Back in May this year, German intelligence researcher Heiner Rindermann published this study:<\/p>\n
Developing countries achieve surprisingly weak results in international cognitive competence studies. The results are about one to two standard deviations below the average norm-values obtained in Western countries. The results are so low that they are sometimes difficult to believe. For example, in the World Bank collection, Nigeria scored 262 student assessment points (SASQ, about two and a half standard deviations below the norm 500, equivalent in the IQ-scale to 64 points); in the Lim et al. collection, Yemen scored 336 SASQ (equivalent to IQ 75). These results have triggered opposition, factual-scientific criticism, but also ethical debates and political-ideological objections. We crosscheck the values here by comparing different sources of information, statistical analysis, and on-site reports. Results of the different test paradigms seem to be similar for country groups. However, there are sometimes major differences for individual countries. The same is true for comparing different test collections: results of grouped countries are similar, but single countries differ. Using education, GDP per capita and politics to predict test scores shows somewhat higher results for the Global South (5 IQ points), especially for Latin America (rising from 78 to 86 points in an IQ metric). Finally, observational studies of schools and every day life in several countries of the Global South point to problems in the scope and quality of instruction as well as of thinking. To improve outcomes and competences, it is recommended to expand education (e.g., kindergarten, extension of schooling) and better train teachers. Where there are large discrepancies between predictions and test results, the potential seems to be large.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It’s a somewhat odd paper in that it includes anecdotes to exemplify and support the empirical findings. This kind of writing style has long been out of fashion in academic articles, but can still be found in academic books. Rindermann made heavy use of it in his Cognitive Capitalism<\/em><\/a> book from 2018. Anecdotes are not worthless because of the doubt surrounding the low scores in poor countries. Are these results valid? Suppose you read somewhere that country X was very wealthy, so you went there as a tourist, only to find that everybody is living in slums and there’s no development to be seen. Your experience would be inconsistent with the data and worthwhile to publish. You might start getting suspicious about the government reported statistics. What about traveling to countries with low scores on IQ tests, do they seem lacking in intelligence by Western standards? I’ve been to southern Mexico (Cancun and Playa del Carmen, IQ ~87<\/a>), and I’d say once you get out of the tourist area, buildings are in need of renovation, there is trash everywhere, people try to sell you drugs on the street, traffic laws seem optional and so on. I’ve also been to Naples, Italy (IQ ~92<\/a>), and many places in Greece (IQ ~93<\/a>), and it’s the same kind of experience. It’s not Mexico tier, but it is certainly not Denmark either. My experiences were in line with expectations based on the intelligence averages of these areas. Rindermann provides anecdotes like:<\/p>\n
\n\n
- In Guayaquil, on a Sunday, I could not withdraw money from several ATMs (no money came out), but it was debited from my accounts. It took several hours of time (of me and bank employees in Germany, otherwise in Europe, Ecuador or the USA) to undo this. This never happened before in any other country.<\/li>\n
- In general, it is often too noisy: On the bus, the movies and music are too loud. Also, the movies shown on the bus for all passengers, including children, are often too violent (e.g., John Wick). (Both represent too much sensory stimulation or low sensitivity). Buses, trucks, cars and motorcycles are sometimes extremely noisy. There is a lot of honking and often you can hear car alarms. Commercials and election advertisements from trucks blasting the streets with loudspeakers are very loud. Metal blinds of the stores that go up or down early in the morning, in the evening, and at night are very noisy. People speak loudly. Houses do not have soundproof windows, even on roads, only single-pane windows. Engine noises and voices penetrate uninsulated into apartments. None of this seems to be a problem\u00a0for them. However, research shows a negative impact of noise on cognition [64<\/a>].<\/li>\n
- Finally, this was the first time in my life that I have witnessed a racist insult: In the La Mar\u00edn bus station in Quito, a \u201chalf-black\u201d man, about 25\u00a0years old, said to a darker black girl (also mixed race) about 5\u00a0years old, \u201cYour mom is black and ugly, black as oil.\u201d How can an adult say such a thing to a child?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n
These are from Ecuador. Considering my experience from Naples where museums with 100s of reviews on websites didn’t exist when you walked to their location, or were seemingly placed in dilapidated buildings with no clear entrance etc., this doesn’t sound surprising.<\/p>\n
The main point of Rindermann’s article was not anecdotes. His point was to show that 1) various international assessment of cognitive ability are congruent with each other (high correlates despite different research teams, methods, data sources), 2) are congruent with the level of development according to international statistics (education, income, health etc.), and 3) are congruent with personal experiences if you visit the countries. As such, it is difficult to not believe the results, even if at first they seem incredibly (literally, unbelievable in Latin).<\/p>\n
