was originally (circa 1910) worked out with reference to mental age this certainly isn't standard practise today, and never was standard practise with adult samples. It also carries the implication, intended or not, that adults with an IQ of 90 in countries other than where the norm was established (the UK) are child like in their intelligence. Surely better to say: "concludes the average human IQ is presently 90 when compared to the norm of 100, or two thirds of a standard deviation below the norm." JonathanE 11:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mostly agree. "norm" is problematic; what's meant is "White average". --Rikurzhen 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the researchers used a norm from a population other than the ones they are making comparisons with, would UK norm suffice? JonathanE 19:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article vs. Book Comments

I think quite a few contributors here are confusing a discussion about a particular book with the discussion of an article about that book. Several comments have pointed out that the book itself is offensive, without suggesting any changes to the article.

Likewise, we should keep the "righteous indignation" response to a minimum and stick to facts, reason and proper citations.

Doug Hubbard

[edit] Steve Sailer

The VDARE links are exceptionally biased and not necessarily to be trusted. Sailer is not a reliable source. Steve_Sailer is surrounded by controversy and fails to publish anything peer-reviewed that doesn't end up in a partisan magazine. --129.97.84.62 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the "Special Case of India", I have shortened and combined it with the main section. I removed speculative phrases such as "there are more geniuses in India" and instead left the more important point of the great IQ variance across India's highly-diverse ethnicities. As for the reference VDARE, I agree that some parts of it are unfounded. Heilme 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleting material

don't delete material. the reasons given odd given the content of the book. the data tables and figures reflect those seen in the book, distinctions and comparisons made by the authors. --W. D. Hamilton 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Selective representations of data tables are clearly violating WP:NOR. Present what was presented, instead of trying to synthesize a new presentation with your own filtering. --JereKrischel 02:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Then you should know that the book specifically breaks down the 81 countries for which there is actual data and the 185 for which there is a mix of real data and estimations. The 81 calculated numbers are the main focus of most reviews/uses of the book, and so are the important values. --W. D. Hamilton 06:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Using only the 81 calculated values, instead of including all 185 with appropriate labeling, is avoiding something that is important. The entire table, with its calculated and estimated values, should be included, if the table is to be included at all. --JereKrischel 08:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Put down and write down which part you have seen that it was omitted and also give comment "specifically" so that our readers can compare and judge. Don't simply remove it just because there is some parts was omitted. Give us a concrete example. For example. if the table list all 185 countries, what is the basic difference between the entire table and the current table that we are reading on this topic. Is this difference important? if so, how? and why that difference makes deviation? if you have time, please go to give supplement instead and add everything that you think it is necessary to reflect the true face on that table (if you said: The entire table, with its calculated and estimated values, should be included, if the table is to be included at all). Now it is a good time for you to make contribution. 72.138.191.63 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe the table has been specifically truncated to overstate the accuracy of the numbers available world-wide. By including all of the data, it becomes more clear the state of accuracy is not terribly high. If you feel like recreating the entire table, with its original title and notes, please feel free. --JereKrischel 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
the reponsbility is falling on your part, not mine. Again, your reason is not suffice. Why don't you simply add the "missing" information on that table in order to look more comprehensive? You didn't explain it (i.e. which part of data missed to make the state of accuracy is not terribly high) but you simply remove it at your whimp and fancy. 72.138.191.63 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to add the missing information. It would be a very helpful use of your time. --JereKrischel 23:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You are the one should go there and add the information because "you are the one" who discovered the missing information. How can I know which part is missing? the missing part is what you claimed. Just like you went to a police station but you didn't tell them what happened. Rather you just told them try to guess and investigate something. Does it make sense? how can I know what something is? 72.138.191.63 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want to avoid responsibility for improving the article, please by all means, stop editing. If you'd like to fix the table, on the other hand, to include the omitted estimated IQs, please, feel free. If you're having difficulty understanding what I'm saying, please let me know and I'll try to communicate more clearly. --JereKrischel 05:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
excuse me, may I quote what you said? that is the exact thing that I wanted to tell you. You are the one who is avoiding the responsbility. If so, please stop editing and go somewhere else to do something in a more constructive way. I don't practise telepathy as you do. I couldn't guess what you thought. You didn't tell us all readers what kind of information specifically were actually missed, even right now. Missing information means many things. What are you talking about? you made no sense. You were just coming here to vandalise the page, that's it. That is what I saw. 72.138.191.63 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If what I said is what you wanted to say, then it seems that you should take your own advice. --JereKrischel 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
what you wanted to say seems to me is illogical and rambling. If you couldn't even figure out which part of information were missed on that table, please leave wiki right away. One thing is illogical that make us didn't understand AT ALL is why you didn't expand the table, but you simply removed it at your whimp and fancy? Refer to "History" and look at what you did. I even couldn't figure out what you were doing there. Excuse me? what were you doing there? 72.138.191.63 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
So you wanted to say something to me that you consider illogical and rambling? I think you're having problems understanding some fairly basic things here, so I'll try to be more clear - the table as presented is a violation of WP:NOR by selectively removing data from the table. I question its utility in the first place, and consider removing it a perfectly reasonable alternative to expanding it. That being said, my objection is primarily based upon its limited nature. If you would like to expand it, and address my concerns, please feel free. --JereKrischel 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
SO WHAT? I don't care what the violation of WP:NOR is. You didn't provide any concrete evidence AT ALL. Which parts were missed on that table leading to WP:NOR, huh? you still didn't answer our question. Missed WHAT?? Just like you tried to say that person is a murder, but you didn't find out who the victim is. Your logics is contradicted to what you said. If you said: consider removing it a perfectly reasonable alternative to expanding it but why did you say: If you would like to expand it, and address my concerns, please feel free. What are you talking about? think carefully before you would like to talk to me. Don't assume others are idiots. I suggest you had better get out of here. To talk to you is basically wasting my time. I am not going to reply your useless message anymore. If you vandalise the page again, I will simply revert what you did. That's it 72.138.191.63 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


