![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Maybe instead of using the race card we should be more worried about what it takes to bring the IQ score up in 3rd world countries. I for one don’t look down on people because they can’t do something. I instead try to understand why they can’t. Don’t mislead people by making them think they have been discriminated against and that’s why they can’t do something instead teach them what they need to do it. I am sure that in many cases countries with lower I.Q. scores will not see them much higher for generations to come. It might be a good idea to also look at the food they eat and how much food is available to them as they grow up. Breed love compassion and understanding not hate! We should never blame others for our short comings instead we should ask for help in overcoming them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickintx ( talk • contribs)
I am a red-cross volunteer who is stationed in Zimbabwe, and I can say that these statistics are complete garbage. Though I do believe that if children from poverty-stricken Africa were tested on their reading comprehension/mathematical skills/etc, that they would score extremely low. ( likely at or near the range provided here) The notion that the average Black African is far less intelligent than the average down syndrome child is just silly. It is absurd to give these kids, many of whom have never been to school in their lives, a standardized test on basic skills and compare them with wealthy western kids.... This article promotes hatred and racism, and the book itself implies that Blacks are sub-human and inferior, what a piece of worthless bigotry.
It's a logical conclusion based on facts and thus, no matter how hard it may be for you to swallow, the truth. It may clash with your politically correct view of the world, but some day you will learn that the world isn't a fair place and people just aren't equal (not saying they shouldn't be treated equally, though.) Your comment about the test methods show that you have little grasp of what an IQ test actually entails. Most IQ tests are language/culture/education-neutral by using symbols and figures. Your remark that black people are subhuman and inferior seems to be more of your own conclusion than that of the author...
[Apologies in advance if my English is poor :}] I am a Nigerian rhuemotologist with a high (130+) but by no means unprecedented IQ. I must admit, I find it strange that I have recieved countless job offers in America and Europe despite being relatively young and inexperienced. I even was offered position on the Mayo Clinic's prestigious executive board, which would make me the youngest member ever to serve on the board. My point is, the general special treatment I have recieved ever since I applied for medical school is very dangerous. Many intelligent blacks have a major lack of work ethic because of this preferential treatment, and it is holding back their potential. This information should be destroyed by every government in the free world in order to eliminate degrading programs like Affirmative Action.
IQ is ALL a cultural thing, how anyone can claim it's a racial thing after white catholics in Britain and white Protestants have a 15 point IQ gap (equal to America's black/white IQ gap) is ridiculous. The idea that the average African black IQ is boarderline retarted, is on the whole, , absurd. I know this sounds like a stupid argument, but I have a colleague who is a physician from Equatorial Guinea, and though I hate to be judgemental, I'd guess her IQ had to be around 130-140, which would make her almost triple the average IQ in Guinea. Let me tell you, if the average person in Guinea really had an IQ far below the average retard, would it even be POSSIBLE for one Native Citizen of the country to have an IQ of 130-140. Of course, when you grow up in Black Africa you have learned none of the skills we teach our children here. And of course, when you give Black African children IQ tests (involving Math, verbal skills, and learning abilities) they will do miserable, many scoring in the retarted range. This is simply because these children have had NO opportunity to learn Math, verbal skills, and learning abilites. 66.188.217.254 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me, I'm new to wikipedia......
But back to our subject, is it really true that any phenotypic trait (more specifically, IQ) is possible among a group of people. Though there is, of course, a large variance in IQ among humans, I've always thought that there is a certain limit to how intelligent or unintelligent one could be. For example, the standard IQ in the US is approximately 100, would it be possible for any one person in the US to have an IQ of 250? Or also, an IQ of 30? 66.188.217.254 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have a link to these old "IQ-test" findings, at least in the scandinavian nations?? I believe they were quoted in the appendix of the Bell Curve, and this week in the main, local newspaper of Finland?? (comparing 1950 and 1960, increase of 20 points, so now we probably have an average of 140 points)
Plus a link on how, where and why IQ-tests are re-scaled every 10 years, to be sure to keep the 100 point average.
Note: some links to some academic reviews of this book: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=14572
The Rushton one is complimentary, but, sorry, I'm finding it almost impossible to believe that the citizens of Guinea have a mean IQ of 59. -- Robert Merkel 10:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
This review savages their statistical methods, though not the ones directly related to this article: http://socio.ch/internat/volken.htm
I did some work on this article, mainly explaining why this data should be taken with a huge farking grain of salt.
