BeardedBruce:

NewsMax??? What a crock. But now we see where you get your curious notions....

But the other links don't say much either about methodology there (perhaps the Vdare linked-to-a-link-to-a-link Sailer stuff has more meat as to the supposed methodology, but it's still hand-waving and crap. None of these test are "IQ" tests, and for that matter, even IQ tests are notoriously suspect at measuring pure "IQ" [of there even is such s thing; Google "Spearman's 'g'" for a bit more on that), not to mention they're not very reliable at measuring samll difference and unuseful for comparison purposes. As the instructions for the WAIS-R (the most common clinical test used by psychologists) say, the results are for diagnosic purposes and for guiding clinical treatment only. They can tell you if someone is particularly disabled or gifted, but they can't tell you who's going to do better on even the next test, when the original scores are within a fraction of a SD. Other tests are quite similar in lack of precision. Personally, I had three quarters of a "full SD" difference between retests on the SAT verbal.

Cheers,