Jump to content

Talk:Race and intelligence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk | contribs) at 06:03, 10 February 2012 (→‎New Source: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeRace and intelligence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2005Articles for deletionKept
June 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 4, 2006Articles for deletionKept
April 11, 2011Articles for deletionKept
Current status: Former good article nominee


Blacks have lowest IQ?

No suggestions to improve article; see WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This study [1] indicates that Sub-saharan African black people have the lowest IQ of all the worlds races. Is this true? Pass a Method talk 18:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is no. The long answer is hopefully to be found in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a talk page for discussions on improving the article, not for answering questions on the subject. I suggest you read the article for yourself, and then decide whether you think the study you link to (by Rushton and Jensen, two highly-controversial figures) is meaningful. Of course, you'll have also to decide whether you think that 'race' is anything more than a social construct, and whether 'IQ' is actually an objective measure of intelligence. If you want simple yes-or-no answers, this topic isn't a good place to find them. (And yes, the answer is 'no' if the question has any meaning in the first place, which is highly doubtful) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hmm. Race is a social construct. Odd considering the basic biological principles of natural selection and geographic isolation. Suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciation to get a basic idea. 80.1.163.50 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read it yourself. "Allopatric speciation may occur when a species is subdivided into two genetically isolated populations". This clearly hasn't happened for Homo sapiens. Last time I looked into the matter, we seemed to be putting a great deal of effort into curing genetic isolation in the conventional manner. Yes, there is a great deal of genetic diversity, but the divisions we apply to such diversity ('races') are arbitrary social constructs - self-evidently, since nobody can agree on how many there are, and who belongs in which. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is undisputed that blacks have the lowest IQ. (on average) Sorry about the obfuscator bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.185.96 (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is disputed, on the grounds that neither 'blacks' nor 'IQ' have any real meaning. Sorry about the misrepresentation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Blacks" means people with sub saharan african ancestry, verified by a high degree of interobserver correlation, "IQ" means the result of a test thought to indicate overall mental ability, and supported by mainstream psychology. There can be no question that these terms have meaning. Any attempt to suggest otherwise suggests a kind of Orwellian detachment from reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.66.227 (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The consensus is that there are group differences in intelligence. The controversy is whether genetics has something to do with these differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.20.49 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last ¶ of lede

Made more general, comprehensive, able to have easily sourceable support added. The first alternative should have genetic, heritable factors combined with cultural/epigenetic ones, but leaving that for the editors supplying such support. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on the fracas here, suggestion for resolution. That there are effective group differences is far beyond dispute. Suggest you just cull everything that goes beyond reporting those objective facts. A really unfortunate complication is that some academics who have made a career on the topic are in fact racists. Nonetheless, the phenomenon in question is so heavily documented that it would be easy to redact their contributions to a small mention instead of a pervasive viewpoint. My position on the topic in the "Form" section of my POV page. Lycurgus (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags and problems with the article

The recent removal of the tags brings to fore the issue of the stagnant state of this article. While some sporadic work has been done on this article, the nature and quality of the change has generally been hampered by both burnout from previous editors, a lack of new editors with interest and perspective, and habitual interruption by editors interested in promoting their favored POV. In truth, what may be the best approach would be to dump most of the article, and simply summarize one of the many current secondary overview sources on the matter, instead of presenting a comprehensive rehash of the historic debate, complete with extensive arguments from those arguing against the mainstream. I've replaced the tags, and invite other editors to work towards such a goal, though I expect significant work will again be met with stiff resistance from those who chaffe at the idea that IQ has not been shown to be a racial trait. aprock (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that if anyone feels like addressing specific section tags through edits, or removing specific section tags because they've been resolved, as opposed to stale, I fully support that sort of bold editing. Likewise improving then removing is also welcome. I'll try to make some time later in the week to do some research on specific sources and sections to help in this regard myself. aprock (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you're absolutely right about anticipated resistance. the only way forward is to bring the matter of undue weight given to fringe theories to the fringe theories noticeboard.-- mustihussain  23:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
collapsing per WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM. aprock (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


If you mean me as someone you can expect "stiff resistance" from, I won't oppose edits that improve the article's neutrality. For example this edit was fine, though I don't agree with the justification in the edit summary. Psychology, Public Policy and Law is a journal published by the APA so it satisfies WP:RS. But the paragraph removed still violated NPOV because it's unbalanced to include Jensen and Rushton's arguments without including the counter-argument from someone like Nisbett. So you won't see me going against edits like that.

The article certainly could still use improvement, but we need to not go about the changes haphazardly. In the past it's sometimes happened that editors were rushing forward with large changes while not participating in the discussion about those changes on the talk page. Working towards consensus is very difficult when people aren't willing to discuss their edits.Boothello (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...And now we have an example already of someone trying to make a highly visible change without discussion. Hipocrite has moved the link to scientific racism up to before the beginning of the lead, suggesting that this "see also" link is more centrally important than the link to History of the race and intelligence controversy, Heritability of IQ, or Flynn effect. It's unreasonable to say that the scientific racism article is more important to this article than any of those others. To single out the scientific racism article as deserving this special place, you'd need to demonstrate that it deserves it more than any of the other sub-articles in the R&I topic area which could also be linked there. I don't think it does, so I'm reverting this change until consensus can be established.Boothello (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sigh aprock (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want me to do? Some edits aren't helpful and that's why we need discussion. When Miradre was involved, you and Maunus did an excellent job stopping him from messing up the article in a hereditarian direction. But sometimes edits are unbalanced in the opposite direction too.Boothello (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make constructive edits that improve the article instead of acting as a gatekeeper, requiring your consent before changes get made. aprock (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aprock, what is the "mainstream" here? Mainstream among whom? Not based on your own opinion, but reliable sources. FYI, IQ has been shown to be a racial trait beyond any reasonable doubt. The debate is about causes.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an accurate representation of mainstream scholarship, which notes that IQ is weakly correlated with race, but then notes that race may not even exist, and then that the correlation may just be autocorrelation. Hipocrite (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite this "mainstream scholarship"? Races obviously exist as socially recognized categories. Whether or not these races correspond to some predefined taxonomic scheme is irrelevant.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[2]. Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no such thing as race, then by definition there can be no racism, scientific or otherwise. You can't have a meaningful conversation about something that does not exist. Perhaps the article should be re-named "arbitrary social categories and intelligence"? Asteuartw (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the linked statement to understand how race is a social construct. Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Atoms, genes, and gravity are also social constructs. That does not mean that they are useless in science. Races in America are social constructs based on genetic differences[3]. There are racial differences in IQ, and there is no consensus on what causes them[4][5]][6].--Victor Chmara (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Atoms, genes and gravity exist. Please don't use cherry-picked primary sources when the secondary sources disagree. Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you would have flunked your philosophy of science class. Atoms, genes, and gravity are human constructs, not things that exist in nature. They are theoretical entities constructed on the basis of observations, just like race. The definitions of each have varied widely across time. Naive realism is incompatible with modern science.
My sources above are not cherry-picked. Two of them are consensus statements by intelligence researchers, one is a large meta-analysis of racial/ethnic differences in cognitive ability, one is a study showing that self-identified race corresponds to distinct genetic clusters, a routine finding in population genetics. You will not find a single reliable data-based source that claims that there are no racial differences in IQ. The cultural anthropologists that you draw on may disagree with me, but they have no expertise in psychological measurement and their pronouncements are not based on data. So, when we're talking about what's mainstream in race and intelligence, it matters whom you ask, e.g. intelligence researchers or cultural anthropologists.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that an editor who is not aware of the mainstream position is going to act as gatekeeper is nothing less than baffling. This is quickly rising to the level of disruption. aprock (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going to act as a gatekeeper?? What the hell are you talking about? Tell me, using reliable sources, what the mainstream view is. The Mainstream Science statement and the APA report, for example, say that the cause of the black-white gap is unknown. Is that the mainstream view?--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. The statement says "Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances." You know, the conclusion, where they state their conclusions. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the AAA statement. Please read more carefully.--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm going to bow out of the discussions and restate the invitations that I made above. To any editor who is concerned about the article, especially those who are going to actively examine each and every edit, please be bold and make the changes you think are needed. aprock (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that whenever someone claims that the environmental determinist story is the mainstream position, and I ask them for sources for that view, none are ever forthcoming?--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because these references were given to you a dozen times and you still keep denying they exist. Your interpretation of the APA report'/ concludion, for example, while they do state that we still don't know all the causes of the IQ gap, do state that the existing evidence for a hereditarian cause is currently weaker, less than that for environmental causes. --Ramdrake (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of xxxers as reliable sources