This is really dangerous information, when one considers the effects it could have on other nations' foreign policy, investment, public opinion regarding racial issues, etc. If the data is accurate, I don't think it should be censored, but I do think we need to explain all the possible reasons why this data is probably flawed or untrustworthy on some level.
I think the really big key is that the supposedly "smart" nations are those which use frequent IQ-test-like examinations in their educational systems, and it seems to me that the more testing a nation has, the higher its average IQ score on this list. Since it's possible to dramatically increase IQ scores by practicing IQ and IQ-like exams (and, in some parts of the world, esp. Asia, kids study like mad for those things, because they mean everything) I think these results have very little validity in terms of measuring peoples' actual intelligence.
(On the other hand, if testing increases IQ, maybe GWF's educational policies are a good thing...)
Most of these people who come out with findings on supposed race-intelligence correlations are those with some racist axe to grind. Normally, they're sock puppets for right-wing think tanks. Mike Church 02:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
To give another example, taken from an English Literature exam, asking abvout the relationship between Lady McBeth and Duncan. The question was
"Why should Lady McBeth mind Duncan coming to visit?"
But what does the question mean? In most areas of Britain it would mean
"Why should Lady McBeth WORRY ABOUT Duncan coming to visit?"
However in areas of Scotland the question would be read as
"Why should Lady McBeth REMEMBER Duncan coming to visit?"
Mind as in Remind, being a word connected to memory.
Two fairly insignificant examples, both of which suggest that trying to compare IQ results between one culture or country and another is unlikely to produce valid results. ping 07:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
On VfD, Verily asked why this might be regarded as dangerous information. My comment would be that the ranking could be used as justification for the poverty of a nation. ie they are poor because they are less intelligent. The opposing view would point at things like the World Bank, the IMF, international trade, corruption, exploitation, etc etc. So this ranking can be used as a whitewash argument to gloss over other injustices. -- bodnotbod 12:46, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
This article strikes me as a tad misleading. The scientific conclusion is more or less "there is a correlation between IQ and GDP." The article fails to point out that correlation is not equal to causation. Especially in this case, I pulled a few quotes from the Copenhagen Consensus on micronutrients:
I'd like to add a section along these lines. Feco 16:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I came across this article while doing leisure research on Africa and was amazed that the correlation is such as surprise. Malnutrition was one of my responses to the authors. Malnutrition can impair brain development and health as stated above (70IQ or below is mild retardation). It can't help a governor of a nation from an intellectual capital factor to have a noticeable portion of their population that lack proper nutrients which lead to impaired neural connectivity. Maybe one day, there will be no more hunger in the world.
Prospero74
21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think there's something approaching consensus that this article should be moved to IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Any more objections? -- Robert Merkel 01:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh well, I moved it and added JamesMLane's introduction, and agree that the extra information should be added. The links I've given should be helpful for the rebuttal, but I don't actually have access to a copy to be able to summarise its key arguments. -- Robert Merkel 10:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Why is Guinea listed twice? Which one is right? Also, the list isn't alphabetized within equivalent groups. It's a bit of a mess, and I don't have the book on hand to clean it up. Grendelkhan 01:08, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
This page (under a former name) was up for deletion. Result of debate was - no consensus - continue at talk page. Here is the deletion debate
The following week's edition retracted the data: "Alas, we were the victim of a hoax: no such data exists."
I am fair confident that the above recent addition is itself a hoax because I have the following week's edition (i.e. this week's) and there is no retraction that I can see. Further this data is in the book. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
This article is given as background info in the article Finlands statsminister i rasistskandal in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, 10 August 2004. See [3], look under Externa länkar.
The article says: "There are also errors in the raw data presented by authors. The results from Vinko Buj's 1981 study used different scaling from Lynn and Vanhanen's. Also, Buj's original IQ figures in Ireland, Norway and Greece differ from the figures given by Lynn and Vanhanen." Until details can be provided about this, I think the Buj item should be deleted from the article. -- hitssquad 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine wrote, "Explains why they never tried to publish the result as a peer-reviewed study." That was not contested. Where did the information come from that there are errors in the data, and what are those errors?-- hitssquad 21:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
80.170.38.235, what changes would you like to see in the article, and why? I reverted your first edit because you wiped the article. You posted your second edit while I was reverting your first one and so my reversion calcelled both of those edits. -- hitssquad 10:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know how to make a new title, so I just added on to this one. Lets be honest, if they found out that say the IQ of Spain or Austria was around a 50, nobody would say a thing. But because the lowest IQs found are those of Blacks the politically correct crowd needs to argue that something must be wrong. I think this is absurd that political correctness needs to get in the way of everything, we all know that if it was a White nation at the lower end of that list, the topic wouldn't even be brought up. 68.47.234.204 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) zeitgeist
Anyone who believes that the average IQ in Equatorial Guinea is 59 has detached from reality and is completely out of his/her mind. This page is bigoted trash and should be deleted.
