Jump to content

Talk:Nations and IQ/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"Nation" as a thinly disguised proxy for race

Regarding this edit:

This article is about nation and intelligence, not race and intelligence.

For the first paragraph, it's not clear what "two books" this is talking about, unless this is a mangled WP:COATRACK for discussing Lynn and Vanhana's two books in a more flattering light. This would certainly match the rest of the article.

Regarding Satoshi Kanazawa. There are two big problems. For one, his endorsement of Lynn's "cold weather" hypothesis, in one paper, simply doesn't belong as a reflection of the entire topic of "nations and intelligence" based on a primary source. The only secondary source is a response pointing out how absurd this paper is. That's better than nothing, but why bother listing it at all?

More importantly, this isn't about "nations", it's about genetic heritage based on location. It's very obviously about race, based on both the source itself, and the surrounding context. The first to citations in the paper are papers by J. Phillipe Rushton and Richard Lynn specifically about "race". This approach appears more tactical than honest.

The rest is similar. As for the two papers which where both published in Personality and Individual Differences in 2016, they were also both with Rindermann as a coauthor. Using WP:PRIMARY sources for detailed scientific claims is always dicey to begin with, and again, this is clearly about race, not nation. Surely if this is important to the topic, as it's distinct from race and intelligence, it should be possible to summarize reliable, independent sources for these points. Cherry-picking primary sources which are sympathetic to Lynn's obsolete views is not appropriate in any way. Grayfell (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan seem usable? They're clearly talking about nations (and national conditions) and not race. While they were only mentioned as a response to the ones you removed, their paper says a lot more than that, so it could easily be tweaked to resolve that. --Aquillion (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
LOL, here we go again. I recommend looking at this arbitration enforcement report, as well as my comment here. I think we all know where this is headed. To be clear, I am not referring to Grayfell's revert of AndewNguyen's recent edit, since reverting the addition of new material that hasn't been discussed yet is a normal part of the WP:BRD process. I'm referring to his removal of material that had been in the article for years, and insisting in his edit summary that consensus must be obtained before restoring the established material.
Grayfell, you do not really want to head further down this path, do you? 2600:1004:B16F:5D75:745F:AAE0:8044:13B0 (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
For someone who can't be bothered to create an account, and refuses to disclose your conflicts of interest dispute multiple requests from multiple experienced editors, you sure patrol these topics like a hawk. As I said, this article cannot be maintained as a 'racialist friendly' alternative to race and intelligence. Being old is no excuse. This was bad material, and having been ignored in the past is no defense for it now. If you had some valid reason to argue for including this, you surely would've already made it instead of off-topic veiled threats, wikidrama, and posturing.
Good point about Wicherts, Borsboom, and Dolan. I have restored that content. Obviously there is huge room for improvement here. The topic is potentially encyclopedic, but this article isn't doing it justice. If it's mostly just regurgitating Lynn and Rushton's old junk, then it should be trimmed, or merged to better targets. Grayfell (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is more a user conduct issue than a content dispute, and you've previously mentioned that you refuse to read anything I post in your user talk. On any individual article it's about article content, but what I'm looking to address is the long-term issue of you claiming that nobody can undo your bold changes unless they get a consensus first. No one else does this, at least not anyone who's editing the articles currently.
In the "Causes of national differences" section, you've removed 100% of the sources arguing for a role of genetics. Do you not see any problem with that? I'm fine with the genetic hypothesis being given less space than it was before, but it should not be given zero space. Two secondary sources we could use in that section, which discuss the possible role of genetics, are Hunt's Human Intelligence and Rindermann's Cognitive Capitalism. Would you allow those sources to be used? 2600:1004:B16F:5D75:745F:AAE0:8044:13B0 (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"Race" is a term that has been used in a great many ways. For the best discussion I know of, there's a good article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [1]. . It's not over-technical, unlike some of their entries. Unfortunately their license is -NC, so we can't just copy it. The discussion on inteligence is near the end, but for our problems here, it is not really in as great depth as some of their other analyses.
"Nation" is also multi-meaning. The terms have been used in the past as synonyms. How they are used in any particular sense must be judged from context; this is especially true for periods before the mmid-20th century, but this article is talking about current publications. In the modern world, almost none of the groups that have been called races are homogenous, and I think that's true of nations in the political sense also. "Nation" in the political sense has a clear advantage for purposes of analysis, that statistics are available for groups of people divided on that basis.
It would in my opinion absurd to deny the possible significance of genetics of any animal on the behavior of the animal. I'd similarly think it absurd to deny the possible influence of the genetic variations within or between groups however selected on the behavior of the individuals in those groups. The key word in what I said is "possible". It would be equally absurd to say that there must be a significant influence. It is also absurd to conclude in advance there cannot be a scientific way of studying it. Of course, it is not not clear that the way nations and population groups are in fact constituted makes it possible to get meaningful conclusions, but it and everything else about humans is appropriate for dispassionate investigation.
To not investigate something because one might be uncomfortable with the conclusions is foolish, because it also limits the possible opportunity to alleviate whatever one might be uncomfortable with. There are a great many things where scientific study seems to lead to conclusions that I am very uncomfortable with and wish very much were otherwise. The clearest analogy I can make to the refusal to study the sort of possible relationships being discussed here is the refusal to study human effects upon climate. Some people will try to keep it from being investigated because an awareness of the true state might lead to economic effects that would disadvantage them (or, in this case, decrease their great economic advantage over other people.
