This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cognitive science (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science Neuroscience High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mrs. Yelnats.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this article has just been split off from the article Intelligence, for which there is considerable rationale. As discussed in the last few months through an RFC on the Race and intelligence article talk page (the talk page of an article on a topic related to the topic of this article), there are a number of current sources available to editors that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources in medicine, which is generally the correct source guideline to apply to articles on human intelligence and IQ testing. (That's because IQ tests are literally used in medical diagnosis, and also used in high-stakes forensic contexts such as finding diminished criminal responsibility in criminal trials, and consequential decisions such as school placement for children.) It's important to note that several of the articles on the broad topic of human intelligence are under active ArbCom sanctions because of past edit-warring. I hope it will be helpful to mention sources previously agreed to in a nonexhaustive list of good sources for the other article that also fit this newly created article, along with a few other sources that come just with my personal recommendation until other editors comment here (as I encourage all of you to do).

Now that there has been time for editors to check the sources and read through those that are readily available, this will be a productive time of year for updating the article from top to bottom for coherency, due weight on various subtopics, and referencing according to Wikipedia content policy. I look forward to seeing the next edits to article text along those lines and expect to edit some article sections from my own keyboard in the next few months. Let's all discuss here how to make the article better. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry, eds. (2011). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521739115. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (This authoritative handbook appears to be cited only as a further reading reference, for one specific chapter in this handbook, in the current version of several Wikipedia articles. It deserves dozens of citations to most of its chapters in most Wikipedia articles that are about one aspect or another of the broad topic of human intelligence. This handbook includes chapters by N. J. Mackintosh, Susana Urbina, John O. Willis, Ron Dumont, Alan S. Kaufman, Janet E. Davidson, Iris A. Kemp, Samuel D. Mandelman, Elena L. Grigorenko, Raymond S. Nickerson, Joseph F. Fagan, L. Todd Rose, Kurt Fischer, Christopher Hertzog, Robert M. Hodapp, Megan M. Griffin, Meghan M. Burke, Marisa H. Fisher, David Henry Feldman, Martha J. Morelock, Sally M. Reis, Joseph S. Renzulli, Diane F. Halpern, Anna S. Beninger, Carli A. Straight, Lisa A. Suzuki, Ellen L. Short, Christina S. Lee, Christine E. Daley, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Thomas R. Zentall, Liane Gabora, Anne Russon, Richard J. Haier, Ted Nettelbeck, Andrew R. A. Conway, Sarah Getz, Brooke Macnamara, Pascale M. J. Engel de Abreu, David F. Lohman, Joni M. Lakin, Keith E. Stanovich, Richard F. West, Maggie E. Toplak, Scott Barry Kaufman, Ashok K. Goel, Jim Davies, Katie Davis, Joanna Christodoulou, Scott Seider, Howard Gardner, Robert J. Sternberg, John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey, David Caruso, Lillia Cherkasskiy, Richard K. Wagner, John F. Kihlstrom, Nancy Cantor, Soon Ang, Linn Van Dyne, Mei Ling Tan, Glenn Geher, Weihua Niu, Jillian Brass, James R. Flynn, Susan M. Barnett, Heiner Rindermann, Wendy M. Williams, Stephen J. Ceci, Ian J. Deary, G. David Batty, Colin DeYoung, Richard E. Mayer, Priyanka B. Carr, Carol S. Dweck, James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, Ursula M. Staudinger, Judith Glück, Phillip L. Ackerman, and Earl Hunt.)

• Nisbett, Richard E.; Aronson, Joshua; Blair, Clancy; Dickens, William; Flynn, James; Halpern, Diane F.; Turkheimer, Eric (2012). "Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments" (PDF). American Psychologist. 67 (2): 130–159. doi:10.1037/a0026699. ISSN 0003-066X. PMID 22233090. Retrieved 22 July 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (This major review article in a flagship publication by the American Psychological Association deserves a lot more citations than the tiny number it now has in articles related to human intelligence. It is a thorough review of current research.)

• Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence (second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-958559-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (This is the second edition of an authoritative textbook that is exactly focused on the topic of this article. It is worthy of dozens of citations right here, and many more in related articles and subarticles.)

• Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (This appears not to be cited at all in the current version of the article that served as the basis for the newly created article here, which is a serious omission. This book too, as its title suggests, is exactly on the topic of this new article.)

• Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L., eds. (2012). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (This comprehensive handbook by multiple authoritative authors is currently mentioned only in the further reading section of a few articles, which is too little use of this high-quality source. This book includes chapters by John D. Wasserman, Randy W. Kamphaus, Anne Pierce Winsor, Ellen W. Rowe, Sangwon Kim, John L. Horn, Nayena Blankson, W. Joel Schneider, Kevin S. McGrew, Jie-Qi Chen, Howard Gardner, Robert J. Sternberg, Jack A. Naglieri, J. P. Das, Sam Goldstein, Lisa Whipple Drozdick, Dustin Wahlstrom, Jianjun Zhu, Lawrence G. Weiss, Dustin Wahlstrom, Kristina C. Breaux, Jianjun Zhu, Lawrence G. Weiss, Gale H. Roid, Mark Pomplun, Jennie Kaufman Singer, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, James C. Kaufman, Alan S. Kaufman, Nadeen L. Kaufman, Fredrick A. Schrank, Barbara J. Wendling, Colin D. Elliott, R. Steve McCallum, Bruce A. Bracken, Jack A. Naglieri, Tulio M. Otero, Cecil R. Reynolds, Randy W. Kamphaus, Tara C. Raines, Robb N. Matthews, Cynthia A. Riccio, John L. Davis, Jack A. Naglieri, Tulio M. Otero, Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso, Samuel O. Ortiz, Catherine A. Fiorello, James B. Hale, Kirby L. Wycoff, Randy G. Floyd and John H. Kranzler, Samuel O. Ortiz, Salvador Hector Ochoa, Agnieszka M. Dynda, Nancy Mather, Barbara J. Wendling, Laurie Ford, Michelle L. Kozey, Juliana Negreiros, David E. McIntosh, Felicia A. Dixon, Eric E. Pierson, Vincent C. Alfonso, Jennifer T. Mascolo, Marlene Sotelo-Dynega, Laura Grofer Klinger, Sarah E. O’Kelly, Joanna L. Mussey, Sam Goldstein, Melissa DeVries, James B. Hale, Megan Yim, Andrea N. Schneider, Gabrielle Wilcox, Julie N. Henzel, Shauna G. Dixon, Scott L. Decker, Julia A. Englund, Alycia M. Roberts, Kathleen Armstrong, Jason Hangauer, Joshua Nadeau, Jeffery P. Braden, Bradley C. Niebling, Timothy Z. Keith, Matthew R. Reynolds, Daniel C. Miller, Denise E. Maricle, Denise E. Maricle, Erin Avirett, Rachel Brown-Chidsey, Kristina J. Andren, George McCloskey, James Whitaker, Ryan Murphy, Jane Rogers, and John B. Carroll.)

• Gregory, Robert J. (2011). Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications (Sixth ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-78214-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) (This book includes a solid general overview of principles of psychological testing, including IQ testing. It is completely neglected in the current version of most articles on human intelligence and related topics.)

• Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A., eds. (2 October 2012). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laysummary= and |laydate= (help) (This source, the second edition of the key volume of a massive, authoritative handbook of psychology, is so recently published that no editor had seen it as of the last time sources were discussed in the RFC at the other article. It is very good. It will prove very useful, along with the other sources already mentioned in this talk page section, for bringing this article and related articles up to date. This reference book for psychologists includes chapters by Irving B. Weiner, John R. Graham, Jack A. Naglieri, Paul M. Spengler, John D. Wasserman, Bruce A. Bracken, Cecil R. Reynolds, Lisa A. Suzuki, Kurt F. Geisinger, Carina McCormick, Mark E. Maruish, James N. Butcher, Celiane Rey-Casserly, Gerald P. Koocher, Leonard Handler, Justin D. Smith, Martin Sellbom, Brandee E. Marion, R. Michael Bagby, Nancy Howells Wrobel, David Lachar, Jeffery P. Braden, Jerry J. Sweet, Steven M. Tovian, Leslie M. Guidotti Breting, Yana Suchy, Richard J. Klimoski, Torrey R. Wilkinson, James R. P. Ogloff, Kevin S. Douglas, Edwin I. Megargee, Barry A. Edelstein, Ronald R. Martin, Lindsay A. Gerolimatos, Tulio M. Otero, Kenneth Podell, Philip DeFina, Elkhonon Goldberg, Rodney L. Lowman, Andrew D. Carson, Robert J. Craig, William H. O’Brien, Kathleen M. Young, Donald J. Viglione, Bridget Rivera, and Yossef S. Ben-Porath.)

• Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal is a new, open-access, "peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original empirical and theoretical articles, state-of-the-art articles and critical reviews, case studies, original short notes, commentaries" intended to be "an open access journal that moves forward the study of human intelligence: the basis and development of intelligence, its nature in terms of structure and processes, and its correlates and consequences, also including the measurement and modeling of intelligence." The content of the first issue is posted, and includes interesting review articles, one by Earl Hunt and Susanne M. Jaeggi and one by Wendy Johnson. The editorial board[1] of this new journal should be able to draw in a steady stream of good article submissions. It looks like the journal aims to continue to publish review articles of the kind that would meet Wikipedia guidelines for articles on medical topics, an appropriate source guideline to apply to Wikipedia articles about intelligence.