If a nation earns an average IQ of 59, then we have learned more about the unscientific nature of IQ testing than we have about the people we've tested. It's not like we're taking a scientific measuring stick like a thermometer and saying that it's hotter by the Equator. IQ tests have at least a one standard deviation margin of error. Imagine if your already mistake prone weatherman estimated a daily temperature within 30 degrees farenheit of accuracy. The unnecessary fuss over a country's IQ is exacerbated by an IQ test's inherent uselessness when applied to individuals who haven't a clue about abstract verbal thinking; give them a measure of
geometric reasoning and then tell me you're still convinced about Luddite notions of intelligence as a construct. Westerners haven't a clue when it comes to global outside-the-box thinking applied to intelligence theory. That's just my point of view. :)
BrainDoc
02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
can we put that table in a template and then have the template protected? -- Rikurzhen 08:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
i added a pov tag to the critique section b/c many of the claims are unsourced/unattributed. they may or may not be accurate: i don't know. -- Rikurzhen 09:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Colombia is nowhere near El Salvador... --
66.201.178.252
I'm removing this paragraph because it seems to contradict itself:
There are only 81 countries listed. If 34 had one study each, and 30 had two studies each, there can only be 17 countries left to have had any other number of studies. It's logically impossible for most countries to have zero studies, which the text claims, given these restrictions. -- Schaefer 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I move to delete all of the offtopic posts from this Talk page. This would shorten it quite a bit and improve its readability and functionality. -- hitssquad 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think leaving them in may save editors the trouble of responding to similar comments again in the future.-- Nectar 20:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() | Talk pages are intended to be used to discuss the article itself, and how to improve that article. Arguments over the truth or otherwise of the claims in IQ and the Wealth of Nations are off-topic and do not belong here. To skip over the offtopic comments, skip to #10-20 extra IQ-points for every new generation?? |
ul, this climate theory is discussed in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. it's just a bonus that they use the same IQ data. they're asking Lynn's question with Lynn's data. that's pretty much right on the mark. i'm too lazy to detail sternberg's concerns about it, but anyone else is welcome to. the article is too short on peer reviewed studies for a deletionist tacitc. balance the pov with more info, not with deletion. -- Rikurzhen 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
if you're interested in this, start with reviewer commentaries published with the main article. try to keep your focus on IQatWoN. you can always fill in details at R&I. -- Rikurzhen 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps some mention of the complete lack of consistancy with national data should be mentioned in this section. To think these tests are accurate measures of intelligence at all is absurd, when just looking at basic things such as a 6 point difference between two tests taken by French children in the same year! Some of these scores might as well have been drawn from a hat - for example Ireland 93, averaged from two tests in the same decade that had an 11 point difference (87/98). Portugal's 95 was averaged from two scores of 88 and 101! Maybe the validity of these test results should be called into question when considering the huge variances on scores. Not to mention the use of scores from many decades ago. Peoplesunionpro 04:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel the section on China is somewhat misleading. The book was published in 2002. Therefore, the authors were already well aware of these trends in China. The way it is written now seems to make it sound as if this was a phenomena predicted by the book which panned out (not that it took a genius to figure out China's per capita GDP would increase as it did when they moved to a market economic system) Nil Einne 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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!
Please check here www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm
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!
@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)
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!
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...
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 [6]. 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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:
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
When a statement is basically factual but its importance may be disputed, consider using argue or dispute instead:
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:
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)
So, the average Equatoria Guinean is a mental retard?
