Talk:Nations and IQ/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a particular concern about this brand-new article, under the undue weight section of the neutral point of view policy, that it may overrepresent a minority viewpoint among scholars on IQ testing. I invite discussion with the new editor who has just created this article and with all other editors who have sources at hand about what the sources say and what mainstream emphasis of the professional literature on this topic is. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless you criticize something concrete it is extremely difficult to discuss or fix something. An NPOV tag without concrete explanations is not productive. Exactly why is the article not NPOV?Miradre (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Article title?

Supposing this new article is preserved (I can think of rationales for merging it with existing articles, or for continuing to have it stand as a new article), what would be the most appropriate name for this article in English? (My sense as a native speaker of English is that the current title is not the way that a native speaker of English would title it, so I'm asking for second opinions here.) I have some ideas on appropriate titles for this article that are more idiomatic in English and that follow whatever sources there may be on this subject, but first of all I will listen to the opinions of other editors to see what you think. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The name fits with several similar names for other intelligence articles. See the template.

Miradre (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In the past, when the possibility of creating an article on this topic was discussed, I was against it. This was because I don't think it's an established enough field of study at this point. I still think it would be preferable to create one large article, named perhaps IQ and Global Inequality or The Global Bell Curve, where all of Lynn's books on this topic, and the commentaries and reanalyses of them by others would be discussed.

However, if we decide to keep this article, I think its name should be National IQ.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We already have an article called IQ and Global Inequality. One of the reasons for creating this article was objections raised there against mentioning further studies using the estimates from the book in an article specifically about just that book. Furthermore, there are other literature reviews producing different estimates of national intelligence such as student assessment studies and Wicherts et all literature review. Because of the existence of the student assessment studies an article name including IQ is less appropriate.Miradre (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that there are articles about Lynn's books; I have edited some of them. My suggestion was that there be just one article about Lynn's books on this topic, because they all make pretty much the same argument, only with increasing amounts of data. Many of his critics and commentators also treat these books as if they were one work. The article could be named after one of Lynn's books, with redirects from the names of the other books.

Nations and intelligence is not only a clumsy, unnatural title, but also one that has not really ever been used by anyone other than you: [1]. A title that is entirely novel may not satisfy the recommendations in WP:TITLE. Moreover, the fact that there is no name for this fledgling field of research suggests that your attempt to combine all sorts of material under this rubric may be in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

1. As noted some people strongly object to mentioning further studies that have used the IQ scores from the books in an article that is about the books and not a more general subject. Creating a broader articles was proposed and accepted by some as a solution for this. 2. Some of the criticisms against the first book do not necessarily apply to the second which included more data and replies to some of the objections. 3. There are other data sets for national intelligence besides Lynn such the student assessment studies and Wicherts et all literature review. 4. The current title was named on the pattern of similar intelligence articles "Fertility and intelligence", "Religiosity and intelligence", "Race and intelligence", "Health and intelligence", "Sex and intelligence", "Height and intelligence", "Environment and intelligence", "Neuroscience and intelligence". I do not understand why this is an "clumsy, unnatural title" or WP:SYNTH if the others titles and articles are not.Miradre (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There should be one article about all of Lynn's books; this has been proposed before by several people. All of those other titles you mention are, firstly, widely used as indicated by Google, and, secondly, they refer to well-established fields of study that have existed for a long time. Moreover, "Nations and intelligence" simply sounds somewhat unnatural. I'm not a native English speaker, but WBB is, and he made the same observation. While it's good to have similar titles for related topics, it's not necessary. Intelligence differences between nations would be a better name, for example.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding an article just for Lynn's books, collecting all of an authors work in one article is usually not done in Wikipedia. Not all of his books deal with international IQs. National IQs are not the same as race IQs. Furthermore, Lynn is not the sole author of all books that has his name on them. There is certainly not, for example a well-established academic field titled "Fertility and intelligence". The title "Nations and intelligence is not more unnatural than the other titles that I mentioned. You ignored my point 1-3 so I will repeat them. 1. As noted some people strongly object to mentioning further studies that have used the IQ scores from the books in an article that is about the books and not a more general subject. Creating a broader articles was proposed and accepted by some as a solution for this. 2. Some of the criticisms against the first book do not necessarily apply to the second which included more data and replies to some of the objections. 3. There are other data sets for national intelligence besides Lynn such the student assessment studies and Wicherts et all literature review.

Intelligence differences between nations is certainly better than an article just for Lynn's books as per above. It has the disadvantage of proclaiming as a fact something that may be disputed by some. Furthermore, from Wikipedia:Article titles: "Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are often preferred."Miradre (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fertility and intelligence" is a recognized field of study in the sense that it has been written about for a long time (since Galton, probably) and lots of people have studied it--it was more or less the original motivation for eugenics, after all. The Lynn article would of course deal with only those of his works that are about "national IQs". They comprise IQ and the Wealth of Nations, IQ and Global Inequality, Race Differences in Intelligence, and The Global Bell Curve, plus a bunch of journal articles. There's much overlap between those four articles, and all of the books discuss both national and racial differences in IQ. Student assessment studies include mostly only OECD countries, while the reviews of Wicherts et al. concern only sub-Saharan Africa.

This article may be challenged by some on the basis of WP:POVFORK, WP:SYN, and WP:N, but we'll see. Meanwhile, I would suggest using Harvard-style citations in this article, or at least have separate lists of sources and footnotes.--Victor Chmara (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Using such an argument "Nations and intelligence" is also a recognized field of study at least since Buj's study and the general idea or claim or boast that different nations differ in mental ability is likely as old as the first nations themselves.

Regarding Lynn's books, Race Differences in Intelligence and The Global Bell Curve are primarily about race while IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality are primarily about national IQs. National IQs and racial IQs are not the same thing. Lynn has written books on other subjects. Lynn is not the sole author of the national IQ books. Ever for the national IQ books, the criticisms against one book do not necessarily apply to the other. I do not see how or why only these four books could be combined into a single article.

