This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Supposing this new article is preserved (I can think of rationales for merging it with existing articles, or for continuing to have it stand as a new article), what would be the most appropriate name for this article in English? (My sense as a native speaker of English is that the current title is not the way that a native speaker of English would title it, so I'm asking for second opinions here.) I have some ideas on appropriate titles for this article that are more idiomatic in English and that follow whatever sources there may be on this subject, but first of all I will listen to the opinions of other editors to see what you think. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Miradre ( talk) 14:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not exactly replying to what is immediately above, hence the outdent. (1) A title something like "National differences in IQ" fits English idiom (and the sources) well. (2) I'm still mulling over what would be appropriate sourcing for an article like this. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading Earl Hunt's new book Human Intelligence, which contains what is probably the best single overview of various reviews, meta-analyses, and hypotheses concerning global IQ variation. He writes particularly about Lynn and Vanhanen's and Rindermann's research, but the work of Wicherts et al. and even Jared Diamond are mentioned. The heading of the concluding section of the relevant chapter in his book contains the term Worldwide distribution of intelligence, which I think we should adopt as the title of this article as well. The current title is inadequate for the linguistic reasons discussed above, and because the same title is used nowhere in the scholarly literature. In contrast, Worldwide distribution of intelligence is used by Hunt in his new book that will probably become a standard reference work in intelligence research, and also by Eppig et al. in their article about IQ and parasites, and by Rushton in one of his articles (see Google Scholar for details). According to WP:COMMONNAME, we should use "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and as Nations and intelligence has apparently never been used in scholarly sources, while my proposal has been at least a few times, I think we should change the title.
Moreover, this article may currently be an example of original synthesis. I will probably rewrite it based on Hunt's review.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 09:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Rename or delete If the topic was clearly defined this would be easier. However 'nation' is a very bad name. Nations includes the Kurds and the Irish for instance whereas they are in multiple countries. And if it means countries that is very restrictive too - would one really only be interested in the whole of India rather than its regions. I've got to stay with my original assessment, this article needs a better lead to explain it existence and Nations should be replaced by Worldwide as suggested. Current name is not a common name per WP:AT Dmcq ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That started with the sentence "In this study, we hypothesize that the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability". Worldwide is fine, there's no point following sources doing things wrong when there's good alternatives. If they don't understand English that's their problem. Dmcq ( talk) 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: discussion apparently dead, with no consensus having formed. Kotniski ( talk) 13:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Nations and intelligence → Worldwide distribution of intelligence — The current name of the article is not used in any reliable source, and is perhaps somewhat awkward stylistically. Moreover, the unit of analysis used in some of the relevant sources is race and/or continent, not nation. Therefore, I suggest that the article be renamed to Worldwide distribution of intelligence, which is a name that appears a few times in reliable sources such as Earl B. Hunt's Human Intelligence [6] ( WP:COMMONNAME), is more natural-sounding (Naturalness is one of the criteria in WP:TITLE), and succintly identifies the topics that the article is supposed to deal with (Precision criterion in WP:TITLE). 'Intelligence' is preferable to 'IQ' in the title, because some of the research is about international student achievement tests and the like that are not IQ tests. Moreover, 'intelligence' is the term used in many related articles such as Race and intelligence and Sex and intelligence.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 10:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
So far the article talks mostly about various studies, rather than talking about geographic variation in intelligence (or IQ). Since intelligence is hard to measure/not well defined it makes sense to have some discussion of the limitations of various data-sets. But really needs more coverage of the actual variations between countries or other geographic/political divisions. Zodon ( talk) 07:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Propose that this article topic be expanded to be geography and intelligence, or something similar (with corresponding rename). (Where intelligence in this case is human intelligence, not information gathering, nor Geospatial intelligence, nor spatial intelligence.) That would encompass physical geographic as well as political/cultural areas/groupings, and cover variations at sub-national scales as well. As far as I can tell there are no Wikipedia articles that cover this broader field. Zodon ( talk) 09:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"The relationship between nations and intelligence is an area of study pioneered by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen".
They did not pioneer this. That would be Buj. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why was this removed?