the underlying data tables are reproduced all over the internet. appendix 1 is the source in the book to check. tab-delimited data table --W. D. Hamilton 05:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the direct source reference. --JereKrischel 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I found this data table using Google. Any of you could have done the same. There appear to be multiple copies mirrored on the web. --W. D. Hamilton 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any citation for the original source? That is to say, is there a original place where this was published, so that we can check the accuracy of any mirroring? --JereKrischel 06:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean the book? Richard Lynn's own web site has all the numbers as well. --W. D. Hamilton 06:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] table and graph

Please either remove IQ 2006 values from the table or deliver reference 32 !!!! !!! Without the reference this is just bullshit! So where is the data from that claims that the IQ of china has accelerated from 100 to 105 within 4 years? 08:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)



what is the reasoning behind the removal of bulk of the data table? it might make sense as a simplification if not for the removal of the GDP*IQ graph from the main article? --W. D. Hamilton 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

specifically, the choice to show "top 5" and "bottom 5" has a certain sense, but the choice to show "average" countries makes an assumption about what's average. why not show the countries with median IQ scores instead? why include estimated scores if you're only showing a portion of the data set. most importantly, why not show the whole table which takes up no more room? --W. D. Hamilton 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

well done! 72.138.191.63 02:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
72.138.191.63 this isn't a shouting contest. we need to treat one another with respect despite our disagreements. --W. D. Hamilton 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
W.D., please correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't IQ tests calibrated in such a way that by definition, an IQ of 100 is supposed to be the mean of all humanity? I think including estimated scores are important because it illustrates that there are cases where data is lacking, and I think the whole table doesn't provide much more than simply placing a link directly to the whole table and data. --JereKrischel 02:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"the mean of all humanity" - no it's much more mundane than that. they are calibrated on a representative sample of the population in the U.S., the U.K. or whatever country the test is developed in. the normalization sample ensures that the U.S. or U.K. average on restesting should be within a few points of 100, but for example, a demographically different population could have any average IQ.
I think the estimates are well noted in the text, so it seems odd to include them if only a few countries are to be shown.
i'm perfectly ambivalent about the whole table question, but it eliminates any issue of making our own judgments. --W. D. Hamilton 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting...perhaps that makes it even more inappropriate to compare IQ scores across nations, if they are using IQ tests calibrated differently. Also, given that more than half of the scores claimed are estimates, it seems important to include them. --JereKrischel 03:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
But I don't think anything has actually been resolved. --W. D. Hamilton 03:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I see it, we've got one fundamental that we've got to abide by - eliminating estimated IQ from the table is inappropriate. The open questions are, do we include the IQ=100 countries and how do we label them, and do we do top 5/bottom 5 or the whole table. I'm open to labeling the IQ=100 countries more specifically (make a note of IQ supposedly calibrated to 100 as "average"), or removing them. I'm also open to seeing the whole table. Is there a satisfactory resolution in there somewhere for you? --JereKrischel 03:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
eliminating estimated IQ from the table is inappropriate - there are two separate chapters in IQatWoNs, the first on the calculated IQs and the second on the estimated IQs. the math in the book is done both ways so that all angles are covered. the calculated values are treated as the base and the added estimated values as a 2ndary step for completeness.
I'm also open to seeing the whole table. i see no reason not the include the whole table, other than size, but 3 little tables takes up a lot of room too --W. D. Hamilton 06:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seems that since the book covers it from all angles, the most appropriate solution is to also reflect that coverage here (including both estimates and calculated). --JereKrischel 20:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel's IQ has been raised from 94 to 95.