82.12.236.241 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
That does NOT seem right to me. Can somebody double-check this??? Grandpafootsoldier 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
What is the IQ score of Spain anyway? 97 or 99? Guia Hill 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello. I believe I may have said this before (perhaps in the less productive environment of R&I) but there is rarely any mention of genetics in modern theories of economic growth. I say rarely to not set myself to prove a negative, but at least I have never seen theories that rely on racial differences to explain income differences; and this is not because economists are shy. To those more familiar with this book, is there any statistical or econometric critique of it? Or was this book so irrelevant that few bothered to invalidate its claims? If you clicked on shy, note that many economists argue counter to Summer's claims, my point was that the discipline is not "PC". Thanks for any leads. Brusegadi ( talk) 03:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please correct the IQ's in the table as per the original source? [8] It looks like someone vandalized the table and the figures was never reverted. We may want to link National IQ to IQ and Global Inequality for the most recent (2006) values. Does anyone agree? Nirvana888 ( talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The IQ values have been completely corrected and reordered to the original source. Please do not vandalize or change the values or countries again. Nirvana888 ( talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Sayed!??!?!?! are you sure - you must be one of the many Americans with a sub 100 IQ score - for your information it's SAID —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.189.53 ( talk) 22:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Surely, someone must have written about it in the scientific literature. If IQ is associated with education and nutrition, and wealth is required for good education and good nutrition, then the association between IQ and wealth may be mediated by other factors. It's not a causative relationship necessarily. 201.217.109.37 ( talk) 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is some criticism :
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
Finding correlation of A, IQ, and B ,Wealth, does not necessary imply A is the cause of B, B can be the cause of A too, and they could both be the result of an unknow fact C. Or they both be the cause and consequence of each other. In this case, the relationship of IQ and wealth are more likely to fit the last model, that is they influence each other. Poor wealth can cause poor education, therefore poor IQ level.
Plus there is one major statistical flaw, the wealth and IQ of Chinese do not fit in the correlation, people in China has very high IQ but very low average wealth level. This group of 'outlier' count for 20% of world population. How can people possible have 20% of sample to be outliers? The arbitray down ajustment of Chinese for 6 points is another flaw, the adjustment is actually not arbitrary, the author do it on purpose, he want to make sure north european nation list before China so 6 was chosen, it would reinforce his hidden argument that european desendents are more intelligent so they deserve the wealth.
This book is nothing but a propoganda material of racial discrimination. Shame on you Richard Lynn, do you forget the colonization from which some groups of people build huge amount of wealth and other groups lost it?
There is a currently a disclaimer on this page saying the article cites no sources, there clearly are reference notes and also this article's primary subject is a published book which is widely available. Whoever put the disclaimer on the page was being mendacious and the disclaimer should be removed promptly. 78.152.249.134 ( talk) 13:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on each country's average IQ, it should be readily apparent to just about anyone that the numeric rankings are incorrect. For instance, Australia, Denmark, France, Mongolia, and the USA are all tied for 9th. The ranking system punishes countries based on alphabetization.
-- 67.181.165.220 ( talk) 04:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)43 year old American male, IQ 147
I recommend a Wikipedia editor to put the sign on top of the page stating the controversial nature of this page. This topic and especially the content by the authors of this book is at best a controversial personal opinion and hardly deserves a seperate page on Wikipedia. Imagine different racistic views having their own page here. This page and its notorious and presumptive table has already made its way into other websites while this is an unfair and relatively unchallenged personal opinion of two authors from an industrial country. I will get into this more later but the above suggestion should be taken seriously by the editors. Gmotamedi ( talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not relevant since this article merely concerns the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Lynn and Vanhanen. The book itself is of course controversial and this has been already addressed in the article but the content of the article just cites the IQ table presented in the book and because of that, it isn't in any way controversial that such claims are presented in that work, is it? And concerning the notability of this research, I would like to say that mr. Lynn seems to be very prolific author of such works and such a controversial and debated publication should certainly have it's own article in Wikipedia. In any case, these so called racist views are just as noteworthy as any other views if they are notable enough since Wikipedia isn't censored in any way.
62.78.227.13 (
talk)
03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
According to statistics from Irib.com and farsnews the average IQ of Iranian people (note: iranian) is about 93. If there is any source or any information available that could prove that iranian peoples average IQ is 84 than please publish them here. I now some other sources that says iranian peoples average IQ is about 87 but then they count around 5 million refugees from Iraq, afghanistan and kurds. -- Achemenidian ( talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I just read the articel about Richard Lynn. And according to that articel Richard never tested or got any information of the average IQ in Iran.
What he did was: "Based on the IQs of Neighbouring or Other Comparable Countries."
He took the IQ of Afghanistan which was 83 and then he gave Iran automatically the IQ 84 and India the IQ 81 based on the average IQ of Afghanistan. Isn't that ridiculuos?