There is no justification for excluding data sets such as student assessment studies or Wicherts et al. since scholarly articles studying national differences in intelligence or cognitive abilities and associated factors use them in research.

Again, as noted some people strongly object to mentioning further studies that have used the IQ scores from the books in an article that is about the books and not a more general subject. Creating a broader article was proposed and accepted by some as a solution for this.

If there are any policy problem with the article, then please state them.Miradre (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly replying to what is immediately above, hence the outdent. (1) A title something like "National differences in IQ" fits English idiom (and the sources) well. (2) I'm still mulling over what would be appropriate sourcing for an article like this. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"National differences in cognitive ability" or "National differences in intelligence" are better alternatives since the student assessment studies do not state their results in terms of IQ. But these titles are still not as good as the current one. The current title is not more unnatural than the rest of the "X and intelligence" articles. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Article titles: "Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are often preferred."Miradre (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:AND.Miradre (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think "National differences in cognitive ability" is a good suggestion, although it, too, has the problem of carrying the suggestion that there indeed are such differences. "National differences in IQ" is less problematic in this sense (as IQ is just a measure of ability, not the ability itself), but also less accurate. Perhaps "National differences in cognitive skills"? Miradne, consistency in articles names is not a hard and fast rule.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cognitive skills would include purely learned skills such as foreign languages or the ability to write computer programs or just the knowledge how to change batteries in devices. That is not what is meant with intelligence.

Consistency is one rule. Maybe it should be broken if there is a good reason for that the consistent title is inappropriate. But so far no good such claimed reason has been presented. I note again that the what seems to be the principal objections, unnatural title or not the official title of the field, would apply to all or most of the other "X and intelligence" articles.Miradre (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming and rewriting the article?

I've been reading Earl Hunt's new book Human Intelligence, which contains what is probably the best single overview of various reviews, meta-analyses, and hypotheses concerning global IQ variation. He writes particularly about Lynn and Vanhanen's and Rindermann's research, but the work of Wicherts et al. and even Jared Diamond are mentioned. The heading of the concluding section of the relevant chapter in his book contains the term Worldwide distribution of intelligence, which I think we should adopt as the title of this article as well. The current title is inadequate for the linguistic reasons discussed above, and because the same title is used nowhere in the scholarly literature. In contrast, Worldwide distribution of intelligence is used by Hunt in his new book that will probably become a standard reference work in intelligence research, and also by Eppig et al. in their article about IQ and parasites, and by Rushton in one of his articles (see Google Scholar for details). According to WP:COMMONNAME, we should use "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and as Nations and intelligence has apparently never been used in scholarly sources, while my proposal has been at least a few times, I think we should change the title.

Moreover, this article may currently be an example of original synthesis. I will probably rewrite it based on Hunt's review.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I note again from Wikipedia:Article titles: "Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are often preferred." Also again, what seems to be the principal objections, unnatural title or not the official title of the field, would apply to all or most of the other "X and intelligence" articles". A chapter name in a book is not evidence for anything.

A book is almost never peer-reviewed, unless a textbook, and thus of less value than peer-reviewed articles which this article cites.Miradre (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Of all the guidelines in WP:TITLE, the one about consistency is the only one that may support your choice of title. I don't know if Hunt's book was peer-reviewed or not, but it was written by a noted expert in the field and published by an academic press (Cambridge University Press), which makes it every bit as reliable a source as journal articles. Moreover, it is a secondary source with respect to the research on the worldwide distribution of intelligence, which makes it a superior source for the purposes of Wikipedia articles:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.

"Race and intelligence" is a widely used expression in academic and non-academic sources, while Google Books produces many hits for "sex and intelligence"[2], "health and intelligence"[3], and all the others except "Nations and intelligence", which will lead you to books about espionage.

This is a small and new field of research, so there's no strongly established name for it, but the title Worldwide distribution of intelligence is used in Hunt's important review of all the main findings, and also in a couple of other sources, so it's certainly better than Nations and intelligence which no one has used outside of this article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the title does follow the consistency rule there is good reason keep it.

A chapter title in one book is not evidence for anything regarding the accepted name of the field. You misleading quote Eppig's paper as support. In fact, it starts with "Since the first publication of quantitative data on average national intelligence quotient", which if anything should support the current title.[4]

Many? Your links above goes to a single book. Obviously most of the "X and intelligence" titles are not names of fields or any more natural than "Nations and intelligence".Miradre (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is going to exist then the name should be changed - but why does this article exist at all? It just looks like a fork of Race and Intelligence to me. There is no separate topic that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

National intelligence does not necessarily have anything to do with race. Differences may be entirely environmental or if genetic not fitting the traditional race concept. There is a large literature using national IQ data never mentioning race.Miradre (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could fix the leader then to explain what the topic is please? Is it simply the collated results of IQ tests for countries around the world? Does it really mean nations as opposed to countries? What is supposed to be interesting about measuring the average intelligence in India for instance besides the sheer difficulty? Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

For example, there are numerous economic studies, as mentioned in the last section, that have examined the relationship between average national IQs and factors related to economic growth. These studies usually never mention race. These studies have found average national IQ to be a very important factor for economic growth. That is certainly interesting, to mention just one finding.Miradre (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Miradne, the Eppig paper is called "Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability", and it contains also such expressions as "global distribution of variation in intelligence" and "worldwide distribution of intelligence". As to "X and intelligence" sources, those two were just examples--run some Google Books searches if you want more of them.

I'm not too keen on the existence of this article, although Hunt's recent review of the relevant studies makes the topic somewhat more coherent.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Eppig's paper also contains phrases such as "Thus, from the parasite-stress hypothesis, we predict that average national intelligence", and so on. Hardly evidence for anything regarding field title. Regarding the other "X and intelligence" articles, your make a claim, you give a source, preferably much, much better than the last attempt.