Here are external links which quote the book's 94 IQ rating for Israel:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2HJU3WLVCXWAK http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/zhekaya/post39896846 http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm http://www.isteve.com/IQ_table.htm http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm http://www.freewebs.com/skymik/challenger.htm http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-7080.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.121.129 (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Identical to Table 7.7

i don't have a copy of the book at hand, but that's Table 7.7 to the best of my knowledge/memory. the table with all 185 countries is Table 8.9. --W. D. Hamilton 12:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it is not identically labeled to Table 7.7 on page 100 of the book. Please update the scatterplot to include all 81 countries from Table 7.7, and label the Y-axis to an actual column of the table. Thanks! --JereKrischel 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"residuals" and "fitted" values have to do with linear regression. the values are the real GDP values, from which the linear regression is calculated (along with IQ). all 81 countries should be there. --W.R.N. 07:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Then I guess all we need to do is label the Y-axis appropriately (identical to the table column). Can you make that update? It might also be nice to make the dots a bit smaller so that all 81 points are clear. It would also help to make a specific reference in the image to Table 7.7 on page 100 of the book, maybe include the table's title. --JereKrischel 07:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thesis as Described in Introductory Paragraph Backwards

The introductory paragraph described the book as saying that economic differences cause the differences in average IQ among nations, which is the reverse of what the authors propose.

[edit] move to (book)

according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Precision: --W.R.N. 03:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

it is usually not commendable to use "(book)" or a similar qualifier in Wikipedia article names, outside what is strictly needed for disambiguation from other *existing* Wikipedia pages. Examples:

Okay. That makes sense. I thought some of these titles were confusing. futurebird 04:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
They are, but you'd never find the book if you redirected the titles to their literal referent. I think that's the reason for the naming convention. --W.R.N. 05:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer-review and follow-up studies

I noticed that there already is a clean-up tag for this section. I believe this section also need some balancing. For example, the first paragraph talked about a few critics who had a negative outlook on this book. Since there already is a critic's section, I think it's only fair to have the more positive critics be in this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yongke (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The right kind of critique

I can't imagine that everyone in the academic community embraced this book as the new gospel, in fact, I imagine some nasty things were probably said about it. The critique section currently tries to refute the books premiss... while I think this is a nobel aim, we ought to focus instead on people who critiqued this book and what they said. So, can we start revising this section in that direction. I think what's there now is too close to being original research. Sure this book is racist and ought to be refused, but we need to make this section more about the book and less about the ideas in the book. Is that fair? futurebird 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I obviously think the section is OR or close to it. There's plenty of verifiable criticism in the section preceding it. It may be helpful to add some organization to that section to make the criticism, praise, and follow up distinct sections. The section in dispute can probably go -- it can be saved on the talk page for future utility. --W.R.N. 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