The reason I do not work on some topics in WP is because some people whom I agree with politically are trying to perpetuate ignorance; I cannot deal with such tensions within our rules. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
A major difference is that to evaluate if the Earth is heating up, we only need to distribute temperature sensors in oceans and on the land, pickup data from weather balloons, etc. Simple math then allows to update averages, lows and highs, etc. Connecting particular weather events to temperature increase is another matter, but it's not difficult to correlate their statistics as a whole (number of occurances and size and strength vs water temperature, etc). Much research in psychology is much less established (a social science), although there were obvious milestones. Unfortunately, a lot of psychology was abused for ideological purposes, something which History of the race and intelligence controversy displays. To assess anything in relation to intelligence for a group, one is limited to statistics about wealth, the status of the area's health system, academic results (and evaluation of the quality of education and its access), IQ tests (results depending on their methodological flaws, the competency of the staff to run tests as well as to compile their results, the general health of participants, the participants willingness to participate and their understanding of both instructions and goals, etc). Also very murky is the distinction between potential intelligence and actual intelligence in an individual. Unless we have reliable neurological and biological correlates, that's a lot of random noise to work with. For biologists, we're all Homo Sapiens Sapiens and various genes are indeed linked to major human skills and much easier to compare to the rest of the animal world where the differences in intelligence, latent and actual, differ. Things like the Flynn effect have also demonstrated the importance of health as a factor (environmental). This means that yes, research and studies are useful and welcome, with important work to be continued in neurology, assessment and improvement of education, health and well-being, etc. Moreover, when major developments will be achieved, instead of speculative and controversial tentative research, tertiary sources like other encyclopedias will not miss the boat, neither will Wikipedia... —PaleoNeonate – 01:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate, I asked a pair of questions below for the people who are removing this material, and no one has answered them. I'll repeat them here:
1: For the citation to Rindermann's book to be undue weight, there would have to be other, recent secondary sources arguing for a different perspective about the cause of international variation in test scores. (What you posted above doesn't qualify as a source, since it seems to be mostly your own original research.) Can you provide any such sources? No one else has provided any.
2: The article contained material about the genetic hypothesis for several years, until Grayfell removed it all on August 30. This is why the argument you and others are making about "contested changes" is disingenuous - the version you are restoring is itself the result of a contested change, and the stable version of the article is the version from before Grayfell's mass removal of sources. If others feel that large changes should not be made to the article without consensus, then the reasonable course of action would be to restore the version from before August 30. I asked below whether others would prefer that, but no one answered.
If you are going to keep removing this material, you need to answer these two questions. What you've posted above doesn't address the relevant issues. 2600:1004:B12C:81B9:D9CB:25B1:D029:2B3F (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Grayfell actually removed some well-sourced content on 9th July as well, a summary of a different Rindermann study. Rolling back to a stable version should also mean rolling back to this content, though it is too heavy on primary sources, as he notes. The solution to this is to edit the coverage, not remove it entirely. It is an annoying pattern of his edits, always removing material that is positive to biological/genetic views. Failure to adhere to NPOV. AndewNguyen (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate: You must understand, as an administrator, how what you're doing here is disruptive. You obviously have strong opinions about the content of the article. That's fine, but articles aren't to be edited based on gut feelings. If you are going to remove longstanding material (which is what you are doing, even though the original primary studies have been replaced with a secondary source), you have to do more than make a few rambling posts that describe your personal opinion about the topic of the article. You have to address the actual arguments being made for why the material should not be removed, based on the balance of viewpoints that exist in the source literature about this topic. As long as neither you nor anyone else is willing to do that, your repeated removing of this material amounts to trying to override discussion through sheer force. 2600:1004:B146:E855:88CE:A5A3:F05E:455C (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator (and administrators are normal editors, except when using their extra tools in uninvolved situations). What I stated is not my personal opinon; many reliable sources describe these types of claims as pseudoscience. I have requested input from more editors at the fringe theories noticeboard. —PaleoNeonate – 21:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
If many reliable sources have argued for the opposite perspective about the cause of international test score differences, it should be a trivial matter for you (or the other editors removing this material) to provide these sources. Could you please actually provide them, instead of dodging the question? 2600:1004:B165:59F4:608C:F7D7:C754:A597 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Another edit was made (this time by Simonm223) to remove the Rindermann sources. I reverted back to stable version. AndewNguyen (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
This really is quite fascinating: his revert reason is that the correlation between IQ and genetics is pseudoscience. Basically every other Wikipedia article about genetics and IQ says otherwise. Is he going to attempt to also purge information about the relationship between genetics and IQ from every other Wikipedia article that discusses it, such as Intelligence quotient, Heritability of IQ, and g factor (psychometrics)? 2600:1004:B169:F4A:9DE:85C:738B:5ADA (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I would support removing any mention of IQ as a valid measure of intelligence from Wikipedia full stop. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, if you do not respond to me and/or DGG here, I'm going to add summaries of the genetic hypothesis cited to Hunt's and Rindermann's books, as well as the Rindermann survey that AndewNguyen added. Your removing of longstanding material due to "no consensus" is disruptive to begin with, but it's especially disruptive if you intend to keep this material out of the article while refusing to justify your removal on the talk page.

