Global national-IQ map posted at Children of Millennium

[hitssquad]

Children of Millennium has posted a rather impressive-looking global map of national IQs. Here is the map:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/pages/articles/IQmap.gif

It is linked from this article on national IQs:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm

 

[0TheSwerve0]

What is this site? I clicked on gender studies and at the bottom it says:

"The preceeding was taken from Misogyny Unlimited"

Anyhow, I did a study on the failings of public high school in America (as well as the decline of our competitiveness in industry, esp science), and found that in the TIMSS (Third International Math and Science Study) that American students placed 19 out of 21 countries. They only beat 2 undeveloped countries. Our best students, AP, were found to fail just as bad when compared to AP (or the equivalent) students in other countries. I'm not exactly sure how IQ stats would correlate to these findings, but in any case, how were these measurements made?

 

[selfAdjoint]

If you read down in the second link, you find that they are using Lynd's data. That data is not out and out false, but some of it is suspect. Note also that the site is frankly pro-eugenics.

 

[Thallium]

Is this information credible?

 

[hitssquad]

TIMMS vs other international achievement studies

Anyhow, I did a study on the failings of public high school in America (as well as the decline of our competitiveness in industry, esp science), and found that in the TIMSS (Third International Math and Science Study) that American students placed 19 out of 21 countries.

Apparently, in the TIMSS, American kids may have not been ranked directly against kids from other nations:
http://www.america-tomorrow.com/ati/gb80413.htm

Richard Lynn reports in his book IQ and the Wealth of Nations that international differences in national math and science achievement are consistent with international differences in national IQ. His tables of national achievement show low-IQ nations doing poorly in math and science and high-IQ nations doing well in math and science.

 

[Tigers2B1]

Maybe - but the implication I receive is that these 'national IQs' can be compared to each other. A sort of 'cause-effect deal.' Rather, it's more like a 'chicken-egg deal' IMO. Since environment AND genetics probably play a role in IQ test results we run into a major problem when comparing the 'national IQs' of developed and undeveloped countries. The 'heritability' of IQ results will be different for a developed country like the United States, with its relative wealth, mandatory education, public libraries, and internet connections - than it would be for an undeveloped country with none off these. Recall - western civilization witnessed its own dark age for a 1,000 years, despite an inheritance from the Greeks -

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Is this information all accurate? Some of it seems like it comes from a fervent supporter of intellectual supremacy.

Acquiescence is inversely correlated.
Leadership is correlated with intelligence.
Psychoticism is inversely correlated with intelligence.

Where are the traits recognizing the mental instability of many intelligent individuals? What about the tendency of many intellectuals to sacrifice well being for ideologies? How many of these traits do not always have an inverse correlation with g? Does alcoholism, smoking, or prejudice always mean less intelligence?

I have nothing against supporting intellectuals and giving them certain luxuries. However, this site seems to be trying to portray a superior view of intelligent individuals through desirable and undesirable social traits being listed with little scientific backing, reference, or links to further information that might present other opinions and more biological facts.

I didn't take any offense, I'm just interested in the subject matter. Since I'm interested I like to ensure I'm reading accurate and well explained information.

 

[hitssquad]

Color-coded US states map of IQ

Now, there is also an IQ-by-state color-coded map of the United States up at Children of Millennium:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/pages/articles/IQStatesMap.gif

Again, it is linked from this article:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm

 

[hitssquad]

I'm ... interested in the subject matter.

Then you might be interested in reading Arthur Jensen's The g Factor.

 

[Mandrake]

Is this information all accurate? Some of it seems like it comes from a fervent supporter of intellectual supremacy.

The information referenced is consistent with the findings of the most respected psychometricians throughout the world. What is a "fervent supporter of intellectual supremacy?" The facts pertaining to intelligence are quite clear: smart people outperform dumb people on a statistical basis. They do this nationally, in schools, globally, and even within families. If one understands this truth does that make him a "fervent supporter of intellectual supremacy?" If so, you can count me in.

Acquiescence is inversely correlated.
Leadership is correlated with intelligence.
Psychoticism is inversely correlated with intelligence.

Where are the traits recognizing the mental instability of many intelligent individuals?

Do you consider psychoticism to be a form of mental stability? If so, it is listed.
This may be of interest to you:
A Critical Review of Eysenck's Theory of Psychoticism and How it Relates to Creativity
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/porzio.html

What about the tendency of many intellectuals to sacrifice well being for ideologies?

