<p>No, such a completely knowledge-free test has not been devised. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fluid intelligence</a> (a component of IQ tests) is probably the closest thing to the claim of being "knowledge-free", but it isn't quite so. As typically measured, e.g. using <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Raven's progressive matrices</a> one still needs to have some clue what the test is talking about in terms patterns etc. And prior exposure to similar test <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4226176/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">makes a difference (see Hayes et al. 2015)</a> in test results, i.e. there's a learning effect.</p>

<p>In the US, where most such race-intelligence research is conducted, there's still a racial group difference on fluid intelligence tests (e.g. Raven's) in the usual test settings, although some evidence suggests it depends how the test is interpreted by the takers <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16834521" rel="nofollow noreferrer">may matter, e.g. Brown &amp; Day (2006)</a>: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This study addresses recent criticisms aimed at the interpretation of stereotype threat research and methodological weaknesses of previous studies that have examined race differences on Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). African American and White undergraduates completed the APM under three conditions. In two threat conditions, participants received either standard APM instructions (standard threat) or were told that the APM was an IQ test (high threat). In a low threat condition, participants were told that the APM was a set of puzzles and that the researchers wanted their opinions of them. Results supported the stereotype threat interpretation of race differences in cognitive ability test scores. Although African American participants underperformed Whites under both standard and high threat instructions, they performed just as well as Whites did under low threat instructions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A slightly more recent <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0012702" rel="nofollow noreferrer">meta-analysis (Nguyen &amp; Ryan 2008)</a> still found an effect though</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For minorities, moderately explicit stereotype threat-activating cues produced the largest effect, followed by blatant and subtle cues: ds = |.64|, |.41|, and |.22|, respectively; explicit removal strategies enhanced stereotype threat effects compared with subtle strategies: ds = |.80| and |.34|, respectively.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Alas most such meta-analytic research does not isolate just one type of IQ testing.</p>

<p>IQ testing under stereotype threats is still a pretty controversial area of research in itself, see <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28795832" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ziegler (2017)</a> and reply by <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-33752-002" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nguyen &amp; Ryan</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-07T08:47:52.563Z
I was directed to this Q&A from [here](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25440/any-conclusive-statement-on-the-controversial-book-the-bell-curve). Can you have a look at there please? As for this answer do you conclude that there are no 'real' IQ differences among races and most difference is due to non-cognitive factors such as in this case streotype threats during testing?
infatuated
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T17:21:14.067Z
2018-09-12T17:21:14.067Z
got trolled too much this week
<p>If you google </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>IQ gap race</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and open the google images, you will see many diagrams showing the differences.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/wWbXk.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/wWbXk.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>I went on some IQ test pages, and I noticed that the test includes mathematical questions, that have nothing or less to do, with IQ.</p>

<p>That is:
if your school you went to is bad, you will have less knowledge after leaving it. For example solving a mathematical question formulated in an IQ test. You cannot solve, but others will be able to solve, because they dealt with it in school, and you didn't. But the real IQ is the same.  </p>