A recent book is relevant to the criticism, as it deals with the material in this book as well as "IQ fundamentalists" like the authors in general. James Flynn, a social scientist at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, has written a book What Is Intelligence? (Cambridge University Press 2007), in which he explores the reasons IQ is a dubious measure of anything immutable and innate about individuals; rather, it shows us how well we are educated to respond in ways that IQ tests would reward - being able to frame knowledge in a modern, scientific way. For example, IQ has been steadily rising by about .3 points per year since the tests have been around. These tests are re-normed every so often, to make them "harder," to make up for this phenomenon. Further, in the early 1900's, southern Italian immigrants to the U.S. scored as low as African Americans and Hispanics, prompting talk about their inferior stock; today, however, Southern Italians are no longer part of the discussion about IQ and race. Did their genes start to mutate around the 1930's, or did they assimilate culturally? Flynn has written about this phenomenon several times; this book addresses in particular the persistence of "IQ fundamentalism" even when "the Flynn effect" should undermine the credibility of IQ as a measure of innate or genetic capacity. Flynn recalibrates Lynn and Vanhanen's findings, controlling for income, age, and year of IQ test (recently re-normed or not), and shows that the results don't support the sort of international IQ pyramid imagined by the authors. He also brings up evidence of studies of mixed-race and adopted children, which show overwhelming that it isn't so much who you are as where (with what income, education, and culture) you're raised. This seems especially prescient considering James Watson's comments last fall about his pessimism regarding Africans, because they're just genetically inferior, it's not about history and there's nothing to be done. Malcolm Gladwell reviews What Is Intelligence in the New Yorker at http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell 134.53.224.9 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WTA

WP:WTA should probably be used in the article. i tried to do so in some earlier edits. it's a little boring, but it basically says that the only words you should use in most cases are "write", "say", "state", or "argue". words like "claim", "find", and even "report" should be avoided. it's a bit silly, but it's top shelf NPOV language. --W.R.N. 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't say, but "conclude" would probably be fine too. i would also think it would be fine to say "according to X, Y" where X=person and Y=their conclusion. --W.R.N. 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't like "argue" it makes the source sound... well... mean. "said" and "wrote" are always safe bets. futurebird 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


where's the part of WTA that describes argue -- they write argue is good when you are stating what one side of a debate between parties has said/written: --W.R.N. 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As a rule, when a statement is unproven or subjective, or when a factual assertion is made without contradiction, use a form of the word say or state:

  • Critics of contingent fees say that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients.

When a statement is basically factual but its importance may be disputed, consider using argue or dispute instead:

  • Opponents argue that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police.

Although editors sometimes use these and similar words to intentionally influence the sympathies of the reader, in many cases they may simply be the result of well-intentioned editors looking for a way to avoid using the word said, which they may perceive as dull or overused. Beginning writers are often taught to realize that said or stated are nearly "invisible": you may think you're overusing it, but readers probably won't even notice it. They will notice, however, if you try to correct the "problem" by inflicting more colorful synonyms on them. If you absolutely must avoid "said," look for creative ways to rephrase the sentence:

  • According to Mayor Bimbsly, it's simply a matter of faith.
  • The official reason appeared in a later press release [CITE SOURCE]: "There will not be a trial [...] due to poor response from Asia."
"Say" in my opinion implies a personal opinion and is a poor choice anything having any form of support. I would certainly notice it if used in a peer-reviewed article. "Report", "find", "claim", "argue", can be found in peer-reviewed articles but not "say". The suggestion that "say" should be used both for something subjective and completely unsupported AND uncontradicted factual assertions is extremely strange.Ultramarine 05:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If it was written and not spoken, then "say" is of course out. I never had a problem with report myself because the term is so often used in review papers, but I was going to let WTA be the judge of that one. I do see the reasons not to use "claim" or "find". Write, argue, and conclude seem like suitable alternatives if we're going with WTA. So-called, creative rephrasing is also possible in some cases. --W.R.N. 06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data wrong

Look at the table and the real data here:

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

As usual, in race related articles,we have a dark shadow of manipulation behind them. What a disaster for this place. I will try and fix some.

Well, surprise! It was just Spain, someone changed it to 97 and it is 99.

Anyway, from the history of the article, it seems that a lot of people are manipulating these data. Watch out for it.

70.156.140.49 01:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


In the book 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' the IQ of Spain is listed as 97 which can be verified by using google books since you do not own the book I suggest you verify it yourself.

Contact Richard Lynn http://www.rlynn.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Check01 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WOW

So, the average Equatoria Guinean is a mental retard?