It is not appropriate to use xxxers such as Murry, Ruston and Jensen as uncontroversially reliable sources. Specifically, this includes text sourced only to xxxers, with no caveat that they are a tiny minority. This must not continue - individuals editing who are followers of xxxers should not be reverting the fringe beliefs of their leaders into this article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that this exact issue is clearly delineated in the Arbitration findings of fact 1.1.iii: (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources. [7]. Disruptive editing over this issue is certainly subject to discretionary sanctions. This of course applies to all editors large and small. These researchers are widely recognized as controversial, and the weight given to them in the article is currently undue. Constructive suggestions on how to source content to superior sources, or otherwise address the weight given to them, would be greatly helpful. aprock (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Victor keeps telling me to discuss on the talk page - but he's not discussing, just reverting. What am I to do? Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When faced with the sort of disruption that Victor is engaging in I think the next obvious step is to note why you think the changes you made were warranted on the talk page. I personally haven't looked at any of the changes yet, but if you're making changes in an effort to address 1.1.iii, then I think you're more likely to find general support on the talk page than gatekeeping. aprock (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I am. I would appreciate further review of my edits. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, if you going to make a major change to the article, propose it on the talk page first, giving your reasons.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Review WP:BOLD. Please address the issue, which is the massive overweight given to Jensen and Rushton, and what can be done to lessen it. You must acknowledge they are a minority of researchers, correct? Hipocrite (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jensen and Rushton are major participants in the scientific debate. Jensen is by far the most famous and influential scientist to have researched the topic. Much of the anti-hereditarian research has been conducted explicitly to address the views of Jensen, Rushton, Murray, and other hereditarians. James Flynn, for example, has cited Jensen as a major inspiration in his career. Much of Nisbett's research directly addresses Jensen and Rushton's. The views of Jensen, Rushton et al. should be discussed in the article to the extent that they are present in reliable sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do not merely count articles - instead, we weigh in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Jensen, Rushton, Murray et al's viewpoints are not prominent - they are discarded as fringe by the vast majority of research - of this you are aware. They, themselves are prominent, mostly for being discarded as scientific racists. They cannot continue to take up the majority of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The APA

The APA statement includes "There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis." Victor has removed this from the article multiple times. I don't think it's appropriate to remove this from the article and would like to understand why he is removing it. Why are you removing it? Hipocrite (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The APA report concludes that the cause(s) of the gap are presently unknown. You misrepresented[8] the report by writing that the APA agrees with Nisbett that genetic contributions are nil. Moreover, could you quote Flynn to the effect that genes don't contribute to the gap at all ("nil")?--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My most recent revision does not include Flynn as saying anything - only you did that, and then promptly questioned yourself. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I directly quoted the APA. How does my direct quote misrepresent them? I conclude that I don't know what I'll be having for lunch, but I will DEFINITELY not be having steak. Will I be having steak for lunch? You'd argue we don't know. Hipocrite (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently reads "Scientists, supported by the American Anthropological Association[116] argue that the genetic contribution to the gaps (not to individual IQ) is nil", citing Flynn (a whole book, no page number) as one of the sources. Again, what does Flynn actually say?
Yes, a direct quote misrepresents a source if it is taken out of context. It is a misrepresentation to say that the APA report agrees with Nisbett. It clearly doesn't.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not currently say that. I didn't include the citation to Flynn - it predates me. I'll certainly figure out who added it and ask them. Hipocrite (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor has again provided specific attribution to Nisbett. This is not appropriate, as he is additionally supported by the AAA statement. Please carefully review WP:ITA. Hipocrite (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hypothesis that genes contribute to racial IQ gaps is not "fringe science". It is treated as a credible theory in reliable mainstream sources -- in, for example, Earl Hunt's "Human Intelligence", a textbook published this year by the noted fringe publisher Cambridge University Press. A large survey of behavioral scientists in the 1980s indicated that hereditarianism was the mainstream view among scientists, while the strong environmentalist view was supported by relatively few people. You cannot say that Nisbett's specific views are the same as those of unnamed other scientists.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with this section. Please try to keep up, or at least stop reverting. We are discussing your constant reversion of "Scientists" to "Richard Nisbett," even though Richard Nisbett is agreed with by the major professional organization the American Anthropological Association, making specific attribution there inappropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not reverting. I am correcting errors based on discussion. You claimed that WP:ITA is relevant here, while it clearly isn't. Nisbett and the AAA statement are different entities. When you cite Nisbett and the AAA statement, you mention them, not any weasel words. Now, labels such as hereditarian and environmentalist are potentially useful here, but they should be used evenhandedly.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume given that I found a series of other individuals commenting that there is no genetic basis for race that you're comfortable with the sentence as it currently stands? Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

This page has been fully protected three days per the result of WP:AN3#User:Victor Chmara reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: Protected). The long-term edit warring on this page may possibly need to be addressed by more stringent measures, like a permanent WP:1RR restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regression toward the mean section