<p>So what I am asking is:</p>

<p><strong>does a non-knowledge based, or knowledge corrected IQ test exist, and what are its results per race?</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-10T07:47:33.420Z
Welcome. Does [this answer](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/20634/6983) address your question sufficiently? If not, could you highlight the difference between your post and the question of the linked answer?
AliceD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-11T00:54:12.800Z
@AliceD That is just some more explanation why IQ tests _can_ be wrong. But it doesn't address my question at all. I now made the question in bold and added some words.
valid answers would be "no" "yes, look here" "maybe, look here"
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-11T22:49:21.923Z
Yes, there is a real IQ gap by race, because IQ is a measure, not a synonym for 'intelligence,' and as a measure for intelligence it often falls short, as the answer AliceD linked shows.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-11T22:57:53.160Z
@BryanKrause if it is obvious that the IQ test falls short, what measures were taken to correct the short comings? I always thought that IQ tests are testing the intelligence, and not the education. Seems like I was wrong. But I really hope that steps were taken to correct the issues.
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T00:00:11.697Z
@Toskan It's testing both, and other things too. It's just important to take the conclusions carefully. If you study a fairly homogeneous population, maybe kids in the same school, IQ tests can still be valid for, let's say, dividing a sample into groups to see how some intervention influences them ("wow look, morning carrots really improve apple function in low IQ kids but don't really affect high IQ kids!"). They are not good for comparing races.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T00:16:03.437Z
@BryanKrause so what is good for comparing races then? a question I may not ask? following your example, why not run the test on the kids in the same school, and see how different races do, within the same school? rinse and repeat for all schools and then we should have a more accurate result. Or are we afraid of the results and thus try to cover up things. I get the feeling this is the case here. I am shocked.
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T00:21:28.823Z
@Toskan Depends on why you want to compare races in the first place. Biologically speaking, there isn't any reason to. See https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14414/do-humans-have-enough-biological-differences-to-be-grouped-into-races-or-subspec and https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/57555/does-it-make-sense-to-classify-all-humans-in-a-single-species for example.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T00:36:15.207Z
@BryanKrause to get answers. To understand the world a little bit better. To find better solutions to the problems in the world. Difficult though, when some people are trying their best to avoid the question. You know that doctors are taught at universities to treat certain races different than others, because one treatment might heal one, and kill the other? I am positive that one day people will be looking for answers again, it won't be soon though looking at the replies in your links.
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T00:39:07.837Z
@Toskan https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1455 is another good reference to start with. Don't think that science doesn't concern itself with race, but make sure you have a good research question in mind before you start asking about how to approach it, because like with all science the answer is "it depends." Most modern research into "individualized medicine" intends to be much more specific, focused on particular polymorphisms rather than a relatively arbitrary characterization of people into races based on skin color.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T00:54:10.513Z
@BryanKrause I think its silly to say "race does not exist" because you cannot clearly define where one crosses the line from one race into another. A 3 years old can tell you that race exists. I am surprised about the effort people put into pushing this agenda. People are afraid of racism I guess, and put all effort into trying to cover up any evidence. Saddening. I think it will work at their very own disadvantage.
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T01:29:41.283Z
@Toskan If you read the paper I linked you'd see what the issues are.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T02:08:24.990Z
@BryanKrause I did read parts of it, and I disagree with it. I cite "it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized". Statements like that really seem very silly. You don't like the question? well attack the question then. Say "oh we cannot measure race", "race means something else than you think". A 3 years old seems to be ahead of that way of thinking. But I agree, if you don't like the question, leave alone answers, play cat and mouse and count peanuts instead. You might be shocked if you actually find an answer.
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T12:49:38.100Z
To jump in here; race is definitely a much contested term. If you are interested in differences in populations of people, just name them, as in differences in IQ between white and black populations in the US for instance.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-12T14:47:33.267Z
