4 ms·

According to the README, this seems to be the data used in Lynn and Vanhanen (2002), which has received a.. fair share of criticism. The wikipedia article on t

by tux3 3y ago

According to the README, this seems to be the data used in Lynn and Vanhanen (2002), which has received a.. fair share of criticism. The wikipedia article on their book has more context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

tptacek 3y ago
It's also part of the orbit of the "Ulster Institute", Richard Lynn's racial supremacist think tank. David Becker, the author (or one of them) of this website, is one of his co-authors. Rebecca Sear's critique: In 2002, Lynn and Vanhanen produced a dataset which claimed to provide average ‘national IQs’ for nation-states worldwide. Despite extensive critique, this dataset, and subsequent updated versions, have been used in a large number of empirical publications. Here I evaluate the latest version, produced in 2019 by Lynn and Becker, and show that this dataset is not fit for purpose. The primary data sources are inadequate for estimating ‘national IQs’. The majority of data included originates from samples which are wholly unrepresentative of their national populations. Many are convenience samples with small sample sizes, often including only children and often including individuals chosen because they had particular characteristics (i.e., samples which were deliberately chosen to be unrepresentative). Data were collected using a range of different cognitive tests and from such diverse populations that it is impossible to generate comparable measure of cognitive ability. There is also evidence that further bias may have been introduced during manipulations of primary data into ‘IQ’ scores.
runarberg 3y ago
It is generally a good idea to stay skeptical of all IQ research. A very large part of population IQ has been nothing more than racially motivated pseudo-science. This is doubly true of any work by Richard Lynn. He is now thoroughly disgraced as a scientist. Guilty of knowingly misrepresenting data to further his political viewpoints which include white supremacy.
- blastonico 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - runarberg 3y ago
    That may be, particularly if you get to define what “brilliant” means, and I never stated otherwise. However that says nothing about the validity of using IQ as a population statistic. In other words, even if IQ is a useful metric for an individual, that doesn't make it a valid metric of a population. And on top of that, this says nothing of the political motivation of the researchers. I claim that Richard Lynn is a disgraced scientist who has been found guilty of misrepresenting data to further his views of white supremacy and that many researchers doing population IQ are engaging in pseudo-science, and I stand by it. Furthermore, I find your insult uninspiring. I don't know my IQ and I don't care to find out. It is probably below 100—as it is for half of any given population. How smart I sound is irrelevant.

by tux3 3y ago

tptacek 3y ago

It's also part of the orbit of the "Ulster Institute", Richard Lynn's racial supremacist think tank. David Becker, the author (or one of them) of this website, is one of his co-authors. Rebecca Sear's critique: In 2002, Lynn and Vanhanen produced a dataset which claimed to provide average ‘national IQs’ for nation-states worldwide. Despite extensive critique, this dataset, and subsequent updated versions, have been used in a large number of empirical publications. Here I evaluate the latest version, produced in 2019 by Lynn and Becker, and show that this dataset is not fit for purpose. The primary data sources are inadequate for estimating ‘national IQs’. The majority of data included originates from samples which are wholly unrepresentative of their national populations. Many are convenience samples with small sample sizes, often including only children and often including individuals chosen because they had particular characteristics (i.e., samples which were deliberately chosen to be unrepresentative). Data were collected using a range of different cognitive tests and from such diverse populations that it is impossible to generate comparable measure of cognitive ability. There is also evidence that further bias may have been introduced during manipulations of primary data into ‘IQ’ scores.

runarberg 3y ago

It is generally a good idea to stay skeptical of all IQ research. A very large part of population IQ has been nothing more than racially motivated pseudo-science. This is doubly true of any work by Richard Lynn. He is now thoroughly disgraced as a scientist. Guilty of knowingly misrepresenting data to further his political viewpoints which include white supremacy.

blastonico 3y ago
[flagged]
- runarberg 3y ago
  That may be, particularly if you get to define what “brilliant” means, and I never stated otherwise. However that says nothing about the validity of using IQ as a population statistic. In other words, even if IQ is a useful metric for an individual, that doesn't make it a valid metric of a population. And on top of that, this says nothing of the political motivation of the researchers. I claim that Richard Lynn is a disgraced scientist who has been found guilty of misrepresenting data to further his views of white supremacy and that many researchers doing population IQ are engaging in pseudo-science, and I stand by it. Furthermore, I find your insult uninspiring. I don't know my IQ and I don't care to find out. It is probably below 100—as it is for half of any given population. How smart I sound is irrelevant.