This article proved too much for the censors, however, who presumably lobbied behind the scenes to get it retracted. They have been somewhat successful with this for other national IQ studies (this one for religiousness and crime<\/a> and this one for parasite stress<\/a>). The people lobbying for censorship behind the scenes are the ones who wrote an 2024 article in June, shortly after this study was published, called “Journals that published Richard Lynn\u2019s racist \u2018research\u2019 articles should retract them”<\/a>. Meng Hu has already replied to this in detail<\/a>, so I won’t bother. Presumably, based on their publication of this article in a big magazine (StatNews) they were able to convince the editor-in-chief to retract it. The retraction notice reads<\/a> (16 September 2024):<\/p>\n
The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about the methodology and dataset used in this research. Independent post-publication peer review has confirmed fundamental flaws in the use of student assessment studies as a measure of IQ or cognitive ability, and in the prominence of individual examples taken from the author’s life.<\/p>\n
The author Heiner Rindermann disagrees with this retraction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rindermann has provided his own version of the story on ResearchGate<\/a>, but it has not received much attention, so I want to signal boost it here. First, his email to the editor\/journal:<\/p>\n
Prof. Dr. Heiner Rindermann
\nProfessor for Educational and Developmental Psychology, TU Chemnitz, Germany
\nwww.tu-chemnitz.de\/~hrin
\nheiner.rindermann@psychologie.tu-chemnitz.de
\n20 September 2024<\/p>\nDear Sir or Madam,
\nDiscover Education has retracted a contribution of me:
\nRindermann, H. (2024). Surprisingly low results from studies on cognitive ability in developing countries: Are the results credible? Discover Education, 3(1), 55. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s44217-024-00135-5
\nSee: https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s44217-024-00259-8
\n\u201cThe Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about the methodology and dataset used in this research. Independent post-publication peer review has confirmed fundamental flaws in the use of student assessment studies as a measure of IQ or cognitive ability, and in the prominence of individual examples taken from the author’s life. The author Heiner Rindermann disagrees with this retraction.\u201d<\/p>\nThe original paper is stored in ResearchGate.
\nhttps:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/380754429_Surprisingly_low_results_from_studies_on_c
\nognitive_ability_in_developing_countries_are_the_results_credible<\/p>\nDespite two requests from me, I have not received the post-publication peer reviews. Twice requested by me:
\n\u201cWhat were the critical points? You have not provided me with the reviews. Please provide me with
\nthe reviews by September 9, 2024.\u201d
\n\u201c3. Where are the reviewers\u2019 reports? How do you know that what they say in their reports is
\ncorrect?\u201c<\/p>\nThe university and a German open access fund paid \u20ac975.50 for the publication. Also see:
\nhttps:\/\/link.springer.com\/journal\/44217\/how-to-publish-with-us#Fees%20and%20Funding
\nDiscover Education refuses to repay the money. Their position is that the publication fees will not be refunded “when articles are retracted as a result of author error or misconduct.”\u201d However, there is no documented evidence of \u201cauthor error or misconduct\u201d and there are no specific allegations (e.g. \u201cauthor did A\u201d).<\/p>\nDiscover Education started
\n\u2013 after successful reviews,
\n\u2013 after acceptance of a manuscript,
\n\u2013 after payment of the publication fees
\n\u2013 and after publication
\na second review process, \u201cpost-publication peer review\u201d,
\n\u2013 without making the results of this second review available,
\n\u2013 without giving the author the opportunity to counter-argue or correct (in case there were any
\nerrors)
\n\u2013 and without any new information that was not already available at the time of submission,
\n\u2013 and the publication is retracted.
\nEvidence for \u201cfundamental flaws\u201d or \u201cauthor error\u201d does not exist or is not presented or specified.<\/p>\nSpringer Nature itself never responded to my emails (except confirmation emails).<\/p>\n
If this practice is accepted, journals and publishers could retract all articles ever published in the future. Authors and science as a whole will be exposed to the arbitrariness of publishers. In my opinion, the actions of Discover Education and Springer Nature are unacceptable and action must be taken against them.<\/p>\n
The editor-in-chief of the journal (Prof. Kerry Kennedy) never responded to my emails and letters. He did not respond to my arguments and suggestions (for example, to deal with the article scientifically in a discussion; \u201cSuggestion of a scientific discussion\u201d). The editor-in-chief of the journal, Kerry Kennedy, never seems to have looked at my paper during
\nthe publication process, there was never a reply to my emails and suggestions (e.g., disclose reasons, publish critiques and a reply), the \u201cpost-publication peer reviews\u201d are not given out, the author is not given the chance to reply. To put it mildly, none of this is exemplary scientific behavior.<\/p>\nOne more thing about the content:
\nThere are no allegations of plagiarism or fraud, which in the past have led to the retraction of other
\npublications in science.
\nOn the main idea of the article and what is also addressed in the retraction note, \u201cfundamental flaws
\nin the use of student assessment studies as a measure of IQ or cognitive ability\u201d, there has been
\nresearch for about 100 years.
\nThis may not be the consensus in student achievement research, but there are certainly 10 to 40 publications by various authors from the last 100 or 20 or 10 years that support this position. See, for example, the literature mentioned in the article or the publications of mine mentioned in the letter and referenced literature there (also on ResearchGate:
\nhttps:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/384324009_Letter_to_Discover_Education_regarding_ret
\nraction_of_Surprisingly_low_results_article, DOI: 10.13140\/RG.2.2.33113.94561).