@Toskan I don't know you, but I do get an overwhelming feeling that you're a bit too focused on race.  I don't know that researchers are are trying to avoid it as a topic, and are opposed to objective facts regarding race, but I can imagine that they are understandably suspicious of someone who seems a little too focused on race and isn't doing a great job of disguising that there are specific things about race they want to suss out.  Culturally, we still lack the maturity to deal with race and the pervasive biases people hold.  Why don't you just tell everybody what exactly you want to find?
fearofmusic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-13T01:10:09.220Z
@fearofmusic I chuckled. You didn't read the question did you?
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-17T05:36:03.073Z
@Toskan, I read the question.  The answer to the question is no.  My additional commentary is that your motivations are very suspicious.  We have very few tools at this point in history to provide us with meaningful insight into human intelligence, broadly, so why would anyone want to focus in on trying to prove one race is fundamentally smarter than another?  I don't know, go read The Bell Curve if you haven't already, I think it's got what you're trying to find.  There's a fair chance you've already read it, though.
fearofmusic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-17T20:02:27.187Z
@fearofmusic my motivations are not suspicious. They seem suspicious to you, because you seem to be looking for racists everywhere maybe? But my question shouldn't leave that impression. I say: "look here are graphs about race and IQ" and then "are there better graphs than this?" what I basically ask, if you read between the lines, is if you can convince me that the graphs are wrong. But I tell you something, you cannot convince me with "we have few tools". And "race doesn't exist". I want you to convince me with facts, not with mickey mouse arguments.
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-17T22:52:40.727Z
@Toskan I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and I would never say something as preposterous as race doesn't exist.  I hope I don't go looking for racists, at least not everywhere, though if asked where to find one I might say "find someone looking for proof that one race is better or worse at something than others."  Look, I don't think I'm being controversial when I say we don't know that much about how intelligence really works yet.  That in mind, evaluating the intelligence of historically oppressed races is a fools errand, regardless of motive.  What would you do with this insight?
fearofmusic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-18T15:10:16.793Z
@fearofmusic explain to us why it's a fools errand. 'What I would do with this insight' it would me make understand better the world I live in. There are people who want to ban knives, because they can be used to stab someone. You seem to be one of them
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-18T15:18:44.343Z
just to give you an example: in the US there is a claim that people are racists and blacks just can't get jobs or into universities because of that. Police shoot blacks because they are racists. It's a common view. Is that the complete truth? the solution would be to police all non-blacks and blacks about racism towards blacks. You follow that trend, because someone who is just considering that there might be other explanations, is getting badgered. But do you really have the truth? Understanding better what we are, is a step forward. Silencing others because you are scared, are two steps back
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-18T18:42:19.983Z
@Toskan What the hell does banning knives, which is absurd, have to do with anything?  No one is trying to ban knives, except maybe from locations where they serve no purpose, like say a bouncy-house.  If banning people from having knives inside a bouncy-house is wrong, I don't want to be right!
fearofmusic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-18T18:51:21.480Z
@Toskan To your other question, it's a fools errand because you're trying to jump ahead of the science to a place of knowledge, and cultural maturity, that we have not yet reached.  When we discovered lift, it didn't automatically make us capable of supersonic flight.  There were a number of hurdles between the two, both scientific and cultural/psychological.  Superstitious people who thought the sky might rip open could try to sabotage your efforts, so many things.  If there is an answer to this question, we're going to find it, but almost certainly not from our current vantage point.
fearofmusic
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-18T20:57:39.330Z
@fearofmusic banning knives is the equivalent of banning discussion about racial differences, because ... well you have the reasons to ban the discussion. About actually banning knives: just google "ban knives uk" you'll be surprised. Only because some, maybe many, people are thinking in an odd way, doesn't mean you should care...
Toskan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-09-19T13:51:05.383Z
@Toskan It's a false equivalency, but I'm picking up what you're laying down.  An extra layer on top that false equivalency is the meaningful differences in US and UK culture with regard to weapons. Propositions that might not even move the needle in the UK, as far as restriction of weapons, would put some people here in a full blown panic.  Presumably we agree that banning a discussion is not the same as a room full of people not wanting to change the subject to a discussion they don't want to have, nor the same as an institution seeing no value for them and not paying for it to be studied.
fearofmusic
<intelligence><iq>
Does a non-knowledge based, or knowledge corrected IQ test exist, and what are its results per race?
Toskan
# Does a non-knowledge based, or knowledge corrected IQ test exist, and what are its results per race?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-09-10)