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.243.64 ( talk) 22:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You read it backward. He gave Afghanistan 83 based on Iran's 84 and India's 81. There are numerous IQ test in India and the average is 81, according to Lynn, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.23.54 ( talk) 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I remove the October 2006 cleanup tag from section ==Related studies==. If someone wants to add it back I understand but please write a note so we know what need specifics need to be improved. RJFJR ( talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Maybe instead of using the race card we should be more worried about what it takes to bring the IQ score up in 3rd world countries. I for one don’t look down on people because they can’t do something. I instead try to understand why they can’t. Don’t mislead people by making them think they have been discriminated against and that’s why they can’t do something instead teach them what they need to do it. I am sure that in many cases countries with lower I.Q. scores will not see them much higher for generations to come. It might be a good idea to also look at the food they eat and how much food is available to them as they grow up. Breed love compassion and understanding not hate! We should never blame others for our short comings instead we should ask for help in overcoming them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickintx ( talk • contribs)
I am a red-cross volunteer who is stationed in Zimbabwe, and I can say that these statistics are complete garbage. Though I do believe that if children from poverty-stricken Africa were tested on their reading comprehension/mathematical skills/etc, that they would score extremely low. ( likely at or near the range provided here) The notion that the average Black African is far less intelligent than the average down syndrome child is just silly. It is absurd to give these kids, many of whom have never been to school in their lives, a standardized test on basic skills and compare them with wealthy western kids.... This article promotes hatred and racism, and the book itself implies that Blacks are sub-human and inferior, what a piece of worthless bigotry.
It's a logical conclusion based on facts and thus, no matter how hard it may be for you to swallow, the truth. It may clash with your politically correct view of the world, but some day you will learn that the world isn't a fair place and people just aren't equal (not saying they shouldn't be treated equally, though.) Your comment about the test methods show that you have little grasp of what an IQ test actually entails. Most IQ tests are language/culture/education-neutral by using symbols and figures. Your remark that black people are subhuman and inferior seems to be more of your own conclusion than that of the author...
[Apologies in advance if my English is poor :}] I am a Nigerian rhuemotologist with a high (130+) but by no means unprecedented IQ. I must admit, I find it strange that I have recieved countless job offers in America and Europe despite being relatively young and inexperienced. I even was offered position on the Mayo Clinic's prestigious executive board, which would make me the youngest member ever to serve on the board. My point is, the general special treatment I have recieved ever since I applied for medical school is very dangerous. Many intelligent blacks have a major lack of work ethic because of this preferential treatment, and it is holding back their potential. This information should be destroyed by every government in the free world in order to eliminate degrading programs like Affirmative Action.
IQ is ALL a cultural thing, how anyone can claim it's a racial thing after white catholics in Britain and white Protestants have a 15 point IQ gap (equal to America's black/white IQ gap) is ridiculous. The idea that the average African black IQ is boarderline retarted, is on the whole, , absurd. I know this sounds like a stupid argument, but I have a colleague who is a physician from Equatorial Guinea, and though I hate to be judgemental, I'd guess her IQ had to be around 130-140, which would make her almost triple the average IQ in Guinea. Let me tell you, if the average person in Guinea really had an IQ far below the average retard, would it even be POSSIBLE for one Native Citizen of the country to have an IQ of 130-140. Of course, when you grow up in Black Africa you have learned none of the skills we teach our children here. And of course, when you give Black African children IQ tests (involving Math, verbal skills, and learning abilities) they will do miserable, many scoring in the retarted range. This is simply because these children have had NO opportunity to learn Math, verbal skills, and learning abilites. 66.188.217.254 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me, I'm new to wikipedia......
But back to our subject, is it really true that any phenotypic trait (more specifically, IQ) is possible among a group of people. Though there is, of course, a large variance in IQ among humans, I've always thought that there is a certain limit to how intelligent or unintelligent one could be. For example, the standard IQ in the US is approximately 100, would it be possible for any one person in the US to have an IQ of 250? Or also, an IQ of 30? 66.188.217.254 22:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have a link to these old "IQ-test" findings, at least in the scandinavian nations?? I believe they were quoted in the appendix of the Bell Curve, and this week in the main, local newspaper of Finland?? (comparing 1950 and 1960, increase of 20 points, so now we probably have an average of 140 points)
Plus a link on how, where and why IQ-tests are re-scaled every 10 years, to be sure to keep the 100 point average.
Note: some links to some academic reviews of this book: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=14572
The Rushton one is complimentary, but, sorry, I'm finding it almost impossible to believe that the citizens of Guinea have a mean IQ of 59. -- Robert Merkel 10:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
This review savages their statistical methods, though not the ones directly related to this article: http://socio.ch/internat/volken.htm
I did some work on this article, mainly explaining why this data should be taken with a huge farking grain of salt.
This is really dangerous information, when one considers the effects it could have on other nations' foreign policy, investment, public opinion regarding racial issues, etc. If the data is accurate, I don't think it should be censored, but I do think we need to explain all the possible reasons why this data is probably flawed or untrustworthy on some level.