The Regression toward the mean section is massively overweighted towards the minority views of Rushton and Jensen. Rushton is not a reliable source with respect to genetics, generally - he is discarded as fringe by multiple reliable sources. Jensen alone is merely a pariah of the field. There is no reason to have merely one sentence by Nisbett that cherry picks what he actually says surrounded by multiple comments by Jensen and Rushton. Unless someone can rewrite this section to be appropriately weighted, I suggest we remove it in it's entirety. Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the undue nature of the section. The topic and conclusions are really only promulgated by Rushton and Jensen, and there is no evidence that the field as a whole considers the topic in any way relevant. This specific topic rates quite low in the realm of things that should be covered, and yet receives coverage in this and other articles, like Heritability of IQ. Nisbett's summary of the topic is even more evidence that it doesn't merit coverage here. Previous versions of this content [9] have been an utter mess of synthesis and original research, in no small part because there is little academic work of note on the topic. In truth, the section is just another indirect statistical argument for the hereditarian viewpoint. I fully support removing it from this article and Heritability of IQ as undue unless robust independent secondary sources can be found which weight the topic as prominently. aprock (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that the previous RfC on the topic [10], is also pretty clear that the content doesn't merit inclusion, though some of the content might make sense in the Heritability article. aprock (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Way too much of the article takes this back and forth approach, tit for tat, argument by argument, usually constructed something like this: "the hereditarians say X. Nisbett says X-not." Of course that approach lends too much weight to the views-the framework of the article is too much built around their views while everything else is reduced to a rebuttal. (Note how many footnotes point to Nisbett's appendix! It's a full 300 page book on the topic, so why is it just where he rebuts the Bell Curve in the appendix that he's given the most attention here-16 footnotes?)
This claim, btw, it's not just coming Jensen/Rushton, but Eysenck and Murray/Herrnstein - along with many other hereditarians - they also make this argument. By the same token, it's not just Nisbett challenging it, but many others accuse of them committing the regression to the mean fallacy, that the statistic simply predicts outcomes and does not identify any particular causation. Jensen's more consistently a reliable source for these views, while a lot of Rushton's more "out-there" work is way out at the fringes of the fringe. But Jensen is not the mainstream position in the race/intelligence issue. He's the most dominant figure in one area, a subset of the larger issue, this "the racial gap in IQ is caused by genetics" part. Since it is one of (dozen?-need to look it up) items of evidence he cites in supporting the hereditarian hypothesis, that might be a better way to handle it. One section should here should be devoted to describing the hereditarian hypothesis and the evidence cited for it. It looms too large now.
How I see the topic handled in sources overall is that they identify there is an IQ gap, that to varying degrees this troubles policy makers of one kind or another, and social and educational policy makers have for some time worked to close it. Now and then researchers have advanced various theories about what causes the gap, and the hereditarian hypothesis is just one of them. The environmental hypothesis isn't really one. Instead there are many hypotheses - such as nutrition, unequal access to education, socio-economic disparity, race prejudice, family environment etc - lots of hypotheses involving a whole host of different causes that can be categorized as environmental. And they get a lot more attention, with policy makers anyway. So maybe if the over-all outline were firmed up better here, then the undue weight problem might be resolved. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the whole back and forth aspect is largely contrived by those who would establish the genetic causes as having parity with environmental causes. In fact, the broad organization of the article isn't so much of a tit-for-tat as, present all the arguments and research of hereditarian researchers, and present little to none of the broader community of science. Most of the mainstream work is done in the context of achievement gap, but none of that work is presented here. This is in no small part due to proponents of hereditarian researchers framing not just the structure of the article, but of the topic in general. Discussing IQ in a vacuum is essentially playing up specific achievement differences and ignoring others. You even see this more starkly on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence where it's not really IQ that is discussed, but verbal IQ. aprock (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most basic issue with the article is how it's divided up into hereditarian vs. environmental arguments. As Professor Marginalia said, the environmental hypothesis is really many different hypotheses. Not all hereditarians agree with one another either - for example Murray and Herrnstein take a different perspective about some things than Jensen and Rushton. And there are people like Earl Hunt who disagree with some parts of both positions.
I think by dividing most of the article into "potential environmental causes" vs. "genetic arguments" we're oversimplifying the issue. In addition it seems like an original research problem. For example who gets to decide that racial admixture studies are a "genetic argument"? Studies such as Witty and Jenkins are often discussed as evidence that ancestry doesn't affect IQ, so this is as much an environmental argument as a genetic one. I suggest combining the "potential environmental causes" and "genetic arguments" sections into one section with a neutral title such as "debate overview". We can work on improving neutrality of individual topics as well.Boothello (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Who gets to say?" Ok, we don't write the article to describe study after study done in primary research, so your question shouldn't apply anyway. The article should be based on secondary sources, and the broader the better. As in textbooks, so long as they're fairly current. The hypothesis that the IQ gap is determined mostly by genetics is tested with racial admixture studies. The "who decided" this, the "who decided" which hypothesis a study pertains to, will usually be given in the study itself. But more importantly, we look at what the secondary sources "decided". And your example is a strange one to me. What else but a genetic connection would an "racial admixture study" seek to assess in this context? Scientists don't conduct "racial admixture studies" to ask questions like whether test prep or vitamin supplements improve IQ scores. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "racial admixture studies" section is mostly based on a chapter by John C. Loehlin in the Handbook of Intelligence, a secondary source. Loehlin says the results of the Witty and Jenkins study do not appear to be genetic, because the study shows that high-IQ black people don't have an above-average degree of european ancestry. So this is a racial admixture study that argues for an environmental cause of the IQ gap and not a genetic one. But Loehlin says there are other racial admixture studies that suggest a genetic difference, and that none of the studies are conclusive. His eventual conclusion is just that more research is needed before the question can be answered for sure. This is a reason why it's a bad idea to label this as either a "genetic argument" or an "environmental argument". Loehlin says there are racial admixture studies that argue for both conclusions, and he doesn't take a strong stand in either direction about which is correct.Boothello (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely false. It couldn't be more clear. Quote: "The basic idea is simple: Individuals, all considered African Americans, vary widely in the proportion of their genes that came from European ancestors. If (a) there is an appreciable difference between Europeans and Africans in the frequencies of genes influencing intelligence, favoring Europeans and if (b) the genes affecting intelligence act in a straightforward fashion and if (c) the genes derived from African and European ancestors are reasonably representative of their ancestral gene pools, then African Americans who have more genes derived from European ancestors will score higher on measures of intelligence than African Americans who have fewer genes derived from European ancestors." This racial admixture test is a test of genetic cause, not environment. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, the way you have framed the conclusion above, as if "racial admixture" studies are used to judge environmental hypotheses, is an example of the problems with how this article is put together, as if the topic itself were reducible to this. It's casting every study, every aspect of this issue, into a falsely dichotomous either/or between "genes" and "not genes". Professor marginalia (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see where we're disagreeing. You're right that Loehlin says racial admixture studies are a test of the genetic hypothesis. But saying they're a test of the genetic hypothesis isn't the same as saying they're an argument in favor of it. When a hypothesis is tested, the results can be either consistent with the hypothesis or inconsistent with it. And if the results of the test are inconsistent with the hypothesis, that's an argument against the hypothesis, not in favor of it. I'd be fine with calling racial admixture studies a test of the genetic hypothesis, but not with calling them an argument in favor of it. According to Loehlin, even though they're a test of the genetic hypothesis, the results don't clearly argue in favor of either the genetic or the environmental hypothesis.
Your second point is basically what I was saying. I don't think the whole topic should be reduced to "genetic arguments" vs. "environmental arguments" because it's far more nuanced than that. That's why I'd like to do away with those labels.Boothello (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I mentioned "argument in favor of" that I recall here was in connection with the "regression to the mean" and it very clearly is one of this dozen-ish bits of evidence Jensen and Rushton cite as "arguments in favor of" genetic causes of the IQ gap. They are very structured in putting the argument together, in fact. And the regression to the mean has no relevance outside a hypothesis, and I don't know that anybody else citing it for another one. All I recall seeing are objections to it because it's a statistic that can't imply or identify causation of any kind. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't follow. I'm just saying the article currently labels racial admixture studies as a "genetic argument", and it shouldn't. And that's because: even though secondary sources consider these studies a test of the genetic hypothesis, they don't consider it an argument in favor of that hypothesis, so calling it a "genetic argument" doesn't match what secondary sources say. Several other sections that are currently labeled as either possible environmental effects or genetic arguments have the same issue. Many of these aren't clearly categorized as one or the other by secondary sources. When I'm objecting to things being called arguments in favor of the genetic hypothesis, my disagreement isn't with you, it's with the article's current structure.
I'm proposing both of these sections should be combined into one section titled something like "debate overview". The article currently presents a false dichotomy between studies that argue for "genes" and studies that argue for "not genes", and my proposal would fix that. You just said above that this false dichotomy is a problem, and I agree. Do you not think my proposal to fix this is is a good idea?Boothello (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Racial admixture studies are used in arguing genetic causes. Like Witty/Jencks, racial admixture studies can also be used arguing against genetic causes-if the study shows no effect. They are not used to argue for any environmental causes. But just as you don't consider studies about stereotype threat to argue about nutritional causes, you don't use racial admixture studies to argue for or against nutritional, stereotype threat or other environmental causes. There are lots of causes proposed-genetics is one of them. Racial admixture studies, regression to the mean, etc--they are not *causes*. They are evidence used to show genetic cause. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's been a long time since I've looked at the article and I am shocked how bad the problem is. In terms of sheer space alone the content given over to discussing the arguments for genetic cause is so dominant everything else is reduced in scale such that it almost seems like they're just odds and ends, the "off-off-off Broadway" bits. Rushton alone is mentioned in the text, by name, an unbelievable 28 times...which is more than Nisbett and Flynn combined. Jensen is mentioned 32 times by name. And nobody else comes even remotely close. And most of the time it's like the work by "everybody else" takes a back seat as the spotlight's put on what they've said about the work of Jensen and Rushton. It needs so much work. Sigh. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The poor shape is largely due to the editing of Miradre who was temporarily topic banned under WP:ARBR&I. That no one stepped up to address the problematic edits speaks to the fatigue that editors have been having. aprock (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. The dispute's almost as old as wikipedia, and the climate here can be like editing in quicksand. It's a battlefield. The futility of it all wears after awhile, and uninvested editors can only take so much before the eyes blur, tinnitus sets in, the nausea triggered even coming here, and a weariness that turns editors old before their time. While the freshly recruited SPA keep popping up here like they're dispensed from a vending machine. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to lessen the round-and-round to nowhere

Reading thru the talk page, a few ideas popped into my brain that might help cut down on the unproductive "noise" traded back and forth.

