Over at Intelligence, Personality and Genius Bruce Charlton speculates that because men mature more slowly, if women reach the peak of fluid intelligence at 16 and men at 18; then at 16 years a boy will be at only 90% of his best intelligence; children should be maturation-matched rather than age-matched; that men being longer-maturing should be brighter at the end of the process (because longer brain maturation is biologically related to brain power, though more prone to things going wrong in this long-drawn-out process); that reaching sexual maturity faster should lower intelligence in boys and girls; that if boys and girls of the same age show the same intelligence levels then that of itself shows that boys are brighter; and that group differences are best calculated by comparing exceptional performance.
Read it all here:
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/some-implications-of-men-cognitively.html
The key problem with looking at sex differences in IQ in adults is how do you deal with attrition? In any large sample of adults, you are going to get non-responders etc. These often tend to be men and those of lower IQ. If someone could do a test of say the Scottish birth cohort at some adult age and manage to snag everybody I'd be more convinced of sex differences in mean IQ.
ReplyDeleteI think the key problem with looking at sex differences in intelligence is that most IQ tests are made on purpose to show none. Any individual item showing sex differences is tossed (yet one can still end up with a nicely g-loaded test).
DeleteElementary cognitive tasks might be the answer?
http://www.csuohio.edu/business/academics/mlr/documents/pesta_08_paid_sex_iq.pdf
Yes. I have thought before that any age-matched comparison of racial groups needs to be taken with a pinch of salt for exactly this reason (particularly at young ages where there may be significant biological differences in developmental speed). It's not sensible to get too hung up on group differences at any particular point of the development - you have to consider the whole picture.
ReplyDeleteI wish you people would coordinate your stories.
ReplyDeleteOver here
http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.ro/2014/05/lci14-elijah-armstrong-on-rule.html
Populations 100 years ago, in fact, had IQs of about 70.
And over here
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/differential-onset-of-dysgenesis.html
that guy says
current evidence is that Victorian English had about the same intelligence as middle-late 20th century Ashkenazim.
It is well-established that, through most of the twentieth century, Ashkenazi Jews (that is, Jews from central Europe, around Germany) had an IQ of about 115
Which one is it ?
Researchers don't "coordinate" their stories. They argue on the basis of sets of data, and yes the results do sometimes contradict each other, and require further resolution. However, these are two different but related arguments. The Flynn effect implies (but does not prove) that if the secular rise in intelligence scores is real then our ancestors were profoundly dull. No-one thinks that, least of all Jim Flynn, who proposed it as a paradox. Elijah does not make that clear in his brief abstract.
ReplyDeleteNow on to another way of doing the historical comparison: Woodley's recalculation of intelligence inferred from simple reaction times. So, the argument is whether A) the Victorian were just as clever as us (which Jim Flynn argues, though he says they were more literal minded and not so symbolic as us) or whether the Victorians were somewhat cleverer than us (the Woodley position).
Phew.
or the slower maturing person with high iq.
ReplyDeletei can't find it now, but an american study showed that low iq was much more heritable in children than high iq. the high iq took longer to stabalize.
at any rate, differences in rate of maturity and ultimate potential are not considered by intelligence researchers or the school system.
to mature early and, perhaps, to reach one's potential early is equated with high ability.
those few, or those very many, who develop later are judged "not so bright".
How does precociousness figure in? Child prodigies mature quickly and often go on to lead productive lives.
ReplyDelete@Luke Lea - Child prodigies in, say, music or mathematics, are explicable in terms that their higher ability as children is due to their high potential ability as adults.
ReplyDeleteThe ability, as a rule, keeps maturing and improving into adulthood. Although they prodigies may be much better than the average adult at age 9, the prodigies are still only 'half' as good as they will become if they survive to adulthood without mishap.
For example, Mozart's childhood compositions were remarkably good *for a child* but none are in the standard concert repertory. Mathematical prodigies have a high ability for children, but they do not make a significant contribution to the field until they are at or near maturity.