If you google

> IQ gap race

and open the google images, you will see many diagrams showing the differences.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/wWbXk.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/wWbXk.png)

I went on some IQ test pages, and I noticed that the test includes mathematical questions, that have nothing or less to do, with IQ.

That is:
if your school you went to is bad, you will have less knowledge after leaving it. For example solving a mathematical question formulated in an IQ test. You cannot solve, but others will be able to solve, because they dealt with it in school, and you didn't. But the real IQ is the same.

So what I am asking is:

**does a non-knowledge based, or knowledge corrected IQ test exist, and what are its results per race?**

**Tags:** intelligence, iq

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Welcome. Does [this answer](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/a/20634/6983) address your question sufficiently? If not, could you highlight the difference between your post and the question of the linked answer?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 That is just some more explanation why IQ tests _can_ be wrong. But it doesn't address my question at all. I now made the question in bold and added some words. valid answers would be "no" "yes, look here" "maybe, look here"  
> **username_2**: Yes, there is a real IQ gap by race, because IQ is a measure, not a synonym for 'intelligence,' and as a measure for intelligence it often falls short, as the answer username_1 linked shows.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause if it is obvious that the IQ test falls short, what measures were taken to correct the short comings? I always thought that IQ tests are testing the intelligence, and not the education. Seems like I was wrong. But I really hope that steps were taken to correct the issues.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 It's testing both, and other things too. It's just important to take the conclusions carefully. If you study a fairly homogeneous population, maybe kids in the same school, IQ tests can still be valid for, let's say, dividing a sample into groups to see how some intervention influences them ("wow look, morning carrots really improve apple function in low IQ kids but don't really affect high IQ kids!"). They are not good for comparing races.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause so what is good for comparing races then? a question I may not ask? following your example, why not run the test on the kids in the same school, and see how different races do, within the same school? rinse and repeat for all schools and then we should have a more accurate result. Or are we afraid of the results and thus try to cover up things. I get the feeling this is the case here. I am shocked.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 Depends on why you want to compare races in the first place. Biologically speaking, there isn't any reason to. See https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/14414/do-humans-have-enough-biological-differences-to-be-grouped-into-races-or-subspec and https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/57555/does-it-make-sense-to-classify-all-humans-in-a-single-species for example.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause to get answers. To understand the world a little bit better. To find better solutions to the problems in the world. Difficult though, when some people are trying their best to avoid the question. You know that doctors are taught at universities to treat certain races different than others, because one treatment might heal one, and kill the other? I am positive that one day people will be looking for answers again, it won't be soon though looking at the replies in your links.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1455 is another good reference to start with. Don't think that science doesn't concern itself with race, but make sure you have a good research question in mind before you start asking about how to approach it, because like with all science the answer is "it depends." Most modern research into "individualized medicine" intends to be much more specific, focused on particular polymorphisms rather than a relatively arbitrary characterization of people into races based on skin color.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I think its silly to say "race does not exist" because you cannot clearly define where one crosses the line from one race into another. A 3 years old can tell you that race exists. I am surprised about the effort people put into pushing this agenda. People are afraid of racism I guess, and put all effort into trying to cover up any evidence. Saddening. I think it will work at their very own disadvantage.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 If you read the paper I linked you'd see what the issues are.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I did read parts of it, and I disagree with it. I cite "it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized". Statements like that really seem very silly. You don't like the question? well attack the question then. Say "oh we cannot measure race", "race means something else than you think". A 3 years old seems to be ahead of that way of thinking. But I agree, if you don't like the question, leave alone answers, play cat and mouse and count peanuts instead. You might be shocked if you actually find an answer.  
> **username_1**: To jump in here; race is definitely a much contested term. If you are interested in differences in populations of people, just name them, as in differences in IQ between white and black populations in the US for instance.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I don't know you, but I do get an overwhelming feeling that you're a bit too focused on race.  I don't know that researchers are are trying to avoid it as a topic, and are opposed to objective facts regarding race, but I can imagine that they are understandably suspicious of someone who seems a little too focused on race and isn't doing a great job of disguising that there are specific things about race they want to suss out.  Culturally, we still lack the maturity to deal with race and the pervasive biases people hold.  Why don't you just tell everybody what exactly you want to find?  
> **username_0**: @username_3 I chuckled. You didn't read the question did you?  
> **username_3**: @username_0, I read the question.  The answer to the question is no.  My additional commentary is that your motivations are very suspicious.  We have very few tools at this point in history to provide us with meaningful insight into human intelligence, broadly, so why would anyone want to focus in on trying to prove one race is fundamentally smarter than another?  I don't know, go read The Bell Curve if you haven't already, I think it's got what you're trying to find.  There's a fair chance you've already read it, though.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 my motivations are not suspicious. They seem suspicious to you, because you seem to be looking for racists everywhere maybe? But my question shouldn't leave that impression. I say: "look here are graphs about race and IQ" and then "are there better graphs than this?" what I basically ask, if you read between the lines, is if you can convince me that the graphs are wrong. But I tell you something, you cannot convince me with "we have few tools". And "race doesn't exist". I want you to convince me with facts, not with mickey mouse arguments.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and I would never say something as preposterous as race doesn't exist.  I hope I don't go looking for racists, at least not everywhere, though if asked where to find one I might say "find someone looking for proof that one race is better or worse at something than others."  Look, I don't think I'm being controversial when I say we don't know that much about how intelligence really works yet.  That in mind, evaluating the intelligence of historically oppressed races is a fools errand, regardless of motive.  What would you do with this insight?  
> **username_0**: @username_3 explain to us why it's a fools errand. 'What I would do with this insight' it would me make understand better the world I live in. There are people who want to ban knives, because they can be used to stab someone. You seem to be one of them  
> **username_0**: just to give you an example: in the US there is a claim that people are racists and blacks just can't get jobs or into universities because of that. Police shoot blacks because they are racists. It's a common view. Is that the complete truth? the solution would be to police all non-blacks and blacks about racism towards blacks. You follow that trend, because someone who is just considering that there might be other explanations, is getting badgered. But do you really have the truth? Understanding better what we are, is a step forward. Silencing others because you are scared, are two steps back  
> **username_3**: @username_0 What the hell does banning knives, which is absurd, have to do with anything?  No one is trying to ban knives, except maybe from locations where they serve no purpose, like say a bouncy-house.  If banning people from having knives inside a bouncy-house is wrong, I don't want to be right!  
> **username_3**: @username_0 To your other question, it's a fools errand because you're trying to jump ahead of the science to a place of knowledge, and cultural maturity, that we have not yet reached.  When we discovered lift, it didn't automatically make us capable of supersonic flight.  There were a number of hurdles between the two, both scientific and cultural/psychological.  Superstitious people who thought the sky might rip open could try to sabotage your efforts, so many things.  If there is an answer to this question, we're going to find it, but almost certainly not from our current vantage point.  
> **username_0**: @username_3 banning knives is the equivalent of banning discussion about racial differences, because ... well you have the reasons to ban the discussion. About actually banning knives: just google "ban knives uk" you'll be surprised. Only because some, maybe many, people are thinking in an odd way, doesn't mean you should care...  
> **username_3**: @username_0 It's a false equivalency, but I'm picking up what you're laying down.  An extra layer on top that false equivalency is the meaningful differences in US and UK culture with regard to weapons. Propositions that might not even move the needle in the UK, as far as restriction of weapons, would put some people here in a full blown panic.  Presumably we agree that banning a discussion is not the same as a room full of people not wanting to change the subject to a discussion they don't want to have, nor the same as an institution seeing no value for them and not paying for it to be studied.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-09-12. Score: 4