I think the really big key is that the supposedly "smart" nations are those which use frequent IQ-test-like examinations in their educational systems, and it seems to me that the more testing a nation has, the higher its average IQ score on this list. Since it's possible to dramatically increase IQ scores by practicing IQ and IQ-like exams (and, in some parts of the world, esp. Asia, kids study like mad for those things, because they mean everything) I think these results have very little validity in terms of measuring peoples' actual intelligence.
(On the other hand, if testing increases IQ, maybe GWF's educational policies are a good thing...)
Most of these people who come out with findings on supposed race-intelligence correlations are those with some racist axe to grind. Normally, they're sock puppets for right-wing think tanks. Mike Church 02:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
To give another example, taken from an English Literature exam, asking abvout the relationship between Lady McBeth and Duncan. The question was
"Why should Lady McBeth mind Duncan coming to visit?"
But what does the question mean? In most areas of Britain it would mean
"Why should Lady McBeth WORRY ABOUT Duncan coming to visit?"
However in areas of Scotland the question would be read as
"Why should Lady McBeth REMEMBER Duncan coming to visit?"
Mind as in Remind, being a word connected to memory.
Two fairly insignificant examples, both of which suggest that trying to compare IQ results between one culture or country and another is unlikely to produce valid results. ping 07:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
On VfD, Verily asked why this might be regarded as dangerous information. My comment would be that the ranking could be used as justification for the poverty of a nation. ie they are poor because they are less intelligent. The opposing view would point at things like the World Bank, the IMF, international trade, corruption, exploitation, etc etc. So this ranking can be used as a whitewash argument to gloss over other injustices. -- bodnotbod 12:46, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
This article strikes me as a tad misleading. The scientific conclusion is more or less "there is a correlation between IQ and GDP." The article fails to point out that correlation is not equal to causation. Especially in this case, I pulled a few quotes from the Copenhagen Consensus on micronutrients:
I'd like to add a section along these lines. Feco 16:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I came across this article while doing leisure research on Africa and was amazed that the correlation is such as surprise. Malnutrition was one of my responses to the authors. Malnutrition can impair brain development and health as stated above (70IQ or below is mild retardation). It can't help a governor of a nation from an intellectual capital factor to have a noticeable portion of their population that lack proper nutrients which lead to impaired neural connectivity. Maybe one day, there will be no more hunger in the world.
Prospero74
21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think there's something approaching consensus that this article should be moved to IQ and the Wealth of Nations. Any more objections? -- Robert Merkel 01:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Oh well, I moved it and added JamesMLane's introduction, and agree that the extra information should be added. The links I've given should be helpful for the rebuttal, but I don't actually have access to a copy to be able to summarise its key arguments. -- Robert Merkel 10:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Why is Guinea listed twice? Which one is right? Also, the list isn't alphabetized within equivalent groups. It's a bit of a mess, and I don't have the book on hand to clean it up. Grendelkhan 01:08, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
This page (under a former name) was up for deletion. Result of debate was - no consensus - continue at talk page. Here is the deletion debate
The following week's edition retracted the data: "Alas, we were the victim of a hoax: no such data exists."
I am fair confident that the above recent addition is itself a hoax because I have the following week's edition (i.e. this week's) and there is no retraction that I can see. Further this data is in the book. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
This article is given as background info in the article Finlands statsminister i rasistskandal in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, 10 August 2004. See [3], look under Externa länkar.
The article says: "There are also errors in the raw data presented by authors. The results from Vinko Buj's 1981 study used different scaling from Lynn and Vanhanen's. Also, Buj's original IQ figures in Ireland, Norway and Greece differ from the figures given by Lynn and Vanhanen." Until details can be provided about this, I think the Buj item should be deleted from the article. -- hitssquad 20:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine wrote, "Explains why they never tried to publish the result as a peer-reviewed study." That was not contested. Where did the information come from that there are errors in the data, and what are those errors?-- hitssquad 21:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
80.170.38.235, what changes would you like to see in the article, and why? I reverted your first edit because you wiped the article. You posted your second edit while I was reverting your first one and so my reversion calcelled both of those edits. -- hitssquad 10:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know how to make a new title, so I just added on to this one. Lets be honest, if they found out that say the IQ of Spain or Austria was around a 50, nobody would say a thing. But because the lowest IQs found are those of Blacks the politically correct crowd needs to argue that something must be wrong. I think this is absurd that political correctness needs to get in the way of everything, we all know that if it was a White nation at the lower end of that list, the topic wouldn't even be brought up. 68.47.234.204 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) zeitgeist
Anyone who believes that the average IQ in Equatorial Guinea is 59 has detached from reality and is completely out of his/her mind. This page is bigoted trash and should be deleted.