I would welcome any "anonymous" reliable information about an event at the 1980 APA Conference in Montreal. The event is mentioned by H. J. Eysenck in the first
ReplyDeleteedition of his autobiography, in chapter 04. This was a rather covert "debate" scheduled between him and B. F. Skinner. Eysenck makes clear in his brief comments that it was a debate and that he, Eysenck, by prior written agreement was to lead off. However, at the last minute, Skinner asked Eysenck to be permitted to lead off. Eysenck agreed. Eysenck was then surprised by the extent to which Skinner rather offered a kind of "nolo contendere" position vis a vis the
London School emphasis upon heredity. Presumably Skinner felt that "nature" might be sidestepped to a greater extent than the London School devotees tend to assume. The "debate" collapsed into a congenial discussion of several side topics that were later summarized by way of issued papers. However, no one seems ever to have seen a full and exact transcript of Skinner's lead off "nolo contendere" statement, nor has anyone apparently heard a tape recording of it. I thought
"depublishing" had been invented in 1996 with the withdrawal and pulping of Chris Brand's book on the "g" factor and public policy options. Further information,
anyone?
Try Glenn Wilson, who might have some background on this. David Nias also.
ReplyDeleteProf. Wilson emailed that he had never heard of the event. Prof. Nias has
Deletenot yet been contacted. Dr. Sybil Eysenck, widow of H. J. Eysenck, affirms she is aware of the event but does not know of any tape or transcript. Prof. Alexandra Rutherford of York U. (Canada) has been trying for several years to get detailed and reliable information about the event but affirms she has been unable to do so. Prof. Frank Farley,
along with Prof. Charles Spielberger (now deceased) were central in setting up the event. Prof. Farley made some aspects of an audio tape accessible to Eysenck biographer Prof. Rod Buchanan a few years ago.
However, it is unclear that the "event" as now understood contains the Skinner lead off "nolo contendere" concession to the hereditary emphases of the London school and to Eysenck in particular? What is known now
is consistent with, but not necessarily indicative of, the possibility that because the event was scheduled under the APA roof as a "reception"
that the prepared debate initial portion was somehow (with legal pressure?)
been deleted and thus after the collapse of the debate vis a vis "nolo contendere" , the exploration of various "side street" topics that
emerged spontaneously was permitted to stand and constitutes the
retrospective event?? Even when Chris Brand's book (The 'g' Factor...)
was depublished in 1996, folks knew what the hell was happening. This
missing Skinner "nolo contendere" introductory commentary at 1980
APA in Montreal is a much grander (?) mystery---something just "down the Memory Hole" But it is , if serendipitously, an accomplishment in psychology to manage (?) to establish "in camera" that you ain't no
Blank Slate kook while nonetheless to shroud your gene notions in
darkness. Personally, I think it'd make a helluva Vegas comedy routine,
but yet I doubt I could laugh at any of it!
Perhaps one of Skinner's children might have access to his papers. He must have prepared the talk, and there should be notes somewhere. I think that his daughter gives interviews and might be approached.
DeleteSybil Eysenck in a reply to a Librarian at Kansas State University
Deletethis month (June 2014) affirmed her awareness of the event (which
I presume in particular was her awareness of the lead off address
by Skinner that in her late husband's words "took the wind out of my
sails". She, however, made clear that she has no record, tape, etc,
and does not know for sure who might have. Prof. Emeritus Frank
Farley, who has had a long and very distinguished career, notes that
he not merely was present but had organized the event but amidst
a lifetime of academic records,papers, etc. has not had time to put
together a definitive account of the event or of merely the lead off
speech by Skinner. The late Charles Spielberger has affirmed that
he was also involved in the event and surely was present. Otherwise,
the uncertain sense is that the event was crafted in such a way as not
to have a large , tense audience ?? If the lead off speech "took the wind out of " Eysenck's sails, it is not an unreasonable presumption that it amounted to affirming that Skinner had little dispute as a scientist with the London School findings/ viewpoints, but that he doubted the
London School findings need have nearly the practical importance that
Eysenck and others assumed them to have??? But in the absence over 34 years of either a full and faithful transcript or exact recording,
we seem left with an ink blot sense of what exactly took the wind out
of Eysenck's sails and apparently collapsed the anticipated debate into
an amiable and witty discussion.