Again, average national IQs and their relationship to other factors have been increasingly researched in the last few years with numerous interesting results. It does not necessarily have anything to do with race (which obviously also makes it easier for researchers to do research using national IQ data than research using race IQ data).Miradre (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't know how to use Google Books search??? I'm not saying that those other "X and intelligence" titles are ideal, but at least they are natural-sounding, and have been used before off-Wikipedia. Anyway, this field does not have an established name, and this discussion is about trying to come up with one that could be used, based on what few sources there are. So far I, WBB, and Dmcq have argued against the current title.

Lynn and his coauthors write about national IQ differences in explicitly racial terms, so obviously race has a lot to do with this topic.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How are any of the other "X and intelligence" articles more natural sounding than this one? Lynn may written about it originally in racist terms but many of those using the national IQ scores never use the term race in their papers and the national IQ scores do not necessarily have anything to do with genes, or if they do with genes, not with the traditional race concept.

Consistency according Wikipedia:Article titles argues for the current title.Miradre (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename or delete If the topic was clearly defined this would be easier. However 'nation' is a very bad name. Nations includes the Kurds and the Irish for instance whereas they are in multiple countries. And if it means countries that is very restrictive too - would one really only be interested in the whole of India rather than its regions. I've got to stay with my original assessment, this article needs a better lead to explain it existence and Nations should be replaced by Worldwide as suggested. Current name is not a common name per WP:AT Dmcq (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Countries and intelligence" would be fine also. I will rewrite the lead.Miradre (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Suggestions for further improvements to the lead?Miradre (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer the term "IQ" (which is also consistent with some other Wikipedia articles) over the term "intelligence" here. Diane Halpern is one of several authors trained in psychology who could source a rationale for that wording choice. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"IQ" ignores the student assessment studies.Miradre (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• comment I think that something like "Global variation in IQ/Global IQ differences" or "geo-politic variation in IQ" would better capture what the topic is actually about. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rindermann's research on international student achievement tests is in some ways more important than Lynn's IQ computations, and it should definitely be covered in this article. Therefore, Global variation in intelligence is a better name -- 'intelligence' is also the term used in the names of other articles about group differences in IQ and other cognitive measures. I still support Worldwide distribution of intelligence, but Global variation in intelligence is ok, too.

WBB, as I pointed out to you earlier, Halpern has published several papers with titles like Sex differences in intelligence. Implications for education, and The Smarter Sex: A Critical Review of Sex Differences in Intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Worldwide distribution of intelligence" or "Global variation in intelligence" would essentially create two different subarticles. One which deals with national IQ and national statistics including a lot of papers which never mentions race or genes. And one which would be a fork a "Race and intelligence" with lots of racial claims in the papers and little mention of individual national IQ scores and statistics. I see no need for the last since it is already covered in the "Race and intelligence" article.Miradre (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Race and intelligence is mostly about America, with a small section devoted to the global data (this is for a good reason, because most research on the topic has been conducted in America with American data and subjects). Both nations and races can be used as units of analysis in this article, because that is what Lynn and others have done.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason that the Race and intelligence article should be limited to America and it already contains a section about international comparisons. If something is missing, feel free to add it there. There is no reason to have the same material in two articles. No, nations and race are not the same thing. National differences do not mean that differences must be genetic, or if they are genetic, that they follow classical race lines. Again, I see no need to have an article essentially separated into two different subarticles, one being a duplication of Race and Intelligence, and one dealing with national IQs and statistics and with many of the papers never mentioning race or genes.Miradre (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you just drop this 'nation' thing please? Worldwide or by country would be far better for what you seem to want. Why do you think there is a term 'nation-state' if nation is the same as a country? Why do people refer to First Nations in the US? National is sometimes used in some attempt to assert a single identity in a country but that most certainly doesn't mean it is always true. In the Olympics for instance the teams are called national teams to get the people in the countries to identify with and root for them. Are we supposed to be rooting for the IQ scores in the particular countries or something? Dmcq (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Nations" is commonly used in the scientific literature in the field. Like in this article I cited earlier.[5]. "Nations" is used far more often than "countries". See no reason that I should drop this use when the scholarly literature does not.Miradre (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That started with the sentence "In this study, we hypothesize that the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability". Worldwide is fine, there's no point following sources doing things wrong when there's good alternatives. If they don't understand English that's their problem. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: discussion apparently dead, with no consensus having formed. Kotniski (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Nations and intelligence → Worldwide distribution of intelligence — The current name of the article is not used in any reliable source, and is perhaps somewhat awkward stylistically. Moreover, the unit of analysis used in some of the relevant sources is race and/or continent, not nation. Therefore, I suggest that the article be renamed to Worldwide distribution of intelligence, which is a name that appears a few times in reliable sources such as Earl B. Hunt's Human Intelligence[6] (WP:COMMONNAME), is more natural-sounding (Naturalness is one of the criteria in WP:TITLE), and succintly identifies the topics that the article is supposed to deal with (Precision criterion in WP:TITLE). 'Intelligence' is preferable to 'IQ' in the title, because some of the research is about international student achievement tests and the like that are not IQ tests. Moreover, 'intelligence' is the term used in many related articles such as Race and intelligence and Sex and intelligence.--Victor Chmara (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Nations is just silly. The only use of nations I say which would say otherwise used it as in the wealth of nations which is a complete phrase. I still would really like to see a good summary of the topic. Saying "The relationship between nations and intelligence has been researched in various fields of science" makes it sound to me like a made up topic - decide on some measures to include besides IQ and decide to use country boundaries instead of races or regions or gene groupings, and then just called the business nations instead of countries and then assert that the group of things had been researched. Not as a topic without better definition it hasn't. I think there may be a topic trying to get out here and having a source which actually used a similar name would greatly help in defining what the article was supposed to be about. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. A prominent book in the field is called IQ and the Wealth of Nations so claiming that "nations" is not used in the field is just strange. According the WP:Article Titles there should be consistency in naming articles and there are several articles called Race and intelligence, Sex and intelligence, Health and intelligence, Height and intelligence, Longevity and intelligence, Religiosity and intelligence, Environment and intelligence, Fertility and intelligence, and so on. Hard to argue that the current title has any problems that would not apply to all of those other "X and intelligence" titles. Futhermore, "Worldwide distribution of intelligence" would essentially create two different subarticles. One which deals with national IQ and national statistics including a lot of papers which never mentions race or genes. Differences in national IQs does not necessarily means genetic differences, andif there are genetic differences that these follow classic race patterns. Then there would also be subarticle which would be a fork a "Race and intelligence" with lots of racial claims in the papers and often very little mention of individual national IQ scores and statistics. I see no need for the last since it is already covered in the "Race and intelligence" article.Miradre (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

