Reddit mentions: The best psychological testing books

Don't worry about the length, not at all. I find these 'messages in a bottle' a pleasant way to communicate with people.

Your scores are well within the range where an assessment would be indicated. I didn't score that high on the RAADS-R, yet was diagnosed with formal testing. I was very apprehensive about NHS assessments but I was actually impressed with the professionalism of the psychiatrist who assessed me. At the end, he went through his observations and gave me the opportunity to discuss them before reaching his final conclusions. I didn't really find much to challenge - I felt he had been perceptive and balanced. I think I would have been satisfied even if the outcome had been different, because his reasoning was evidence-based.

You are entitled to an NHS adult autism assessment and your GP is short-changing you if she does not at least make the referral for you and request funding. I am in a big urban area, so perhaps that makes it easier, but the guidance is national. I wouldn't be put off trying for an NHS assessment - you might be pleasantly surprised. There is always the possibility of a second opinion or private assessment if that doesn't work out.

I have done a lot of advocating for others in my working life, whilst being a complete wuss where it comes to myself. I did pluck up courage to ask for a referral in the end, and I'm glad I did. The diagnosis was only a couple of weeks ago but it is really helping me to make sense of things.

One resource that seems to be universally respected is Cynthia Kim's blog, Musings of an Aspie. She is a late-diagnosed woman who has also published a book about adult diagnosis: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Think-Might-Autistic-Diagnosis-Self-Discovery-ebook/dp/B00DAHF48I/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

You deserve a comprehensive assessment by a specialist. Please let me know if there is anything I can help with. I'm always happy to do some research.

It was a psychotherapist assessing me for therapy who first brought up Asperger's as a possibility, by the way, because difficulty identifying and expressing feelings is a common co-morbidity (it's called alexithymia).

Ok, I've worked with EBD kids for about 8 years now, here are some recs I'd give you:

1. Check out the TIERS system by Clay Cook and Diana Wright-Browning - Here's the Amazon link (full disclosure - Clay Cook is my grad school advisor, but he is one of the most phenomenal people to talk with about EBD kiddos)
   
   
2. Learn the basics of Applied Behavior Analysis (I'm a BCBA, don't get into the weird specifics of ABA, but understand the function of a behavior)
   
   
3. Use data to make your decisions. For example, make a very big effort (this will be hard) to count the number of times a kid engages in a problem behavior over the course of a few days. Keep track of that so that you'll know objectively when the behavior is increasing/decreasing. Super bonus: the kid will know too and I promise you kids in EBD classrooms would LOVE to know when they're doing well at something. Nobody ever tells these guys this stuff.
   
   
4. Remember that when a kid insults you/yells at you/hits you/whatever they are NOT doing that to you. They're acting out a lot of hurt and anger and you are the closest thing around. When they first meet you, they'll do it to see if you'll stay or if you'll leave like everyone else (EBD programs have among the highest teacher turnover). When they get to know you better, they'll do it because you love them and you're one of the only safe places they can act that way.
   
   
5. Learn how to do REALLY good Functional Behavior Analyses (FBA). Seriously. I cannot over-emphasize how valuable this will be for you. Seriously. Seriously go do it right now. Here's a good book on FBAs
   
   
6. Don't be afraid to ask for help. Ask everybody. Someone will help you, even if it's just a little bit.
   
   
7. Be gentle with yourself. This is a really really effing hard job and it's normal to be exhausted, to cry, to want to go to happy hour, etc. Be kind to yourself and the people around you.
   
   
8. PM me if you want to talk. I want nothing more in life than to see EBD kids and their teachers succeed. Seriously, it's all I do.

>> Dawkins loves to cite the statistic that 93% of the National Academy of Sciences scientists are atheists, as are 96% of Britain's Royal Academy of Science members.
>
> Yes Richard Dawkins is right. But do you have source?

The God Delusion. I don't know Dawkin's source.

