Talk:Height and intelligence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:01, 5 July 2007

What the heck is this? The whole articles circumnavigates the Earth 20 times before it finds London. Either you assert something or you don't. All I ask for is: how do height and intelligence correllate? which studies present these results? and how were the studies conducted? Beyond that, any reasonable human may interpret the rest as his "intelligence" would allow.

What kind of nut would do a study comparing height and intelligence? This article suggests that taller people have serious ego problems because they have conducted such studies. How would the sampling be done? How on earth to reach such a conclusion? This article is complete crap. I guarantee you I could do a study showing the exact opposite. In fact the island of Japan and Asia in general suggest the exact opposite conclusion.

heightism

I'm less than average height at 5' 5" and I'm in the top 10 in my class of 400 at one of the top high school's around. And I never study. Look at the asian kids at school, rarely are they taller than me and they're all smarter than me. There is no cause and effect relationship or even correlation between height and intelligence. -Just signing that this wasn't my text, what follows was.

This seems to be just outrageous stupid heightist declarations without a single piece of verificable evidence. The whole article needs a complete rewrite, deletion, or else to be extendedinto something more respectable, with head and toes. Herle King 13:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have you beat in a way. I'm 3' 6" and graduated magna cum laufde from my University. Although my University was not prodigious, I was also a 31 on the ACT (examination). Still I think this isn't entirely wrong. Many people are short because of poor nutrition or genetic conditions that negatively effect intelligence. My guess though would be that the "taller people average smarter" thing would plateau once you reach a height where nutrition or condition matter less. For example my guess is that people who are 6' 7" (201 cm) do not have higher average IQs than people who are 6' 1" (185 cm)--T. Anthony 11:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not just saying that because you're short, are you? :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JSC ltd (talk • contribs) 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"outrageous stupid declarations without a single piece of verificable evidence" did you miss the peer reviewed papers in the relevant scientific journals, or do you not consider that verifiable evidence? Pete.Hurd 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I put a "completely disputed" tag, it is because this is pseudo-science. "Intelligence", until now, is not possible to measure according to scientific standards, while height is easily measurable. When scientifics will agree on a common definition of intelligence, then find a fantastic way to measure it, then they might start considering carrying on tests evaluating intelligence. Right now, apart of IQ tests which only have credit in some very intelligent sectors of the United States society, but are not accepted in the rest of the world as legitimate measures of "intelligence", there are no way to measure it, much less to correlate it to height. Showing one's education (mind you, "education" is not a synonym of "intelligence") by the expression Correlation does not imply causation doesn't change the least the problem. Tazmaniacs 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, when you mean "pseudoscience" you really mean, body of main-stream science that you don't agree with. As for "correlation doesn't imply causation", the science quoted in this article is really nowhere near that naive. Pete.Hurd 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that research published in journals such as Pediatics, Journal of Pediatrics, International Journal of Epidemiology and Genes Brain and Behavior is pseudoscience. This work is clearly in the mainstream of accepted science, and therefore I have to balance out your assertions against these journals. If it's so plainly clear that this work is deeply flawed, then I suggest you submit a refutation to a scientific journal, otherwise your assertions look a whole lot more like Original Research, and POV pushing than does this article. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does there need to be a common intelligence metric for it to be considered non-pseudoscientific? This would pretty much rule out any research where there is disagreement on the exact construction of a metric. I think I'll have to let Keith Poole know that he's been dabbling in pseudoscience for 20 years since his and Howard Rosenthal's NOMINATE set of ideology scores aren't universally accepted in legislative research. ~ trialsanderrors 23:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to be a list/brief description of articles with no particular direction/organization. There needs to be significant clarification and much more thorough discussion of the subject of the article instead of this mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemarshall04 (talk • contribs)

Ummm, there are adequate references in the first and third paragraphs to refute the criticism of a "totally disputed" template. Do you have references that refute the scientific research cited? Pete.Hurd 04:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering height as a means to determine intelligence is in the same line of phrenology, and this makes no sense if the target population for the research was small... And limited to any single country. Even a bunch of them. Check Japan and Asia in general, check if any concep of intelligence places them below poplations that tend to greater heights. And check "confounding". Herle King 04:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This article must go.

There are tons of scientific papers concluding that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer and man does not cause climate change. There are countless scientific papers claiming that black people are inferior, Asian people are inferior, Jews are inferior etc. etc. The article Height and Intelligence may not be racist but it is its first cousin. It is insidious.