If a nation earns an average IQ of 59, then we have learned more about the unscientific nature of IQ testing than we have about the people we've tested. It's not like we're taking a scientific measuring stick like a thermometer and saying that it's hotter by the Equator. IQ tests have at least a one standard deviation margin of error. Imagine if your already mistake prone weatherman estimated a daily temperature within 30 degrees farenheit of accuracy. The unnecessary fuss over a country's IQ is exacerbated by an IQ test's inherent uselessness when applied to individuals who haven't a clue about abstract verbal thinking; give them a measure of
geometric reasoning and then tell me you're still convinced about Luddite notions of intelligence as a construct. Westerners haven't a clue when it comes to global outside-the-box thinking applied to intelligence theory. That's just my point of view. :)
BrainDoc
02:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
can we put that table in a template and then have the template protected? -- Rikurzhen 08:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
i added a pov tag to the critique section b/c many of the claims are unsourced/unattributed. they may or may not be accurate: i don't know. -- Rikurzhen 09:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Colombia is nowhere near El Salvador... --
66.201.178.252
I'm removing this paragraph because it seems to contradict itself:
There are only 81 countries listed. If 34 had one study each, and 30 had two studies each, there can only be 17 countries left to have had any other number of studies. It's logically impossible for most countries to have zero studies, which the text claims, given these restrictions. -- Schaefer 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I move to delete all of the offtopic posts from this Talk page. This would shorten it quite a bit and improve its readability and functionality. -- hitssquad 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I think leaving them in may save editors the trouble of responding to similar comments again in the future.-- Nectar 20:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() | Talk pages are intended to be used to discuss the article itself, and how to improve that article. Arguments over the truth or otherwise of the claims in IQ and the Wealth of Nations are off-topic and do not belong here. To skip over the offtopic comments, skip to #10-20 extra IQ-points for every new generation?? |
ul, this climate theory is discussed in IQ and the Wealth of Nations. it's just a bonus that they use the same IQ data. they're asking Lynn's question with Lynn's data. that's pretty much right on the mark. i'm too lazy to detail sternberg's concerns about it, but anyone else is welcome to. the article is too short on peer reviewed studies for a deletionist tacitc. balance the pov with more info, not with deletion. -- Rikurzhen 16:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
if you're interested in this, start with reviewer commentaries published with the main article. try to keep your focus on IQatWoN. you can always fill in details at R&I. -- Rikurzhen 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps some mention of the complete lack of consistancy with national data should be mentioned in this section. To think these tests are accurate measures of intelligence at all is absurd, when just looking at basic things such as a 6 point difference between two tests taken by French children in the same year! Some of these scores might as well have been drawn from a hat - for example Ireland 93, averaged from two tests in the same decade that had an 11 point difference (87/98). Portugal's 95 was averaged from two scores of 88 and 101! Maybe the validity of these test results should be called into question when considering the huge variances on scores. Not to mention the use of scores from many decades ago. Peoplesunionpro 04:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I feel the section on China is somewhat misleading. The book was published in 2002. Therefore, the authors were already well aware of these trends in China. The way it is written now seems to make it sound as if this was a phenomena predicted by the book which panned out (not that it took a genius to figure out China's per capita GDP would increase as it did when they moved to a market economic system) Nil Einne 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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!
Please check here www.isteve.com/IQ_Table.htm
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!
@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)
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!
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...
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 [6]. 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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:
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
When a statement is basically factual but its importance may be disputed, consider using argue or dispute instead:
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:
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)
So, the average Equatoria Guinean is a mental retard?