>> So, 7% of the NAS and 4% of the RAS scientists believe in a deity,
>
> Source?

Same. Did you not notice that I was looking at the flip side of the exact same numbers? 100 - 93 = 7; 100 - 96 = 4.

>> So, let's not be too quick to say, "neener neener, I'm an atheist so I'm smarter than you." Let's not even say, "If you're smart, you'll come around to atheism."

> Those statements are you assumptions.

Of course! That's what happens when you make a low effort post without offering your own opinion or interpretation and leave us with your statement that theists are less intelligent. Since you've now deleted your original post, we don't have anything at all to go on other than a title stating both that atheists have higher IQs and that theists are less intelligent.

Sure sounds a metric fuckton like "neener neener" to me!

If that was not what you meant, you were supposed to make a more detailed post.

> I am aware of highly intelligent atheists who were once theists but they abandoned their faith because they realized that believing in some fictional deity had and will have no impact in their life in any meaningful way.

What about highly intelligent theists who were once atheists? Those people do actually exist as well. I know one. He's solidly among the best and brightest I've worked with. And, I've had long and heated debates with him. He's a thinking theist and practicing Catholic who was once an atheist.

Look. I'm an atheist too. Sure, we all want to think we're smart. But, being self-honest means acknowledging the existence of smart people who disagree with us.

> I do not label theists as being less intelligent with low IQ

I call bullshit! Look at your own title. It says exactly that in no uncertain terms!

You said: "Atheists have higher IQs than Theists." AND "Theists are less intelligent than Atheists." It's right there in your title. How do you deny that?

> but my point in here is that ''believing'' suppresses critical thinking and the part in brain responsible for logic and reason.

And, you didn't say that or ask others for their opinion or try to actually start a discussion about that because ... ?

> Intelligence is not consistent and it changes accordingly to how we think and use our brains. The more critical and analytical our thinking is, we become more intelligent.

Not true according to an IQ test. Such learned skills are conspicuously absent from IQ tests. So, perhaps your post should have been about that. Then you might have sparked a better conversation than your "neener neener" post.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/0300164629

Do feel free to try again with a new more intelligent post. This one was a total failure.

This was the backbone of my preschool program - https://www.amazon.com/Carolina-Curriculum-Preschoolers-Special-Second/dp/1557666547/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1485401757&sr=8-2&keywords=carolina+curriculum

At first it looks like a beast and might be overwhelming. But a good curriculum like this will layout the broad developmental skills of a kid, and here they even provide an example activity for each skill. They also provide a simple and effective means to check where a kid's developmental skills are at. This is helpful for long term planning.

There are ton of these curricula out there, some even more parent friendly I'm sure, so shop around. But you definitely want something to help you prepare activities and monitor progress.

For a three year old you want toys that help push the kids creativity while also giving you a chance to expose them to concepts. Look for toys where you can ask the kid "what are you building?". Kids love talking about their stuff, and this leaves them vulnerable to learning because they are engaged!

Good luck!

> I would argue that both genetics and the environment have an effect on intellect

Of course. Nobody with any sense who has looked at the research denies that, everybody on the herediterian side of the argument acknowledges that. Don't set up a strawman.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with what you write: yes, IQ can be seen as a ceiling, and you still need a nurturing environment to actually reach that ceiling.

We most likely just differ where I believe the plot of IQ-vs-nurturing-factor on the Y vs X axis is very steep, i.e. one runs into diminishing returns very quickly, while you seem to believe it is a much more gradual slope.

Also, I believe the evidence so far points in the direction of there being population group differences, which you probably don't. I wish there wasn't, but that's what it looks like, although the question has certainly not been settled.

Other than that, let me just add that there are solid critiques out there of both the interpretation of the Flynn effect as a real increase of fluid intelligence (i.e. Spearman's g-factor), and that Eyferth study. I would advice you to look them up and make your mind up from what the data says, and not just your prior beliefs and wishes for how the world ideally should be.