Professor Skinner's children: Julie Vargas, his older daughter and herself trained in psychology, affirmed likewise in June 2014 to the
DeleteLibrarian (above) that she had no information about this event. I have
long wondered just who was present in the particular portion of the event--namely, the very initial commentary (probably of at least 15
minutes ) by Skinner that "took the wind out of " Eysenck's sails.
I have long wondered whether P.E.Vernon had perhaps his son,
Tony, were among the presumably few persons witnessing this "wind
out of the sails" explicit confrontation by Skinner of the London School,
that apparently was a largely "me, too, however..." utterance?
I'm afraid I have run out of ideas, and remain as mystified as you
DeleteI always wanted to understand how the way the iq test is measured works. After all, it seems that everything relies on contextual comparisons. I never understood that an IQ test has no maximum score, or an average for all groups. For example, because instead of estimating the average to 100, does not expect the average to 50% of each test, which of course encompasses all the technical skills of humans. So no need for comparison group to group. Would be much easier, accurate and objective.
ReplyDeleteGottlieb
The average standard 100, Greenwich standard could be replaced by percentage of correct answers on a test. From this, I think the average would become standardized completely neutral way. I do not think much would change the pattern of scores, racial, gender, technical and cognitive levels ... but it would be easier for psychometrist, May very easy to measure without the need for a representative sample. Not the sample must be representative, is the psychometric test.
ReplyDelete50% as ''standard'' of average (arithmetic mean) than 100 greenwich iq
Gottlieb
If British IQ has declined and IQ elsewhere is normed off British IQ (i read this somewhere but not sure if true) then wouldn't that make everyone else's measured IQ go up?
ReplyDeleteProf Thompson, do you know about any articles that has attempted to show if intelligent children mature faster than duller children ? That's something I always wanted to know but I couldn't find anything at all. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThere is a whole lot of problems with IQ tests and the concept of intelligence. Why are spatial and verbal abilities defined as intelligence when studies have indicated that its emotional intelligence that predict success in life as well as in social relationships? And spatial and verbal abilities are multi-dimensional in themselves and IQ test does not take into account all the types of verbal and spatial information to asses.
ReplyDeleteIQ test study methodologies are also flawed because of the masking hypothesis, sample specificity and the recruitment flaws. Not to mention socio-demographic ,environmental or psychological factors that could favor an increase or decrease of intelligence (ex. sports/exercise increasing spatial ability or anxiety hindering cognition)
A study by Adam Hampshire of UWO also found that IQ tests are flawed because they do not accurately measure intelligence since the factors of G are distributed in separate brain networks in which one testing cannot simply cover. Factors such as short term memory, reasoning and verbal ability are within separate networks and therefore require three separate tests to measure them
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843
There is a whole lot of problems with IQ tests and the concept of intelligence. Why are spatial and verbal abilities defined as intelligence when studies have indicated that its emotional intelligence that predict success in life as well as in social relationships? And spatial and verbal abilities are multi-dimensional in themselves and IQ test does not take into account all the types of verbal and spatial information to asses.
ReplyDeleteIQ test study methodologies are also flawed because of the masking hypothesis, sample specificity and the recruitment flaws. Not to mention socio-demographic ,environmental or psychological factors that could favor an increase or decrease of intelligence (ex. sports/exercise increasing spatial ability or anxiety hindering cognition)
A study by Adam Hampshire of UWO also found that IQ tests are flawed because they do not accurately measure intelligence since the factors of G are distributed in separate brain networks in which one testing cannot simply cover. Factors such as short term memory, reasoning and verbal ability are within separate networks and therefore require three separate tests to measure them
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843
IQ standards are found different in different human being; we can measure the ability of a person through his or her IQ. Therefore people are always taking positive steps to develop their IQ level and ability to maintain; otherwise they are facing failure. Here this above article also describes some facts about slow maturing and IQ level of a person and how both are inter-related with each other.
ReplyDeleteCreativity Coach