""IQ and Global Inequality" found significant correlations between higher national IQ and a number of factors: higher Gross domestic product (GDP)/capita, higher adult literacy rate, higher gross tertiary education enrollment ratio, higher life expectancy at birth, higher level of democratization 2002 (Tatu Vanhanen's Index of Democratization), higher Human Development Index, higher Gender-related Development Index, higher economic growth rate, lower Gini index of inequality in income or consumption, lower population below the $2 a day international poverty line, lower measures of undernourishment, lower maternal mortality ratio, lower infant mortality rate, higher Corruption Perceptions Index, higher Economic Freedom of the World ratings, higher Index of Economic Freedom ratings, and more narrow population pyramid (MU Index)." I propose adding it back. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 14:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the subject of nations and intelligence has recieved significant, third party coverage? Or has all of the third party coverage of the subject simply been the criticism of the individual studies? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not seeing that 1) the source provided supports the claim as stated nor 2) how that source supports discussion of the article topic. My (admittedly quick) scan of the source shows it talking about scores from Denmark (and Norway) and to convert that to the "some developed nations" is overstating what the source says. In addition it does not talk about the scores as "national scores", it is just using as a data sample scores from one nation. Can someone point out if I have missed something? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 10#National IQ there is a proposal to retarget the redirect National IQ to point at this article. The discussion would benefit from additional participation, so your comments there would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I have made some research and found out that Irans IQ-score is 100-101. This based on a article about fluoride water and it's effect on Childrens IQ-scores in Iran. The result that they received was 101.
STUDY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE IQ OF CHILDREN AGE 7–9 IN A HIGH AND A LOW FLUORIDE WATER CITY IN IRAN Hamid Reza Poureslami,a Azadeh Horri,a Behshid Garrusib Koohbanan, Iran
Another research made by Nayereh Khadem and Talaat Khadivzadeh shows that the average IQ of Iranians are 100-101.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093169/ S.rafiee —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iran's intelligence quotient is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran's intelligence quotient until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree this article should be merged into IQ and the Wealth of Nations, but it is rather poorly-written and out of date. All of the sources it cites are over three years old, and it has little to no discussion of other factors that correlate with national IQ. Instead of being merged, I suggest the article should be expanded with newer sources. I would like suggestions about additional sources which should be used to update this article. Here are some to start:
Hunt, Earl and Wittmann, Werner. "National intelligence and national prosperity". Intelligence 36:1, 2008. Discusses limitations of Lynn and Vanhanen's data, and measures of prosperity that correlate with national IQ
Hunt, Earl. Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pages 436 to 445 are devoted to discussing worldwide variation in intelligence
Rindermann, Heiner, Woodley, Michael, and Stratford, James. "Haplogroups as evolutionary markers of cognitive ability". Intelligence 40:4, 2011. Discusses genetic haplogroups as a predictor of national IQ
Stolarski, Maciej, Zejenkowski, Marcin, and Meisenberg, Gerhard. "National intelligence and personality: Their relationships and impact on national economic success". Intelligence 41:2, 2013. Discusses the correlation between national intelligence, personality, and GDP
Christainsen, Gregory. "IQ and the wealth of nations: How much reverse causality?" Intelligence 41:5, 2013. Discusses the direction of causality between national IQ and national wealth
Meisenberg, Gerhard and. Woodley, Michael. "Are cognitive differences between countries diminishing? Evidence from TIMSS and PISA" Intelligence 41:6, 2013. Discusses how national differences in IQ may have diminished, due to the Flynn effect stopping or slowing in developed countries, while continuing in others
Any other suggestions of sources would be welcome. -- Prmct ( talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)The name of this article is very problematic and makes it less understandable to our readers. The current name actually looks more like a cleverly chosen book title than a Wikipedia topic.
The very term "nation" has multiple meanings, something that is elaborated on even in our own article. The move discussion above doesn't seem to have been very thorough. Worldwide distribution of intelligence might not be the best alternative, but it's still way better than what we have now.