(On a side note, that one Eyferth study is not only the strongest study on the side of nurture being the most important, but pretty much the only such study. And it has significant weaknesses. The number of studies -- mostly with better methodology than the Eyferth study -- coming down on the side of "IQ is mostly heritable" is at least in the hundreds.)

As for more information about the herediterian arguments, I've heard that "Intelligence: All That Matters" by Stuart Ritchie is a great primer, and it's recent.

I read this book and it taught me a lot about the basics of intelligence. Essentially, longitudinal studies have demonstrated that IQ is stable throughout one's lifetime.

Here's how I think about it. Intelligence, as indicated by g, represents a set possibility for how deep you can go into complex topics. This does not account for other personality details, or enjoyment of a topic, which I think can matter tremendously in what you end up doing with the skills and knowledge you obtain.

The intelligence you have is likely to be set at whatever point it's at now. But it seems like you care about improving your mind and are curious about the world, and honestly I think that will lead you to things which improve your reasoning over time. My only advice is to be kind to yourself. I have to remind myself to do that daily.

well, i teach high school math at an independent school, and the school is just trying to start up a summer program that offers various classes. there's a larger private school in the area that already does an extensive summer program, so our school is aiming to do shorter classes. i proposed a two-week, half day SAT math prep course and it got enough kids signed up to make it happen :-) honestly i don't especially want to teach SAT, but i wanted to do some sort of summer course and have it be related to math and this is probably the only way to make it happen.

the kids at my school are pretty "test anxious"... i have a lot of them who struggle, especially with multiple choice, and a lot who haven't done much of this kind of test at all (coming from montessori schools and such). therefore, i really want to focus the class more on the test-taking itself, and not as much on the math, though i'll definitely try to help each of them individually with math skills as needed.

i actually ordered the new math SAT game plan already, but haven't gotten to it yet. i will definitely prioritize looking at that book next. another book that i just finished and found really interesting was Conquering the SAT. it's not test prep per se, but more about dealing with the various anxiety issues and sabotaging behaviors that kids have.

thank you for the thoughts!

>So I think researchers don't believe our brains do backpropagation like is used in machine learning neural networks

Absolutely correct.

Also, there's multiple memory systems in the brain, and they each operate using different mechanisms (at least on the level of analysis you're discussing). You're discussing motor memories, which is fairly distinct from other types of memories like declarative, episodic, or semantic.

The good news is that people have been working on the questions you have for years, and there's some useful textbooks that you might read to get a start at better understand the psychology and neurobiology of learning and memory (which is a very rich area of research). One thing you'll learn is that there are analogies between the way neural networks learn and operate and how brains do it, but the actual mechanisms are very different.

Here's one from the late great Howard Eichenbaum: https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Memory-Howard-Eichenbaum/dp/0393924475

​

>This could correspond to the neocortex having access to the initiation of each action, and sending the signal to initiate each action in the sequence required. Eventually each action grows direct connections from one action initiation to the next, so that the actions happen smoothly, right after one another. I was wondering if this could be the kind of learning that happens while we sleep.

So, this is an interesting thought. We know in rodents that memories for episodes (temporally ordered sequences of events) are replayed during sleep. The belief is that this reflects (in part) consolidation of that memory (a process that moves the dependence of episodic memories from the hippocampus to the cortex, and makes them highly resistant to degradation). We know this happens for episodic-like memory representations (and that this sequential replay likely happens because the circuitry of the hippocampus is well-suited for representing sequences), and while I'm sure consolidation happens for motor memories, I'm not sure if the mechanism is similar as that for episodic memory.

There's a fairly strong correlation between parent's income, the child's education, and the child's IQ. I believe it was according to IQ Testing 101 (I went through a psych textbook binge a year ago, so I'm not entirely sure), but the correlation was fairly strong IIRC - on the order of 10 IQ points. Since education and IQ correlate strongly with income, you wind up with a very strongly self reinforcing pattern - parents who are intelligent and educated typically earn a high income, which correlates to children who are smarter and who achieve high education which correlates to a higher paying job, ad infinitum. Likewise, uneducated and... well, there's no better term for it... stupid parents tend to earn little money and have kids who are less intelligent and educated, which correlates with low income, ad infinitum.

