Some grammatical errors:
"Although Finland has a higher fluid g than Scandinavia but its CPS native score is only slightly higher than the rest of north­western Europe, at 526 points, giving a Greenwich fluid g estimate of 101.4."
"This is possible, however a meta­analysis..." This should read, "possible; however, a meta-analysis...".
"the presence of significant Northeast Asian admixture in the Finnish population" Citation, please.

I prefer the term "fluid intelligence" (or, even better "fluid skills") to "fluid g". This is quibbling, however. (Also, g should be italicized.)

E.g. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml

OK, but the citation should be in the paper.

We used 96 as the SD of CPS scores as done by Piffer and Lynn (2014). 96 is the OCSE average SD. It is better than using country SDs because using individual countries SDs inflates the IQ score of countries with lower SD.

I would like the last sentence to be more elaborated.

Below I report the justification for the use of the average OECD's SD, and why using individual country SDs overestimates the IQ of those with lower SD.
Let countries X and Y have the same PISA score which is 50 points higher (550= 500+50) than the mean OECD score . However, country X has SD 80 and country Y has SD 110. Thus, country X's score would be(50/80=) 0.625 SDs and country Y's score would be(50/110=) 0.454 SDs higher than the OECD average, despite having the same PISA score. Thus, a PISA score of 550 would correspond to two IQS of 109.4 and 106.8. This result is clearly absurd.

Thanks. That should be added in the article.

Thank you, reviewers, for your ideas, time and patience. I have now made all of the most recently requested changes to the article.

Thank you, reviewers, for your ideas, time and patience. I have now made all of the most recently requested changes to the article.

Do you refer to this version ?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QqVsnF8D_Pys6EnS8YCYOR5xzqvS7ar-y0XGeVAhfRE/edit#

You should have said it in your post, otherwise it's difficult to guess. Since that file is constantly updated, you should probably add this in the initial post :
http://openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=140

By the way, I think you must be careful with the file. For example, I see that I'm able to edit the article. You should restrict this function to co-authors only. An accident can easily happen, otherwise.

Regardless, I see the changes you have made. I think you should talk about the influence that politics has on educational systems (not just g, if we accept the very odd idea that politics cause IQ/g). But that's really the least of my problem. I can live without that.

My problem has to do with your conclusion. You say finnish people have higher Gf, given CPS PISA scores, even though WAIS-IV matrices show finnish people have lower Gf, because PISA data has larger N. Ok, but if you average the two, you will see that the difference is not obvious anymore. You didn't talk about the differences in tests. Gf is measured with only two tests. I don't know the properties of WAIS matrices (perhaps someone can show me a sample of what the items in that subtest may look like) but if it's different from CPS PISA, perhaps it's that difference that may explain why you get conflicting results. Also, I still don't know which of these two tests are the best approximate of Gf.

Do you have other evidence (direct or indirect) that may support the idea that finnish people have higher IQ and/or Gf, other than this one ?

And finally :

This is possible, however a meta-analysis by Kirkegaard (2014) of all the PISA results showed only weak evidence of conscientiousness explaining variance that was not explainable by measured IQs, and this was only for reading (standardized β = .17, p = .03) not for the CPS test which we used here (standardized β = -.03).

Given the reference, it's just a blog post. However, it's not the central topic of the article, so I won't cry. But I clearly prefer to see a peer-reviewed paper when you cite an analysis. If you cite an article, say, a review, or a commentary, it's fine to cite blog posts. I don't know if others will agree with me, but that's what I think.

CPS and the WAIS IV matrices are highly comparable,which is why we used them.

My problem has to do with your conclusion. You say finnish people have higher Gf, given CPS PISA scores, even though WAIS-IV matrices show finnish people have lower Gf, because PISA data has larger N. Ok, but if you average the two, you will see that the difference is not obvious anymore. You didn't talk about the differences in tests. Gf is measured with only two tests. I don't know the properties of WAIS matrices (perhaps someone can show me a sample of what the items in that subtest may look like) but if it's different from CPS PISA, perhaps it's that difference that may explain why you get conflicting results. Also, I still don't know which of these two tests are the best approximate of Gf.