There is absolutely no reason to not include the Rindermann survey. Rindermann is arguably the most prominent psychologist studying international test score differences, his survey is the only survey ever done about expert opinion in this area, and it is mentioned in both a Frontiers in Psychology paper and a book published by Cambridge University Press. Likewise, this paper and this one are both literature reviews, so it was disingenuous of you to call them primary sources. 2600:1004:B10B:FE76:B9F5:AA42:968:5A0D (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please add back the removed material? Many of these sources were published by prominent journals and major academic publishers, and no one is explaining the reason for excluding them.AndewNguyen (talk)

@AndewNguyen: The MDPI journal Psych appears to be a reputable journal, but I think it is better to cite Rindermann's book in this case, because it is a secondary source that provides a summary of several genetic studies. At this point, I'd say consensus on this page supports including this material in some form, but I'm going to replace that source with a different one. (The other two sources, about the survey of experts, are fine.) 2600:1004:B150:F406:6465:4AF6:5768:7F5 (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not interested in giving any more oxygen than necessary to this this pedantic filibustering (and blatant canvassing despite multiple warnings). MDPI is a bad sign, and Psych is not a reliable source. It is the successor to OpenPsych. It is run by the exact same people, pushing the same shoddy pseudoscience, and the only reason for the change was bad PR over Noah Carl's work. Frontiers in Psychology is also shoddy, having published pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and being tied to predatory publishing. Rindermann is closely involved with all of this, having published for OpenPsych/Psych, Mankind, the white supremacist website VDARE, the alt-right website The Unz Review, attended the secretive London Conference on Intelligence, etc. Take this to RSN or FTN if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
You demanded a consensus before the material could be restored, and that standard has been met now. If you want to remove it, you can try to get a consensus for that, but I doubt you're going to succeed, especially since you're being obviously disingenuous with your interpretation of RS policy. With academic sources, what matters is the quality of the publisher, and the publisher in this case is Cambridge University Press. You're experienced enough to know that what you personally think of Rindermann is completely irrelevant to whether his book satisfies WP:RS or not.
By the way, I'm amused that you've started making up stuff about authors to try and exclude them. I've just done a search for "Rindermann" at both Unz.com and Vdare, and while there are several articles that talk about him, he himself has never published anything on either site. 2600:1004:B12B:27DF:8A8:D8:A8EA:9E00 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
A strange claim. Psych is a journal run by MDPI (a Swiss publisher), and you are claiming it is run by the same people who run OpenPsych. OpenPsych doesn't seem to have any information about who owns it legally, but seems to be run by Kirkegaard (who is Danish and seems to live in Denmark according to his Twitter account). I can't find any information that Kirkegaard works for MDPI, or that he is involved with running Psych. He's not listed on their editorial board page. What's the source for that claim? AndewNguyen (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what's going on here? The article is being reverted by people who are making no attempt to engage with the discussion on the talk page, most recently by someone who appears to have never edited the article before.

We haven't previously discussed the Jones source that I recently added, but this shouldn't be a controversial addition. It is written by a completely uncontroversial author, and both this and the Rindermann book are secondary sources. 2600:1004:B12B:27DF:8A8:D8:A8EA:9E00 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Jones and Rindermann are important secondary sources on this topic and are not 'closet racists'. Jones has been cited by mainstream liberal publications, for instance by Vox on the importance of reducing lead poisoning. I can't think of any reason to exclude them from this article Gardenofaleph (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that that really supports the idea that we can devote so much text to two pop-sci books and a study. Especially in medical areas, WP:MEDRS requires a degree of distance and caution with new / shocking research that these don't really satisfy; "avoid lead paint" is obviously a less WP:EXCEPTIONAL result than "some nations are genetically superior", so a source that can be used for one can't necessarily be used for the other. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