What about it? I don't follow your question. What are your thoughts on this?

How many of these traits do not always have an inverse correlation with g? Does alcoholism, smoking, or prejudice always mean less intelligence?

Are you confusing "correlation" with individual data points? A correlation is the slope of the regression curve. It does not imply that all data lie on the line, so there are exceptions. For example, lightness of eye color, lightness of hair color, and lightness of skin color all correlate positively with IQ, but there are obviously exceptions. Take a look at professor Walter Williams. This man is intelligent and successful, but is an exception to each of the weak correlations I just cited. Even in relatively strong correlations (such as brain volume) there are exceptions to the implications of the correlation for large groups.

I have nothing against supporting intellectuals and giving them certain luxuries. However, this site seems to be trying to portray a superior view of intelligent individuals through desirable and undesirable social traits being listed with little scientific backing, reference, or links to further information that might present other opinions and more biological facts.

This group consists of people who are uninformed, misinformed and well informed. What is a "superior view of intelligent individuals?" If you used "superior" to mean more accurate, you will find that there are some people here who have a "more accurate" view than others. Hitsquad is one of them. I am one of them.

I didn't take any offense, I'm just interested in the subject matter. Since I'm interested I like to ensure I'm reading accurate and well explained information.

Hitsquad has already recommended reading The _g_ Factor. The full reference is:
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Jensen has commented that he did not write this book at the undergraduate level. If you are a well educated scientist, you will not have difficulty understanding it. An older book by Jensen that goes into much more detail with respect to the instruments of testing is
Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.

If you want to read something that is shorter and less demanding on the reader, I suggest
Miele (2002) - Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen

 

[Nereid]

Children of Millennium has posted a rather impressive-looking global map of national IQs. Here is the map:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/eugenics/pages/articles/IQmap.gif

It is linked from this article on national IQs:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm

Couldn't find the source for the data hitssquad, but seems to be the thoroughly discredited Lynn u Vanhannen (sp?) book. If so, then curiously Ireland and India get coloured differently, even tho' (IIRC) they have the same 'national IQ' in Lynn.

What do you suppose a similar map, made using data of 50 or 100 years ago, would show?

 

[hitssquad]

Children of Millennium's IQ-gradiant maps

Children of Millennium has posted a rather impressive-looking global map of national IQs. Here is the map:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org...icles/IQmap.gif

It is linked from this article on national IQs:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm

Couldn't find the source for the data

You just linked to it. Here it is again:
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/science.htm

• Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen presented average IQ scores for countries around the entire world for the Summer 2001 issue of Mankind Quarterly, which they had gathered for their 2002 book, IQ and the wealth of Nations.
  
  These figures have been used to create a color gradient as shown at right. (Click for full image.)

but seems to be the ... Lynn u Vanhannen (sp?) book. If so, then curiously Ireland and India get coloured differently, even tho' (IIRC) they have the same 'national IQ' in Lynn.

Lynn does not list the same national IQ for Ireland and India. Table 8.9 (pp135-141) from Lynn and Vanhanen's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, as does the link above, lists Ireland's British-relative national IQ as 93 and India's British-relative national IQ as 81.

What do you suppose a similar map, made using data of 50 or 100 years ago, would show?

I suppose that it would show that there was less international IQ data, compared with now, available 50 years ago and even less again available 100 years ago.

 

[Nereid]

The information referenced is consistent with the findings of the most respected psychometricians throughout the world. What is a "fervent supporter of intellectual supremacy?" The facts pertaining to intelligence are quite clear: smart people outperform dumb people on a statistical basis. They do this nationally, in schools, globally, and even within families. If one understands this truth does that make him a "fervent supporter of intellectual supremacy?" If so, you can count me in.

Hmm, do you have hard data to show, for example, that this applies in (say) North Korea? in rural Mauritania? Also, your 'outperform' needs severe qualification; e.g. smart women most assuredly do NOT outperform dumb men in (for example) Saudi Arabia, and smart folk in rural China don't outperform dumb folk in Houston.

What about the tendency of many intellectuals to sacrifice well being for ideologies?

What about it? I don't follow your question. What are your thoughts on this?

I can't speak for Dooga, but it might have something to do with the fact that an awful lot of very intelligent people work in universities, where they manifestly are not 'outperforming' considerably less intelligent folk engaged in crime, becoming CEOs of Enron, Andersen, WorldCom, President of the USA, etc.