The Journal of Intelligence — Open Access Journal website has just been updated with the new articles for the latest edition of the journal, by eminent scholars on human intelligence. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few good sources on the topic of this new article that are recent, comprehensively review the earlier literature (both primary research articles and previous secondary sources), and meet the standards of the WP:MEDRS guidelines and yet are entirely unused in the linked articles. I would be delighted to hear suggestions of other sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than free-associating every other term that has an associated Wikipedia article and mentioning that in the lede here, it might be better to look at some reliable sources and see what the mainstream consensus is about the related topics to the topic of human intelligence, and what the core characteristics of human intelligence are. Right now, the lead paragraph of this article doesn't really serve the reader as a guide to how intelligence is viewed by those who study it professionally. A good list of sources has already been mentioned in a previous section of this talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• e.g. WTF does non-g mean?

Agreed that that paragraph is badly in need of a rewrite based on a more diverse set of sources with better explanation. I'm trying to work on that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this article still relies much too much on primary research articles, rather than on secondary sources as defined by the Wikipedia reliable sources content guideline. It would be a very good idea to review the article for statements that are not supported by other authors than the researchers who first announced the statements in primary research journal articles. Until a finding is replicated, it's not really encyclopedia material. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not a good investment of time here. In the US-dominated West, currently, even holding there is such a phenomena which has variation such as is observed in other human characters is controversial in as much as there's a vociferous opposition that is oblivious to the distinction between matters of fact and politics. So dialog is skewed and poisoned to make sure that viewpoint (g denial) is pushed as in the current text. Lycurgus (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that as a major emphasis in the sources (and I attend conferences and a "journal club" about this issue, so I try to keep with the best sources), but, may I ask, what sources are you reading on this issue? Finding good reliable sources is always crucial for updating any Wikipedia article. What sources do you recommend? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the sources but to the current text of this article. I tried to find a good search term set "denial of i.q." and so forth but it's virtually impossible to separate from the racial issue. Also when I just went to confirm the g denial passages I didn't find them. So either I was conflating other articles with this one or some other error arose. Lycurgus (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130925232329/http://www.cortland.edu/psych/mi/critique.html to http://www.cortland.edu/psych/mi/critique.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content about the subject above was added here. This is a recent, primary source and is "hot news". This is the kind of thing where we should definitely wait for reviews that validate the study, per WP:MEDREV. As to why, see for example this (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out) followed by this - and we now have a whole article on the shebangle, here. We have no deadline here, and we don't do cutting edge here. -- Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Phrjansen please see above and below. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is unreliably sourced - moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not restore without finding reliable sources per WP:MEDRS, checking the content against them, and citing them. thx

Correlates

Some studies have shown a direct link between an increased birth weight and an increased intelligence quotient.^[1][2][3]

According to Rosemary Hopcroft, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, intelligence is inversely linked with sexual frequency (people with higher levels of education often report lower numbers of sexual partners).^[4] In parallel, self-reported intelligence has been linked to unconventional sexual practices and frequent sexual activity, thoughts and fantasies.^[5]

In May 2013, a study showed that the ability to ignore distractions correlates with intelligence.^[6]

In September 2014, a study on finding genetic variants associated with cognitive performance found no specific gene directly responsible for intelligence. Rather it's the sum of many indirect genes and of the environment.^[7]

In May 2017, a large meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of intelligence in 78,308 individuals identified 336 genome-wide significant genetic variants, located in 18 genomic loci. Moreover, this study implicated the role of 52 genes linked to intelligence which were mostly involved in cell development and were highly expressed in brain tissue.^[8]

The last item was added earlier, cited to its primary source, in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The genes correlates entry's source is also pretty bad though not perhaps as bad as those. It is also indirect. naturalnumber (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Smartest human. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Smartest human until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Relevance of IQ tests" section talks about why IQ might not be relevant. There should be information in this section on the relevancy of IQ, per the section's title. The information that's in the section now is accurate and good, but the section as a whole could use a little expansion so the reader can understand what the relevance is. BooleanQuackery (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence is far to protean of a concept to be summarized by IQ. 2601:882:101:1A0:2140:AF45:347E:BDFF (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:B-tpwtd

Please help me with... Why are my edits under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_intelligence#Motivational_intelligence being rejected? B-tpwtd (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Generalrelative and Viewmont Viking who performed the indicated reverts (see Special:Diff/1186661567 and Special:Diff/1188927712). Primefac (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Primefac. I reverted this edit because it seemed to me to be a very clear example of promotional material. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Consider this perspective, please. The edits which I provided are from the insights gathered by the research of an organisation. Commercial yes. Would you revert the edits if I referred to research conducted by The Gottman Institute? Cambridge Analytica? These are private organisations that have conducted research into novel concepts.