'Consistency is generally to be preferred' does not trump WP:COMMONNAME. Other articles arguments are generally considered weak in Wikipedia. 'Wealth of nations' is a complete recognizable phrase, if one said 'The wealth of nations and intelligence' there would be a far easier to discern topic. As it is nation there was fairly clearly an exhortive term to try and get people united behind an idea rather than just referring to countries - and very successful he was in that too. Nations and intelligence is a made up topic name of a not well defined topic. Dmcq (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The field is new and does not have a recognized common name. So one has to use other principles. Consistency is one as per Wikipedia:Article titles. Again, very hard to argue that there are arguments against the current title that would not apply to all or most of the other "X and intelligence" articles. "Nations" and "countries" are used interchangeably in the scholarly articles. Just look at the abstracts of the article sources for this article. Here is one, Lynn's latest 2010 article National IQs updated for 41 Nations where "nations" and "countries" are used as synonyms.[7]Miradre (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good reason to delete the article then. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research. Doubly a candidate for deletion if the topic can't be outlined properly in the lead. And I certainly can't see why it should be named something that sounds like a magnet for nationalists when the original author of the original research thinks there is no good name. Dmcq (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You have missed all the peer-reviewed articles cited in the article? You are arguing that most of the other "X and intelligence" articles should be deleted? Miradre (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because the article cites books doesn't mean the article has a clearly defined topic. If you know what the topic is why can't you write it in the lead? What's so difficult about doing that very basic task? All that's there is that people have researched things which are covered by the citations, what is the topic? Dmcq (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you still disagreeing with the word "nations"? Changing the title to "Countries and intelligence" would be fine. Obviously the topic is similar to those of the other "X and intelligence" articles. That is, the relationship between intelligence and countries/nations, for this article.Miradre (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course I still disagree with the nations. So what is the topic of countries and intelligence, is there a book for instance or chapter of a book on this topic? Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

See for example IQ and the Wealth of Nations or IQ and Global Inequality. Or the peer-reviewed articles cited in this article.Miradre (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I brought up about that first book in the first place and explained about it. Firstly it says 'wealth of nations' not nations, secondly they say IQ not intelligence and you have argued for including other measures. So are you going to write something in the lead to say what you think the topic is? And even if you can't find a reasonable common name can you at least find a name close to something people have actually used please. Thirdly do you really wish to follow Lynn of all people? If you can avoid it why try so hard to link this to nationalism. Dmcq (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For non-IQ data see for example Rindermann's 2007 papper The g-Factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The Homogeneity of Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations. (Yes, another scholarly source using the dreaded "Nations"!). Also, I quote from the conclusion: "Intelligence and knowledge are important constructs, with perhaps the most impact on individual and national wealth, democracy and health in modern times." I still fail to why the current title, or "Countries and intelligience" if you prefer that, would be more problematic than many other "X and intelligence" articles. According to the consistency rule these are good names if the best common name is unclear.Miradre (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I modified the lead slightly.Miradre (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the common name argument about the name for this subject is weak. I don't see any evidence that the proposed title is more commonly used than the existing one. So without any common name to rely on we have to come up with a descriptive title for this article. And for descriptive titles arguments about consistency become quite strong. So as mentioned above, "X and intellegence" is the standard way to name articles like this one, and I don't see why to make an exception here. Although, if a new title had to be found, I think Nationality and intelligence might be worth considering, as it isn't the nation's, but the people who live within it, whose intelligence is being discussed.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, nations and intelligence has never been used in reliable sources, so of course my proposal, which has been used a few times, is the more common of the two.--Victor Chmara (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That you can find the phrase "worldwide distribution of intelligence" used is hardly surprising. Not evidence for that this is the common name for the field. Anymore than the numerous uses of "average national IQ", "average national intelligence", and similar phrases are evidence for that these are the common name(s). As such we should use the consistency rule.Miradre (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

While the suggested title might be marginally more common, it still isn't a common name. In cases without a common name to use WP:AT says we should come up with a descriptive title. And when looking for a descriptive title, I think it is more important to look for internal consistency within Wikipedia than to choose a title which has been randomly used a couple of times by an outside source to describe the topic.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Needs more content on the topic and less on the study of the topic

So far the article talks mostly about various studies, rather than talking about geographic variation in intelligence (or IQ). Since intelligence is hard to measure/not well defined it makes sense to have some discussion of the limitations of various data-sets. But really needs more coverage of the actual variations between countries or other geographic/political divisions. Zodon (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose expanding topic and renaming: Geography and intelligence

Propose that this article topic be expanded to be geography and intelligence, or something similar (with corresponding rename). (Where intelligence in this case is human intelligence, not information gathering, nor Geospatial intelligence, nor spatial intelligence.) That would encompass physical geographic as well as political/cultural areas/groupings, and cover variations at sub-national scales as well. As far as I can tell there are no Wikipedia articles that cover this broader field. Zodon (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There was some talk about changing the title previously to something previously in the talk page or some archive. The first thing you'd need to do is show that your proposed name was actually more common for the topic, see WP:TITLE. Dmcq (talk)

This is not just a name change, this is proposing a revision (broadening) the topic of the article.