This group consists of people who are uninformed, misinformed and well informed. What is a "superior view of intelligent individuals?" If you used "superior" to mean more accurate, you will find that there are some people here who have a "more accurate" view than others. Hitsquad is one of them. I am one of them.

Hmm, let's resume discussion of how 'accurate' these views are, shall we?

Hitsquad has already recommended reading The _g_ Factor. The full reference is:
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. [...]Jensen has commented that he did not write this book at the undergraduate level. If you are a well educated scientist, you will not have difficulty understanding it.

Having at last started to go through this cannonical work of Jensen, I can heartily endorse your comment Mandrake - if you have the time and patience dear PF member or guest, do borrow it and read it ... carefully.

So far, my own reading suggests it should become a classic, but not, perhaps, as its promoters would like. For example, it contains some of the most supremely ironic prose I've ever seen in a supposedly scientific work (read Jensen on 'intelligence', for example, and then look up the names of publications he's written in, and referenced in). However, for all my 'preconceptions amply validated', one does need to applaude some of Jensen's work ... the work referenced on determining that the 'g' of ECT studies is the same as the 'g' from IQ tests (I'm simplifying) is quite neat. Too, his insistence that his work has applicability only in the domain within which it has been undertaken (crudely, undergraduate students at US universities) is admirable - too bad that few of those who quote his work conveniently omit these caveats (and too bad that Jensen himself all too often forgets his own strictures).

Among the many interesting facets of Jensen are:
- purported interest in psychological variation among individual homo saps, but (willful?) ignorance of all such variation except in 'g' (Jensen's followers, such as apparently Mandrake, seem to exhibit similar blindness - e.g. 'psychometrics = studies of intelligence')
- extraordinary readiness to reach for simplistic 'racial' correlates of 'g' (why not, say, blood type, or fondness of fondue?)
- curious treatment of distributions (hitssquad has earlier quoted Jensen on whether g is distributed normally in a population) - curious because of Jensen's references to 'race', 'in-breeding depression', and 'hybrid vigour' (among other things)
- apparent reluctance to perform (to my way of thinking) very simple tests of the 'biological' hypotheses for 'g' (e.g. depression of 'g' when drunk, age-related changes in brain physiology).

 

[Nereid]

Lynn does not list the same national IQ for Ireland and India. Table 8.9 (pp135-141) from Lynn and Vanhanen's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, as does the link above, lists Ireland's British-relative national IQ as 93 and India's British-relative national IQ as 81.

Well, now we have another apparent conflict ... as we discussed on these pages before, Lynn's website devoted to the book and the book (apparently, I've not seen a copy of the book) have different data (earlier we discussed Japan; this time we're discussing Ireland and India). Specifically, I recall Lynn's website gives both Ireland and India a national IQ of 87 (unfortunately, the interested reader cannot check this; apparently Lynn's website has been nuked).

I suppose that it would show that there was less international IQ data, compared with now, available 50 years ago and even less again available 100 years ago.

Would you care to comment on the Flynn effect hitssquad?

 

[Nereid]

Maybe - but the implication I receive is that these 'national IQs' can be compared to each other. A sort of 'cause-effect deal.' Rather, it's more like a 'chicken-egg deal' IMO. Since environment AND genetics probably play a role in IQ test results we run into a major problem when comparing the 'national IQs' of developed and undeveloped countries. The 'heritability' of IQ results will be different for a developed country like the United States, with its relative wealth, mandatory education, public libraries, and internet connections - than it would be for an undeveloped country with none off these. Recall - western civilization witnessed its own dark age for a 1,000 years, despite an inheritance from the Greeks -

I recently learned of a very interesting, but largely forgotten, chapter in the 'IQ history book' ... the 'IQ' of the Afrikaans-speaking population of (today's) South Africa cf the English-speaking one.

In a nutshell, in the early days, the Afrikaaners were thought to need 'special education', because their children showed a persistent and consistent depression of average IQ (vs the English colonials). However, after some years, the difference vanished. Kinda makes one want to ask what the historical average IQs of various groups in the US was, and compare them with today's data.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

one of my friends had a tested IQ of 175... how good is that... I heard its genius level..

 

[hitssquad]

Lynn's data and sources for India's and Ireland's IQs

Table 8.9 (pp135-141) from Lynn and Vanhanen's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations ... lists Ireland's British-relative national IQ as 93 and India's British-relative national IQ as 81.