No, such a completely knowledge-free test has not been devised. [Fluid intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence) (a component of IQ tests) is probably the closest thing to the claim of being "knowledge-free", but it isn't quite so. As typically measured, e.g. using [Raven's progressive matrices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices) one still needs to have some clue what the test is talking about in terms patterns etc. And prior exposure to similar test [makes a difference (see Hayes et al. 2015)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4226176/) in test results, i.e. there's a learning effect.

In the US, where most such race-intelligence research is conducted, there's still a racial group difference on fluid intelligence tests (e.g. Raven's) in the usual test settings, although some evidence suggests it depends how the test is interpreted by the takers [may matter, e.g. Brown & Day (2006)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16834521):

> This study addresses recent criticisms aimed at the interpretation of stereotype threat research and methodological weaknesses of previous studies that have examined race differences on Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). African American and White undergraduates completed the APM under three conditions. In two threat conditions, participants received either standard APM instructions (standard threat) or were told that the APM was an IQ test (high threat). In a low threat condition, participants were told that the APM was a set of puzzles and that the researchers wanted their opinions of them. Results supported the stereotype threat interpretation of race differences in cognitive ability test scores. Although African American participants underperformed Whites under both standard and high threat instructions, they performed just as well as Whites did under low threat instructions.

A slightly more recent [meta-analysis (Nguyen & Ryan 2008)](http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0012702) still found an effect though

> For minorities, moderately explicit stereotype threat-activating cues produced the largest effect, followed by blatant and subtle cues: ds = |.64|, |.41|, and |.22|, respectively; explicit removal strategies enhanced stereotype threat effects compared with subtle strategies: ds = |.80| and |.34|, respectively.

Alas most such meta-analytic research does not isolate just one type of IQ testing.

IQ testing under stereotype threats is still a pretty controversial area of research in itself, see [Ziegler (2017)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28795832) and reply by [Nguyen & Ryan](http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-33752-002).

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: I was directed to this Q&A from [here](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/25440/any-conclusive-statement-on-the-controversial-book-the-bell-curve). Can you have a look at there please? As for this answer do you conclude that there are no 'real' IQ differences among races and most difference is due to non-cognitive factors such as in this case streotype threats during testing?  

---