82.12.236.241 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Much Needed (and OBVIOUS) Criticism

Here is some criticism :

[edit] Introduction

1)“RE : IQ and the Wealth of Nations is a controversial 2002 book by Dr. Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.[1]” >Perhaps it would be wise to emphasise that neither of them seem to have obtained any qualifications in the mathematical sciences. Of course, they may have taken modules in certain mathematical sciences – however, this does not necessarily translate into a sufficiently technical understanding of statistics as to ensure that their academic opinions are valid. 2)RE : “The authors interpret this correlation as showing that IQ is one important factor contributing to differences in ‘national wealth’ and ‘rates of economic growth’,” >These terms are essentially politicised and are quite subjective or beyond the analysis of science (for example, some notions of inflation do take into account housing prices, others don’t – meaning that the notions of wealth and economic growth have a large subjective component to their analysis

[edit] Scatter Graph Criticisms

3)The statement that the values are calculated gives an impression of meaningfulness to the diagram that is not objectively verifiable. The values were interpolated from other studies in the area. None of the IQ values were experimentally measured by Lynn and Vanhanen 4) The data used to generate the scatter plot should be given on the article (even if the scatter plot is taken directly from the book – the data should be presented so that it can be subject to statistical analysis, to see if it is likely to genuine, for example). The fact the GDP and IQ are supposed to have an independent variable-dependent variable relationship is OBVIOUSLY an gross over-simplifcation of the reality of how GDP and IQ would related to one another in reality. Thus, the relevance of this graph within the context of displaying a relationship between GDP and IQ is questionable at best.

On the scatter graph there is NO scale whatsoever it goes from 100 to 1000 to 100000 this graph should be remade accuratly.DPM 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Penguin, that is a logarithmic scale (search that on wiki :P). It's used to emphasise dependancy between phisical features that are related by an exponential formula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octav43 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Criticisms

5) An Emphasis placed on the word BELIEVE in the sentence : “The authors believe that average IQ difference between nations are due to both genetic and environmental factors. They also believe that low GDP can cause low IQ, just as low IQ can cause low GDP.” Have they proven this? (Of course, that IQ has an effect on economic growth may be obvious – but that they are 6) The sentence:“Rather than do their own IQ studies (a potentially massive project), the authors average and adjust existing studies.” Should be emphasised in BOLD. 7) Surely this is STATISTICAL MALPRACTICE (it introduces a whole world of subjectivity!)? : “To account for the Flynn effect (an increase in IQ scores over time), the authors adjusted the results of older studies upward by a number of points.” 8)The publisher should be named. The lack of peer review should be emphasised. : “IQ and the Wealth of Nations' was not peer-reviewed before publication but was published by a publisher of academic literature. Peer reviewed articles have used the IQ scores presented in the book and some have also commented on the claims in the book.” 9)An Emphasis placed on the word BELIEVE in the sentence : “The authors believe that average IQ difference between nations are due to both genetic and environmental factors. They also believe that low GDP can cause low IQ, just as low IQ can cause low GDP.” Have they proven this? (Of course, that IQ has an effect on economic growth may be obvious – but that they are linearly related in a way meaningfully measurable via the use of correlation is surely stretching the truth?

I will offer more criticism when time permits. ConcernedScientist 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] data

Someone is deliberately changing values:

See here: Spain 99.


http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

Someone is changing it to 97. 65.11.207.219 00:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems that this user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ultramarine

Is for some reason vandalizing the page and changing Spain value to 97. He should read the above link to Lynn's own page and check the value. His conduct is vandalism, ignoring the facts and introducing lies for some reason.

Well, after thinking it again, sorry for saying it is vandalism, maybe you did not see the discussion, but check data before you change them. You have a link above. It is Lynn personal page about the book and Spain is number 151. Value 99. 65.11.114.176 00:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has done a lot of vandalism reverts, I think I can provide the answer. Google "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" + Spain and you get this page as the first match: http://www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm Scroll down to Spain, and look in their "Book Score" column, and you see 97. So I can't really consider it vandalism, I think it's an attempt at good faith editing. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


You can verify the books reported score for Spain in google books.It is available online.Or you can contact Richard Lynn and ask him yourself on whether or not it was reported as 97 or 99. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Check01 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] table

let's retain the table as it is not quite easy for one to build up. 74.14.121.82 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Also their was a very large European study last year that had different values. (uk 100 Germany and Netherlands 109 both smarter than Austria and Italy and all other European countries) Maybe it's worth googling up?

[edit] Japan 84???