Well, now we have another apparent conflict ... as we discussed on these pages before, Lynn's website devoted to the book

Lynn's website does not seem to be devoted to any books. Lynn has a paper on his website...
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/articles.htm

...that seems to have a theme similar to that of the book tg/detail/-/027597510X]IQ and the Wealth of Nations[/url].

and the book (apparently, I've not seen a copy of the book) have different data... Lynn's website gives both Ireland and India a national IQ of 87

The (above-linked) paper Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations featured on Lynn's website has three tables with IQ data. Those tables are labeled Appendix 1, Table 3, and Table 4. http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm (which seems to serve as a compendium of references for online Table 3 {and not for online Table 4, as I explain below}) shows IQ 81, 82, and 82 (from three different sources, respectively) for India and IQ 87 for Ireland.

Lynn's book lists four IQ sources for India and two IQ sources for Ireland. Appendix 1 of his website article, however, only lists three sources for India and one source for Ireland. The online Table 3 seems to use only those sources listed in the online Appendix 1 whereas the online Table 4 may be using all of the sources that the book uses.

Regarding Ireland's IQ, the Lynn's online article references only Raven 1981, whereas the book references both Raven 1981 (which provides a Flynn adjusted IQ 87 for Ireland) and Buj 1981 (which provides a Flynn-adjusted 98 IQ for Ireland). As Lynn says in the book, "The average of the two studies gives an IQ of 93 for Ireland."

Regarding India's IQ, the four studies the book uses and the Flynn-adjusted IQs they respectively provide are Sinha 1968 (IQ 81), Rao and Reddy 1968 (IQ 82), Raven, Court and Raven 1996 (IQ 82), and Afzal 1988 (IQ 78). As Lynn says in the book, "The average of the four data sets gives an IQ of 81 for India." As can be seen from the online article's Appendix 1...
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/7-a1.htm

...Afzal 1988 was left out of the references for India's IQ calculation. Leaving out Afzal 1988 would give a score of IQ 82 (which Lynn shows in online Table 3) instead of 81 as the book (and as the online Table 4) has. As noted above, Buj 1981 was left out of the online IQ references for Ireland (see above link). This would leave only Raven 1981 as an IQ reference for online Table 3, and online Table 3 agrees with that by showing IQ 87 for Ireland. Since online Table 4 seems to be using both Raven 1981 and Buj 1981 as IQ references for Ireland's IQ, it shows Ireland as having IQ 93 and thus agrees with the book which also uses those two references for Ireland's IQ.

 

[Nereid]

one of my friends had a tested IQ of 175... how good is that... I heard its genius level..

Ah, given the correlation between SES and IQ, I expect that she seriously 'outperforms' you, and may be on her way to being richer than Bill Gates!

Seriously, if 1 sigma is 15, and the mean is 100, then 175 is 5 sigma above the mean, and only ~3 out of every 10 million people will have such an IQ (or higher). However, this assumes that the distribution about the mean is Gaussian, and as hitssquad will tell you, not even Jensen himself is prepared to state how far from Gaussian the observed distribution is.

 

[Nereid]

Thanks hitssquad.

Let's dive a little deeper into this shall we (I'm guessing that you have the book to hand)?

What are the *numbers of subjects *type of Raven test *age distribution of subjects and *place where the tests were performed? For each of the Irish and Indian studies. You probably don't have it in the literature available to you, but just in case you do *what is the distribution of the derived IQs (for each individual taking each test) *in what language(s) were the test instructions given *what are the native languages of the subjects *what measures were taken to ensure that all test subjects were in robust health/fully alert/not on drugs (this includes caffeine and nicotine)/etc *how does the demographic profile of the test subjects correspond with that of the national population (of the time)?

Regarding the Flynn adjustment, can you tell us please what the studies into this say about differences in secular variation between countries? age groups? social classes? gender? type of job? (etc).

Note to readers who may think that my questions are too pedantic: if you take the time to read Jensen's landmark work (the g factor), you will see that almost nothing is known about the biological basis of IQ, and that the vast majority of work involves extrapolating from a relatively small base of studies. In particular, 'psychometricians' appear quick to draw sweeping conclusions about IQ and 'race', yet astonishingly reluctant to admit that these conclusions involve heroic (shall we say) interpretations from shaky (shall we say) bases. I would urge you to read Lynn's website (hitssquad has provided the essential URLs) to get a flavour of this; if you get a chance to read Lynn and Vanhannen's book, would you be so kind as to tell us whether the book is equally amazing in these unfounded extrapolations?