\nSubstantive arguments can be found, for example, in the retracted article or in many other contributions by me (and by other authors of the last 100 years of research on this topic).<\/p>\nI have commented in detail on the second point of criticism in the retraction note \u201cprominence of individual examples taken from the author\u2019s life\u201d in the article and also in an email of May 27, 2024 to Discover Education, for example pp. 4-5 (from the published paper):
\n\u201cOne have to systematize observational studies: Train several people in observation and then send them to, for example, four countries with the greatest possible cognitive difference. The descriptions above can only provide a first indication of what type of behavior should be observed.\u201d
\nMy email of May 27, 2024, is documented in ResearchGate:
\nhttps:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/381025123_Letter_to_Associate_Publisher_Discover_Jou
\nrnalsdocx Discover Education never responded to this. Anthropologists or scientists in the Piaget tradition have also pursued this approach.<\/p>\nOverall, I consider my position (and that of many other scientists) to be well-founded, in any case sufficiently well-founded and empirically validated, so that one cannot speak of \u201cfundamental flaws\u201d. \u201cprominence\u201d is not a point of scientific criticism anyway.
\nDiffering positions in science are common and \u2013 if they lead to a rational, argumentative debate \u2013 are good for the advancement of knowledge. The eradication of other positions, however, is a sign of totalitarian thinking and oppressive ideologies.<\/p>\nBest regards,
\nHeiner Rindermann<\/p><\/blockquote>\nAnd he added this postscript:<\/p>\n
Postscript
\n25 October 2024
\nAnother scientist wrote to Discover Education editor-in-chief Prof. Kerry Kennedy in early October. This scientist is an expert in the field of the article first published by Kennedy and then retracted. This scientist has himself\/herself worked as an editor of scientific journals and has also served as president of scientific societies.<\/p>\nThis scientist criticized in the letter to Prof. Kerry Kennedy the retraction and considered it a violation of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. The scientist explained this position in a multi-page letter and at the end demanded that the reviews be provided to the author (Rindermann) so that he could respond to them in a scientifically appropriate manner (as is
\notherwise usual in science).<\/p>\nAs with my (Heiner Rindermann) emails, Prof. Kennedy did not respond to this email from another scientist. Only an editorial assistant from India wrote a short, general reply.<\/p>\n
All this behavior of Prof. Kennedy represents a serious violation of scientific standards:
\n\u2013 After the publication and due to politically motivated hate messages from a Twitter mob (X) outside the research field, (apparently new) reviewers were recruited.
\n\u2013 These new reviews were not made available to the author.
\n\u2013 Decisions were made to the detriment of an author based on reviews that are not made available.
\n\u2013 The retraction violates COPE standards, which recommend retraction only as a last resort in cases of irreparably poor, fraudulent, or plagiarized work. These allegations were not made here and poor quality was neither proven nor described nor was any attempt made to correct possible (unknown in detail) weaknesses.
\n\u2013 Monetary payments for open access were not reimbursed.
\n\u2013 Various emails went unanswered by the editor Prof. Kennedy.
\n\u2013 There was no response to the author\u2019s suggestions for a scientific discussion and debate.
\n\u2013 Presumably the editor, Prof. Kerry Kennedy, never read the manuscript during the regular submission process. Otherwise, why would he suddenly change his mind because of messages on Twitter (X) from outside the research field?
\n\u2013 Given this experience, it is unclear whether there has ever been a post-publication review process. Perhaps the retraction was simply decided at will. Nobody knows.<\/p>\nSpringer Nature has also never responded to my emails.
\nIn view of such incidents and the contracts that scientists receive from Springer Nature, German scientific organizations that are involved in financing these open access publications recommend that authors no longer publish there.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nI expect more of these retractions. Who is going to stand up to these people? Few people care about the principles of science when it matters (hence the endless p-hacking, harking, fraud, p = .04 interactions, entire<\/a> careers<\/a> built<\/a> on sand<\/a>). They have a stifling effect on science since others will ‘get the message’ and won’t submit their work to these journals, or more likely won’t even do the work to begin with. Preventing such work is of course the goal of the censors. To prevent scientific progress on a topic they consider embarrassing and inconvenient to their leftist egalitarian ideology. What could be more anti-scientific?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Back in May this year, German intelligence researcher Heiner Rindermann published this study: Rindermann, H. (2024). Surprisingly low results from studies on cognitive ability in developing countries: are the results credible?. Discover Education, 3(1), 55. Developing countries achieve surprisingly weak results in international cognitive competence studies. The results are about one to two standard deviations […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2591,2049],"tags":[2796,2606,3500],"class_list":["post-13524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intelligence-iq-cognitive-ability","category-metascience","tag-censorship","tag-national-iq","tag-retraction","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13524"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13524\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13525,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13524\/revisions\/13525"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}