Rindermann's book isn't a pop-science book. It's a scholarly monograph, and probably the most extensive such monograph ever published about international test score differences. The Jones book is more of a popular book, but that book isn't being used as a source about the differences having a genetic cause. Jones' book is concerned with the effects of the differences rather than their cause (since Jones is an economist).
There is a more basic problem with the "undue weight" argument that you and others are making here. The meaning of undue weight is that a source is being given too much weight relative to other sources that argue for a different perspective, meaning there must be some other set of sources that should be given more weight relative to the Jones and Rindermann books. But nobody is providing any such sources. As far as I know (and I follow the research about this topic), the Jones and Rindermann books are the only recent books entirely devoted to international test score differences that have been published by mainstream academic publishers in the past five years. Aside from those two books, basically all of the recent sources devoted to this topic have been primary studies, and books from publishers like the Ulster Institute for Social Research that probably do not satisfy WP:RS. A significant portion of the primary studies are also arguing for a genetic contribution, so the same problem exists if you think we should be relying on those instead of the two recent secondary sources.
When determining whether or not something is undue, we should not be substituting our own personal judgment for a careful evaluation of the source literature. If you want to argue that Jones and Rindermann are being given undue weight, could you please take a closer look at the body of recent academic literature about international test score differences, and then tell me what (if any) sources you think have been under-represented relative to those two? 2600:1004:B123:9C91:554C:87FD:E31A:3E7D (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
The possibility of genetic influences on cross national intelligence differences has been part of this article for years-- if Aquillion wants to remove that viewpoint entirely, which would be a large departure from the mainstream viewpoint of at least considering it [genetic influences) as a partial explanation, he should obtain consensus to do so. Additionally, there has been work on this topic, from both viewpoints, for decades, so this research is not 'new' or 'shocking.' Gardenofaleph (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A few disruptive editors are making an effort to remove any/all references to a genetic component to national intelligence differences. Not sure why this is occurring. This is not the only article where it is happening - it’s getting to the point where this needs to be escalated. Everyone else is working constructively and discussing changes. Overall, this is not a good look for Wikipedia. 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:BF (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:ONUS, when you want to make significant, contested additions to an article, as in this case, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that your additions have consensus. That consensus clearly isn't present here. You are incorrect in implying that these contested additions have been "part of the article for years" (they were added just a few days ago); they go way beyond anything that was present in the article prior in terms of arguing that position. Nor is there any rush for us to add books like these to an article when their reception still isn't solid or well-established - indeed, the fact that you admit that the only accompanying science supporting their position is "preliminary studies" reinforces the idea that their claims are WP:EXCEPTIONAL and not widely-accepted. If you think you have consensus to add them already (something many people clearly disagree on), you should start an WP:RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A recent edit summary here claims that the new paragraphs the IP is trying to edit-war into the article have been "stable for years". This is not the case; a look at a summary of edits to before the most recent dispute shows that all three contested paragraphs are new additions. The article had no mention of "Hive Mind", "Cognitive Capitalism", or the survey at the end until the IP added them here and here. They are clearly-controversial new additions which have never enjoyed any sort of consensus and which cite extremely poor sources for WP:MEDRS purposes. Again, if you think you can demonstrate consensus for these new additions, start an WP:RFC; but they certainly weren't in the article before. --Aquillion (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a medical topic, so WP:MEDRS is not relevant. I don't understand why you mentioned it twice now (??). Also, the Cognitive Capitalism book and the survey cited therein was added by me, not 2600. These are not "clearly-controversial new additions" since they are mainstream sources by a mainstream figure. That was the purpose of my edit, to update the article with newer sources since it seemed quite outdated. AndewNguyen (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS applies to psychology and, therefore, to IQ studies; any source used for IQ-related material must be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Likewise, your edits in that diff are not the entire new paragraph devoted to Cognitive Capitalism that the IP wrote here (unless I misunderstand what you're saying.) And it should be obvious that both your "updates" and the new paragraphs written by the IP are controversial at this point and that your argument that those books are mainstream is contested; since they're new additions, especially the two new paragraphs devoted to them, it's time to slow down the edit war, take them out until they have consensus, and establish whether their addition does have consensus (by my count of editors involved, it does not, at least right now.