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Ah, given the correlation between SES and IQ, I expect that she seriously 'outperforms' you, and may be on her way to being richer than Bill Gates!

Seriously, if 1 sigma is 15, and the mean is 100, then 175 is 5 sigma above the mean, and only ~3 out of every 10 million people will have such an IQ (or higher). However, this assumes that the distribution about the mean is Gaussian, and as hitssquad will tell you, not even Jensen himself is prepared to state how far from Gaussian the observed distribution is.

Actually it is a he... it is interesting to see that you assumed that it was a girl though..

 

[hitssquad]

Details on Indian and Irish national IQ testing

I'm guessing that you have the book to hand

Yes, and Amazon.com has the book online in full-text along with full-text search capabilities (simply click Search inside this book):

What are the

• numbers of subjects
• type of Raven test
• age distribution of subjects

The book's Appendix 1 has this information. Much of the information there is also available on the online article's Appendix 1:
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/7-a1.htm

(On that page, CPM stands for Colored Progressive Matrices and SPM stands for Standard Progressive Matrices.)


Here is the all the information on IQ testing in India and Ireland available from the book's Appendix 1:

• India
  
  Sinha (1968) summarizes the results of nine studies providing normative data for the Coloured Progressive Matrices for India for a total of 5,607 9- to 15-year-olds. The Indian samples were drawn from Ahmedabad, Trivandrum, Patna, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, Cuttack, and Tiru. In relation to the 1979 British standardization sample of the Progressive Matrices, the children of India obtained a mean IQ of 77. There is a time interval of approximately 20 years between the collection of the data in India and Britain, which requires raising the Indian IQ to 81.
  
  A further standardization of the Coloured Progressive Matrices in India was carried out by Rao and Reddy (1968) on a sample of 1,050 5- to 10-year-olds in urban and rural locations in Andhra Pradesh. The mean IQ in relation to the 1979 British standardization of the Progressive Matrices was 80. Adjusting for the 11 years between the two standardizations raises the Indian IQ to 82.
  
  In 1992, norms were collected for the Standard Progressive Matrices for a sample of 569 11- to 15-year-olds in Delhi. The data are given by Raven, Court, and Raven (1996). In relation to the 1979 British standardization sample, the mean IQ is 84. To adjust for the 13-year interval between the two standardizations, this needs to be reduced to 82.
  
  Data for 748 children aged 9 to 12 years old who were tested with the WISC-R have been reported by Afzal (1988). Their mean IQ was 82. Because of the 14-year interval between the standardization of the test and the collection of the data, this needs to be reduced to 78.
  
  The average of the four data sets gives an IQ of 81 for India.
  
  
  
• Ireland
  
  In 1972, norms for the Standard Progressive Matrices were obtained for a sample of 3,466 6- to 13-year-olds. The data are given by Raven (1981). In relation to the 1979 British standardization sample, the Irish children obtained a mean IQ of 86. Because the Irish data were collected seven years earlier, this needs to be raised to 87.
  
  In Buj's (1981) study, 75 Adults obtained an IQ of 100 on the Carrell Culture Fair Test. To calibrate this figure against a British IQ of 100, this needs to be reduced to 98. The average of the two studies gives an IQ of 93 for Ireland.

and

• place where the tests were performed?

Your question needs to be clarified.

• what is the distribution of the derived IQs (for each individual taking each test)
• in what language(s) were the test instructions given
• what are the native languages of the subjects
• what measures were taken to ensure that all test subjects were in robust health/fully alert/not on drugs (this includes caffeine and nicotine)/etc
• how does the demographic profile of the test subjects correspond with that of the national population (of the time)?

You will probably need to at least find the write-ups of the original studies in order to fill in this information.

 

[hitssquad]

Recommendations to read Jensen's The g Factor

Hitsquad has already recommended reading The _g_ Factor.

it contains some of the most supremely ironic prose I've ever seen in a supposedly scientific work

Please cite examples from the book.

all my 'preconceptions amply validated'

Please cite examples from the book.

Jensen's ... insistence that his work has applicability only in the domain within which it has been undertaken (crudely, undergraduate students at US universities)

Please cite examples from the book.

