www.cremieux.xyz/p/national-iqs-are-valid
1 correction found
all of which are IQ estimates from samples located in different countries or based on diasporas (e.g., refugees) from those countries.
This misdescribes the contents of *IQ and the Wealth of Nations*. The book did not rely only on in-country or diaspora samples; for many countries, Lynn and Vanhanen simply estimated IQs from neighboring countries.
Full reasoning
This sentence says all of the estimates in IQ and the Wealth of Nations came from samples taken in the target countries or from diasporas from those countries. That is not correct.
A published review in Heredity states that, in Lynn and Vanhanen's 2002 book, direct evidence was available for only 81 of 185 countries, and that 101 countries' national IQs were simply estimated from "most appropriate neighbouring countries". In other words, a large share of the book's country values were not based on country-specific samples or diaspora samples at all.
So the article's blanket description of the book's figures as all being derived from country or diaspora samples is factually inaccurate.
2 sources
- IQ and the Wealth of Nations | Heredity
Of the 185 countries in the sample, ‘direct evidence’ of the ‘national IQ’ is available for only 81! National IQs for 101 countries are simply estimated from ‘most appropriate neighbouring countries’...
- IQ and the Wealth of Nations | Heredity
But, even for most of the others, ‘direct evidence’ is putting it strongly, as even a cursory glance at the motley tests, dates, ages, unrepresentative samples, estimates, and corrections show.