User:Ina301/IQ

IQ

Opinions of psychologists

From "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:

A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.

From "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.

I maintain that no argument should be regarded as a closed one when there are so many psychologists on both sides of a scientific position. In one study (Snyderman & Rothman, 1988), over a thousand psychologists and other experts in intelligence testing were surveyed regarding the Black–White IQ difference. Fifteen percent said the reasons for the discrepancy were entirely environmental; 46% said they were at least partly genetic; 24% said the evidence was inconclusive; and 14% did not respond. The fact that 24% of the experts surveyed expressed uncertainty means that more research and dialogue rather than a “case closed” orientation is needed.

From a 1980s survey by Stanley Rothman and Mark Snyderman of psychometricians:

Invitations were emailed to 1237 persons and at the end only 228 (18 %) participants completed the process (70 fully and 158 partially). As far as the authors could make it out, “lefties” and “righties” turned down the offer in equal numbers, complaining that the questions were not good enough, the selection of experts would not be good or that they did not want to participate in a process which suggested that the truth could be found by majority decisions. In fact, the authors just wanted to find out what expert opinion was, in all its variety, and were not intending to come to any conclusions of a majority sort. (Perhaps climate research has poisoned the academic atmosphere, and no-one wants to be involved with anything which smacks of consensus science). As many pointed out, one good study can smash down an old consensus.

Experts agreed that the following were sources of reasonable evidence for significant heritability of intelligence: monozygotic twins reared apart, comparisons of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, adoption studies, “patchwork” family studies.

Asked: Is there sufficient evidence to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the heritability of intelligence in populations of developed countries?” 73% said Yes.

Asked: What are the sources of U.S. black-white differences in IQ?

0% of differences due to genes: (17% of our experts) 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of our experts 50% of differences due to genes: 18% of our experts 60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of our experts 100% of differences due to genes: (5% of our experts) M=47% of differences due to genes (SD=31%)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_IQ_Controversy,_the_Media_and_Public_Policy_%28book%29

http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/isir-what-do-intelligence-researchers.html

http://isteve.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/survey-of-psychometricians-finds-isteve.html

This should not be as controversial a belief as it is now. In the only anonymous, random poll of relevant researchers on this subject, the plurality opinion was that some portion of racial IQ gaps is due to genetic differences. So far, however, any researchers publicly supporting this view have been fired, marginalized, received death threats, etc.\n\nAs sample sizes in IQ GWAS increase due to lower sequencing costs, the discovery of some contribution of genetic variation to variation in IQ between populations is inevitable. At present, sample sizes are too low to explain more than a small percentage of variation in even uncontroversially heritable traits, such as height. It's only a matter of time, however; I guess we will break major ground within 5 to 10 years.\n\nHere is a bullet points version of where this debate has been stuck for the past few decades:\n\n- Intelligence, broadly defined, can be reliably measured to a satisfactory degree of accuracy.\n- Relative to other traits, IQ among adults is highly heritable.\n- A measured gap in IQ between racial groups, notably between blacks and whites, exists across every nation where it has been measured. Any gap narrowing over time has been small.\n- This gap is not an artifact of test bias, and cannot be eliminated by controlling for any of the many environmental factors put forward thus far (SES, nutrition, etc).\n\nIndividually, most relevant facts are not very controversial. Taken together in the context of race/IQ, they become impossible to discuss. I do believe that change is coming, however.

Claims

IQ tests don't measure anything

Response 1	Intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits. Intelligence is important scientifically and socially. Because intelligence represents individual differences in brain processes working in concert to solve problems, it is central to systems approaches to brain structure and function,24, 25, 26 and to the conceptualisation of how diverse cognitive abilities decline with age.27 It is also one of the most stable behavioural traits, yielding a correlation of 0.63 in a study of people tested at age 11 and then again at age 79.28 Socially, intelligence is one of the best predictors of key outcomes such as education and occupational status.29 People with higher intelligence tend to have better mental and physical health and fewer illnesses throughout the life course, and longer lives.22,30
Example	Example
Example	Example