Jensen himself all too often forgets his own strictures

Please cite examples from the book.

 

[Nereid]

Actually it is a he... it is interesting to see that you assumed that it was a girl though..

Long live iconoclasm! Are all your super-brainy acquaintances male?

 

[Nereid]

The book's Appendix 1 has this information. Much of the information there is also available on the online article's Appendix 1:
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/7-a1.htm

(On that page, CPM stands for Colored Progressive Matrices and SPM stands for Standard Progressive Matrices.)


Here is the all the information on IQ testing in India and Ireland available from the book's Appendix 1:

• India
  
  Sinha (1968) summarizes the results of nine studies providing normative data for the Coloured Progressive Matrices for India for a total of 5,607 9- to 15-year-olds. The Indian samples were drawn from Ahmedabad, Trivandrum, Patna, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, Cuttack, and Tiru. In relation to the 1979 British standardization sample of the Progressive Matrices, the children of India obtained a mean IQ of 77. There is a time interval of approximately 20 years between the collection of the data in India and Britain, which requires raising the Indian IQ to 81.
  
  A further standardization of the Coloured Progressive Matrices in India was carried out by Rao and Reddy (1968) on a sample of 1,050 5- to 10-year-olds in urban and rural locations in Andhra Pradesh. The mean IQ in relation to the 1979 British standardization of the Progressive Matrices was 80. Adjusting for the 11 years between the two standardizations raises the Indian IQ to 82.
  
  In 1992, norms were collected for the Standard Progressive Matrices for a sample of 569 11- to 15-year-olds in Delhi. The data are given by Raven, Court, and Raven (1996). In relation to the 1979 British standardization sample, the mean IQ is 84. To adjust for the 13-year interval between the two standardizations, this needs to be reduced to 82.

• Thanks hitssquad. So, in summary, most of the subjects were from a small number of urban centres; of those in rural areas (where the majority of India's population lived, at the time), only two states were sampled. Frankly, given the immense diversity and huge population of India, and the social statification (caste, class; gender) weren't the authors very humble about the extent to which their findings could be extrapolated to the whole country?

  [*]Ireland
  
  In 1972, norms for the Standard Progressive Matrices were obtained for a sample of 3,466 6- to 13-year-olds. The data are given by Raven (1981). In relation to the 1979 British standardization sample, the Irish children obtained a mean IQ of 86. Because the Irish data were collected seven years earlier, this needs to be raised to 87.
  
  In Buj's (1981) study, 75 Adults obtained an IQ of 100 on the Carrell Culture Fair Test. To calibrate this figure against a British IQ of 100, this needs to be reduced to 98. The average of the two studies gives an IQ of 93 for Ireland.

  Uh huh, 3.5k pre-pubescent children and 75 adults, coming from unspecified locations in Ireland, and unstated SE status.

  place where the tests were performed

  Your question needs to be clarified.

  the subjects' place of education? their homes? their places of work? the town hall?

  You will probably need to at least find the write-ups of the original studies in order to fill in this information.

  And now my 'suspect data' alarm bells are deafening. Having read Jensen, I cannot believe that Lynn could be so confident as to produce an estimate of 'national IQ' based on such obviously weak data as these Indian and Irish studies! Not only was there no (apparent) attempt to test the strength of the Flynn effect in these two places, but we have nothing to allay concerns about sample bias (and in the case of India, ample evidence that the data is indeed quite biassed).

 

[Mandrake]

name that test

one of my friends had a tested IQ of 175... how good is that... I heard its genius level..

Would you please name the test. I am unaware of any standard IQ test that has a ceiling that high.

 

[Mandrake]

Seriously, if 1 sigma is 15, and the mean is 100, then 175 is 5 sigma above the mean, and only ~3 out of every 10 million people will have such an IQ (or higher). However, this assumes that the distribution about the mean is Gaussian, and as hitssquad will tell you, not even Jensen himself is prepared to state how far from Gaussian the observed distribution is.

Perhaps you know what Hitsquad will tell you. I will tell you that your comment is incorrect. Have you read Bias in Mental Testing? If not, I suggest that you read it and then correct your comment. This subject is discussed extensively.

It is another matter to question the bredth of the range of the IQ distribution that is normal. The fact is that measurement tools can only go so far and they do not go as far as the IQ someone here claimed (175).