As you can probably tell by reading the comments, virtually everyone has a strong point of view on this topic, which makes it difficult to discover the truth.

This 2011 summary by Linda Gottfredson (U. of Delaware) for New Scientist is an easily digestible overview:

• http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2011InstantExpertIntelligence.pdf
  
  Gottfredson won ISIR's lifetime achievement award:
  
  
• http://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2014/feb/isir-gottfredson-022514.html
  
• http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2007gottfredsoninterview.pdf
  
  James Thompson, lecturer at UCL, is a prolific blogger and has a lot to say on the topic:
  
  
• http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-flynn-effect-explained-partly/
  
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Thompson5
  
  For an easy book-length treatment for the general reader, Stuart Ritchie's book has had a good response:
  
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877
  
• http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6122
  
• https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25356335-intelligence

Check Amazon. They have quite a few titles. I'd definitely start witht this one:

The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome

Here are some others that I've read at least partway through. All have been useful to me in some measure.

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Adult Asperger's Syndrome (Very academic look at ASD. I think it's actually a textbook based on the price. Includes lots of citations to published papers and some insight into what you should expect if you seek professional therapy)

I Think I Might Be Autistic (good starting point for the diagnosis process)

Nerdy, Shy, and Socially Inappropriate (Just an autobiographical account of the author's experience with ASD, but still helpful to read IMO)

The Journal of Best Practices (for ASD/NT relationships)

Here are a couple more that I haven't read, but are on my "to-read" list, and seem to fit within the bounds of what you're looking for:

Look Me In the Eye

Be Different

Dr Kilpatrick's book is great at simplifying reading disabilities. His PASS screener is also awesome and I'd highly recommend using it in conjunction with the CTOP for phonological assessment. If you want more info just PM me.

Source: Am also school psychologist who specializes in reading disabilities.

What you're asking about is called declarative memory. There are two kinds of declarative memory: episodic memory, which is for things that happened to you, like your store example; and semantic memory, which is for facts and procedures, like your coding example. (Wikipedia pages linked.)

There's a lot we still don't understand about declarative memory - for example, I don't have anything to tell you about the sensation of memory finally "clicking" - but we do know that the hippocampus is a crucial brain region involved. Studies of people with amnesia tell us that injuries to the hippocampus tend to result in impaired episodic and/or semantic memory. We also know that sleep is important for memory consolidation, and a lot of research has been done on what the hippocampus does during sleep.

Connections between the cortex and hippocampus are also important. One of the things the cortex does is process sensory information, so a lot of the information contained in memories comes to the hippocampus from cortex. So a very simplified theory might say that sensory information is processed in the cortex, then stored in the hippocampus, consolidated during sleep, and then sent back to the cortex when you remember it.

The hippocampus is also very important for spatial memory and awake spatial representation, and it's been shown that when rats are sleeping after learning how to navigate a new environment, hippocampal cells "replay" the activity they had when the rat was awake and exploring the environment. It's not completely clear how the hippocampus' role in spatial representation interacts with its role in episodic memory (yet).

Another interesting idea, which has been debated a lot over the years, is that there might be neurons with very specific jobs that contribute to memory. For example, is there a single neuron in your brain that recognizes your grandmother? People call these "grandmother cells" or "concept cells", and disagree on whether or not this idea is even plausible.

Here are articles about the things I've mentioned:

• Science article about hippocampal injuries and amnesia
  
  
• PLOS ONE article on sleep and declarative memory
  
  
• Nature article that's a good starting point for learning about hippocampal place cells and spatial memory
  
  
• Nature Reviews Neuroscience article giving a theory of how cortical-hippocampal circuits underlie declarative memory
  
  
• Neuron article about integrating the hippocampus' role in spatial memory with its role in declarative memory
  
  
• Nature Reviews Neuroscience opinion article about concept cells
  
  
  If you're not affiliated with a university, it may be difficult to get ahold of these articles. Here's a pretty good textbook on memory that you should be able to get on interlibrary loan at your local library if you're persistent.
  