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Psychology is not biomedical, and this isn't one of the interdisciplinary fields that touch on biomedicine (say, psychology about depression), so no, it is not subject to WP:MEDRS (and I don't know why you would think so). You can see what counts here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biomedical_information. They are controversial only if you mean that you (or Grayfell) don't agree with them. Is that what you mean? I understand it to mean controversial among experts, which it is not. PS. no need for scare quotes. To update, to bring up to date by adding newer material. Your use of scare quotes seem to imply that this was somehow not a real update, which suggests the hostile interpretation that only things you agree with are real updates. --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I said "primary", not "preliminary". That is, they're primary sources as defined at WP:PRIMARY. As Gardenofaleph said, there have been individual studies about this topic going back about twenty years, but the Jones and Rindermann books are the most recent secondary sources that have summarized them.
If you look at this section of the article prior to August 30, it contained citations to several studies that argued for a genetic contribution. (The Kanazawa, Becker and Rindermann, and Woodley studies). This is what I'm referring to when I say that material about the genetic hypothesis had been in the article for years (and I assume it's what the other IP means as well). However, on August 30, all of these sources were removed by Grayfell with no prior discussion.
I figured it was better to cite a secondary source than to cite several individual studies, so I eventually tried replacing these sources with a summary from Rindermann's book. But if you think large changes should not be made to the article without consensus, then in that case we should restore the stable version from before August 30. I would be okay with that outcome as well.
What isn't okay is for you to keep restoring the version of the article from after Grayfell's mass removal of sources, and implying that this is the the established version of the article, when it obviously isn't. Would you prefer to restore the stable version from before August 30? 2600:1004:B114:A163:292D:881E:A226:31E8 (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
There are editors here that are reverting contributions without engaging with the Talk Page, which, I’m pretty sure, contradicts wiki policy at WP:BRD. The editors who are trying to retain the material have explained the justification for including it, and if others think the article is better without it, they need to participate in the talk page and actually address those reasons. Reverting without doing so is wrong. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, once again the person removing the material is refusing to engage in a meaningful way with the discussion here, despite my requesting that both in their user talk and on this page. In the absence of any policy-based reason for removing longstanding material, I'm going to restore it again. But to be clear, I would also accept restoring the established version from before Grayfell's removal of sources, if others would prefer that. 2600:1004:B165:59F4:608C:F7D7:C754:A597 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The policy I'm citing for exclusion? WP:FRINGE. This is pseudoscience. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi IP, would you care to justify your restoration of WP:FRINGE content? Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, with some reluctance. Your claim that IQ itself is invalid, or that its relation to genetics is a fringe idea, shows that you have no familiarity with the source literature about this topic. The fact that you think all of Wikipedia's other articles about human intelligence are also loaded with pseudoscience should give you a clue that your own viewpoint is the one that's in the minority here. But since that apparently isn't enough, I'll provide a sampling of recent sources about the validity of IQ and its genetic basis:
  • The New Genetics of Intelligence (2018) - Major literature review, published in Nature Reviews Genetics, about the current state of research on the genetic basis of intelligence (as measured by IQ).
  • Behavioral Genetics (2017) by Knopik et al., which discusses genetic influences on IQ in its eleventh chapter.