Peter Isotalo 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ World Champion Editor: added accusations denouncing genetic explainations as pseudoscience despited multiple references mentioned in the article pointing to partly genetic explainations. He call "'references' are a joke. This has been definitively refuted" without providing any other refs domenstrating his own accusations.-- The Master ( talk) 03:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Your prose is unreadable and your argument is incoherent. This is not the place where you will spread your long-refuted Racism. World Champion Editor ( talk) 03:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Even Hunt and Rindermann doesn't rule out a genetic factor. This is nothing to do with racism. It's just an honest reflection of related literatures.-- The Master ( talk) 03:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an additional problem with the new "racism" and "pseudoscience" material in the lede. As far as I can tell, all of the sources cited for this sentence are specifically about causes of IQ differences between races in the United States. These sources aren't about the causes of international differences. Some of them don't discuss international differences at all, and those that do discuss them refer to them only in passing. Whoever added these sources to the lede either didn't read them carefully, or doesn't care that they're being misrepresented. 103.47.145.160 ( talk) 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Lord and Sovereign of Truth: detailed criticism about a book should not be written in the lead section.-- The Master ( talk) 05:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What was the purpose of the latest removal at this section?
Userius (
talk) 00:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@
EvergreenFir: Edit-warring is when someone refuses to discuss.
Userius (
talk)
21:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't really care about the nature-versus-nurture argument, because this slapfight is never going to end. However, I am skeptical of the idea that a random survey constitutes evidence for a particular viewpoint when they are easily some of the least reliable methods of gathering data of this sort. The sheer bias in sampling and response is enough to make them worthless, and on top of that we only know how each responder filled out the survey, not their exact views on a nuanced scientific topic. For example, someone could argue that because these surveys are anonymous, many of the people that responded only did so to espouse a hereditarian viewpoint to avoid social ostracism. At the same time, it could be argued that many of the people who did not favor genes as the main difference still acknowledge them as significant, making an environmental viewpoint seem more plausible than it is. The results could be flipped, or incredibly biased toward one particular view, and it would still be no less reliable than it is now. It shouldn't be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.73.50 ( talk) 00:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This article has so many problems that it should be deleted as WP:original research and WP:SYNTH. The Swedish article on this theme was deleted recently. EnWP is the only wiki with this article. We allready have the article Race and intelligence that covers this subject. Dnm ( talk) 12:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody please add some more content on how national education systems (this includes the school system, the media, regulations, parenthood etc) influence the intelligence in nations?
Also people seem to be unable to understand that loss of intellectual capabilities due to Human capital flight might actually be problematic to the origin country from a complex systems, problem-solving and long-term perspective. Hence it would probably be good to add any available content on this here.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 11:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's a source that links it to excessive inbreeeding: Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
There are numerous sources that were provided during the initial edit which the people who decided to revert did not care to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeHirohito ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The data there is correct, so I don't understand how it can be problematic. Comment added by ComradeHirohito —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The map is lacking a color legend!
Per
wp:notforum
|
---|
I am making an immediate demand that all Racists to STOP editing this page at once. Isn't there a local Klan meeting you could be attending, or something? Many thanks. Signed with Love, The Lord and Sovereign of Truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord and Sovereign of Truth ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
Per
wp:notforum
|
---|
5 POINTS 1. THIS PAGE IS AN OBVIOUS HOAX. 2. IT CLEARLY WAS NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. 3. MOST OF THE REFERENCES ARE NONSENSICAL, PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, SEVERAL DECADES OLD, AND DEBUNKED. 4. IT EXISTS ONLY TO SPREAD RACISM. 5. IS WIKIPEDIA A KLAN MEETING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord and Sovereign of Truth ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
Per
wp:notforum
|
---|