  EDIT: fixed some formatting problems and typos

Great point. A really good read on this topic is Keith Stanovich's What Intelligence Tests Miss.

This one's pretty good, although a little out of date ... although The Bell Curve is even more out of date! There's been tons of research on intelligence in the last 25 years. Here's a good recent scientific book on it.

>I'd really like to get more into the nitty-gritty of understanding intelligence tests.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0078035309

That books has 2 or 3 chapters over intelligence, but reading the entire book will give you a better understanding of how the tests are made and the history of them.

To tag on, check out:


http://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Cross-Battery-Assessment-Dawn-Flanagan/dp/0470621958


It has scoring software that modifies average ranges for ELL students taking into consideration individual backgrounds and rates of English acquisition. It's indispensable to my district's ELL psychs. Would make a great gift for any school psychologist in your life!

No, psychologists of intelligence generally. And I did specify, studying intelligence, which is only a modestly sized sub-field of psychology, and one often misrepresented and misunderstood even by other psychologists. Stuart Ritchie's Intelligence: All That Matters is a great source on why IQ is still a big deal and a useful measurement.

Anybody remotely interested in IQ needs to learn what IQ tests are actually trying to do.

https://www.amazon.com/IQ-Testing-101-Psych/dp/0826106293

Free versions can be downloaded if you know where to look.

They cite Rationality and the Reflective Mind, which looks potentially interesting.

> Stanovich argues that to fully characterize differences in rational thinking, we need to replace dual-process theories with tripartite models of cognition. Using a unique individual differences approach, he shows that the traditional second system (System 2) of dual-process theory must be further divided into the reflective mind and the algorithmic mind. Distinguishing them will allow us to better appreciate the significant differences in their key functions: The key function of the reflective mind is to detect the need to interrupt autonomous processing and to begin simulation activities, whereas that of the algorithmic mind is to sustain the processing of decoupled secondary representations in cognitive simulation.

The same author also wrote What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought, which also looks pretty good.

> He mentions Georges Bush, Jr. who was very intelligent as measured by IQ tests. But, he was not a proficient thinker as he was dogmatic, ill informed, impatient, and prone to rash decisions sometimes associated with devastating outcomes. Stanovich describes Bush condition as Dysrationalia or someone who is less rational than his IQ would suggest.

If you do not have much experience with psychiatric interview, I highly reccomend this book.
And to write awesome reports you should use this.

If you want an introduction to statistical concepts and you're a post-doc psych academic (so I guess not too strong on foundational linear algebra and calculus), you could start with two books I have been reading lately which start from those foundations and build up to the mathematical explanation of linear models up to generalized linear models:

• Linear Models in Matrix Form
  
• Advanced Statistics for the behavioural sciences
  
  Thus far I'm having no difficulty accompanying the two books. I did MIT 6.431X introduction to probability (which is a great course at EdX and which started a new run a week ago) though so your mileage may vary :)

I bought this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Think-Might-Autistic-Diagnosis-Self-Discovery-ebook/dp/B00DAHF48I

And took notes on the pages (a lot of them) as thing after thing related to me.

It's also a book that will help guide you down the: Should I get diagnosed? Can I get diagnosed? (Sounds like it's even more difficult in the UK) Or will I self identify instead, because diagnosis or not I'm suffering and this is the only thing that makes sense.

> What about highly intelligent theists who were once atheists? Those people do actually exist as well. I know one. He's solidly among the best and brightest

I too know one but he is atheist.

> And, I've had long and heated debates with him. He's a thinking theist and practicing Catholic who was once an atheist.