 

[Nereid]

I will provide you a detailed list hitssquad ... when I can borrow the book again (it has to be an inter-library loan).

For now, just two:
1) Jensen spends a para or two, early in the book, discussing definitions of 'intelligence', and what the term means to those who study this field. He concludes (my summary) that there is no consensus as to what the term means, a fact which hasn't changed in a very long time, and that he will concentrate only on 'g'. For irony, check out Mandrake's posts, esp the one he initiated in his attempt to discredit Evo.
2) Jensen is all about 'differential psychology' - how people differ one from the other, in terms of cognitive ability. The irony is (well, one irony) that so many of his followers (including Mandrake) are blind to so much of human differences - our little discussion on the studies on which Lynn based his (deeply flawed) book are just one small example. Crudely, the apparent willingness to adopt 'race' as a key variable in differential psychology while blissfully (blatantly?) ignoring other variables is ... ironic.

 

[Mandrake]

Regarding the Flynn adjustment, can you tell us please what the studies into this say about differences in secular variation between countries? age groups? social classes? gender? type of job? (etc).

I presume that by now you have studied current papers on the Lynn-Flynn Effect and that you have figured out that there is no evidence of a secular rise in _g_. So, I must ask why the effect is of any interest to you or why you think it has any pertinence to the discussion here?

 

[Mandrake]

I will provide you a detailed list hitssquad ... when I can borrow the book again (it has to be an inter-library loan).

For now, just two:
1) Jensen spends a para or two, early in the book, discussing definitions of 'intelligence', and what the term means to those who study this field. He concludes (my summary) that there is no consensus as to what the term means, a fact which hasn't changed in a very long time, and that he will concentrate only on 'g'.

You didn't need to read The _g_ Factor to learn that there is no scientific definition of intelligence. It turns out that virtually all of the external validity of IQ comes from its high correlation with _g_. The thing you will eventually figure out is that _g_ is the best measure we have of cognitive ability and that it has strong correlations with a wide range of life outcomes that matter to people. If this were not the case, people would not have any interest in intelligence.

For irony, check out Mandrake's posts, esp the one he initiated in his attempt to discredit Evo.

Attempt? Evo is self-discrediting. To the best of my recollection she has yet to make a comment here that adds useful, factual information.

2) Jensen is all about 'differential psychology' - how people differ one from the other, in terms of cognitive ability. The irony is (well, one irony) that so many of his followers (including Mandrake) are blind to so much of human differences -

When the subject is cognitive ability, there is a large difference between people and between population groups. Your "blind" comment is pointless and offensive.

our little discussion on the studies on which Lynn based his (deeply flawed) book are just one small example. Crudely, the apparent willingness to adopt 'race' as a key variable in differential psychology while blissfully (blatantly?) ignoring other variables is ... ironic.

Do you believe that there is no difference in the mean IQs of various well known population groups? My impression is that your comments here are entirely designed to attack a field of science which has discovered facts which you do not want to be known.

 

[Evo]

Attempt? Evo is self-discrediting. To the best of my recollection she has yet to make a comment here that adds useful, factual information.

LOL, by "useful, factual information" you mean something that you agree with. No Mandrake, if I ever post anything here that you agree with, I will seriously have to re-evaluate it's accuracy.

 

[hitssquad]

The g Factor on the web

I will provide you a detailed list hitssquad ... when I can borrow the book again

Jensen's The g Factor is published in full-text on the web here...
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24373874

...along with a buffet of 50,000 other social science books for $9USD per month. It is also available at amazon.com for £49.


The full text of Chapter 12 is available for free at Matt Nuenke's site:
http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/jen12.htm

 

[Waterdog]

useful factual information

Here is some useful factual information everyone should be aware of. Lynn and Vanhanen's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations was reviewed in 2004 by Contemporary Psychology, the most important review journal in the field of psychology. Here is the conclusion of the reviewers:

"In sum, we see an edifice built on layer upon layer of arbitrary assumptions and selective data manipulation. The data on which the entire book is based are of questionably validity and are used in ways that cannot be justified."

Contemporary Psychology 49.4 (2004); quote from page 389.

The reviewers spend several pages detailing the various flaws in IQ and the Wealth of Nations, from errors of fact (i.e., much of the IQ "data" reported is simply fabricated or distorted beyond recognition) to errors of interpretation. IQ and the Wealth of Nations is not a scientific work, and anyone citing "data" from IQ and the Wealth of Nations should be criticized, derided, ridiculed, and so forth, for spreading pseudo-scientific misinformation.

 

[hitssquad]

Contemporary Psychology 49.4 and IQ data distortion

Contemporary Psychology 49.4 (2004)...

...in IQ and the Wealth of Nations ... much of the IQ "data" reported is simply fabricated or distorted beyond recognition

If you provide an example, instanced in that review article, of IQ-data fabrication or distortion, we might be able to profitably examine it here.

 

[Waterdog]

Hitsquad,

You can find that information at www.doyourownresearch.com. Or go to the library and read the article in the periodicals room. For most people, it is not "profitable" to discuss a completely idiotic book. Only people who are ideologically committed to a certain point of view could take this book seriously. For the rest of us, it is enough to know that it has been thoroughly discredited. After all, we might just as well look into the details of books on phrenology or astrology and debate whether the claims made in those books are valid. We all have to make choices about how to spend our time. The authors of the review in Contemporary Pyschology generously gave some of their own time to the never-ending need to rebut pseudo-science. To the extent that people such as yourself and a small number of others continue to post misleading (and racist) pseudo-science on discussion boards such as this, it remains necessary for some public spirited individuals to spend a little time writing responses that indicate to reasonable, objective readers that this stuff is not to be taken seriously. But we don't need to take it farther than that. I'm not going to waste time and cyberspace with silly discussions about whether doo-doo stinks or not. Again, anyone can go to the review in Contemporary Psychology and draw their own conclusions about the odors emanating from IQ and the Wealth of Nations. It's in the library.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Waterdog, you should have stopped your post after the first sentence; all that personal rant contributes nothing to the discussion. I am no fan of Lynne's book myself but to call it pseudoscience like phrenology is just an insult to the intelligent and well informed peple who have been discussing it.

 

[Bladibla]

Im personally FROM South korea, but i don't agree with what is said. (especially about south korea)

 

[timken]

One thing has always puzzled me when IQ or "g" are being discussed.

When comparing largely isolated breeding populations that display clear differences in numerous genetically influenced factors I would find it incredible if measures of intelligence (geneticaly influenced?) were to give identical distributions about the same mean for all such isolated populations.
If ones accepts evolutionary theory, isn't it the case that we are seeing the very beginnings of speciation, and that increasing differences in many characteristics including intelligence (however defined or measured) are to be expected.

So why do some people get so very upset? Is it that the acceptance of genetic changes predicted by current theory clash with some peoples ideological desire for equality.

 

[Mandrake]

understanding and accepting reality

One thing has always puzzled me when IQ or "g" are being discussed.

When comparing largely isolated breeding populations that display clear differences in numerous genetically influenced factors I would find it incredible if measures of intelligence (geneticaly influenced?) were to give identical distributions about the same mean for all such isolated populations.

You are correct. Intelligence varies between population groups and is primarily determined by genetics. The means between groups differ as to the components of intelligence. This also applies to differences between the sexes. It happens that the structural difference between Mongoloid and Caucasoid intelligence is similar to the differences seen between the sexes.
{Mongoloids and males have higher spatial abilities, lower verbal abilities, and slightly higher means.}

If ones accepts evolutionary theory, isn't it the case that we are seeing the very beginnings of speciation, and that increasing differences in many characteristics including intelligence (however defined or measured) are to be expected.

Human races are subspecies. Presumably other human species, such as Neanderthal, have become extinct.

So why do some people get so very upset?

That is an excellent question. The answer probably has at least two parts. One is ignorance. People do not accept things that they do not understand. The other is political correctness. The liberal left has been pressing a PC agenda, which focuses on things that are scientifically absurd. They apparently are motivated by the single factor that there is a large difference in intelligence between Negroids and the other two major races. It has never been of concern to them that there are differences in intelligence between a number of population groups, including Ashkenazi Jews, European whites, Latinos, American Indians, and sub-Saharan Africans. It would be inane to expect a different reality.

Is it that the acceptance of genetic changes predicted by current theory clash with some peoples ideological desire for equality.

Yes, but only as it applies to intelligence. Other biological differences are accepted as facts and are not included in the PC police book. Intelligence is a problem because it has a huge impact on the statistical life success of any group. It relates to learning rate, academic performance, the thresholds for cognitively challenging careers, job performance, health, and lifespan.