The science here or pseudo science as others have termed it is certainly not settled. It is not standard and it is not established. Wikipedia should not be denigrating the physical traits of different types of people. This particular article should be deleted, and the sooner the better.01001 03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have studies that refute the results reported here, please present them. WilyD 03:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is baloney! I neither have the time or the resources to look for counter-studies but you should, in keeping with WP:NPOV. The article is definitely missing the age factor. The positive correlation between height and intelligence maybe true for a teenager but I highly doubt the correlation stays positive for adults and older people. — Aksera 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis to advance a point of view

This article is a synthesis to advance a point of view and therefore violates the policy of Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position

What point of view is that? What facts are synthesised? Which sections are offending? WilyD 21:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let us start from the first sentence. How is this arrived at if not by synthesis?01001 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, it's cited from seven sources, which say this more or less directly. This morning I read source #5 - it really does say that. The others I haven't read, so I can't say. But the sentence just repeats what reliable sources tell us - it doesn't advance any position or reach any conclusion that isn't reached in the sources themselves. WilyD 00:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you provide an actual complaint, editors will just read the article, realise that the tag is inappropriate, and remove it. Cheers, WilyD 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles don't mention confounding factors? The first sentence of this article does not mention them, thus a synthesis to advance a position.01001 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the article is faithful to the sources, and fairly reasonable. If you feel that the article lacks a neutral point of view by omission, what is it omitting? Synthesis cannot really be achieved by omission. The studies do report a correlation between height and intelligence. WilyD 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not synthesis by any meaning of the word to begin with. The lead sentence of an article is a summary of its content as a whole. Putting details such as individual confounding factors in the lead sentence would be absurd and in violation of WP:UNDUE. --tjstrf talk 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confounding factors are at the very heart of the discussion here. Clearly there is a correlation since a baby is not as intelligent nor as tall as an adult. Also, if you have some horrible disease, granted your mind and height will likely be effected. Absent any confounding factors, it would be very odd for there to be any correlation. Why should there be? In fact purely from physics and mechanics, the taller person having his brain farther from the earth would clearly have the more vulnerable brain. Wont the higher object always hit the earth with more force than the lower object if either should be brought down?01001 01:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cause of the correlation is uncertain, which the article makes pretty clear. I don't think intelligence causes height, or height causes intelligence - though I don't know. The data is definitely aged controlled - so on average smarter people of the same age are taller. Malnutrition leading to both shorter height and lower intelligence makes sense to me, but the "more strongly correlated when you" reference makes that seem sketchy to me - I really don't know why they're correlated. WilyD 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why do you take such an interest in this article? It seems to me that only some kind of nut would go to a medical library to do research on this particular Wikepedia article?01001 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR is on the interwebs. WilyD 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about Wily, but I'm here because you were raising irrational complaints on WT:NOR, so I figured the page could use extra eyes to make sure you weren't destroying it in the name of "The Truth". --tjstrf talk 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's probably where I first read about the article. It needs an overhaul for clarity, methinks, and I've been intending to get to that once I review some sources. Cheers, WilyD 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I smell a sockpuppet with Pete.hurd. Or are there two nuts going to medical libraries for this article?01001 01:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just trolling. --tjstrf talk 01:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that I'm not a sockpuppet of Pete.Hurd. You may not realise this, but I don't bother with the 5 minute walk to the closest medical library - I bring all the medical libraries of the world to me (they may be heavy, but it's easy). Generally, scientists want people to read their articles, so they do things like post them on the internet. I am one of the lucky few with internet access, so it's straightforward. Cheers, WilyD 01:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the links should be posted.01001 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two concerns

I haven't read the above discussion but have two concerns with the article:

Seven sources are used to support the statement that height and intelligence are correlates. However, 5 of these 7 (solely from reading their titles) appear to be about childhood development. Do these studies say if the correlation lasts into adulthood? Of the remaining 2, one relates to educational attainment (again related to childhood) and the other relates to 18-year-olds (at the edge of childhood).
A correlation of 0.2 is considered negligible. (See here or here for rough guides on how to interpret correlation values.) This doesn't come out clearly enough in the article. It may be of interest to accademic - especially, it would seem, among those wanting to understand the effect nutrition has on intellectual development - but to a lay reader is would appear as if this is something that they should pay attention to. In fact, at 0.2, even if it does last into adulthood, it would be of no consequence what-so-ever.