  1. Take more care tossing the term "fringe". Not everyone or everything published in the so-called "hereditarian" camp can be dismissed so easily.
  2. Take more care to stick to what sources say. When a source makes a claim about IQ, or race, or genes--that doesn't mean we are free to use those claims like bridges to construct another claim about IQ, or race, or genes. Gene differences do not mean race differences. Genetic correlations with IQ in individuals do not suffice in making claims about genetic causes behind the racial IQ gap. Similarly, lack of a genetic basis for race does not mean genes cannot explain the racial IQ gap. If a statement says that the evidence is inconclusive about X, Y or Z that does not mean that the statement can be elastically applied to A, B or C.
  3. Take care-there are no shortcuts to NPOV. It is important to put claims and studies in their rightful, proper context, with weight given them. We can't do this by simply, and lazily, editorializing via qualifiers of the claims and studies. And the incessant back-and-forthing every single hypothesis, study, and finding in this silly ping-pong of yea-sayers and naysayers is not NPOV. It's insane.
  4. And stop already with the reverts if you've no other reason to offer than "no consensus for this change". A revert is not meant to be a VETO! There are no "consensus first" cops on wikipedia. If you revert, have a valid justification besides "didn't get approval first". OK? It's ridiculous that editors spend hours of their lives thrashing over the impropriety of some process instead of the quality of an edit itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are good suggestions. I've thought for a while that the article is in bad shape, but nobody's made a devoted and concerted effort to improve it. It was such a big task I just never knew where to start (I'm guessing others felt the same). Instead there were a lot of halfhearted attempts to fix the article with editorials and qualifiers as referenced in your point #3, which IMO just made things worse and led to edit wars. I'll likely soon be forced to take a break from this article, but it'd be great if you can make it more balanced and stable. I hope Maunus and Victor Chmara continue to stick around too, because they both know a lot about this topic and can help a lot with improving the article. Maybe whenever I come back the article will be in better shape than when I left it.Boothello (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caste-like minorities

How much of this is supported by fact if there doesn't really seem to be conclusive data according to the referenced material? I don't know for all minorities but have read several reports mentioning that for example the Flemish in Belgium at the present time have an IQ a bit over 100 (some mention 105-108) and the Wallonian part slightly under 100. In the beginning of the 1900's the situation might have been reversed though when oppression was worse than today. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.67.45 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caste-like minorities

How much of this is supported by fact if there doesn't really seem to be conclusive data according to the referenced material? I don't know for all minorities but have read several reports mentioning that for example the Flemish in Belgium at the present time have an IQ a bit over 100 (some mention 105-108) and the Wallonian part slightly under 100. It has also been the richer part with less unemployment etc. for quite some time. In the beginning of the 1900's the situation might have been reversed though when oppression was worse than today and the elite was mainly French speaking. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.67.45 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC) The Flems are Germanic. All you need to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.230.124.139 (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Race

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What's a race anyway? One thing abundantly clear is that some types of people are brighter than others, and the genetic basis is plain obvious. Roma gypsies for example. While hostile statements about broad groups is not fashionable, the fact is that Roma gypsies tend to have low intelligence and engage in criminal behaviour. If there's no genetic basis for this then there's no genetic basis for Roma gypsies as a distinct group - it's who they are. 89.176.34.187 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Solution To Article Structure To Accomodate Disputes

Some critical observations about this article followed by a suggested solution drawn from the Introduction section.

OBSERVATIONS
1) The quality of this article has declined over the past five years to the point where, aside from perhaps the introductory section, it is all but meaningless. It certainly informs the reader about one thing: that there is confusion among editors. But it does not inform the reader as to the state and reasons for the dispute over the correlation between race and intelligence test results. This debate is old, and murray and pinker and others have certainly popularized the debate, so without the historical context of this debate and a section that denotes the political consequences of any discussion is either accidentally or intentionally misleading. (The need for race neutrality in government, and the fear of consequences of abandoning race neutrality in policy.)

2) The article does not state that intelligence as used in testing -- general intelligence or (g) -- is an empirical concept that measures the rate at which individuals are able to incorporate and utilize patterns of increasingly abstract relations into their memories. Furthermore, it is factually inaccurate to state that there is no agreed upon definition for intelligence. This is a confusion in terms. There is an entirely agreed upon definition for (g) general intelligence in the intelligence testing community. And it is that quantitative expression that is argued to be correlated with race. Not "intelligence" in the broader colloquial sense, by which humans mean "ability to act successfully and advantageously as a member of society". There may be other faculties that are commonly bundled under the category of 'intelligence' which are normative - used on casual conversation, but by definition a scientific concept is not normative - it just is either arithmetically correlative or not, or argumentatively causally related or not based upon the empirical measures. (And I won't get into apodeictically certain arguments here). And IQ, which is an expression of general intelligence is a scientific not normative concept.

3) There is a frequent and extremely unscientific concept of normative or 'general' opinion used in this article that confuses popular opinion, or even the opinion of 'public intellectuals' (ie: people who write or communicate for a living for the purpose of persuasion) with empirical evidence. Using opinions, studies and data from unrelated fields is simply unscientific - an attempt to mislead the reader. It does not matter what the anthropological (soft science) community says about a scientific (empirical) concept that is outside of their field. It is worth noting that political bodies are quoted in the introduction, but no body that manages, or conducts testing is quoted, despite the fact that there is a vast and highly empirical body of work on the subject that can be found by spending little more than twenty minutes on Amazon. (The American Psychological groups are not exactly free from political coercion.) Work outside the field of psychometrics is always questionable. For example, the brilliant evolutionary biologist Stephen J Gould wrote a popular book on intelligence (The Mismeasure of Man) which despite his otherwise valuable career-making insight into the existence of punctuated equilibrium of evolution, his book on measurement of races turns out to be entirely false. But in general, while normative usage can determine moral content or linguistic meaning, (contractual concepts) widespread opinion on scientific matters (true/false concepts) is in fact, generally relegated to the expressed ideas of a small number of experts. (See Kunh on the Structure Of Scientific Revolutions.) ie: popular opinion is meaningless. See the climate debate for example, or any debate over the impact of monetary policy.

4) As someone who is familiar with the vast literature on intelligence testing, as well as the methods involved, I can find no dispute in the field of intelligence testing, over the correlation between race and intelligence. (Although they tend to avoid talking about the subject.) All disputes come from unrelated or marginally related fields. There is no dispute in the empirical testing end of the field over whether there is a correlation or not. There is plenty of conjecture over whether race is a meaningful concept, and whether (g) is a sufficiently valuable means of testing "demonstrated practical intelligence in life". There is no dispute over whether intelligence is inherited, only over the ratio between heritability and environment in determining intelligence. Furthermore the article does not reference either the meaning of (g) or of intelligence testing, or the organizations and methods by which intelligence tests are gathered. It reads like a collection of newspaper clippings from popular press about the popular disputes over intelligence.

For example, abstract intelligence tends to benefit the individual by advancing him above his group. Empathy tends to be used to understand and develop consensus (usually downward - conservative). Verbal skill is largely a function of enabling persuasion which is necessary to get people to allocate their resources, time and energy (Habermas) (which is usually upward - progressive). All three are valuable skills. In this era of industrialization which has led to the disintegration of the family unit as the primary economic, and the rise of the individual as the primary economic entity, analytical skills are held at a higher premium than they were in our past. However, there are times in history where consensus and persuasion are more useful and important strategies (during systemic external pressures.)