At no point in the edit do I praise the organisation to viewers. Rather, I provide clear links to the organisation's website and research paper where the edits are stemming from so that the viewer may critically evaluate the content for themselves.

What can I do to make it clear that the edit is not a promotion but rather explaining an alternative conceptualisation of the Motivational Intelligence concept provided by an organisation that specialises in it? B-tpwtd (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use information provided by a commercial firm seeking to publicize their concepts. You would have to provide links to reliable sources without a conflict of interest which treat the ideas seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. So the ideas would have to be peer-reviewed and published first before they can be accepted? B-tpwtd (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section discussing the validity (specifically the construct validity) of Intelligence as measured by IQ tests, cites two main sources to support the claim that the construct validity is 'considered dubious'. However, one source (i.e., Borsboom et al., 2004), although uses intelligence tests as an example (as well as personality measures) does not make the claim that the article in wikipedia makes. This paper by Borsboom et al., is a critique of the concept of construct validity and especially how it is understood and measured (validation) in the social sciences, psychology and medicine more broadly. Thus, this article generally criticises the theory that is used to determine the construct validity of any psychological construct there is, and not just intelligence tests. If this argument (regardless of how convincing it might be or has some merit) is used for intelligence tests, then almost all psychometric research in psychology and any construct that exists in psychology should be seriously doubted, and all articles in wikipedia should use the same source to support specific claims on the 'disputed' construct validity of psychological constructs. In short, the paper attacks how we understand construct validity and uses IQ tests as an example, but does not directly 'dispute' the validity of only intelligence (but it disputes the construct validity of almost all other psychological and social science constructs).

For the second source (the book by Mackintosh), I have not been able to find the full text yet, but the sections of the book I have read, also do not clearly 'dispute' the validity of intelligence tests (surely some questions are raised, and I perhaps should find the full text before commenting on it). So in essence two sources are cited to support a very specific claim, but do not appear to support the specific claim (i.e., is the construct validity of IQ tests decent, good or poor?).

Does anyone have additional sources which are much more specific than these? I have also not had the opportunity to read the book by Weiten, but based on this whole article I am quite suspicious whether the claim made is actually supported by the sources provided here. 79.167.49.186 (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought this up. There are several more sources we could be using at Intelligence quotient#Validity as a measure of intelligence. See especially this succinct statement from Wayne Weiten's textbook: "IQ tests are valid measures of the kind of intelligence necessary to do well in academic work. But if the purpose is to assess intelligence in a broader sense, the validity of IQ tests is questionable." I think that's correct. We shouldn't be overstating the case for "considered dubious" but neither should we leave it out. It should be carefully qualified based on what the sources say. Generalrelative (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to bring this up, but Wayne Weiten is a social psychologist, and as far as I know is not working in psychometrics of intelligence testing or specialising in intelligence, so should not really be considered an authority on the topic. Now his book might be wonderful (I have not read it) but is a general psychology textbook. Perhaps, more specific references should be used? 79.167.49.186 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click through and look at the other sources listed there? He is far from an outlier. I selected him because a pithy quote from his textbook was readily available. Generalrelative (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLinuz: hi, why did you revert the part in the lede about the causes? 12.110.37.3 (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is poorly substantiated in the lead (and lead summarizes the body), WP:INCITE. Thousands of genetic variants associated with intelligence have been discovered.^{[citation needed]} --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I added this [2] as a reference would you be happy to keep it? 12.110.37.3 (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also reverted my edit to Evolution of Human Intelligence even though it was sourced. Why? 12.110.37.3 (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the article Heritability of IQ. The heritable component of intelligence is already well established, see Heritability_of_IQ#Influence_of_genes_on_IQ_stability. Your sentence sounds more like a news and interrupts the flow - it doesn't provide any useful information to the reader. You need to be specific, like what particular genes for instance influences intelligence, how, etc., for example FNBP1L gene. But probably 1000s of genes influence intelligence (something that is usually measured for analysis) so merely writing "Thousands of genetic variants associated with intelligence have been discovered", etc. isn't much useful. --WikiLinuz (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I add all of that, may I re-add what I wrote? 12.110.37.3 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by all of that. You could post a version here. --WikiLinuz (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]