If the topic remains what it is, the name should probably be changed to List of nations and intelligence (or list of countries and intelligence - whatever is standard in project countries) for consistency with other articles reporting statistics on various countries. Zodon (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not mind readers. You need to explain things rather than just start going on about changing the name. Have you had a look at the actual contents - can you give something specific you'd like in that fits the general area but not this topic? Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it was not clear. I am in turn not sure what needs explaining. Currently this article looks at a specific subset of geography and intelligence, i.e., that dealing with the geographic units of "nations." However there are plenty of other types of geographic region that could be studied.

Basically the articles on demographics of intelligence seem to be a pretty random selection. Pick some arbitrary demographic measure, pair it with intelligence, make an article about it. (For instance, why fertility and intelligence, or race and intelligence, but not socioeconomic status and intelligence? The former two seem arbitrary, but the later seems much more likely to be closely linked, and a major factor that would need to be accounted for in analyzing many other factors (including nations and intelligence) (I realize this is not the place for that discussion - just illustrating the point that "x and intelligence" are not clearly organized.)

In the case of this article, it is not obvious why have an article just about the nation level of geography. Generalizing the article to cover the full range of geographic distinctions would hopefully give a framework to keep articles about other geographic distinctions organized, should they arise. If no such articles arise, no harm done, since the general term covers the full range (broadening the name doesn't require much change to content). So it is not that I have particular content want included, just seemed like something that would improve the clarity of organization of these articles a little.

Hope that makes it clearer. Zodon (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You've been round long enough to read WP:TITLE or WP:Verifiability. We can't just make up topics. As the second pillar of WP:5P says we need verifiable, authoritative sources. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

"The relationship between nations and intelligence is an area of study pioneered by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen".

They did not pioneer this. That would be Buj. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed material

Why was this removed?

""IQ and Global Inequality" found significant correlations between higher national IQ and a number of factors: higher Gross domestic product (GDP)/capita, higher adult literacy rate, higher gross tertiary education enrollment ratio, higher life expectancy at birth, higher level of democratization 2002 (Tatu Vanhanen's Index of Democratization), higher Human Development Index, higher Gender-related Development Index, higher economic growth rate, lower Gini index of inequality in income or consumption, lower population below the $2 a day international poverty line, lower measures of undernourishment, lower maternal mortality ratio, lower infant mortality rate, higher Corruption Perceptions Index, higher Economic Freedom of the World ratings, higher Index of Economic Freedom ratings, and more narrow population pyramid (MU Index)." I propose adding it back. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It was tidied up because the section is based on a basket of primary sources, with no secondary sources which establish the relevance or significance of any of the original research. Without robust secondary sourcing, conclusions cannot be presented as established scientific understanding. Likewise, the rest of the section needs to be cleaned up, preferably by replacing the primary sources with secondary sources. Please review WP:PSTS for further information. aprock (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources are not disallowed. No claims have been given that anything are established scientific understanding. Lots of differing opinions in this area. Wikipedia should report these.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"IQ and Global Inequality" is furthermore hardly a primary source since its reviews other studies. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. You're Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Suffice it to say, rejoining the project by asserting primary sources are not disallowed, while simultaneously sidestepping the feedback I gave you, indicates that some review of policy is in order. You're very aware of WP:ARBR&I. Now that you've returned, you might wish to take some time to review:

• WP:ARBR&I#Correct use of sources
• WP:ARBR&I#Locus and focus of dispute

Cheers, aprock (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your first link states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully." Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite. And your use of primary sources is anything but careful. If you'd like to discuss the feedback I gave you regarding the content on this page, I'm all ears. If you'd like to discuss policy interpretations, I suggest you take it to the talk page of WT:NOR or WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision. I have neither the time nor is this the place to discuss your continued problems with comprehending policy. aprock (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have any specific criticism regarding the material, the please state. Note the book is a literature review and thus hardly a secondary source. Whatever it it, is not original research. I will start by asking for a second opinion. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability of the topic

Is there any evidence that the subject of nations and intelligence has recieved significant, third party coverage? Or has all of the third party coverage of the subject simply been the criticism of the individual studies? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Yes. I'm tempted to redirect this to one of Lynn's books.....and then consolidate all of his pseudoscientific works into his article. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a question of the degree to whether the literature responding to Lynn and Vanhanen's books can be considered "a field of research" or simply part of the reception of their book. I must admit I am not sure, but actually I think that the topic probably merits an article apart from the books and form Lynn.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The section on Flynn Effect

I am not seeing that 1) the source provided supports the claim as stated nor 2) how that source supports discussion of the article topic. My (admittedly quick) scan of the source shows it talking about scores from Denmark (and Norway) and to convert that to the "some developed nations" is overstating what the source says. In addition it does not talk about the scores as "national scores", it is just using as a data sample scores from one nation. Can someone point out if I have missed something? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I sloppily inserted the source without looking at it as it supported a similar claim int the article on the Flynn effect - which is well supported, notable and frequently mentioned in relation to IQ-nations research - and which should therefore not be removed. I'll see if I can find a better source, or rewrite the section to better represent the available researcher.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually the study's conclusion supports the statement: "It is important to recognise, however, that, if indeed the Flynn Effect is now at an end in such highly developed countries as Norway and Denmark, it may be far from over in countries which are less developed. Much of the recent reporting of a continued Flynn Effect has come from such countries (Cocodia et al., 2003; Daley et al., 2003; Meisenberg et al., 2005). If such differentials were to continue, then any national differences in cognitive test performances (Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002) might be expected to diminish in the future."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is only naming two developed countries. And the "developing countries" its focus is on the "developing" portion and not the "countries" portion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

'National IQ' redirect

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 10#National IQ there is a proposal to retarget the redirect National IQ to point at this article. The discussion would benefit from additional participation, so your comments there would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Irans IQ is 100-101 not 84

I have made some research and found out that Irans IQ-score is 100-101. This based on a article about fluoride water and it's effect on Childrens IQ-scores in Iran. The result that they received was 101.