5) Even outside the field of intelligence testing is is apparent that Empathy (which helps us understand others and therefor helps us adopt norms), Verbal reasoning which helps us articulate increasingly subtle ideas, and Spatial reasoning which allows us to create and compare abstractions - as well as forecast in time, are present in people to different degrees. (They are present in different races to different degrees. ie:The relative weakness of verbal and relative strength of spatial reasoning in asians, the strength of ashkinazim in verbal, the strength of spatial/verbal in northern (caucasian/germanic) europeans, the weakness of verbal and spatial in sub saharans, the weakness of verbal in the south asian pacific islander distribution, and the extraordinary weakness of verbal in amerindians. Even so, these strengths and weaknesses describe different distributions, not absolutes. Furthermore Empathy is generally higher in females and can be increased or decreased in both genders by the introduction of hormones (drugs), and the male development process significantly hinders their emotional development (for evolutionary reasons that are as yet subject to various means of conjecture.)

6) I would argue that NOT stating these different facets of the argument is by definition either a demonstration of confusion by the authors, or an attempt to politicize or mislead the reader. SO:

SUGGESTION:
Organization: I suggest that this article be broken into four sections outlining the four different positions as is suggested by the introduction:

a) Differences in measurable intelligence (g) reflect a real difference in average group intelligence, which is caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function.
b) Differences in average cognitive ability (g) between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors.
c) Differences in average cognitive ability (g) between races do not exist, and that the differences in average test scores are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves.
d) Either or both of the concepts of race and general intelligence are poorly constructed and therefore any comparisons between races are meaningless.

DEFINITIONS:
Explain and link to Multiple Intelligences - so that the reader understands that there are different concepts of intelligence.
Explain and link to Intelligence Quotient (IQ) - so that the reader understands that IQ is a statistical aggregate with a long history.
Explain and link to (g) Factor (General Intelligence) - so that the reader understands that (g) is a sort of catch-all but with specific meaning.
Explain and link to Race (classification of humans) -- so that the reader understands 'Race'. Which, by the way, is a reasonably well written article, and treats the subject better than this article.
Explain and link to Identity (social science) -- which is why race has meaning in society - because people use it for decision making (environment).
Explain and link to Signaling_(economics) -- which is the economic reinforcement for race - because people within races have different signals (environment).

SUMMARY It is not possible to convey a neutral point of view across four dimensions of an argument over what is effectively a matter of metaphysical value judgements at present - because a neutral point of view requires value judgements that summarize the different positions in relation to one another, and thus advance or demean an argument. And this argument is too politically charged for anyone to abandon his preferred position.


This approach would allow the reader to choose his bias or at least understand the four positions. This would be more satisfactory (more neutral) given that the reasons for the correlation between race and intelligence (g) remains an open question, and the subject is highly politicized. Each case could be made under each general section.

GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION
This graph could be used to show the positions of the different researchers on the matter.

Add caption here

CLOSING The only NPOV is to give voice to all four dimensions of the argument. What is not a NPOV is to rely on confused definitions of intelligence, or questionable sources while ignoring the empirical sources, and the political consequences, and the social consequences, that give rise to the dispute.

I have no problem drafting this if anyone would support the effort. The community has all but abandoned this page and written it's own sections rather than refer to this page due to the degradation of the content over the past few years.

Thanks for your time. 99.224.27.14 (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input: but we do not base articles on the unsourced assertions of a single contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating anything other than a recommended change to the structure of the body of the article to reflect what is clearly a disorganized and ill managed page that reflects a history of competing interests and does not suit them. Instead, I am arguing that the summary section of the article adequately illustrates the state of the discourse, yet the remainder of the article is a complete mess. So, Andy, I don't think your objection is relevant. Curtd59 If the introduction suits the article, clearly structuring the article to reflect the arguments positioned in the introduction is a solution to the inadequacy of the body of the article.

:99.224.27.14, your suggestions seem excellent. Of course you do not need sources to suggest article structure, although saying this it is clear you have drawn upon your comprehensive knowledge of the field to make this suggestion. Why not be bold and do some editing and see how it pans out? 스토킹 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous

collapse per WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"A number of scientists, supported by the American Anthropological Association,[2] reject any genetic contribution to the black-white gap, or to any difference amongst races."

These are often the same "researchers" that have hidden political motives. Often times people of this view point say the same about longevity and disease, that they are both only influenced by environmental factors and no genetic evidence is present. There are thousands of peer reviewed medical journals showing that when environment is taken into consideration there are persisting inequalities between races in longevity, general health and intelligence. The worst thing one can do is pretend too different things are equal. 108.32.119.145 (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe tag