I could provide more sources, but these five ought to be enough to demonstrate my point. The four books I've listed are all standard textbooks about neuroscience, behavioral genetics, differential psychology, and general psychology. All of them take the same perspective about this, and all of them contradict your assertion that the validity or genetic basis of IQ is a "fringe" concept.
I think I know what sources you've been reading that argue for the opposite perspective - authors like Gavin Evans, Jay Joseph and Aaron Panofsky. These authors' arguments have not gained any traction in the broader field of psychology, and you can see that from the fact that these arguments are consistently ignored by mainstream, general-purpose psychology texts such as Kalat's and Ashton's books, and also ignored by all literature reviews in mainstream genetics journals such as Nature Genetics.
Now, obviously in general psychology texts like these, you usually won't find discussion of a topic as specialized as international test score differences. If you want to argue that this particular topic is fringe, that's a separate argument, and one that I have repeatedly asked other editors to support, without receiving any substantive response. But that isn't the argument you've been making on this page and in your edit summaries. Your argument has been that the genetic basis of IQ is itself a fringe concept, and that can be disproven easily. 2600:1004:B169:F4A:9DE:85C:738B:5ADA (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually you're missing a step. I said IQ is not a valid measurement of intelligence. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you seriously need me to find sources for you about the validity of IQ as a measurement of intelligence? I apologize for my lack of patience, but asking a psychologist for something like this is a bit like asking an astronomer for sources showing that the earth revolves around the sun. 2600:1004:B169:F4A:9DE:85C:738B:5ADA (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
[2] Seems like there's a healthy debate on the validity of IQ. This is one of many articles I found with literally a 10 second google browse. So perhaps you can shelve your claim to expertise. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The study you linked is arguing that FIQ is not an adequate diagnostic tool for brain tumors in children, not that IQ is not a valid measurement of intelligence at all! That IQ tests are generally valid is absolutely the consensus among people who study this field professionally. Please refer to the Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity section of the IQ article. I'll quote the relevant part: 'Clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.[22][55][56] In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy."' It's legitimate to have a discussion about whether IQ is a valid predictor of some specific outcome, but saying that IQ is simply "not a valid measure of intelligence" is a fringe perspective in psychology. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This discussion feels like it's just about run its course (since we're running in circles), but since people keep trying to re-add the new additions to the article - I definitely do not see the consensus to include that WP:ONUS requires. Since it seems like discussions have died down or reached an impasse and some people believe (entirely incorrectly, by my reading) that they have consensus to include, I'd suggest an WP:RFC as the next step. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, here is a diff to what I believe to be the last stable version (prior to August 27th, when the contested additions were made.) None of the three paragraphs being disputed are present, nor are either the books in question mentioned. We can go to an RFC to try and establish consensus for inclusion (I still feel this is giving those books WP:UNDUE weight), or we can keep discussing (though we seem to be going in circles), but they are not and have never been stable in the article - and the fact that people are trying to claim otherwise suggests, I think, that they realize they lack the consensus WP:ONUS requires for contested new additions. If you disagree with some of the removals over that timeframe, contest those - but the new paragraphs are, well, new. They're not longstanding or stable, and it's clear a lot of people (including myself) object to devoting three new paragraphs to these books (the final one leaning in part on a cite to Cognitive Capitalism.) I get the frustration with "people keep objecting to these new additions, and nobody is talking anymore and discussions have died down without giving us a clear consensus to include; how are we supposed to reach a consensus when the other people are so opposed?", but the answer to that is not "ignore the stalled discussions and just keep trying to edit-war these new paragraphs in." There's lots of dispute-resolution tools available when things are at an impasse. Use them, don't just try to repeatedly re-add a set of contested new paragraphs to an article without a clear consensus when it's obvious so many people object. --Aquillion (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Aquillion: I've explained this before, but here it is again. This is the last stable version, from before Grayfell purged all material about the genetic hypothesis from the article. This section of the article contained citations to studies by Kanazawa, Becker and Rindermann, and Woodley, all of which were removed by Grayfell on August 31, leading to the current dispute. There was never any consensus for Grayfell's changes, and he tacitly acknowledged that in his edit summary, in which he insisted that a consensus must form before his bold changes could be undone.