STUDY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE IQ OF CHILDREN AGE 7–9 IN A HIGH AND A LOW FLUORIDE WATER CITY IN IRAN Hamid Reza Poureslami,a Azadeh Horri,a Behshid Garrusib Koohbanan, Iran

Another research made by Nayereh Khadem and Talaat Khadivzadeh shows that the average IQ of Iranians are 100-101.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093169/ S.rafiee —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Those IQs are reported in relation to an Iranian norm sample, i.e., the Iranian mean is by definition 100. IQ does not constitute an absolute scale, and Lynn's national IQs are based on a scale where the British mean is set to 100 and other nations are compared to that.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe someone here could take a look at the article Iran's intelligence quotient and the talk page discussion there. I requested comments at Wikiproject Psychology, but didn't get any response. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Iran's intelligence quotient for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iran's intelligence quotient is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran's intelligence quotient until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination notices. I see the usual tool for making nominations seems to be skipping some of the notice steps, so I appreciate your help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge

I don't agree this article should be merged into IQ and the Wealth of Nations, but it is rather poorly-written and out of date. All of the sources it cites are over three years old, and it has little to no discussion of other factors that correlate with national IQ. Instead of being merged, I suggest the article should be expanded with newer sources. I would like suggestions about additional sources which should be used to update this article. Here are some to start:

Hunt, Earl and Wittmann, Werner. "National intelligence and national prosperity". Intelligence 36:1, 2008. Discusses limitations of Lynn and Vanhanen's data, and measures of prosperity that correlate with national IQ

Hunt, Earl. Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pages 436 to 445 are devoted to discussing worldwide variation in intelligence

Rindermann, Heiner, Woodley, Michael, and Stratford, James. "Haplogroups as evolutionary markers of cognitive ability". Intelligence 40:4, 2011. Discusses genetic haplogroups as a predictor of national IQ

Stolarski, Maciej, Zejenkowski, Marcin, and Meisenberg, Gerhard. "National intelligence and personality: Their relationships and impact on national economic success". Intelligence 41:2, 2013. Discusses the correlation between national intelligence, personality, and GDP

Christainsen, Gregory. "IQ and the wealth of nations: How much reverse causality?" Intelligence 41:5, 2013. Discusses the direction of causality between national IQ and national wealth

Meisenberg, Gerhard and. Woodley, Michael. "Are cognitive differences between countries diminishing? Evidence from TIMSS and PISA" Intelligence 41:6, 2013. Discusses how national differences in IQ may have diminished, due to the Flynn effect stopping or slowing in developed countries, while continuing in others

Any other suggestions of sources would be welcome. --Prmct (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

While I generally agree that a better article could be made, which reflects a broader view and more current results, as it is the article is just a proxy for the work of Lynn and Vanhanen. Redirecting to their most recent work until someone makes reasonable stab. Victor Charma's suggestion of basing a broader based article on the work of Hunt is an excellent idea. It might make more sense to start from scratch though. aprock (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't had been motivated to edit recently, but I'll try to improve the article soon. I still oppose merging it, and you shouldn't act unilaterally when the only other person commenting here disagrees with you. If you think the article cannot be saved, I suggest submitting it to articles for deletion instead of unilaterally turning it into a redirect. --Prmct (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You should reread WP:BRD. You might also want to reread WP:SOCK. aprock (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You were bold and I reverted you. That's what is supposed to happen. Now we can discuss it, or you can take the article to AFD, or you can start a sockpuppet investigation if that's what you were getting at. If you agree a better article could be made, why not do that yourself, instead of turning it into a redirect to another article? If you try to improve the article instead of removing it I'll help you as much as I can. --Prmct (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for a sockpuppet investigation. You are clearly a sock of some other account. As for what constitutes a better article, the redirect constitutes a better article than what is here. aprock (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read the discussion I linked to in my user talk. Not every user who registers a new account is violating the sockpuppetry policy. Anyway, you said above that the article should be based on the work of Hunt, so I added a summary sourced to him. I'll add more if I have time. I suggest you also add more sourced to whatever authors you think are most reliable. --Prmct (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The book Biopolicy: The Life Sciences and Public Policy covers the issue of nations and intelligence, though it mostly refers to National IQ levels. Reducing the article to a redirect will only lessen the possibility of us having a quality on the subject, not increase it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of that book on hand? Have you read it? aprock (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Google preview seems to include the entire section devoted to the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to summarize it, and explain why you think this niche academic publication should be used as a source in a controversial topic area? aprock (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed the content. You do realize that this was written by Tatu Vanhanen, one of the authors of IQ and Global Inequality. It's not clear what you're trying to do here, but reverting based on sources that you haven't really looked at is not constructive behavior. Please either make some constructive contributions to the article, or refrain from baseless reverting. aprock (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Vanhanen, Tatu (2012), Somit, A.; Peterson, S. A. (eds.), Biopolicy: The Life Sciences and Public Policy (Research in Biopolitics, Volume 10), Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 71–95, doi:10.1108/S2042-9940(2012)0000010005 http://books.google.com/books?id=WPKLd9vwZEwC&pg=PA71 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Presenting the source above as a "book" that "covers the issue of nations and intelligence" is a misrepresentation (if not completely disingenuous). The "topic" was basically created by Lynn and Vanhanen, and their idea that "[S]ignificant parts of global disparities in the wealth and poverty of nations can be traced to evolved human diversity measured by national IQ, human chances to remove or even to decrease those disparities are quite limited" has no mainstream support (i.e., see WP:FRINGE). Also, your edit summary "an article needing improvement is not a valid rationale for blanking it" is a fabrication that does not represent my "rationale." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did not look closely enough at the source. I did not consider the possibility it was a collection of studies as opposed to a work by the cited authors. I believe Education, Social Background and Cognitive Ability: The Decline of the Social is a satisfactory source and is not presently in the article, using the term "cognitive ability" as opposed to intelligence though it does use that term on occasion. Adverse Impact: Implications for Organizational Staffing and High Stakes Selection also goes into detail a bit from page 364 to page 366. As to the rationale, it was Aprock who used the rationale of this article needing improvement and one other cited his rationale as a reason for the redirect. The fact is the subject is notable in its own right and research into is not strictly limited to Lynn and his books.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're interested in contributing to the article, I suggest you start with more well established sources. There is a well maintained list here: [8]. If you think there are some good reliable sources that can be added, I'm sure the maintainer would welcome suggestions. If all you're going to do is dump sources that you've googled, but haven't read, please refrain. The last thing this topic area needs is drive by talk page disruption. aprock (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unworkable title