5 REASONS TO DELETE THIS OBVIOUS NONSENSE 1. THIS PAGE IS AN OBVIOUS HOAX. 2. IT CLEARLY WAS NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. 3. MOST OF THE REFERENCES ARE NONSENSICAL, PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, SEVERAL DECADES OLD, AND DEBUNKED. 4. IT EXISTS ONLY TO SPREAD RACISM. 5. IS WIKIPEDIA A KLAN MEETING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord and Sovereign of Truth ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 14:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Supposing this new article is preserved (I can think of rationales for merging it with existing articles, or for continuing to have it stand as a new article), what would be the most appropriate name for this article in English? (My sense as a native speaker of English is that the current title is not the way that a native speaker of English would title it, so I'm asking for second opinions here.) I have some ideas on appropriate titles for this article that are more idiomatic in English and that follow whatever sources there may be on this subject, but first of all I will listen to the opinions of other editors to see what you think. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Miradre ( talk) 14:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not exactly replying to what is immediately above, hence the outdent. (1) A title something like "National differences in IQ" fits English idiom (and the sources) well. (2) I'm still mulling over what would be appropriate sourcing for an article like this. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been reading Earl Hunt's new book Human Intelligence, which contains what is probably the best single overview of various reviews, meta-analyses, and hypotheses concerning global IQ variation. He writes particularly about Lynn and Vanhanen's and Rindermann's research, but the work of Wicherts et al. and even Jared Diamond are mentioned. The heading of the concluding section of the relevant chapter in his book contains the term Worldwide distribution of intelligence, which I think we should adopt as the title of this article as well. The current title is inadequate for the linguistic reasons discussed above, and because the same title is used nowhere in the scholarly literature. In contrast, Worldwide distribution of intelligence is used by Hunt in his new book that will probably become a standard reference work in intelligence research, and also by Eppig et al. in their article about IQ and parasites, and by Rushton in one of his articles (see Google Scholar for details). According to WP:COMMONNAME, we should use "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and as Nations and intelligence has apparently never been used in scholarly sources, while my proposal has been at least a few times, I think we should change the title.
Moreover, this article may currently be an example of original synthesis. I will probably rewrite it based on Hunt's review.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 09:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Rename or delete If the topic was clearly defined this would be easier. However 'nation' is a very bad name. Nations includes the Kurds and the Irish for instance whereas they are in multiple countries. And if it means countries that is very restrictive too - would one really only be interested in the whole of India rather than its regions. I've got to stay with my original assessment, this article needs a better lead to explain it existence and Nations should be replaced by Worldwide as suggested. Current name is not a common name per WP:AT Dmcq ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That started with the sentence "In this study, we hypothesize that the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability". Worldwide is fine, there's no point following sources doing things wrong when there's good alternatives. If they don't understand English that's their problem. Dmcq ( talk) 12:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: discussion apparently dead, with no consensus having formed. Kotniski ( talk) 13:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Nations and intelligence → Worldwide distribution of intelligence — The current name of the article is not used in any reliable source, and is perhaps somewhat awkward stylistically. Moreover, the unit of analysis used in some of the relevant sources is race and/or continent, not nation. Therefore, I suggest that the article be renamed to Worldwide distribution of intelligence, which is a name that appears a few times in reliable sources such as Earl B. Hunt's Human Intelligence [6] ( WP:COMMONNAME), is more natural-sounding (Naturalness is one of the criteria in WP:TITLE), and succintly identifies the topics that the article is supposed to deal with (Precision criterion in WP:TITLE). 'Intelligence' is preferable to 'IQ' in the title, because some of the research is about international student achievement tests and the like that are not IQ tests. Moreover, 'intelligence' is the term used in many related articles such as Race and intelligence and Sex and intelligence.-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 10:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
So far the article talks mostly about various studies, rather than talking about geographic variation in intelligence (or IQ). Since intelligence is hard to measure/not well defined it makes sense to have some discussion of the limitations of various data-sets. But really needs more coverage of the actual variations between countries or other geographic/political divisions. Zodon ( talk) 07:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Propose that this article topic be expanded to be geography and intelligence, or something similar (with corresponding rename). (Where intelligence in this case is human intelligence, not information gathering, nor Geospatial intelligence, nor spatial intelligence.) That would encompass physical geographic as well as political/cultural areas/groupings, and cover variations at sub-national scales as well. As far as I can tell there are no Wikipedia articles that cover this broader field. Zodon ( talk) 09:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"The relationship between nations and intelligence is an area of study pioneered by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen".
They did not pioneer this. That would be Buj. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why was this removed?