An editor has removed the fringe tag from this article. I find this problematic, as on it's face, this article massively overweights the fringe views of one J. Philippe Rushton. Hipocrite (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not have both a point of view tag and a fringe tag, that's just tag bombing with the same sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rushton's views, such as they appear in reputable academic publications (aka reliable sources), are not "fringe". Some editors seem to think that the definition of a fringe view is "something I disagree with". That's not quite enough.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. This is not done. Hipocrite (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article already has loads of NPOV tags in it. FRINGE is just a subset of NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, that's fine, but trying to say there's not a FRINGE problem is a different argument than "this tag is duplication." I'm not finding fault with duplication, I'm finding fault with "no fringe problem." Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also deleted cited material. NPOIV is not a reason in itself to deleted cited material, it is a reason to look around for something to balance it. I don't think deleting things at random so you get some percentage of rightness of balance is a course supported by policy. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Cited" is not enough for inclusion. You've demonstrated how FRINGE is a unique problem here - Rushton writes something in a journal or a book, it's totally ignored by the mainstream, and it goes in our article. Because Rushton is ignored by the mainstream (you know, because they think he's just a racist), there's no balance to be had, but because you can verify that he said it, you put it in. That's a FRINGE violation. If you were giving the fringe views on "Regression toward the mean" due weight, they would not be in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's quite enough psychologists around interested in this stuff to write refutations. It isn't as this is something scientists are uninterested in like UFOs or telepathy. Just removing stuff when a search should be made for balance does not strike me as right. Have you evidence for what you say? Dmcq (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review the section above, titled "Regression toward the mean section." This is exactly like something that scientists are uninterested in - more specifically, review what Professor marginalia wrote at 18:00, 14 December 2011 and 00:54, 16 December 2011 about how the entire approach to the article (which is written as a he-said-she-said between the far-fringe and everyone else) needs to be completely redone. Would you be amenable to reverting the article to the pre-Miradre version? Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, you just proved yourself wrong, below. Contrary to what you claimed, dozens of researchers have been interested in the regression to the mean argument. Rushton is a tenured professor who has published extensively in mainstream, peer-reviewed academic journals. His articles have been cited thousands of times, and he sits on the editorial board of the leading specialist journal in the field of intelligence research. Your "fringe views" argument is nonsensical.--Victor Chmara (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Things are being confused again. Although the section is so badly written one can't know without for sure what was intended there, the "regression to the mean" is clearly from Jensen and Rushton's list of 10 categories of evidence-it's a particular regression to the mean argument in that context. Regression to the mean discussions also appear in Jensen for different kinds of analysis besides his "10 categories of evidence". But it's inappropriate to view it as a catch-all for every regression to the mean analysis ever performed in studies pertaining to this topic. Quick google searches are going to #fail for this reason. But as debates rage over whether or not the section should be tagged or improved with more content from naysayers, I'd like to hear a sensible case for keeping any of it there as it's written now. It's garbled gibberish. Professor marginalia (talk)
In the context of race and IQ research, what other regression to the mean arguments are there besides the one about blacks regressing toward a lower mean than whites? Jensen first proposed it in the late 1960s, I think, and it has always been the one and same argument. Flynn discusses this specific argument in his 1980 book, as do many of the sources cited by Hipocrite, and Jensen & Rushton discuss it in their 2005 review article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what the article says, and it isn't what Jensen says. And regression to the mean is used for all kinds of analysis-including all kinds of connections with this topic! Flynn looked at them in context of the generational rise in scores. Jencks and Phillips used them to illustrate pitfalls in analyzing the IQ gap shifts longitudinally, as test subjects grow older. These aren't all. It's a common analysis used for variation from purely random outliers too. Jensen uses it in his 10 categories of evidence for a particular analysis derived (it looks to me) from Galton's regression to the mean in height inheritance. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regression toward the mean of course applies to all sorts of data, but to my knowledge there is only this particular argument from Jensen about regression toward the mean when it comes to race differences in IQ. What he did was that he matched a sample of whites and blacks for an IQ of 120, and then looked at the mean scores of the siblings of those subjects, finding that the white sibling average was 113, while the black sibling average was 99. Jensen argues that no purely environmental theory could have predicted this result, even if ex post facto environmental explanations have been offered for it. He discusses this argument also on pp. 470-471 of The g Factor. All this could be explained more clearly in the article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please find an independent secondary source that lists Rushton's line of "regression to the mean" reasoning as particularly relevant to the race and intelligence debates? So far all we have is Rushton and fellow Pioneer Fund grantees promoting this, and no one else. Is there anyone outside this clique of researchers who finds it in any way relevant? Is proper sourcing really too much to ask for here? aprock (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Chmara - well at least two of the 18ish independent citations turned up in the google search allude to different iterations of the argument from Jensen over time. (Flynn's "no sane person" quotation is a paraphrase of a Jensen's claim, btw-in Flynn's "History of the debate" section.) The claim in the article says, "Jensen argues that if the average racial IQs are different, then due to regression toward the mean the average IQs of relatives to blacks and whites with the same IQ should be different." And that is not a significant claim he's making today, or being challenged on. Hello!! If the racial IQ gap were 100% environmental there would still be regression to the mean, and the only disagreement to the claim would come from those claiming the IQ gap itself is not real. Jensen doesn't claim that they "should" regress to different means today (as would be predicted if there were indeed two distinct means). He argues that because they regress to two different means that is evidence for genetic rather than environmental causes for the two different means. (The obfuscated "given" in this claim is some given IQ is genetic and given that it's polygenetic, where the potential effects of genetic recombination of IQ are more reasonable to "plug" than would be the potential effects of environmental "recombination".) So the article claim makes no sense as written, as a regression to the group mean finding. (As I said, same outcome would be predicted for 100% environmental causation).
@aprock The problem is whether or not that simply because Jensen/Rushton said it that makes it relevant. I think it does, given appropriate proportion, because although they are the in the minority as far as overall acceptance goes, they are the go-to authorities for this minority. I would agree that this argument of theirs is among those their critics dismiss most resoundingly, practically routinely. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not still not sure what other regression arguments you're talking about, marginalia. Anyway, whether the same outcome would result from purely environmental causes depends on the model of environmental causation one adopts. If your model is one where environmental effects perfectly mimic the "behavior" of additive heritability, then the same outcome is expected. If, on the other hand, the theory is (for example) that individual IQ differences are largely a function of differences in home environments and have no race-specific causes, then the expectation is not that the siblings of high-IQ (or low-IQ) whites and blacks regress toward different means. In any case, it's not our job to decide whether Jensen's argument is correct. What matters is that it's notable.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't whether or not Jensen's argument is correct. The point is that his argument isn't cogently described here. (And quoting Jensen himself, "But it cannot be regarded as a proof of a genetic difference between two populations, since the lower population of the Negro group, it could be claimed, is a result of a uniform environmental disadvantage or test bias in the Negro population...A strictly environmental explanation of the mean population difference is not ruled out by this evidence...It could be all environmental, or all genetic, or anything in between.") Professor marginalia (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon any topic where the second sentence quite correctly says anything like "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia" is a very strong candidate for the label Fringe. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
closing per WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By that standard all the social sciences are "fringe", as are much of the life and physical sciences. The beauty of IQ research is, however, that IQ can be measured very reliably compared to most constructs in social science. Similarly, race, at least as far as the major races are concerned, can be very reliably operationalized in America.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support renaming the article to Race and IQ, but there has been a general resistance to that, so we're stuck with the caveat that intelligence is an ill defined concept. Even if we limit consideration to IQ, the tests are only as reliable as the methodology used, which for the most part has been poor at best. aprock (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Poor at best"??? Compared to what? Atomic clocks?--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, as atomic clocks are not a methodology. I'm referring to methodologies like non-uniform tests, arbitrary normalization techniques, using IQ proxies like verbal ability, and averaging scores of population groups. It would be one thing if researchers were exclusively using WAIS-III for data, but that is the exception, not the rule. aprock (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All IQ tests correlate highly with each other, and there are so much data from different sources, all showing the same trends, that those are not serious concerns. Why would averaging the IQ scores of all people in a group be any more problematic than averaging, for example, their personal incomes or heights? Douglas Detterman has nicely summarized the status of IQ research among the social sciences:

Intelligence is the best-understood and most powerful variable in the social sciences. Sophisticated psychometric methods, developed largely for intelligence tests, are used to construct and assess modern tests. A substantial commercial industry has grown up around the development and sale of tests. Intelligence can be measured with better reliability than any other social science variable. Huge amounts of data have been collected using the tests and these data span the last century providing a database unavailable in most other areas in the social sciences. Data from individuals show strong relationships to many important social outcome measures including educational achievement, occupational success, income, and death, to name a few. The data collected also provide important information about the genetic, biological, and environmental origins of intelligence. Relationships at the country level have also been investigated showing that countries with higher mean IQs show a greater gross domestic product per person, are less religious, and show higher levels of democracy. In short, by any objective standard, intelligence is the social science success story of unrivaled proportions.

--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not having a clear idea what to do with this rabbit hole, I think it's time to collapse it. But I do thank you for your unique thoughts on averaging population scores as a viable methodology. aprock (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regression toward the mean section (take two)