But what caused him to shift to Christianity?! That is very sad and disappointing to hear and to see him abandoning his reasoning and critical thinking.

> I do not label theists as being less intelligent with low IQ
> I call bullshit! Look at your own title. It says exactly that in no uncertain terms!

The tile was clearly objective and not subjective. I did not include my opinion.

> You said: "Atheists have higher IQs than Theists." AND "Theists are less intelligent than Atheists." It's right there in your title. How do you deny that?

I did not said: ''I said'' or ''I think'' or ''According to my own point of view''...etc My title was neutral.

> And, you didn't say that or ask others for their opinion or try to actually start a discussion about that because ... ?

I did and I was looking for answers from theists. I deleted my post anyway because I realized the majority anyway of both theists and atheists will misunderstand what I was seeking. What I was seeking is to get an idea (Not a convincing idea) what causes the Theists to believe and thus resulting in low IQ by suppressing and blocking their critical thinking.

> https://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss-Psychology/dp/0300164629

Sounds like an interesting book to read.

> Do feel free to try again with a new more intelligent post.

Yes I will. Feel free to comment on my next post. :)

> This one was a total failure.

Yes I know. I deleted that horrible post anyway.

Det er et fascinerende eksempel!

Jeg er utrolig inspireret af den canadiske psykolog Keith Stanovich, som er en af de førende forskere inden for det specifikke felt i psykologien.

Den bedste og mest tilgængelig bog er "The Robots Rebellion" Som jeg ikke kan anbefale nok. Men, den handler om mange flere ting end bare rationalitet og intelligens.

Han har også skrevet "Rationality and the Reflective Mind" som specifikt handler om rationalitet og intelligens. Den er en lille smule fagtung, og det er svært for mig at vurdere, hvor svær den er for lægmand. Men du er meget velkommen til at skrive til mig og spørge om enkeltdele, hvis du giver dig i kast med den,

Endelig har Stanovich, sammen med en række kolleger, skrevet en bog om rationalitet som et målbart parameter, hvor de forsøger at opstille en gennemgående skala for rationalitet på linje med de klassiske IQ tests. "The rationality quotient" Jeg har ikke læst den, men den er allerøverst på min læseliste.

May i recommend: https://www.amazon.com/The-Mismeasure-of-Man/dp/B005O5IBPM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511193987&sr=8-1&keywords=mismeasure+of+a+man

Here are two useful articles:
http://www.parentingscience.com/teaching-critical-thinking.html
http://www.parentingscience.com/critical-thinking-in-children.html

The second article also gives some examples of flawed thinking that you should watch out for in educational software and curricula (avoid or point out, depending on the age of the child), e.g. that squares are not rectangles, or that all diamonds are squares, or other nonsense.

For your own thinking, I'd recommend [http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0300164629?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00](What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought)

The data on iq being valid, largely heritable, and predictor of a variety of vactors, and that there are differences in average iqs between population has proven Murray right.

The only thing that’s being debated is whether this differences in average iqs is 100% environmental or less than 100%.

And this is not settled and I don’t think it will be until more is discovered about intelligence and genome sequences

It’s incredibly unfair to paint his as pettling nazi science just because you disagree with him on that one question or you dislike his policy recommendations. The data has shown him more right than wrong.

If you want a good, easy to read, a summary on current iq science, this is a good read.

Check out The Psychiatric Interview by Daniel Carlat - https://www.amazon.com/Psychiatric-Interview-Daniel-Carlat/dp/1496327713/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=psychiatric+interview+carlat&qid=1568810005&sr=8-2. It has a whole chapter with mnemonics for remembering DSM5 diagnoses.

Did you even try?

• What's Wrong
  
• Discovering Statistics
  
• Behavior
  
• Psychological Testing

This has just come out: http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Models-Matrix-Form-Hands-/dp/3319117335 The author makes a genuine effort to explain matrix algebra in a statistical context. Not too pricey, either.