That does NOT seem right to me. Can somebody double-check this??? Grandpafootsoldier 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


It was vandalism, it's been reverted. Poindexter Propellerhead 09:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran's estimated IQ: 105 ?????

For at least 24 hours Iran's estimated IQ was 105 and not 84. This kind of romantic behaviour are not appropriate in Wikipedia. How can this be reported?

We need facts and accurate information on the Internet if we want to solve problems.

I motion for putting protection on this page. BGManofID 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I second the motion (for partial protection, anonymous IPs seem to be most of the problem). Poindexter Propellerhead 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response

I was just curious to see how to edit a wiki page and I think it was a good page to try. I understand that is not an appropriate thing to change a page that gives “real useful information” to people. However, I am 100% percent sure that not only I can make a test that Iranians can get “105” in it but also I can make one that people from Equatorial Guinea get higher scores than any other nation in the world. So if you want my identity just let me know. Or if you prefer I can hand myself to the international police for changing a crappy racist page on Internet. Then I will have enough motivation an time to work on my new IQ test in jail. At the end let me tell you dear friend that if my act was romantic yours is definitely comic: you call this page "facts and accurate information on the Internet"

Thanks for solving the problem of human being and sorry for causing so much trouble for you in reaching this goal by changing one IQ from 84 to 105.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.80.190 (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

What is the IQ score of Spain anyway? 97 or 99? Guia Hill 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should Wikipedia be Politically Correct?

Look, this book is not without its controversy. In fact, the statistical analyses of intelligence are like all fluid statistics; they are merely estimates and contain a certain variance of inaccuracy. But for some readers who post comments to the effect of "This is a racist article - remove it" - I have only one thought. The internet is not american network television. Free idea exchange is the web's greatest attribute, so for all those who want to silence the messenger and control the message, I say stay in your home and unplug your computer! You are obviously incapable of critical thinking and lack free will. Thoughts should not be controlled. And until one of you critics does a similar study and finds drastically different results, Wealth of Nations is what we have.

For those of you who look at these numbers & suspect a racially motivated skewing of the facts - I challenge you to find opposing statistics. And the "culturally biased" argument is rubbish; I cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study - but take heed, critics; you might always not like what you learn when you actually free your mind!  :o (unsigned comment by Brnoamik, 09:04, 13 July 2007)

Nobody has said that the article is racist, the article is just an encyclopedic book report. One poster felt that the book was racist, which it may or may not be, but resolving that issue is outside the scope of our job as editors. Repeat: this is just a book report. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saudi Arabia et al

Saudi Arabia has average IQ 39! Iran, Germany is 109? Does writer have political, religious, or racial axe to hack?

What is gene IQ?

This supports my overall belief that open access sites on internet CANNOT by biological law have clear discussion about ethnic/racial matters. Call it the law of Open Access Racial Perversion. OARP for short.

The three scores you mention were all the result of vandalism. The correct figures have been restored. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Over the last few days, vandalism has been so heavy that I have been hitting the 3RR limit on this article (as I write this, it's severely vandalized, but I won't be able to revert it for another 12 hours) , and at least one other editor seems to have exceeded the limit. Of course, vandals have exceeded it too, and I have reported one of them for doing so. But this is really getting old, in my opinion. What does everyone else think about asking for protection for this article? Poindexter Propellerhead 08:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • supportGuia Hill 21:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The page is now semi-protected. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish IQ

In the table, Turkey's average IQ is reported as 101. However, in the book Vanhanen and Lynn report it as 90.Victor Chmara 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right! Fixed. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farewell, semi-protection

Two weeks without a vandalism! I'm going to miss it, but hopefully some repeat offenders have moved along. Nice work, folks! Poindexter Propellerhead 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Moon?