--sony-youth^pléigh 08:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read several of these papers yesterday, I'll note:

The correlation of ~0.2 is a "typical adult" value, from what I gather. Childhood values seem to be stronger. Humphries et al. give 0.4 as the correlation in 11-12 year olds, for instance, which I believe is the highest the get for any group. Several studies relate it to things like salaries and workplace status - these studies are unlikely to be done on children.
0.2 isn't negligible - it's "small/very small" or "weak/very weak" - but the observed correlation is clearly not spurious. In my rewrite yesterday the adjectives "fairly small" and "weak" are used to describe the correlation - if these are too subtle, I wouldn't object to moving the "Weak but statistically significant" phrasing into the intro - people do seem to have a hard time reading this. The "small to negligible" ratings are correlations you present are for 0.01-0.2, 0.01 is "negligible", 0.2 is "weak" or "small" - maybe even "very weak" or "very small". There is a lay interest in the subject, as the studies that show taller people earn more are of some public interest, for example, and this seems to be a result of this correlation.

Anyways, I'm not sure what else to address. I do believe the article still needs more reqriting, I was just trying to work on the layout to make things clearer. Cheers, WilyD 13:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some more clarifiers would be good. "Very weak", I'd be happy with (another source here), but would avoid using the word "significant" - how many people know the difference between a thing being "significant" and "statistically significant"? Saying that effect is strongest (but even then only touching the edges of what would be called a "moderate" correlation) at the burst of adolescence would be good, and understandable to people, as would saying how it reduces afterwards.

Take a look at the chart of scatter plots for various correlatoins. Look at the one for 0.32 (four down, three from left). Remember that 0.2 is even less strong than this. Then count how many people you know that are (actually) twice as tall as somebody else, then squish the graph down to represent scale difference in heights between people. Let's not oversell this. It may be useful to science, but it could easily be misread by many people as being something "real" is daily life.

Do any of the article comes with scatter plots. I think it would be a case of fair use to scan one in in this case. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's already mentioned somewhere that your height when you're ~15 actually correlates better with your intelligence when your 30 than you height when you're 30 does.

I'm generally familiar with reading data, as someone who works in a (very different) observational field.

I'm very uncomfortable with not using proper terminology. Statistically significant is wikilinked for people who aren't familiar with the term, but we shouldn't dumb things down. Straightforward honesty is best accomplished with clear language.

I'll look for data/plots and see what I can do. Data is better, I can then make free plots. Cheers, WilyD 15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make plots - wow! that would be brilliant! Missed the part about height at 15. That's fine about sig. etc. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find the data - most of these samples look like they're probably too big. Is there an equivilent of the arXiv for these that might link to "extra web content" - papers from the 80s don't seem to keep data online. Seems unlikely. Papers have medians and standard deviations, so I could make "representative plots", but that's really dicey, and I'm not sure I'd be comfortable doing that. I'll keep looking. WilyD 16:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Sony-youth, I don't know what the sources are for those web pages calling r=0.2 a negligible effect size. The standard interpretation for effect sizes of correlations is that given by Cohen (1988, 1992) 0.1=small, 0.3=medium, 0.5=large. If you want to read up on the topic some, you might want to consult wikipedia, there's a pretty good article on effect sizes, see effect size#Pearson r correlation in particular. I think the article would do well to present the r² (% of variation explained) values and shy away from the "negligible/very small/small/medium" language entirely. WilyD, I'll look to see if there's a graphc/datasource that can be adapted, but I doubt it (I have piles of raw data on morphology (including stature) and assorted personality measures, but I don't do IQ). The raw data isn't usually presented as web supplements, and the raw height/score correlations won't be presented since the studies will have statistically controlled for the obvious confounds, and it's pretty tradiational to just present the ancova (or what have you) table since the intended audience finds that more informative than bivariate scatterplots of residuals (or whatever). Pete.Hurd 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 The science here or pseudo science as others have termed it is certainly not settled.  It is not standard and it is not established.  Wikipedia should not be denigrating the physical traits of different types of people.  This particular article should be deleted, and the sooner the better.[[User:01001|01001]] 03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 *If you have studies that refute the results reported here, please present them. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 03:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
+:This is baloney! I neither have the time or the resources to look for counter-studies but you should, in keeping with [[WP:NPOV]]. The article is definitely missing the age factor. The positive correlation between height and intelligence maybe true for a teenager but I highly doubt the correlation stays positive for adults and older people. &#8212; [[User:Aksera|Aksera]] 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 ==Synthesis to advance a point of view==