No; this is precisely the opposite of the truth.

https://www.amazon.ca/Think-Might-Autistic-Diagnosis-Self-Discovery-ebook/dp/B00DAHF48I

Genetic fallacy handler om at afvise noget pga. dets ophav (genesis), fx hvem der har opfundet en test (irrelevant).

Der er ikke noget evidens for at testene måler forskellige ting i forskellige grupper. Der er omvendt set masser af evidens for at de måler omtrent det samme. Dette ses fx ved at se på rank order correlation for item sværhedsgraderne (bedre ville være at være en IRT analyse, men item data er svære at finde). Der er lavet mange sådanne sammenligninger, og de finder cirka det samme. Se fx Rushton's 2002 studie fra Sydafrika. Gennemsnit r = .90.

Dit indlæg er uklart, så det er ikke nemt at vide hvad du gerne vil have svar på. Måske du hellere skulle læse en introduktion til emnet snarere end at stille mig 100 spørgsmål. Stuart Ritchie og Richard Haier er begge førende forskere og har begge indenfor de seneste år udgivet introduktionsbøger om emnet.

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877
https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Intelligence-Cambridge-Fundamentals-Psychology/dp/1107089778

(Jeg har læst begge.)

Good troll.

It is established, used for constructing measures and also forms the basis of new educational tests and many other measurement instruments.

Take a course on IRT or buy a book about it, e.g. invariant measurement

It’s not my task to spoonfeed arrogant dumbfucks with information, if you want to learn you have to read - more than Wikipedia.

Done.

5.29 (Australian) on Kindle.

https://www.amazon.com.au/Think-Might-Autistic-Diagnosis-Self-Discovery-ebook/dp/B00DAHF48I/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=i+think+i+might+be+autistic&qid=1570410936&sprefix=i+think+i+might&sr=8-1

A recent summary I read on the current state of IQ science argued that most of it is genetics (depending on the age), something that people have opposed strongly over the last years, yet it somehow turned out to be the truth.

Therefor I will not agree with you here, I think you are on the wrong side this time.

Here the book:
https://www.amazon.ca/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877

I got my Dx at 23. Until my therapist brought it up, I had no clue. I was getting MBCT for depression and he noticed a strong Aspie pattern going back through my whole life, so he referred me to an expert on women with AS/ASD.

I filled out a long questionnaire, took some tests, and did an interview (~2 hours). I got the formal results a few days later, but informally the psychologist who did the eval confirmed that I was an Aspie at the end of the interview. (That was when that was still an "allowed" Dx in the U.S.)

I was highly skeptical, mainly because I had a lot of misinformation about autism. It actually took me longer to accept my Dx than to get it. I had to learn a lot about women with autism first.

The key bit of luck for me was that my therapist had an Aspie sister-in-law who was a nurse. Otherwise he probably wouldn't have been as well-informed.

I suggest watching Tony Attwood's videos on his research about Aspie women and reading Cynthia Kim's blog, Musings of an Aspie, and her two books.

Here are the links:

• Professor Tony Attwood - Autism in Females
  
  
• Cynthia Kim – Musings of an Aspie
  
  
• I Think I Might Be Autistic: A Guide to Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis and Self-Discovery for Adults, by Cynthia Kim
  
  
• Nerdy, Shy, and Socially Inappropriate: A User Guide to an Asperger Life, by Cynthia Kim
  
  Good luck on your journey of self-discovery!
  
  

I'm not an expert. There is a lot of dispute about these, but I guess few would dispute that sub-saharan africans score lower than african americans on iq-tests and that both score lower than europeans.

The American black-white iq-test-score gap is cited as uncontroversial in wikipedia and in my psychological testing textbook http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-Testing-Principles-Applications-Issues/dp/0495095559

The estimates of African IQ are less studied. This can lead you to study the issues: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609001275
It's a comment that says that estimates African IQ very low, but you can find the study that claims the african iq higher somewhere about at 80 which is still under the african american iq.