I think it's better to cite a secondary source (Rindermann's book) instead of several primary papers, but if you think large changes should not be made to the article without consensus, then the correct course of action would be to restore the article to its state before Grayfell's mass removal of sources. I asked before whether you would like to do that, and received no response to you. Let me ask you again: as per your argument about not making large changes without consensus, would you like to restore the actual last stable version of the article? 2600:1004:B127:87D4:20A0:B895:8CEE:2EEF (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think a hard revert back to the 19th of June is necessary or desirable (I don't think every single change made in that time period is disputed), but clearly the new additions aren't a suitable compromise, so yeah, if you want to shift to arguing over those removals we can (it might be more constructive, since I do think the new additions are actually worse than the material they're supposed to replace on account of being less noteworthy themselves and yet devoting more text / focus to the opinions of their authors.) But probably what we need to do is go for an RFC with all the various versions as options, since it seems unlikely these discussions will reach an unambiguous consensus any time soon. --Aquillion (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
All right, I think this is finally a change we can agree on. I'm going to try to restore the version of the article from before any of the recent contested changes, without undoing any of the helpful changes that have been made in the time since then. (Your removal of this unsourced sentence was fine, for example). This is the first time I've tried to make such a complex edit, so please tell me if I've done it incorrectly.
Let me also include a note of caution: I'm only agreeing to this out of hope that it will stop the edit war. My preference is still for the version that includes the paragraph cited to Rindermann's book, and I interpret the discussion on this talk page as having more or less reached a consensus to include that paragraph. While there are an approximately equal number of editors on both sides of this dispute, consensus isn't a vote, and the editors arguing against inclusion have mostly not engaged in a meaningful way with the discussion here. Thus, if other editors aren't willing to accept this proposal to restore the stable version, I'm going to go back to restoring the version that I think is supported by consensus.
The change I'm going to make includes undoing my addition of the Jones source, but I would like to discuss that particular change, because I don't believe this source should be a controversial addition. Jones' book is more of a popular science book than an academic book, but it's one of only two recent secondary sources to be entirely devoted to the topic of this article (the other being Rindermann's book), it is cited nowhere else in the article, and Jones isn't a controversial author. Do you have any reason for excluding the Jones source? 2600:1004:B127:87D4:20A0:B895:8CEE:2EEF (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, here is what I've done: I've gone back to the version from June 19, and then manually re-added all of the changes made since then that I'm completely sure are uncontroversial. (This diff shows which of the recent changes I've kept.) As I said, I don't consider this an optimal solution by any means, but if other editors are willing to accept it, it's still better than having the edit war continue for another month. 2600:1004:B127:87D4:20A0:B895:8CEE:2EEF (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: As I had suspected, other editors are unwilling to accept this compromise to go back to the last actual stable version, and they're continuing to restore the version from after Grayfell removed all of the sources discussing the genetic hypothesis. This version of the article has never been stable or supported by consensus on the talk page, and leaving the article in this state is not an acceptable solution. Your proposed compromise was worth a try, but at this stage can you accept that restoring the article to its stable state is not possible? 2600:1004:B163:B4BE:8088:1F07:2BF7:7DE0 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read my edit summary. Docdro.id cannot be used as a source. The current url is evading the blacklist and it's linking to a copyright violation. This is not allowed by policy. Content dispute or not. Praxidicae (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
If that's what the problem was, you could have simply removed the prohibited URL (as Primefac just did), instead of reverting the entire edit. 2600:1004:B163:B4BE:8088:1F07:2BF7:7DE0 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Map issue