The name of this article is very problematic and makes it less understandable to our readers. The current name actually looks more like a cleverly chosen book title than a Wikipedia topic.

The very term "nation" has multiple meanings, something that is elaborated on even in our own article. The move discussion above doesn't seem to have been very thorough. Worldwide distribution of intelligence might not be the best alternative, but it's still way better than what we have now.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

rfc: Lead section

@World Champion Editor: added accusations denouncing genetic explainations as pseudoscience despited multiple references mentioned in the article pointing to partly genetic explainations. He call "'references' are a joke. This has been definitively refuted" without providing any other refs domenstrating his own accusations.--The Master (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your prose is unreadable and your argument is incoherent. This is not the place where you will spread your long-refuted Racism. World Champion Editor (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Even Hunt and Rindermann doesn't rule out a genetic factor. This is nothing to do with racism. It's just an honest reflection of related literatures.--The Master (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your prose, again, is unreadable, and your ideas have been debunked definitively 20-30 years ago. Your references are the joke, not references in general. Please, stop this. The prose needs to be fixed anyway even if your ideas were not virulent.World Champion Editor (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remind me which reference you have added ruled out genetic effects on the variation in IQ between nations.--The Master (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

one, your question indicates you do not understand how science works. Two, I added references for my claims that this is generally regarded as pseudoscience. Three, Even if your claims were true, you do not have the facility with English to be writing encylopedia articles in English yet. Why not contribute to the encylopedia in your native tongue, or spend this time learning English?. World Champion Editor (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remind me which reference you have added ruled out genetic effects on the variation in IQ between nations.--The Master (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I am done arguing with you, racist troll. I do not have to "rule out genetic effects" to say that these "hypotheses" are generally regarded as debunked, and as pseudoscience. Read the many links, you may learn something. This was a dead issue 20 years ago.World Champion Editor (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

So there is no refs that ruled out genetic effects on the variation in IQ between nations?--The Master (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an additional problem with the new "racism" and "pseudoscience" material in the lede. As far as I can tell, all of the sources cited for this sentence are specifically about causes of IQ differences between races in the United States. These sources aren't about the causes of international differences. Some of them don't discuss international differences at all, and those that do discuss them refer to them only in passing. Whoever added these sources to the lede either didn't read them carefully, or doesn't care that they're being misrepresented. 103.47.145.160 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

How is it that you suggest "nationhood" qua genetic trait would not be mediated through race? Is there a gene for Americanness now too? Your proposition that content from the "Race and Intelligence" page showing how that theory has been refuted is of no relevance to "Nationality and Intelligence" page is too silly to be worth refuting. Adieu.World Champion Editor (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research. I'm not saying that race and nationality are necessarily unrelated, but for the Wikipedia article to make that connection it must be made by the sources themselves. You can't just assume for yourself that an opinion about one topic is the same as an opinion about a different topic. If the argument you've just given is the best justification you can offer for including this material, then it needs to be removed. 103.47.145.160 (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no dispute that intelligence is effected by genes. Most researchers who have looked into the issue of variation on IQ between nations accept a partly genetic explanation. This is the opinion held by Heiner Rindermann, who is a Germany psychologist and educational researcher. He has demonstrated a partly genetic explaination in Rindermann, Heiner (July 2013). "African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations". Personality and Individual Differences. 55 (3): 229–233. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.022.. Earl B. Hunt is an American psychologist specializing in the study of human and artificial intelligence. He also wrote that genetics cannot be ruled out as a possible cause. Therefore, genetic explanation is far from "fringe". Additionally, the "Genetic causes" section mentions no work by Rushton, there is no reason to include him on the lead section. Therefore, a partly genetic explanation, though there the magnitude is still debate, is the mainstream scientific community voice. Hence, the lead section should be reverted back to my edition unless refs that ruled out genetic effects on the variation in IQ between nations can be provided.--The Master (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing several issues in a tendentious way. That intelligence in individuals is partly biological does not mean that variation between groups is caused by biology. Rinderman has not demonstrated anything, he has proposed something - and you misrepresdent his view if you claim that he considers the between nation variation to be significantly genetic. He clearly considers health and education to be the most important factors. That something cannot be ruled out is NOT evidence for its existence. IT also cannot be ruled out that god causes the differences between nations.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out.--The Master (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time talking to you, since you do not understand the issue here, and you have been asked to stop editing at the English language Encylopedia , for not being competent to write articles in English. Your version of this article was an unmitigated disaster simply on the basis of the ungrammatical and child-like prose. And the researchers you mention are even more fringe than Rushton. I help your case by mentioning him. World Champion Editor (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lord and Sovereign of Truth: detailed criticism about a book should not be written in the lead section.--The Master (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comment in your user talk about that newly-created account. 103.47.145.160 (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• No, Lynn and Vanhanen's figures have not been "validated". I am not sure what you think that word means, but I can assure you that it does not apply in the least in a context where figures have been met with as broad and universal criticism as Lynn and Vanhanens.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  How about doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.007?--The Master (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

One cannot "validate" one's own data. And if one does anyway it does not mean that the critiques of it magically disappear and the data becomes valid.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. However, they have used a different method to validate it. --The Master (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Lynn and Vanhanen