I agree with MH that there is not enough evidence that Finns have higher gf. There is much stronger evidence from PISA math, reading and science that they have higher scholastic aptitude or crystallized g, but this points towards an explanation in terms of better schools or higher C, which are likely to pump up scholastic intelligence much more so than fluid g.
Swedes living in Finland score lower in PISA CPS (there is data on this in the PISA report) and this may argue against a cultural explanation. The authors should say this.
However, a note of caution is necessary because the evidence for higher fluid g is not strong and the discrepancy between tests of scholastic aptitude and fluid intelligence may require a cultural explanation.
I'll approve publication provided these issues are dealt with in the discussion.

I agree with Piffer that schooling in Finland could have improved Gc more than Gf, which may explain why you have evidence of stronger g but weak evidence of stronger Gf. But if really there is no difference between Finland and Scandinavian countries in Gf, that also means that the higher g found among finnish people is merely due to higher Gc. This suggests two things; that the higher IQ is not general, but domain-specific. Second, that if education is responsible for the higher Gc but not Gf, then schooling effect in this example shows no g gains because it's domain-specific.

Emil, if I'm not mistaken, dissertations or theses are being approved by professionals. Like peer-reviewed papers.

The Finland-Swedes score worse than the Finns on every single PISA subtest ever done (when immigrants are excluded). The Finland-Swedes genetically closer to Swedes than to Finns, so i'm thinking that this speaks in favour of a partly genetic explanation

My problem has to do with your conclusion. You say finnish people have higher Gf, given CPS PISA scores, even though WAIS-IV matrices show finnish people have lower Gf, because PISA data has larger N. Ok, but if you average the two, you will see that the difference is not obvious anymore. You didn't talk about the differences in tests. Gf is measured with only two tests. I don't know the properties of WAIS matrices (perhaps someone can show me a sample of what the items in that subtest may look like) but if it's different from CPS PISA, perhaps it's that difference that may explain why you get conflicting results. Also, I still don't know which of these two tests are the best approximate of Gf.

I agree with MH that there is not enough evidence that Finns have higher gf. There is much stronger evidence from PISA math, reading and science that they have higher scholastic aptitude or crystallized g, but this points towards an explanation in terms of better schools or higher C, which are likely to pump up scholastic intelligence much more so than fluid g.
Swedes living in Finland score lower in PISA CPS (there is data on this in the PISA report) and this may argue against a cultural explanation. The authors should say this.
However, a note of caution is necessary because the evidence for higher fluid g is not strong and the discrepancy between tests of scholastic aptitude and fluid intelligence may require a cultural explanation.
I'll approve publication provided these issues are dealt with in the discussion.

I don't know what's going on with the F-S and am working on a paper on them, which I can mail you a first draft of if it interests you.

I hav made the changes you request.

My problem has to do with your conclusion. You say finnish people have higher Gf, given CPS PISA scores, even though WAIS-IV matrices show finnish people have lower Gf, because PISA data has larger N. Ok, but if you average the two, you will see that the difference is not obvious anymore. You didn't talk about the differences in tests. Gf is measured with only two tests. I don't know the properties of WAIS matrices (perhaps someone can show me a sample of what the items in that subtest may look like) but if it's different from CPS PISA, perhaps it's that difference that may explain why you get conflicting results. Also, I still don't know which of these two tests are the best approximate of Gf.

I agree with MH that there is not enough evidence that Finns have higher gf. There is much stronger evidence from PISA math, reading and science that they have higher scholastic aptitude or crystallized g, but this points towards an explanation in terms of better schools or higher C, which are likely to pump up scholastic intelligence much more so than fluid g.
Swedes living in Finland score lower in PISA CPS (there is data on this in the PISA report) and this may argue against a cultural explanation. The authors should say this.
However, a note of caution is necessary because the evidence for higher fluid g is not strong and the discrepancy between tests of scholastic aptitude and fluid intelligence may require a cultural explanation.
I'll approve publication provided these issues are dealt with in the discussion.

I don't know what's going on with the F-S and am working on a paper on them, which I can mail you a first draft of if it interests you.

Can you attach it here? I am interested too...or email it to me please.

I approve publication

Could you post the newest version of the paper?

I have now edited this to reply to Meng Hu's concern over the differences between WAIS IV matrices and PISA CPS. According to Rindermann's (2007) paper there is a correlation of 0.97 between PISA Problem Solving 03 and the matrices part of IQ tests. In addition, Pearson's and the OECD's descriptions of these tests make clear that they are extremely similar.