The section is based entirely on primary sources from Rusthon, and does not represent anyone's opinion besides his own. Reading the Nisbett source only supports that conclusion. Including the view is entirely unjustified by the sources. aprock (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose removal You should go and try and find some other sources about it then. You have not produced anything to support your argument, it is a Wikipedia editor against a cited source at the moment. Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so, and come up empty. The idea that you would insist on inclusion of undue material until other editors can dredge up something is nothing but disruptive. I'll take this moment to highlight the finding of fact from the arbitration: The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources. At first blush, it appears that you're pursuing (iii), while pushing the envelope on (ii). It may be that you're trying to be constructive. If so, I suggest you consider a different tack beyond reverting and demanding non-existent or hard to find sources from other editors. aprock (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see yourself as coming under (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; when you delete cited sources without giving any verifiable reason? Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs please. aprock (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[11] point of view pushing.
[12] edit warring
I don't see how pretending things don't exist is a good way to write an encyclopaedia. And as to the point of view pushing this is of peripheral interest to me and I know you'll be here long after I'm gone still doing your thing to it and you'll get your changes in by sheer persistence. The most I can do is try and point out that what you are doing is not how everybody on Wikipedia thinks things should be done. see below Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - specifically, attributing actions to Aprock that were actually taken by me. Can you not tell the difference between us? Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right I didn't distinguish between the two of you. Very sorry about that, should have checked the history better.
Anyway as far as the section is concerned do you really think that not finding stuff giving an opposing side is a good reason for deleting it? As I said it is not as though very few people are interested in the topic. The policy about POV says various ways it might be rephrased to show it is a partisan view and probably some of it could be removed but is burying one's head in the sand really the way to develop an encyclopaedia that prides itself in not being censored? Dmcq (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see where you're coming from. It really needs a secondary source that talks about it to show that it is worth including and give some secondary view. Okay so I just tried out google scholar with "Educability and Group Differences" +Jensen "regression to the mean" and got about 35 results back a number of which do look like secondary sources talking specifically about this. Some sources amongst these are the sort of thing you think are needed is that it? Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially. Can you provide some actual text or at least a link to one of these sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried having a look and I can't access many because I don't have access. There's a number by Rushton and Jensen which are accessible but they just back each other up. I think a couple by Flynn though seem to discuss the topic a bit and do show notability. It really needs someone with better access as just getting stuff that is publicly accessible isn't a good selection criterion. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles this search finds seem likewise to be primary - what we need is something like this: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research". For example, your search finds an article entitled "Fallacious Use of Regression Effects in The I.Q. Controversy" [13]. From the abstract, it seems to argue that "regression to the mean" in relation to I.Q. is a statistical artefact, and the conclusions drawn regarding 'racial differences' are thus invalid, and a misuse of statistics. Now,a review article that discussed both Rushton's and this paper, within the broader context of the debate, would be a secondary source. (incidentally, this particular abstract mentions Eysenck and Jensen, but not Rushton - so we don't know the extent to which it actually relates to Rushton's particular argument at all). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be difficulty finding secondary sources for this section, so another secondary source I recommend using is Flynn (1980). I think the most notable perspectives about this are Jensen and Flynn (Rushton and Nisbett are just summarizing Jensen and Flynn's earlier arguments). I oppose removing the section but I support adding Flynn to make the section more balanced.Boothello (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you get topic banned from race and intelligence topics?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so. R&I topic bans are logged here, my name isn't listed there. Hipocrite tried to get me topic banned at AE, but the thread was closed with no conclusion. I hadn't realized before that being an SPA is in itself grounds for a topic ban, so starting now I'm going to broaden my interests at Wikipedia to avoid that.Boothello (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think characterizing that AE discussion as "closed with no conclusion" is accurate. All three admins in the results section supported a topic ban so a conclusion was in fact reached. It just didn't get implemented cuz you pulled the "I'm leaving Wikipedia" trick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This "Regression to the mean" section isn't undue weight by itself, but a manifestation of a larger problem with the article. The "Regression to the mean" is one of ten (10) categories of evidence that Rushton and Jensen cite in support of their thesis the gap is primarily genetic in origin. (When Rushton and Jensen aren't publishing jointly, they're citing each others' - and their own works - exhaustively. They receive less thorough attention in more independent secondary sources.) And I'm not sure there's a case to be made that some of these 10 are more relevant to describe here than the others since they explicitly discuss them as a set when defending the thesis. The problem is that these two (Jensen and Rushton) tend to dominate the whole article, not merely a subsection devoted to their own arguments supporting their hereditarian hypothesis. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ran your google search, and also got 35 hits. I reviewed each of the 35 (that's a step you skipped. Please don't do that).
  1. Jensen - no
  2. Rushton - no
  3. Rushton - no
  4. Mackkenzie - "The assumption that these factors are relevant and that they support a genetic account is criticized as a "hereditarian fallacy.""
  5. Jensen - no
  6. Brody - "In this paper I review the evidence [Jensen] cites in support of this hypothesis and I explain why I do not find it persuasive."
  7. Rushton - no
  8. Dickens - I reviewed his summary at [14]. "How could solid evidence show both that environment was so feeble (kinship studies) and yet so potent (IQ gains over time)? Dickens has proposed a model that we believe solves the paradox. It assumes that people who have an advantage for a particular trait will become matched with superior environments for that trait; and that genes can derive a great advantage from this because genetic differences are persistent."
  9. Vetta - 1977
  10. Tizard - 1976
  11. Murray - no
  12. Munsinger - "Any study that compares the central tendency of adopted children's IQs with a group mean of 100 IQ points for a normal population cannot be taken seriously until several methodological criteria have been met ... careful attention to early separation and placement of children, and (e) elimination of practice effects and regression to the mean artifacts."
  13. Mackenzie - "Regression to the population mean in I.Q. scores has been taken by H.J. Eysenck, A.R. Jensen, and other writers to provide evidence for genetic determination of individual and racial I.Q. differences. However, regression is a purely statistical phenomenon, and as such provides no evidence for either genetic or environmental determination of I.Q. "
  14. Rushton - no
  15. Block - 1974
  16. Weiss - at [15] - "Hence we can characterize regression to the mean as a consequence of error of measurement; in our case here simply as error of classification. In pure homozygote genetic crosses, and not considering the effects of minor genes, there should be no regression to the mean." and "(compare Jensen, 1973, p. 171, showing the distribution of the Terman gifted offspring, in which case, considering a cut-off score of IQ 140 for one parent, a heavy regression to the mean could be expected, because according to major gene theory, IQ values above 130 have the same genetic true score as the IQ 130 itself.)"
  17. Nichols - 1978
  18. Rushton - no
  19. Horn - "Regression to the mean of high or low measure of IQ in one class of people (e.g., children) relative to similar measure on another class of people (e.g., parents), does not support claims that the measures are genetically determined (nor does it threaten such a theory)."
  20. Jensen - no
  21. Flynn - "(4) enter regression to the mean — for blacks to be one SD below whites for IQ, they would have to be 3 SDs (3×.33=1) below the white mean for quality of environment; (5) no sane person can believe that."
  22. Vernon - "But in fact regression to the mean is merely a necessary consequence whenever two sets of scores, such as parent and offspring IQs, are imperfectly correlated."
  23. Rushton - no
  24. Goldsmith - no access
  25. Collingridge - no access
  26. Vining - No mention (false search duplicates follow:)
  27. Kaplan - duplicate
  28. Nurcombe - "Normal distribution and regression are therefore consistent with the genetic theory of intelligence"
  29. Daly - duplicate
  30. Kurland - duplicate
  31. Flynn - duplicate
  32. Weinrich - duplicate
  33. Macphail - duplicate
  34. Sternberg - duplicate
  35. Williams - duplicate

So, what exactly are we supposed to talk about, except for "Jensen said something, everyone knows he's wrong?" Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is exactly what the complaint was about in the first place wasn't it that there weren't mainstream sources to balance the stuff? Now you've got some. That's far better than just ignoring notable stuff by removing it isn't it? Dmcq (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any attempt to balance this article swiftly results in edit warring. You will see, shortly. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may help some, but it's still not enough imo. Regression to the mean is a significant line of argument for Jensen and Rushton-whose position is probably notable enough to describe here. But's how the argument is presented - and cited - which is all wrong, giving it undue weight. And it's just one of many examples. I've said this before here, but the "Jensen sez and Nisbett sez not so" - I think this style of presentation is contributing to the UNDUE weight to the minority povs here. But why does this argument warrants its own section anyway? (Besides-it's very confusingly written.) Professor marginalia (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be chopped down to just summarize the bits that anybody else has noticed without any great loss I think. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whattamess

I apologize in advance if this simply creates more drama, but ........... .

Disputes raging in this article went through arbitration, with a decision handed down in Aug 2010. As I compare the state of the article then to now I can't see any improvement. It strikes me as worse, if for no other reason than it's more far more confusing just trying to read it than before. It seems more "padded" with pointless who said what type empty assertions that don't really describe anything--because the content itself was omitted. Lots of this padding was window-dressing, so as to provide so-called "balance" (or appear to), so poorly sourced or described that either the editor didn't understand what s/he was reading or they were simply mechanistically trying to behave as a NPOV editor, going through the motions, with no real investment in authenticity. And surprise, surprise....more often than not the "revision history search" to identify claims and/or references that don't exactly jive point me to SPA editors and suspected proxies.

I'm just a part-time part-timer on wikipedia. It takes me HOURS of work sometimes to verifiably eliminate bunkerooney pumped in articles-the "diversionary" bunkerooney from SPA to pretty up edit histories just makes the problem worse.