""IQ and Global Inequality" found significant correlations between higher national IQ and a number of factors: higher Gross domestic product (GDP)/capita, higher adult literacy rate, higher gross tertiary education enrollment ratio, higher life expectancy at birth, higher level of democratization 2002 (Tatu Vanhanen's Index of Democratization), higher Human Development Index, higher Gender-related Development Index, higher economic growth rate, lower Gini index of inequality in income or consumption, lower population below the $2 a day international poverty line, lower measures of undernourishment, lower maternal mortality ratio, lower infant mortality rate, higher Corruption Perceptions Index, higher Economic Freedom of the World ratings, higher Index of Economic Freedom ratings, and more narrow population pyramid (MU Index)." I propose adding it back. Acadēmica Orientālis ( talk) 14:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the subject of nations and intelligence has recieved significant, third party coverage? Or has all of the third party coverage of the subject simply been the criticism of the individual studies? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not seeing that 1) the source provided supports the claim as stated nor 2) how that source supports discussion of the article topic. My (admittedly quick) scan of the source shows it talking about scores from Denmark (and Norway) and to convert that to the "some developed nations" is overstating what the source says. In addition it does not talk about the scores as "national scores", it is just using as a data sample scores from one nation. Can someone point out if I have missed something? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 10#National IQ there is a proposal to retarget the redirect National IQ to point at this article. The discussion would benefit from additional participation, so your comments there would be welcome. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I have made some research and found out that Irans IQ-score is 100-101. This based on a article about fluoride water and it's effect on Childrens IQ-scores in Iran. The result that they received was 101.
STUDY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE IQ OF CHILDREN AGE 7–9 IN A HIGH AND A LOW FLUORIDE WATER CITY IN IRAN Hamid Reza Poureslami,a Azadeh Horri,a Behshid Garrusib Koohbanan, Iran
Another research made by Nayereh Khadem and Talaat Khadivzadeh shows that the average IQ of Iranians are 100-101.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093169/ S.rafiee —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iran's intelligence quotient is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran's intelligence quotient until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree this article should be merged into IQ and the Wealth of Nations, but it is rather poorly-written and out of date. All of the sources it cites are over three years old, and it has little to no discussion of other factors that correlate with national IQ. Instead of being merged, I suggest the article should be expanded with newer sources. I would like suggestions about additional sources which should be used to update this article. Here are some to start:
Hunt, Earl and Wittmann, Werner. "National intelligence and national prosperity". Intelligence 36:1, 2008. Discusses limitations of Lynn and Vanhanen's data, and measures of prosperity that correlate with national IQ
Hunt, Earl. Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pages 436 to 445 are devoted to discussing worldwide variation in intelligence
Rindermann, Heiner, Woodley, Michael, and Stratford, James. "Haplogroups as evolutionary markers of cognitive ability". Intelligence 40:4, 2011. Discusses genetic haplogroups as a predictor of national IQ
Stolarski, Maciej, Zejenkowski, Marcin, and Meisenberg, Gerhard. "National intelligence and personality: Their relationships and impact on national economic success". Intelligence 41:2, 2013. Discusses the correlation between national intelligence, personality, and GDP
Christainsen, Gregory. "IQ and the wealth of nations: How much reverse causality?" Intelligence 41:5, 2013. Discusses the direction of causality between national IQ and national wealth
Meisenberg, Gerhard and. Woodley, Michael. "Are cognitive differences between countries diminishing? Evidence from TIMSS and PISA" Intelligence 41:6, 2013. Discusses how national differences in IQ may have diminished, due to the Flynn effect stopping or slowing in developed countries, while continuing in others
Any other suggestions of sources would be welcome. -- Prmct ( talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)The name of this article is very problematic and makes it less understandable to our readers. The current name actually looks more like a cleverly chosen book title than a Wikipedia topic.
The very term "nation" has multiple meanings, something that is elaborated on even in our own article. The move discussion above doesn't seem to have been very thorough. Worldwide distribution of intelligence might not be the best alternative, but it's still way better than what we have now.