Why is The Moon on the list? That's rather strange. It really made me search for studies regarding the IQ of people that went to the moon and stuff, but I couldn't find anything yet. And also, what is the GDP on The Moon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octav43 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA

dear world, i believe, and not only believe i saw it in a magazine once (not that everthing in magazines is right but anyways) that the national iq of the united states of america is way lower. people in america are mostly dumber than in any other country ( and i travelled the world, i know) im from holland btw. and the dutch iq must be lower than scandinavia. and neither do i believe that canada is below usa. and these arent opinions, or maybe they are, but... i cant get this. i must say that iq depends on school/education a lot and that america's school system is made for people with a learning-delay. im sorry for any indulges. but dont you think that african people are indulged by all the things about iq i saw here, that there are racial differences between white and black people? i really dont think that the amount of pigment in the cells has any influence on one's iq? (pure scientifically looked at, no partial meanings or any of that kind). i do believe in iq, national iq, individual iq, i believe those tests have meaning. (coming from an atheist, i believe, lol) so dont come back with that. ( i will study neuro-genetics, after laboratory education, not that that has anything to do with anything but while im typing a big story with no actual point i can put that on here as well) i guess ive made my point, or not, doesnt really matter, i just think american people are the dumbest people in the world, without meaning any harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ireallyhavenocluewhothiscomputerisfrom (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm from Holland too and you probably hate Americans for no reason at all just like many other Dutch people do these days. Sure there are idiots in America, but there are idiots in every other nation in the world too. One day you'll probably lie in a hospital with your life saved by medication invented by American scientists and realize you were wrong.

And low IQ in African countries doesn't nessesarily mean black people are inferior. You can attribute it to lack of proper education and health care.77.250.171.134 20:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(from me: So could you do in America; there's a huge LACK of PROPER education there too!!!)

Im very sorry, but i dont hate americans for wrong reasons; facts are; Americans are "right-side of politics" even the left ones there are right in our definitions. plus the american school system sucks, after "high school" which is originally made for people with a learning-delay as ive said before, and when they go to collage they have to learn everything we dutch people learn during 2nd fase (4+5 Havo, 4+5+6 VWO) and reletivaly spoken the medicine made in america are less that any country in europe. (maybe there are more medicine produced there than herebut if you compare it to the amount of people, there are less) and my point was; the average IQ in america is lower, not all americans are idiots (im not a racist!!) because there are (also reletivaly seen) way more american idiots. smart people there are average here. most of them. so the iq of america should at least be 10 points less. thank you for not understanding.


It's true that politics in the USA these days are right-wing, but that doesn't nescesarily mean they are wrong. Compared to the world our politics are very left-sided so even a moderate person like Clinton could be described as right-wing here. Whether your prefer our system over theirs is again a matter of opinion. The school system in the USA is also under a lot of criticism, however in some ways it's better than in Europe, as you can see on this list: http://www.arwu.org/rank/2004/top500(1-100).htm I'm not sure about where most medecine come from but I'm sure we have a lot to thank American scientists for. You don't have to worry that I mix the populations up when I compare the US with Europe, as Europe has more than twice the amount of people the US has. You think the IQ of Americans should be 10 points less, but you don't have any evidence to back this up (I think). It's all judged on your personal experience with Americans and that's not what Wikipedia is about. As for racism, apart from the indigenous people and the African-Americans, all Americans are European ;) 77.250.171.134 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China is wrong on the map

China is listed as having an average IQ of 100, yet on the map it's coloured as if it has an iq of 105. It's true that the IQ of people in Hong Kong is much higher, but Hong Kong is a district in China with only 7 million people, as opposed to 1.3 billion, where rich and well educated people have moved to, so it isn't very representative for the whole of China which should be coloured as 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.171.134 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was the map deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.20 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It is using data from another book.Ultramarine (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we just please get rid of this article

If notoriety is a criterium for deletion then accuracy should be one too. This article has more stuff plainly wrong with it than Erich von Danikens 'Charriots of the Gods' and it really pains me so see such drivel in Wikipedia. Also, this article is used elsewhere to bolster all out racism so the fall out is possibly even worse than the article itself.

Please do yourselves a favour and get rid of this, it is a blemish on Wikipedias otherwise quite solid reputation.

I'm not even going to attempt to come up with specifics, maybe except for this one item: variance in IQ tests is +- 20% points on repeated tests (with the same individual), IQ tests are meant to be administered to individuals and you can not use the same IQ tests for different social backgrounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.119.78 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Norway wrong IQ

Norway's average IQ is wrong because that counting counts with the immigrants who has ca. 80 IQ each. The REAL average IQ for Norway is 104

[edit] why is this page protected?

Well anyway... Flynn also grouped Microstates into their nearest most ethnically and culturally appropriate country. E.G. He classified Malta, Vatican City, San Marino as microstates grouped with Italy. Therefore, in the table, they need to bee added with some format like this:

Italy (including microstates:

Also, he grouped Monaco with France.