What was the purpose of the latest removal at this section?Userius (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC) @EvergreenFir: Edit-warring is when someone refuses to discuss.Userius (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You are copy-pasting a table that was fought over on both IQ and Global Inequality and IQ and the Wealth of Nations years ago. How a brand new account found that table is suspicious in the first place. You'll notice that both of those articles lack the table. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Userius has been blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey as evidence

I don't really care about the nature-versus-nurture argument, because this slapfight is never going to end. However, I am skeptical of the idea that a random survey constitutes evidence for a particular viewpoint when they are easily some of the least reliable methods of gathering data of this sort. The sheer bias in sampling and response is enough to make them worthless, and on top of that we only know how each responder filled out the survey, not their exact views on a nuanced scientific topic. For example, someone could argue that because these surveys are anonymous, many of the people that responded only did so to espouse a hereditarian viewpoint to avoid social ostracism. At the same time, it could be argued that many of the people who did not favor genes as the main difference still acknowledge them as significant, making an environmental viewpoint seem more plausible than it is. The results could be flipped, or incredibly biased toward one particular view, and it would still be no less reliable than it is now. It shouldn't be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.73.50 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph. The reason: Removing inadequate paragraph. Only 71 people of the 1,345 respondents chose to answer the survey. This represents 5% of respondents = a non-response ratio of 95%. Says nothing about the expert opinion. Dnm (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me clear and quote the study if questions arises:

"A total of 1345 people received an email invitation. /.../ We received a total of 265 responses from May 2013 to March 2014, at which time the survey was closed. /.../ The present article focused on cross-national differences and concerned questions toward the end of the survey. These questions were answered by 71 respondents. /.../ One limitation of the study can be seen in the small sample and low response rates. The sample consisted of 71 respondents /.../ In addition, self-selection of experts could have biased the results."

This makes the study useless, with only 5% response rate. Dnm (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

This article has so many problems that it should be deleted as WP:original research and WP:SYNTH. The Swedish article on this theme was deleted recently. EnWP is the only wiki with this article. We allready have the article Race and intelligence that covers this subject. Dnm (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yet again you absolutely refuse to answer to any single issue I have raised. It took me 2 minutes to find out that the journal the article is published is the largest and the #2 most-cited psychology journal in the world. If your point was valid to peer-reviewers in the field, then most certainly it wouldn't have been published there. You are a volunteer with a clear agenda; you are not an expert in the field. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add more content on the relationship with national Education-systems and Human capital flight

Could somebody please add some more content on how national education systems (this includes the school system, the media, regulations, parenthood etc) influence the intelligence in nations?

Also people seem to be unable to understand that loss of intellectual capabilities due to Human capital flight might actually be problematic to the origin country from a complex systems, problem-solving and long-term perspective. Hence it would probably be good to add any available content on this here.

--Fixuture (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that people just make up explanations of their own. Instead the article needs to cite published research such as it is without pretending to present "explanations". Of course there can be coverage on a "controversy" surrounding possible "explanations", but the main problem of the page seems to be that the article is being censored from ideological motives, preventing it from even reporting the demographic data, never mind possible speculative "explanations" of the data.

It really looks as if "people" are "unable to understand" that data (i.e. facts) on its own has value even if there is no consensus on causality or mechanisms. E.g. superconductivity had valuable applications long before it was possible to explain the phenomenon. I really want to learn what the facts are from this article, I do not expect the article to lecture me about what is "problematic" about them. --dab (𒁳) 10:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Intelligence and the Arabian world

Here's a source that links it to excessive inbreeeding: Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah (talk • contribs) 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Prevent the deletion of the map showing average IQ scores of nations

There are numerous sources that were provided during the initial edit which the people who decided to revert did not care to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeHirohito (talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your map is just a copy of this original upload which was removed from this article for being problematic itself.[9][10] Capitals00 (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If there are some RSs which support and some RSs which refute, it seems to me that WP:DUE pertains. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What is your firm opinion regarding the map? I don't think its existence is warranted here since it promotes a research that is very controversial. Capitals00 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The data there is correct, so I don't understand how it can be problematic. Comment added by ComradeHirohito —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect data for a number of countries. Your map is undue for this article and you have directly copied the image I linked above. You can't claim the work as yours only because you couldn't overwrite the image on Wiki commons. Capitals00 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed as much information as possible. I have also updated the political map itself in order to fit the modern political map of 2018. Feel free to notify me of any wrong data, and it will be fixed in no time. This is what Wikipedia is for after all. ComradeHirohito

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AverageIQOfNations.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The map is lacking a color legend!

Begone, racists!

Per wp:notforum
I am making an immediate demand that all Racists to STOP editing this page at once. Isn't there a local Klan meeting you could be attending, or something? Many thanks. Signed with Love, The Lord and Sovereign of Truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord and Sovereign of Truth (talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

5 REASONS TO DELETE

Per wp:notforum
5 POINTS 1. THIS PAGE IS AN OBVIOUS HOAX. 2. IT CLEARLY WAS NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. 3. MOST OF THE REFERENCES ARE NONSENSICAL, PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, SEVERAL DECADES OLD, AND DEBUNKED. 4. IT EXISTS ONLY TO SPREAD RACISM. 5. IS WIKIPEDIA A KLAN MEETING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord and Sovereign of Truth (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

5 REASONS TO DELETE

Per wp:notforum
5 REASONS TO DELETE THIS OBVIOUS NONSENSE 1. THIS PAGE IS AN OBVIOUS HOAX. 2. IT CLEARLY WAS NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. 3. MOST OF THE REFERENCES ARE NONSENSICAL, PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, SEVERAL DECADES OLD, AND DEBUNKED. 4. IT EXISTS ONLY TO SPREAD RACISM. 5. IS WIKIPEDIA A KLAN MEETING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord and Sovereign of Truth (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)