The data is from 2002 not 2006. Also why is Yugoslavia’s 93 IQ Average translated to Serbia and Montenegro automatically? Their study from 2006 shows Serbia being 89. https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&id=rA8RAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Serbia 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.190.2 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Croatia

Pick another card, because this one is absolute rubbish!

Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen used IQ tests of children aged between 13 and 16 years old from 1952. Very reputable both of them. Later they had to correct their data. Unfortunately, this information has already been spread by equally dubious authors in several books, for whatever reason. Now is the Average iq for Croatia 99.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229401257_National_IQs_calculated_and_validated_for_108_nations

Many of the most intelligent people in the world come from Croatia and you should accept that!

Three Croatians on the list of the smartest people alive today.

https://www.croatiaweek.com/3-croatians-make-30-smartest-people-alive-today-list/

The World Genius Directory Geniuses http://psiq.org/home.html

At least 7 Croats are among the 200 most intelligent people in the world. IQ Score: 192, 183, 180, 174, 163, 160, 151

Approximately 7 from Germany - 182 He is Turk not even a German, 165, 158, 156, 156, 153, 147

Approximatly 5 from France - 162, 158, 154, 150, 141

Approximatly 7 from the United Kingdom - 171, 167, 163, 153, 148, 144, 135

Approximatly 38 from Japan

Approximatly 30 from China

Approximatly 14 from Korea

Approximatly 21 from Italy

Four Croats have a higher IQ than the highest IQ-Score for Germany (182 is a Turk) and the United Kingdom and even five Croats have a higher IQ than the highest IQ-Score for France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.6.141 (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nations_and_IQ/Archive_2&oldid=1022735807"