I don't know how this is fixable unless every editor here is on alert to double check whenever possible the cited sources and to be extra vigilant to the proxies. The proxies have made the problem worse because they consume so much time! Professor marginalia (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree and sympathize. To fix this article would take a lot of time, which I, nor apparently others, have at the moment. The thing that I've limited myself to doing for now is keeping an eye on things to prevent even more SPA nonsense from being added.VolunteerMarek 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the state of the article is a mess. My suggestion above ([16]) was to dump it and begin anew. If done, we should probably start with contemporary secondary sources (in the last 10 years) which handle the topic in some detail. I expect that sort of project will be met with significant resistance. Since arbitration, most of the work has been done by Miradre (talk · contribs) with some pruning back and copy editing by various editors. Very little has been done to the structure. aprock (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Examples: a new claim sourced with two refs, neither of them adequately verify the statement that I could see[17] The Nisbett cite was first introduced here,[18] then distorted further. (Bizarrely the same editor later attached the citation needed tag that's there now.) Nisbett did make arguments along those lines in his book-but not the appendix, which is the cite the article gives and links. And the Rushton/Jensen cite has just one extremely tangential passing mention, a very backhanded "we find it very hard to disagree" that school reforms should be based on successful experiments in teaching methods, only to turn right around and dismiss the effort as unlikely to make much difference anyway. So why use these cites here? I'll tell you why. Nisbett's book is completely passed over in this article while his appendix there has 15 citations-because it's in the appendix where Nisbett focuses on hereditarian claims. I don't think the editor's consulted the book at all. Just the appendix, and the Rushton/Jensen article rebutting the appendix which has been cited 16 times! Rushton/Jensen was used again here from sheer force of habit-as if Rushton/Jensen were the only views that really matter in the article anyway so why bother looking any further. There's fluff and dust like this throughout, trivializing the issues. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Miradre hasn't contributed since 29th November. I argued a while ago against a load of articles they set up which I couldn't see the point of but I didn't manage to convince others about that. Perhaps there's some room for others to edit things a bit more now and lean things up a bit. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I, formerly known as Miadre, am live and editing. If anyone has any questions regarding the literature and my edits I would be happy answer them. To summarize, the question of genetics in racial IQ differences is unsolved and will likely be so until there is direct genetic testing which may not be that far in the future. In principle this is the only thing that needs to be said because I think few people are likely to want to learn more about the scientific disputes and if they do then they will learn that the issue is undecided. More interesting are actually the IQ differences themselves, and the practical effects these differences have, and implications for society, and how to affect known environmental factors such as nutrition and diseases, and how to help those with low IQ in an increasingly complex world. I think the article should concentrate on that.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment!

People who watch this page ought to comment here on a race & IQ matter Slrubenstein | Talk 08:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jews IQ

The problem with the studies that measured Ashkenazi Jews IQ is that they were often deemed to be unrepresentative of their population (because of the extremely small sample size or other reasons). Moreover, if you read Lynn's analysis which conclude that the Ashkenazi Jews have an IQ of 110, you'd realize that there are a lot of methodological problem with his analysis, one being that three of the studies being analyzed administered Verbal tests. Using the same logic, we'd conclude that women are more intelligent than men as they have higher verbal IQ than men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.21.221 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Nobel laureates who are labelled as being "Jewish", sometimes happen to only have 1/4 Jewish ancestry and 3/4 European ancestry, which in my opinion doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.21.221 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Anthropological Association Statement in the Intro

Apart from this statement, has this organization done anything remotely to do with this debate? If not, should the statment even be mentioned, and if so how many times. (At present the number is 3.) Also, the statement seems out of place. It's located above the framing of the debate and summery of possible positions, which are surely vastly more important. 110.32.146.143 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For people who complain about the lack of 'race' in the 'race and intelligence' article, there is a simple reason for it. No one disputes there are racial gaps in IQ, the question is their cause. Now IQ can be environmental, but race obviously can't, so thus the debate is on the cause of IQ differences, not on what the cause of people being different races are. I mention this because someone may say that the statement is needed to bring some anthropological opinion in the article.

Actually, a lot of anthropologists would dispute that there are racial gaps in IQ, not least because (as people who actually study the subject of 'race', rather than just making generalisations about it), they are aware that 'race' is a complex social construct, rather that a simplistic biological 'fact'. Actually, I suspect many would argue that the same can be said for 'intelligence' too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a cite for "a lot of anthropologists would dispute that there are racial gaps in IQ"? 110.32.146.143 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need one? Do you have a cite for "No one disputes there are racial gaps in IQ"? Actually, you can't have one (or at least, one that has any basis in reality), because I've just disputed it. The AAA likewise have disputed it, for that matter:
WHEREAS all human beings are members of one species, Homo sapiens, and
WHEREAS, differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits),
THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm, without distraction by mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life for all people".
This looks clear enough to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a policy statement to me rather than a scientific statement so should be in he policy section. Policy is a very important part of the debate but yes one doesn't need to repeat. Their argument when applied to cats simply says that cats should be treated properly not that there aren't any Siamese cats. The scientific bit includes things like who is being compared to who, is there statistically significant difference and is it of a size that makes any real difference, what factors might affect any differences if any found, and rather importantly here are the studies being conducted properly. Policy includes what action should be taken of and difference or non difference results or should one just try suppressing any research in this area in the first place. Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific' is a statement about science, not about policy. As for suggesting that the AAA is 'suppressing research', that is a ridiculous allegation, and frankly has no place whatsoever on a Wikipedia talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthropologists in different nations differ greatly in regards to race and the rejection by many US anthropologists is one end of the spectrum with anthropologists in many other nations being more supportive: [19] Even in the US, "forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races".[20] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In as much as your statement is true (which is difficult to determine from the abstract you present - which incidentally seems to refer only to 'physical anthropologists', and therefore tells us nothing particularly useful about the opinions of anthropologists in general), it is irrelevant. The OP argued that the opinions of the AAA had nothing to do with this debate, and that is just plain wrong. In as much as the concept of 'race' has any scientific credibility at all, it is as an anthropological concept, and to suggest that anthropologists opinions on the matter are irrelevant is nonsensical. Would you discount the opinions of geologists when discussing rocks?
The article should not be US-centric. A NPOV presentation should also mention the view of anthropologists outside the US as well as the opposing views by anthropologists inside the US. Furthermore, anthropologists are not the only ones with views on race. For example, a study of 18 widely used English anatomy textbooks found that every one relied on the race concept. The study gives examples of how the textbooks claim that anatomical features vary between races. This was not appreciated by authors doing the study but it certainly shows that race is not rejected in anatomy.[21] Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a source citing the opinions of anthropologists outside the US on the validity of 'race' as a useful concept in studies of variations in intelligence, we can of course consider it for inclusion in the article. What we cannot do is decide for ourselves what we think those opinions would be, based on what anatomists think regarding anatomy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out that the statement by AAA is not a scientific consensus among all anthropologists or other scientists. I agree with Dmcq that it looks like a policy statement. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got any sources that suggest that regarding the subject of race and intelligence, there is no consensus amongst anthropologists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rejection of race was the reason for rejecting race and intelligence in the quote you gave above. I am not aware of any survey that have asked anthropologists regarding racial differences in intelligence so the opinion of anthropologists on this is likely unknown. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion of the AAA on this is known, and cited. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't cite the opinions of experts in a field solely because we don't know for sure whether other experts agree with them? This is going to make finding sources rather difficult... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems we are going in circles now. See my earlier replies. Let us see what others think. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andy. We have a cited notable fact. If there are other cited notable facts worth discussing, present them. That you don't like the cited notable fact is not a reason to remove it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What they were talking about was the repetition in detail in the lead, not about removing it entirely. Also whether it was a scientifivc finding or a policy statement. I consider it obviously a policy statement as scientific statements always talk about more research whereas this one is all about stopping anything like that never mind the actual contents are unscientific in tone and about a better society and then strangely talks about respecting diversity after basically saying there was no such thing. Dmcq (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support compressing the three statements in the lead to read "professional associations reject that there is any documented genetic racial contribution to intelligence." Attempts to do this have been reverted by individuals who don't want this fact documented clearly. Hipocrite (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that with the condition that it's moved to the bottom of the intro at earliest, and the AAA statement is mentioned only once.

On a related topic, isn't the 1988 survey as important, so perhaps the statements should just be in history or the survey should be in the intro. 110.32.158.162 (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Source

The new review article in American Psychologist

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012, January 2). Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0026699

summarizes a lot of the latest research. The article can be found in a sublink ("download article") at Scott Barry Kaufman's blog, which is good about posting full-text professional articles on psychology.

The edit-warring here has been appalling, but I still read on the subject, and I still meet weekly with the behavioral genetics seminar at the local state flagship university. I try to keep up with the literature and with the range of scholarly opinion on the issue. I'd be glad to help clean up the article, and have reviewed the suggestions currently visible on the talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_intelligence&oldid=476075691"