Please add these as appropriate.

Thanks 89.241.243.42 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laos IQ

Please mention how he estimated the Laos IQ, which is by taking the result of tests on children in one village 'not in abject poverty' and averaging it against the score of the mothers of those kids. Obviously no scientist would consider this a statistically valid way of figuring a country's IQ score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.156.177 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] chicken and egg

I remember reading that the Spanish economic miracle was accompanied by a marked fall in the percentage of "backward" children.

It would be helpful if someone more qualified than me could add a paragraph or two on this book's assumption that it is higher IQ which "causes" higher GDP rather than the reverse.

By which I mean that as a country becomes richer (for whatever other reasons) this leads to improved health for young children and expectant mothers, notably a fall in the percentage who are under-nourished. Over time this leads not only to an increase in average physical stats (height, etc) but also (arguably) to a parallel improvement in intelligence scores. Jameswilson (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White people and Chinese are Dumb too, this article is racist and biased!

Intelligence varies from person to person, culture, environment, education, financial status, family backgound all play important roles. When intelligent varies so much in the family that one sibling is of higher intelligence than the rest , considering rest of the factors of relatively less importance. How can you judge the entire country or culture as of higher or lower IQ based on some tests? , developed and countries with higher literacy have more probability to have higher IQ than developing and countries with low literacy rates, grouping them is highly controversial and serve the purpose of nazi, fascist and racist people of the world. --Himhifi 09:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments do not help to improve the article. --Jagz (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The table needs a date

OECD figures for 2005: GDP per head USD PPP adjusted.[2]
State. GDP
Luxembourg 70245
Norway 47207
United States 41789
Ireland 38850
Iceland 36183
Switzerland 35650
Netherlands 35120
Austria 34393
Australia 34240
Denmark 34137
Canada 34058
Belgium 32998
United Kingdom 32860
Sweden 32111
Finland 30959
Japan 30842
Germany 30777
EU15 30438
France 30266
OECD Total 30065
Greece 29578
Italy 28094
Spain 27400
New Zealand 25950
Korea 22098
Czech Republic 20606
Portugal 19889
Hungary 17483
Slovak Republic 15983
Poland 13894
Mexico 10627
Turkey 7711

I have misunderstood the table in the article! It needs to have GDP added to it for the year in which the IQ scores were taken. Also it would be helpful if the columns were in the order: Nation, IQ, GDP. The table in the article needs a table heading which states the origin of the table the year of complication -- similar to the table heading I have provided on the one to the right. Also as with the table on the right it would be nice to have the table sortable on various columns (see Help:Table#Sorting). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reported IQ for Spain is 97 not 99

The book is available on google books.Information is on page 77.Type in Google search books "IQ and the Wealth of Nations Spain 97" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Check01 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HOW OFFENSIVE

WHY IS IT AFRICAN COUNTRIES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE...THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, IT IS RIDICULOUS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.20.46 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Its like that because the people who take the tests there score that... but, this chart has to be old, because I just looked up national IQ score for US and it sayed 110.... and last year it sayed 109, so there must be people just throwing numbers in the chart or its old..--68.94.98.167 (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IQ

People with 'IQ's below 70 are generally classified as mentally retarded, I am going to correct this article. thanks. Dwilso 00:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that the effects of famine are not real, here, and now? This is not offensive at all, rather, it is people such as yourself who jump straight to the wrong conclusions, who are so offensive. Ignoring the devastating effects of famine on these nations and on the health - mental and physical - of the people who live in them will NOT make those problems go away, and will more likely than not make those problems worse. If you wish to help, perhaps you should focus on making the cause of lower IQs in these cases - that is most likely, childhood malnutrition - better understood! Zaphraud (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BS!!!

How do you estimate IQ??? Very random. Like, do they take a sample? Cause that's not credible. What if they just took like 20 homeless africans and tested them??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.77.136 (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ...It is generally agreed...

There is following sentence in the article: "It is generally agreed many factors, including environment, culture, demographics, wealth, pollution, and educational opportunities, affect measured IQ."

I think it needs a citation. Generally agreed where and by whom? 82.181.231.31 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For starters, one could cite the very authoritative APA statement on intelligence: Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, right here.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)