82.12.236.241 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
That does NOT seem right to me. Can somebody double-check this??? Grandpafootsoldier 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
What is the IQ score of Spain anyway? 97 or 99? Guia Hill 01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello. I believe I may have said this before (perhaps in the less productive environment of R&I) but there is rarely any mention of genetics in modern theories of economic growth. I say rarely to not set myself to prove a negative, but at least I have never seen theories that rely on racial differences to explain income differences; and this is not because economists are shy. To those more familiar with this book, is there any statistical or econometric critique of it? Or was this book so irrelevant that few bothered to invalidate its claims? If you clicked on shy, note that many economists argue counter to Summer's claims, my point was that the discipline is not "PC". Thanks for any leads. Brusegadi ( talk) 03:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please correct the IQ's in the table as per the original source? [8] It looks like someone vandalized the table and the figures was never reverted. We may want to link National IQ to IQ and Global Inequality for the most recent (2006) values. Does anyone agree? Nirvana888 ( talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The IQ values have been completely corrected and reordered to the original source. Please do not vandalize or change the values or countries again. Nirvana888 ( talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
Sayed!??!?!?! are you sure - you must be one of the many Americans with a sub 100 IQ score - for your information it's SAID —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.189.53 ( talk) 22:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Surely, someone must have written about it in the scientific literature. If IQ is associated with education and nutrition, and wealth is required for good education and good nutrition, then the association between IQ and wealth may be mediated by other factors. It's not a causative relationship necessarily. 201.217.109.37 ( talk) 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is some criticism :
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
Finding correlation of A, IQ, and B ,Wealth, does not necessary imply A is the cause of B, B can be the cause of A too, and they could both be the result of an unknow fact C. Or they both be the cause and consequence of each other. In this case, the relationship of IQ and wealth are more likely to fit the last model, that is they influence each other. Poor wealth can cause poor education, therefore poor IQ level.
Plus there is one major statistical flaw, the wealth and IQ of Chinese do not fit in the correlation, people in China has very high IQ but very low average wealth level. This group of 'outlier' count for 20% of world population. How can people possible have 20% of sample to be outliers? The arbitray down ajustment of Chinese for 6 points is another flaw, the adjustment is actually not arbitrary, the author do it on purpose, he want to make sure north european nation list before China so 6 was chosen, it would reinforce his hidden argument that european desendents are more intelligent so they deserve the wealth.
This book is nothing but a propoganda material of racial discrimination. Shame on you Richard Lynn, do you forget the colonization from which some groups of people build huge amount of wealth and other groups lost it?
There is a currently a disclaimer on this page saying the article cites no sources, there clearly are reference notes and also this article's primary subject is a published book which is widely available. Whoever put the disclaimer on the page was being mendacious and the disclaimer should be removed promptly. 78.152.249.134 ( talk) 13:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on each country's average IQ, it should be readily apparent to just about anyone that the numeric rankings are incorrect. For instance, Australia, Denmark, France, Mongolia, and the USA are all tied for 9th. The ranking system punishes countries based on alphabetization.
-- 67.181.165.220 ( talk) 04:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)43 year old American male, IQ 147
I recommend a Wikipedia editor to put the sign on top of the page stating the controversial nature of this page. This topic and especially the content by the authors of this book is at best a controversial personal opinion and hardly deserves a seperate page on Wikipedia. Imagine different racistic views having their own page here. This page and its notorious and presumptive table has already made its way into other websites while this is an unfair and relatively unchallenged personal opinion of two authors from an industrial country. I will get into this more later but the above suggestion should be taken seriously by the editors. Gmotamedi ( talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not relevant since this article merely concerns the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Lynn and Vanhanen. The book itself is of course controversial and this has been already addressed in the article but the content of the article just cites the IQ table presented in the book and because of that, it isn't in any way controversial that such claims are presented in that work, is it? And concerning the notability of this research, I would like to say that mr. Lynn seems to be very prolific author of such works and such a controversial and debated publication should certainly have it's own article in Wikipedia. In any case, these so called racist views are just as noteworthy as any other views if they are notable enough since Wikipedia isn't censored in any way.
62.78.227.13 (
talk)
03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
According to statistics from Irib.com and farsnews the average IQ of Iranian people (note: iranian) is about 93. If there is any source or any information available that could prove that iranian peoples average IQ is 84 than please publish them here. I now some other sources that says iranian peoples average IQ is about 87 but then they count around 5 million refugees from Iraq, afghanistan and kurds. -- Achemenidian ( talk) 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I just read the articel about Richard Lynn. And according to that articel Richard never tested or got any information of the average IQ in Iran.
What he did was: "Based on the IQs of Neighbouring or Other Comparable Countries."
He took the IQ of Afghanistan which was 83 and then he gave Iran automatically the IQ 84 and India the IQ 81 based on the average IQ of Afghanistan. Isn't that ridiculuos?
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.243.64 ( talk) 22:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You read it backward. He gave Afghanistan 83 based on Iran's 84 and India's 81. There are numerous IQ test in India and the average is 81, according to Lynn, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.23.54 ( talk) 23:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I remove the October 2006 cleanup tag from section ==Related studies==. If someone wants to add it back I understand but please write a note so we know what need specifics need to be improved. RJFJR ( talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)