Peter Isotalo 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ World Champion Editor: added accusations denouncing genetic explainations as pseudoscience despited multiple references mentioned in the article pointing to partly genetic explainations. He call "'references' are a joke. This has been definitively refuted" without providing any other refs domenstrating his own accusations.-- The Master ( talk) 03:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Your prose is unreadable and your argument is incoherent. This is not the place where you will spread your long-refuted Racism. World Champion Editor ( talk) 03:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Even Hunt and Rindermann doesn't rule out a genetic factor. This is nothing to do with racism. It's just an honest reflection of related literatures.-- The Master ( talk) 03:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an additional problem with the new "racism" and "pseudoscience" material in the lede. As far as I can tell, all of the sources cited for this sentence are specifically about causes of IQ differences between races in the United States. These sources aren't about the causes of international differences. Some of them don't discuss international differences at all, and those that do discuss them refer to them only in passing. Whoever added these sources to the lede either didn't read them carefully, or doesn't care that they're being misrepresented. 103.47.145.160 ( talk) 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Lord and Sovereign of Truth: detailed criticism about a book should not be written in the lead section.-- The Master ( talk) 05:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What was the purpose of the latest removal at this section?
Userius (
talk) 00:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@
EvergreenFir: Edit-warring is when someone refuses to discuss.
Userius (
talk)
21:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't really care about the nature-versus-nurture argument, because this slapfight is never going to end. However, I am skeptical of the idea that a random survey constitutes evidence for a particular viewpoint when they are easily some of the least reliable methods of gathering data of this sort. The sheer bias in sampling and response is enough to make them worthless, and on top of that we only know how each responder filled out the survey, not their exact views on a nuanced scientific topic. For example, someone could argue that because these surveys are anonymous, many of the people that responded only did so to espouse a hereditarian viewpoint to avoid social ostracism. At the same time, it could be argued that many of the people who did not favor genes as the main difference still acknowledge them as significant, making an environmental viewpoint seem more plausible than it is. The results could be flipped, or incredibly biased toward one particular view, and it would still be no less reliable than it is now. It shouldn't be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.73.50 ( talk) 00:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This article has so many problems that it should be deleted as WP:original research and WP:SYNTH. The Swedish article on this theme was deleted recently. EnWP is the only wiki with this article. We allready have the article Race and intelligence that covers this subject. Dnm ( talk) 12:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody please add some more content on how national education systems (this includes the school system, the media, regulations, parenthood etc) influence the intelligence in nations?
Also people seem to be unable to understand that loss of intellectual capabilities due to Human capital flight might actually be problematic to the origin country from a complex systems, problem-solving and long-term perspective. Hence it would probably be good to add any available content on this here.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 11:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's a source that links it to excessive inbreeeding: Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
There are numerous sources that were provided during the initial edit which the people who decided to revert did not care to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeHirohito ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The data there is correct, so I don't understand how it can be problematic. Comment added by ComradeHirohito —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
The map is lacking a color legend!
Per
wp:notforum
|
---|
I am making an immediate demand that all Racists to STOP editing this page at once. Isn't there a local Klan meeting you could be attending, or something? Many thanks. Signed with Love, The Lord and Sovereign of Truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord and Sovereign of Truth ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
Per
wp:notforum
|
---|
5 POINTS 1. THIS PAGE IS AN OBVIOUS HOAX. 2. IT CLEARLY WAS NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. 3. MOST OF THE REFERENCES ARE NONSENSICAL, PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, SEVERAL DECADES OLD, AND DEBUNKED. 4. IT EXISTS ONLY TO SPREAD RACISM. 5. IS WIKIPEDIA A KLAN MEETING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord and Sovereign of Truth ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
Per
wp:notforum
|
---|
5 REASONS TO DELETE THIS OBVIOUS NONSENSE 1. THIS PAGE IS AN OBVIOUS HOAX. 2. IT CLEARLY WAS NOT WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. 3. MOST OF THE REFERENCES ARE NONSENSICAL, PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC, SEVERAL DECADES OLD, AND DEBUNKED. 4. IT EXISTS ONLY TO SPREAD RACISM. 5. IS WIKIPEDIA A KLAN MEETING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord and Sovereign of Truth ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |