Skip to Content
0 Votes

Wiki source code of Studies: IQ

Version 12.1 by Ryan C on 2025/06/21 06:30
Show last authors
1 = IQ =
2
3 {{expandable summary="Study: Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"}}
4 **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
5 **Date of Publication:** *2019*
6 **Author(s):** *Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, Thomas R. Coyle*
7 **Title:** *"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Intelligence Research, Experts' Background, Controversial Issues, and the Media"*
8 **DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406)
9 **Subject Matter:** *Psychology, Intelligence Research, Expert Analysis*
10
11 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
12 1. **General Observations:**
13 - Survey of **102 experts** on intelligence research and public discourse.
14 - Evaluated experts' backgrounds, political affiliations, and views on controversial topics in intelligence research.
15
16 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
17 - **90% of experts were from Western countries**, and **83% were male**.
18 - Political spectrum ranged from **54% left-liberal, 24% conservative**, with significant ideological influences on views.
19
20 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
21 - Experts rated media coverage of intelligence research as **poor (avg. 3.1 on a 9-point scale)**.
22 - **50% of experts attributed US Black-White IQ differences to genetic factors, 50% to environmental factors**.
23 {{/expandable}}
24
25 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
26 1. **Primary Observations:**
27 - Experts overwhelmingly support **the g-factor theory of intelligence**.
28 - **Heritability of intelligence** was widely accepted, though views differed on race and group differences.
29
30 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
31 - **Left-leaning experts were more likely to reject genetic explanations for group IQ differences**.
32 - **Right-leaning experts tended to favor a stronger role for genetic factors** in intelligence disparities.
33
34 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
35 - The study compared **media coverage of intelligence research** with expert opinions.
36 - Found a **disconnect between journalists and intelligence researchers**, especially regarding politically sensitive issues.
37 {{/expandable}}
38
39 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
40 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
41 - **Largest expert survey on intelligence research** to date.
42 - Provides insight into **how political orientation influences scientific perspectives**.
43
44 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
45 - **Sample primarily from Western countries**, limiting global perspectives.
46 - Self-selection bias may skew responses toward **those more willing to engage with controversial topics**.
47
48 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
49 - Future studies should include **a broader range of global experts**.
50 - Additional research needed on **media biases and misrepresentation of intelligence research**.
51 {{/expandable}}
52
53 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
54 - Provides insight into **expert consensus and division on intelligence research**.
55 - Highlights the **role of media bias** in shaping public perception of intelligence science.
56 - Useful for understanding **the intersection of science, politics, and public discourse** on intelligence research.
57 {{/expandable}}
58
59 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
60 1. Examine **cross-national differences** in expert opinions on intelligence.
61 2. Investigate how **media bias impacts public understanding of intelligence research**.
62 3. Conduct follow-up studies with **a more diverse expert pool** to test findings.
63 {{/expandable}}
64
65 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
66 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Rindermann et al. - 2020 - Survey of expert opinion on intelligence Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial.pdf]]
67 {{/expandable}}
68 {{/expandable}}
69
70 {{expandable summary="Study: A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"}}
71 **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
72 **Date of Publication:** *2015*
73 **Author(s):** *Davide Piffer*
74 **Title:** *"A Review of Intelligence GWAS Hits: Their Relationship to Country IQ and the Issue of Spatial Autocorrelation"*
75 **DOI:** [10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.08.008)
76 **Subject Matter:** *Genetics, Intelligence, GWAS, Population Differences*
77
78 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
79 1. **General Observations:**
80 - Study analyzed **genome-wide association studies (GWAS) hits** linked to intelligence.
81 - Found a **strong correlation (r = .91) between polygenic intelligence scores and national IQ levels**.
82
83 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
84 - Factor analysis of **9 intelligence-associated alleles** revealed a metagene correlated with **country IQ (r = .86)**.
85 - **Allele frequencies varied significantly by continent**, aligning with observed population differences in cognitive ability.
86
87 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
88 - GWAS intelligence SNPs predicted **IQ levels more strongly than random genetic markers**.
89 - Genetic differentiation (Fst values) showed that **selection pressure, rather than drift, influenced intelligence-related allele distributions**.
90 {{/expandable}}
91
92 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
93 1. **Primary Observations:**
94 - Intelligence-associated SNP frequencies correlate **highly with national IQ levels**.
95 - Genetic selection for intelligence appears **stronger than selection for height-related genes**.
96
97 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
98 - **East Asian populations** exhibited the **highest frequencies of intelligence-associated alleles**.
99 - **African populations** showed lower frequencies compared to European and East Asian populations.
100
101 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
102 - Polygenic scores using **intelligence-related alleles significantly outperformed random SNPs** in predicting IQ.
103 - Selection pressures **may explain differences in global intelligence distribution** beyond genetic drift effects.
104 {{/expandable}}
105
106 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
107 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
108 - **Comprehensive genetic analysis** of intelligence-linked SNPs.
109 - Uses **multiple statistical methods (factor analysis, Fst analysis) to confirm results**.
110
111 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
112 - **Correlation does not imply causation**; factors beyond genetics influence intelligence.
113 - **Limited number of GWAS-identified intelligence alleles**—future studies may identify more.
114
115 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
116 - Larger **cross-population GWAS studies** needed to validate findings.
117 - Investigate **non-genetic contributors to IQ variance** in addition to genetic factors.
118 {{/expandable}}
119
120 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
121 - Supports research on **genetic influences on intelligence at a population level**.
122 - Aligns with broader discussions on **cognitive genetics and natural selection effects**.
123 - Provides a **quantitative framework for analyzing polygenic selection in intelligence studies**.
124 {{/expandable}}
125
126 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
127 1. Conduct **expanded GWAS studies** including diverse populations.
128 2. Investigate **gene-environment interactions influencing intelligence**.
129 3. Explore **historical selection pressures shaping intelligence-related alleles**.
130 {{/expandable}}
131
132 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
133 [[Download Full Study>>attach:Piffer - 2015 - A review of intelligence GWAS hits Their relationship to country IQ and the issue of spatial autoco.pdf]]
134 {{/expandable}}
135 {{/expandable}}
136
137 {{expandable summary="Study: Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability"}}
138 **Source:** *Psychology, Public Policy, and Law*
139 **Date of Publication:** *2005*
140 **Author(s):** *J. Philippe Rushton & Arthur R. Jensen*
141 **Title:** *"Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability"*
142 **DOI:** [10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235](https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235)
143 **Subject Matter:** *Psychometrics, Racial Differences, Intelligence, Heritability*
144
145 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
146 1. **General Observations:**
147 - Mean IQ gap between Blacks and Whites in the U.S.: **~15 points**.
148 - Heritability estimates for IQ: **0.5 to 0.8** (moderate to high).
149 - Brain volume differences align with IQ differences: **~50 cm³ difference** on average.
150
151 2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
152 - **Black Americans** consistently score about 1 SD below **White Americans** across age groups.
153 - **East Asians** tend to score slightly higher than Whites on non-verbal IQ tests.
154
155 3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
156 - Between-group differences are found on **culture-free, g-loaded** tests.
157 - Adoption studies: **Black children raised in White households** still show IQ closer to Black population mean.
158 {{/expandable}}
159
160 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
161 1. **Primary Observations:**
162 - The Black–White IQ gap is **persistent, replicable**, and appears early in life.
163 - **g factor (general intelligence)** underlies the racial IQ gap across diverse cognitive tasks.
164
165 2. **Subgroup Trends:**
166 - Differences are larger on more **g-loaded tests**, suggesting the gap is not a test artifact.
167 - Socioeconomic status **does not eliminate** the gap, though it can influence expression.
168
169 3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
170 - Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: **Black children adopted into affluent White homes** scored lower than White adoptees.
171 - U.S. military data (e.g. AFQT scores) showed **consistent racial stratification** in cognitive performance.
172 {{/expandable}}
173
174 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
175 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
176 - Synthesizes **hundreds of studies** spanning psychometrics, neuroscience, and genetics.
177 - Applies rigorous **meta-analytic and test-construction logic**.
178 - Challenges purely environmental or cultural explanations with empirical evidence.
179
180 2. **Limitations of the Study:**
181 - The review is **intensely controversial**, particularly due to assumptions about race as a valid biological category.
182 - Heritability within groups **does not automatically justify** between-group heritability claims — critics argue this is misused.
183 - Critics allege selective reporting or bias in study inclusion (e.g. underrepresenting null results).
184
185 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
186 - Further work could benefit from **modern genomic tools** (e.g. polygenic risk scoring) to isolate population-level traits.
187 - Greater inclusion of **cross-cultural replications** would help test universality vs. U.S.-specific effects.
188 {{/expandable}}
189
190 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
191 - This is one of the most comprehensive defenses of **biological origins of racial cognitive differences**.
192 - Supports the view that racial gaps in academic or occupational outcomes are **not purely environmental**.
193 - Challenges dominant narratives in education policy, DEI programming, and social justice frameworks.
194 {{/expandable}}
195
196 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
197 1. How have genetic studies (e.g. GWAS) since 2005 confirmed or contradicted Rushton & Jensen’s findings?
198 2. What are the **policy implications** of acknowledging cognitive group differences — in education, immigration, or welfare?
199 3. To what extent do **cultural suppression and academic censorship** affect open discussion of these results?
200 {{/expandable}}
201
202 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
203 [[Download Full Study>>attach:THIS IS SAVED DIRECTLY.pdf]]
204 {{/expandable}}
205 {{/expandable}}
206
207
208 {{expandable summary="Study: Brain Size, IQ, and Racial-Group Differences"}}
209 **Source:** *Intelligence (Elsevier)*
210 **Date of Publication:** *2003*
211 **Author(s):** *J. Philippe Rushton, Elizabeth W. Rushton*
212 **Title:** *"Brain size, IQ, and racial-group differences: Evidence from musculoskeletal traits"*
213 **DOI:** [10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00137-X](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00137-X)
214 **Subject Matter:** *Neuroanatomy, Intelligence, Evolutionary Anthropology, Racial Differences*
215
216 {{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
217 1. **Average Brain Volumes (cc):**
218 - Blacks: ~1267 cm³
219 - Whites: ~1347 cm³
220 - East Asians: ~1364 cm³
221
222 2. **IQ Averages:**
223 - Blacks: ~85
224 - Whites: 100
225 - East Asians: ~106
226
227 3. **Correlation Between Brain Size & Morphological Traits:**
228 - Across 37 skeletal variables, mean correlation with brain size: **r = 0.94**
229
230 4. **Sample Basis:**
231 - Study synthesizes cranial and postcranial anatomical data from global populations.
232 {{/expandable}}
233
234 {{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
235 1. **Primary Conclusion:**
236 - Brain size differences among races are robust, **biologically grounded**, and closely track IQ differences.
237
238 2. **Skeletal Evidence:**
239 - Morphological traits (jaw shape, tooth structure, thigh curvature, pelvis width) correlate with brain volume across groups.
240
241 3. **Interpretation:**
242 - These consistent anatomical differences support the theory that **evolved brain size variation underlies racial IQ gaps**.
243 {{/expandable}}
244
245 {{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
246 1. **Strengths of the Study:**
247 - High ecological correlations (r = 0.94) across diverse skeletal metrics.
248 - Integrates anthropometry with cognitive data for holistic biological analysis.
249
250 2. **Limitations:**
251 - Relies on preexisting datasets rather than new measurements.
252 - Assumes uniformity within broad racial categories without finer intra-group distinctions.
253
254 3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
255 - Add neuroimaging evidence (MRI/CT) to confirm volume estimates.
256 - Include modern genomic ancestry estimates for greater precision.
257 {{/expandable}}
258
259 {{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
260 - Provides **hard anatomical evidence** reinforcing racial differences in cognitive ability.
261 - Links IQ differences to **physiological, not social** factors—countering CRT narratives.
262 - Strong empirical foundation for hereditarian interpretations of race and intelligence.
263 {{/expandable}}
264
265 {{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
266 1. Cross-validate musculoskeletal trait correlations using modern 3D skeletal databases.
267 2. Explore how sexual dimorphism interacts with racial brain size differences.
268 3. Investigate similar correlations in other species to support evolutionary reasoning.
269 {{/expandable}}
270
271 {{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
272 [[Download Full Study>>attach:rushton2003.pdf]]
273 {{/expandable}}
274 {{/expandable}}

XWiki AI Chat